i think you are well wrong cbt the stafford is breed not only for health and soundness BUT for TYPE aswell could you imagine breedin a stafford that looked like one but acted like a basset hound (no offenece bassetts) you wouldnt have many people comin back for more would you.i think your answer is ridiculous there are a lot of good breeders of kc dogs who really care what there dogs turnm out like as a whole package not just looks .

just to add to that, when you write a breed standard, although its by no means set in stone, it is words on a peice of paper and open to interpretation (or more likely misinterpretation, and exaggeration by whomever reads that standard.
When you try to force something as genetically diverse as a working dog with a difficult-to-define hereditary and elusive quality such as gameness, into a pre-packed formula of what the dog should look like, what height it should be etc etc, obviously you are going to get problems, one of the major ones I can see being the championship level show dogs looking nothing like the dogs which were alive in the days when the standard was first drawn up.

Hitler has dreams of a perfect aryan race, blond hair blue eyes etc, just imagine if hed had his way, a whole "line" of humans bred to conform to one mans ideal of how they should look
but it happens with dogs all the time. Certain types of dog start to become favoured in the ring and then everyone wants one the same so that they can tickle the judges fancy

Not my idea of what dog breeding should be about Im afraid. though Im sure others will disagree

well yours doesnt make much sense to me pete but there you go, life would be dull if we all sat around agreeing like nodding dogs wouldnt it

I dunno Ask the fellas who were in the dog scene then, I was in nappies at the time, If it had been up to me Id have called them SCOTTISH BULLIES

Still not understanding CBT, do you mean that totally uncontrolled breeding is better, breeding with out aim or consideration as to the end result. No body would say that breeding to a standard is perfect but we have always thought it was the best option, do you think there is a better way.

jjust spotted your question asking what the original purpose of Irish staffies was, well i thought that was obvious :smt017 but basically for anyone who doesnt know they were used for dog fighting, badger baiting and also vermin control, rats, foxes etc etc.

modern day owners prize them for their fitness and athletic prowess, and many people keep them for weight pull and other activities, I keep them cos I like them, my dogs are pets only

what i ment is there is a lot of kc breeders who breed also for health ,type and soundness not just for looks,and i dont think the irish was bred in the the late 80's and 90's for flirt pole and A frames and weight pullin now was it

I never said it was bred for weight pull etc pete I said thats what a lot of modern owners who dont agree with dog fighting do with their dogs to keep them fit and active

have to continue this at a later date, my OH has just come in from work and theres a fight going on over who gets the last bit of gin and neither of us can be arsed to go to the offi so Ill see youse all later, happy debating

(love em or hate em, Irish staffs always draw a big crowd and some lively debate dont they? )

That was the original purpose of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier who now has no need to be used to fight dogs or badger bait so why is the ISBT so called if there is no difference, as far as I can see apart from the fact that some, if not all, are being out crossed and if that is so they are not Staffies so why not give them a name of their own.

Enjoy your gin