Saturday, 24 March 2012

Able Mabel

Meet Mabel... snapped recently by someone who sent me pictures of her as an example of an athletic young Bulldog. 


For comparison, here's a top UK show bulldog.
 And a closer look at those profiles..

Mabel

Showdog

Now when I first saw the pix of Mabel I assumed she was a cross, but it turns out she is KC-registered and was bred by a KC Accredited Breeder.

So which do you prefer? While you're making up your mind, here are some more pix of young Mabel (about a year old now) romping in the park... Yes, a warm day and she isn't panting.





86 comments:

  1. What a fantastic dog Mabel is! She looks like a cracker.

    The only thing I would love to know is if the breeder has Bulldogs that can give birth naturally? And I'm assuming that they hip score and such.

    Also wanted to say well done for producing a healthy tail, as I know that problems with the tail was another concern for the breed.

    Also, does the breeder show them? And how well do they place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mabel looks pretty good and her head is not inordiantely large compared to her pelvis, so she might not even need a CS.

      However, do not forget that dogs are always heavier than bitches. How old is she? She most certainly does look like a purebred Bulldog to me.

      Delete
  2. I pick both (: There is really no big difference. Except minus the big face wrinkle and plus the longer tail. But I still think the show bully is beautiful. However Mabel also looks like a fantastic English bully. My mother's best friends bully looks just like Mabel. I still want two english bullys named Sophie and Winston.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous--the big difference is that Mabel can breathe, move and live more like a normal dog because her conformation is less exaggerated!

      Delete
    2. How do you know that the show dog cant breath ???
      you must be a genius if you can tell that from a still photograph that its compromised in anyway to Mabel.

      Delete
    3. Oh give me a break "Romany dog", I have seen plenty of bulldogs that compete in agility that look like the show version, which they never had any melt downs after being active (training a dog for agility takes allot of energy and effort). Stop being so bias and hypercritical of certain breeds. All bulldogs are different. Last but not least I was not criticizing Mabel, I was stating my opinion from what I see. I still think she is a beautiful English Bulldog. In conclusion, grow up Romany dog and get a life.

      Delete
    4. Reading comprehension issues? I said that Mabel can breathe "more like a normal dog"--I never said show bulldogs can't breathe! Jeez.

      Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of canine anatomy knows that the length of a dog's muzzle affects its ability to breathe normally as well as cool itself. (Even airlines get it. Why do you think bully breeds are not allowed to fly on many airlines?) The show bulldog pictured has NO muzzle. None. !!!

      Delete
    5. As far as I can see the only difference is the nose roll the length of muzzle looks really the same
      THE SHOW DOG does have a muzzle !!! I think you must be looking at the wrong picture ??? As the only difference as I said is nose roll...

      Delete
    6. Time for a visit to your optician anonymous 12.40pm, I believe you need a new pair of glasses!!

      Delete
    7. Seriously? You need to define "muzzle". If you include the lower jaw in the muzzle then of course the length looks similar. But can't you see the difference in nose lentgh? Why do you think the show dog gets that roll of skin over the nose? Because the skin has nowhere to go when the skeleton of the upper jaw is so short.

      And another thing. The problem with brachycephalic or "short-nosed" dogs is that only the skeleton is shortened. Inside those tiny skeletal airways, all the soft tissues and mucus membranes of a normal nose must fit. That is why they have problems with breathing and snoring and swelling och the airways.

      Delete
  3. You really want to breed in that topline ? Dotty wasn't panting in the strong lights when Claire Balding was interviewing her owner.(Bitch res. CC)Dotty has the similar type tail. I haven't seen Jenny panting in the videos of her in the ring on a hot stuffy day at Crufts.She did not fail the vet check for her nose , wrinkle or inability to breath or move.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, but Crufts is not hot and stuffy! As a matter of fact it is darn cold and the ventilation nearly blows you away!

      Delete
    2. Mrs I Pretend25 March 2012 19:08

      depends where your stood, if its by the ring under the exceptionally hot lights then yes it is, i thought i was going to melt when i was in the ring for my class and i dont have a massive amount of hair.

      Delete
    3. Yes I agree with the top line more like roach back, think if they did show would not get far with it...

