Dog breeds in order of 'size' - Help needed please!

External Since: Oct 31, 2006 Posts: 764

Shelly <scouvrette RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in news:fcs5mc$79n$1
@registered.motzarella.org:

> Bekki <lilninotchka RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1190237133.407459.254760@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Anybody who has researched the breed they own should not be
>> surprised to learn that generally, the APBT is considered a
>> slightly shorter, more muscular dog than the AMSTAFF.
>
> Okaythen! The breed I own is not either of those, but yes, it *does*
> surprise me, as in my universe, that's just not true. Furthermore, I
> know long-term owners of both breeds who would be hard pressed to
> correctly identify whether an unknown bully was an AmStaff or Pit
> Bull.
>

This is where the fact that the actual *dogs* are rarely bred to the
*ideal* has an impact on perception.

But in terms of the breed standards, the Amstaff is slightly larger then
the APBT. Hey, I didn't write the standards, the breed clubs did. Have an
issue with the differences, then you might take it up with them.

Tara

External Since: May 27, 2007 Posts: 397

"Bekki" <lilninotchka RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1190265129.542068.269120@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>
> The Chow Chow probably needs to be moved up. It is about the size of
> the English Springer Spaniel. Most of these still seem to be placed
> without a common determiner. I think it's been asked before, but what
> criteria are you actually wanting to use for this?
>
> The Chesapeake Bay Retreiver is about the same size as the English
> Setter. I once knew a Chesapeake that was the size of a small horse
> though. lol (OK, maybe not really THAT big but still... He was WAY
> oversized.)

I agree that it would be helpful to know the reason for an ordered list,
especially when there is so much variation in size and weight for any given
breed. There are probably maximum and minimum standards for each breed, and
there must be a median or average about halfway in that range. But there
must be some consideration for the relative importance of height, length,
and weight. There could be three separate ordered lists for each attribute.
Otherwise one must choose a combination of the three for a ranking score.
It could also be plotted on a three-dimensional graph, which can be done in
Excel, for instance, so one can quickly visualize the position of each
breed.

If the OP could present the data he/she used to make the revised list, the
ranking could be verified, and a proper graphic representation might be
possible. But without that, further discussion is rather useless.

Paul and Muttley