      Delete
  4. I have to say that Mabel is stunning!
    I think its a great example of how just a few minor adaptations can mean so much for a dog. Yes Mabel still looks like a bully but is a happy healthy one (not to say that the showdog isn't happy and healthy, as I don't know). The differences are subtle but I'll point a couple out, Mabel has less wrinkle, allowing easy breathing, she is longer on loin and leg allowing more athleticism and from looking at the profile pics has "a better" mouth and lest not forget the above mentioned tail. All in all, I know which one I would rather have running round my house xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mrs I Pretend25 March 2012 19:08

      Dont forget the roach back!!!!

      Delete
    2. I am with you AnonymousMar 24, 2012 06:49 PM. would much rather have Mable in my house.

      Also Just for my interest Mrs I pretend does the roach back cause Mable any issues health wise cause if not I don’t personally care about it.

      Delete
    3. Just to clarify my earlier point about whether the roach back will cause Mable any health issues, this cannot yet be known as she is not fully grown and she may straighten out, what I see in Mable is the effort to put things right, which are already know to be drastically wrong, and this at least is a starting point going in the right direction. In short Mrs. I pretend I feel you should be encouraging progress.

      Nicola

      Delete
    4. Mrs I Pretend25 March 2012 22:04

      doesn't someone say further up that mable is 4? dont thnik it will change at that age, a roach back is a roach back so back to the drawing board to find a dog with a acceptable FACE and BODY!

      Delete
    5. No Mrs I pretend next time u should read all the post Mable isnt 18 months old yet.

      So as I said earlier full marks for trying to breed away from the problems

      Nicola

      Delete
    6. Well at 18 months it's not likely to change either a roach back is a roach back, also someone says further down we can't judge it on a picture, well why not yous are happy enough to judge every single picture of show dogs on here so this should get no special exemption.

      Delete
    7. Also I would like to add I am not a particular fan of smooshy faced dogs they don't really appeal but I like to see fairness in a debate.

      Delete
    8. I suggest all of your who prefer "Mabel:" by looking at photographs but exactly that type of bulldog.. no one is stopping you but there was a blog earlier on which many posts were given of bulldogs doing much more than these photos suggest and now of course they are forgotten.. just like i hope this blog will be.... when a journalist with no dog breeding experience or education in canine matters becomes the pied piper of other "experts on the internet" they are bound to follow their leader over the cliffs into the sea.. oh wait.. those lemmings.. even better!!!

      Delete
    9. AnonymousMar 26, 2012 09:04 AM
      I am a very experienced dog ownerand able to make my own choices anddecisions and no lemming thank you.
      I base my oppinions on what I think and am not always in agreement with Jemima but she is trying to improve things for dogs in general and for that she should be applauded and supported

      And as for Judging things on pictures I also went to Crufts to see for myself and did an awful lot of research thank you

      Delete
  5. Mabel is a cutie pie!

    I happen to like bulldog and mastiff types, and I wouldn't mind having a dog like her.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I definitely prefer Mabel's less exaggerated type. Besides the longer face she also appears to be lighter boned and has longer leg.

    To be fair, the show bulldog appears to have a better back. Mabel appears to have a backend higher than her front end, and a slightly curved spine to compensate. Although if she's not full-grown she might even out a bit as she matures.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, a little better? But why does anybody NEED to breed brachycephalic dogs at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A short and succinct summary of the problems of brachycephalic breeds in language that anybody can understand
      http://www.marvistavet.com/html/body_brachycephalic.html

      Delete
    2. Questions......

      At what point does being brachycephalic impose health and welfare problems?

      How short is too short?

      Should there be, for welfare reasons, a point or shortness beyond which it is seen as severely detrimental to the life of a dog and in essence equal to breaking some of the 5 freedoms under the Animal Welfare Act?

      When you look at the breed standards for larger brachys such as the Mastiff, Bullmastiff and boxer there is better guidance stating for example that the length of the muzzle should be 1/3 length of head.

      For the "extreme" brachys such as the pug and the peke there is no such guidance and obscure words such as "relatively short" and "not too short" are used.

      I also believe that good length of muzzle should not be measured by the length of the lower mandible. It is the length of the upper maxilla and nasal bones that is crucial to thermoregulation.

      Mabel is less extreme when it comes to the undershot jaw and over the nose rope, but I cannot help thinking that if you were to remove the nose rope of the show bulldog, there would actually be very little difference in the length of the upper part of her muzzle.

      Delete
    3. A good summary.

      Of course, it raises the question: "where do you draw the line?". I know there are many who find the lure of a flat face inexplicable, but others clearly find it extremely appealing. Pug registrations have increased six-fold in the past 10 years.

      We had Gerhard Oechtering say in PDE2 that he did not believe that it was ethical to breed dogs with very flat faces. And I agree, but for me the answer is not to stop breeding brachycephalics; it's to moderate them so that they can lead comfortable lives; give birth naturally etc. Same principle with all the other conformationally extreme dogs.

      And while doing that, we need to make sure that people are aware of the cost to the dog of those conformational extremes so that - one hopes - they make better choices next time they come to buy a dog.

      Delete
    4. Our posts crossed, Kate. Yes, you're right, the difference is mainly in the skin folds.

      But I think those skin folds might be making quite a lot of difference in that I suspect they reflect what's happening on the inside, too ie that Mabel is less encumbered by excess flesh on the inside. But that is just a guess. Will ask Prof Oechtering what he thinks.

      There is certainly some evidence that other breeds that are considered brachy seem to suffer much less than others and generally, they are the ones much less excess flesh.

      Mabel is a taller, lighter dog carrying less flesh - that must help.

      Jemima

      Delete
    5. Sorry, I find any dogs breeds with characteristics that are based on a genetic abnormality, whether its brachycephalism or dwarfism or corkscrew tails or a ridge on the back or hairlessness, something that I would not choose to breed . At least in humans , while we accept that abnormalities happen, occasionally a child is born with a characteristic that isnt the norm, and we care for them and love the, we dont deliberately breed for defects . So why is it OK to do it with dogs? Even worse to classify them as breeds and to incorporate what is actually a genetic defect into a breed standard? I've never understood this

      Delete
    6. Professor Oechtering has described the various "pressures" on the airways that could cause constriction and collapse to the airways in an interesting "meat in the box" model.

      The outside of the box is rigid and represents the base of the skull and the lower jaw. These cannot expand.

      Running through the middle of the box is a collapsable tube which represents the nasopharynx.

      Within the box, and surrounding the tube are the soft tissues which put various pressures on the tube and thus can influence its diameter, air getting in and out, ability to cool etc.

      In summary, being brachycephalic, makes the overall "box" smaller.......less room within box for the soft tissues. Soft tissues therefore put pressure on the collapsable tube (airways). Add to this macroglossia found in extreme brachycephalics which puts further pressure within the box and all of the above cause extreme constriction to breathing. Then we need to add the extreme negative pressures put on the airways due to the crushed nasoturbinate bones.

      Additional soft tissue pressure is seen in over weight animals due to fatty deposits. No idea whether excess external skin folds means excess soft tissues internally, but they would surely not help by surely making the animal feel warmer?

      Be very interested to see what Gerhard Oechtering says about the wrinkles.

      Delete
  8. The first picture of Mabel looks a bit like a 'cut-and-shut' dog, where the rear of a larger dog has been joined to the front of a shorter dog, and unless that evens out on maturity she's unfortunately likely to have back problems. The straight tail, which has always been highly desirable in bulldogs, is good to see, as is the lack of the nose wrinkle.

    Always nice to see dogs running and playing! It'd be good to see some comparison shots of other bulldogs playing as well. :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. the show dog looks more balanced to me and its coat isnt as moth eaten , mable just looks a bit er runty.

    But I prefer her leg length and nose length

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's nice to see a hint of more muzzle and longer legs in Mabel, but her back is terribly roached. She can move better, because of her longer legs, but how will that awful back affect her in the long run? Such a severe structural defect like that isn't going to fix itself with maturity.

    If given the choice I'd have neither dog. Mabel looks to be a structurally unsound dog and the other seems just a caricature of a dog.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't know what the standards are, frankly don't care..I don't need any qualifications other than astute observation and ability to discern differences. Mabel, while perhaps no showdog (thank goodness for her), IS a closer rendering of what a DOG should be (IMHO). She has a muzzle with stop (arguable a necessity for life), a defined shape (ei chest and loin differentiation), has a tail (or at least in part), no useless excessive skin folding..overall seeming fit (albeit she is young). The showdog certainly lacks defined body tone from being overweight, has a muzzle..er, has no muzzle and appears seemingly to the point of inverting as opposed to extending (what is the desire here - to implode the muzzle into the skull??), huge protrusion of the lower jaw (what is the purpose of that?)..and all this is desirable?? Whacky

    ReplyDelete
  12. I know Mabel very well, She lived with me for the first four months of her life. She was chosen from a fabulous breeder,was regularly walked and fed raw diet.She was socialised in London from an early age. My own dog,is her cousin. She is four and has a waist and runs like a greyhound. They adored each other.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon 4:14AM: "Sorry, I find any dogs breeds with characteristics that are based on a genetic abnormality, whether its brachycephalism or dwarfism or corkscrew tails or a ridge on the back or hairlessness, something that I would not choose to breed."

    I appreciate where that feeling comes from. In human terms, I would agree, but we are not talking about humans. I sympathize with your feeling and don't mean to diminish it, but part of me can't help but feel that the reason for such resistance to reform among the fancies comes from this type of general statement. There are TONS of common breeds that are dwarf dogs, opr have brachycephalism. MOST of those breeds don't have the many problems associated with the extremes.

    I own dwarf Corgis. I assure you they can run as fast as most labs and other big dogs (but of course can't keep up with a pointer-- but then neither can a lab). The average lifespan is 12 to 14 years. True, there is slightly higher risk of back problems, but much lower risk of some of the joint problems associated with large breeds or tiny breeds. They can (and do) hike for miles. My girl swims like a fish. They chase frisbees and tennis balls with glee and amazing speed. They can run agility (Corgis are one of the top breeds for agility). They can run up and down steep hills faster than a full-height dog because of their low center of gravity.

    Remove the human parallel and I have trouble finding any ethical reason why they should not be bred. They have some advantages and some disadvantages compared to dogs of full leg length. But of course dogs bigger or smaller than the ancestral "medium sized brown dog" also have advantages and disadvantages in health. Your road seems reasonable at first glance, but can begin the slippery slope of "We should not breed giant dogs, or mini dogs. Heavy dogs or very light dogs." and so on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right---nature has limits. We should not breed giant dogs and we should not breed teacup dogs.

      Their plights are well known!

      Delete
    2. are you kidding Giant breeds have been around since Roman times and before..and they were not bred like we breed them now.. they were HUGE.. and probably crossbred and out crossed nature had not limits there..
      I guess then elderly people should not have smaller dogs or toy dogs. because you don't like them

      Delete
  14. I'll agree that Mabel is more athletic, has better length of leg, a good tail and no exaggerated fold over the nose. But I wouldn't have her any more than I'd have the dumpy showdog. Her topline is awful. The spine is deformed. Spondylosis/arthritis waiting to happen. This will also eventually affect her shoulders as much as her rear.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There is no comparison between these two dogs. Roach back? Get real. Jemima, just the response to this thread alone shows what a horrible state the show dog world is truly in. Continue to fight the fight ... while it is a battle that is straight uphill ... it's working. The PDE was recently described as the "elephant in the room" in the meeting involving the people who were very unhappy about the simple visual vet check at Crufts. That, in and of itself, was a huge success! Congratulations!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I have seen a number of young mastiffs have this shape of the overline when immature - back higher than front. It would be interesting to see Mabel again at 2, to see how this turns out. I do find it amazing though that with the myriad excruciating problems that there are someone has to say would you really want to breed in that topline.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Arguably, one can't accurately judge Mabel's topline without seeing her stacked. These pictures are all of her moving, so perhaps correctness of her gait should be what's being picked on.

    I for one am in love with the leggy Bulldog! I've previously decided I'd likely never have a Bulldog because I wasn't in love with the idea of having to powder or moisturize my dog's crevices (as needed), and also because of the extreme breeding issues, etc. A Bulldog like that, I'm not sure I'd be guilty about (or grossed out by), providing she does seem to have fewer of the issues. A few pictures aren't proof, I know that. They're an idea, anyway!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anyone who is interested in what happens to the olfactory lobe and the brain of a brachycephalic dogs should read this:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2909913/

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon 09.21am .Breed for longer muzzle , breed for less wrinkle , breed for straighter tail..so you would start with a bitch (like Dotty -Ch.Hilbull Sheeza Sunbeam Mystyle)and a dog with a longer muzzle , straight tail , less wrinkle , good eye , good all round conformation..(there are plenty out there contrary to the worst ones picked on in this blog)have a look at that resulting litter , look at the COI's , go out, maybe fix that muzzle , tail etc .Why on earth would a good breeder then bring in bad conformation , a bad topline , it doesn't help , something is wrong there -look at the vertebrae

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mable's topline is not OK. Why not find a dog with her head on a SOUND body? Any one looking at her who knows structure can see there is something wrong. The roach over her loin is painful to look at. The head on the second dog isn't a good example of a typical show dog's head. There were many dogs better at Crufts not nearly as extreme as your example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymice wrote:

      "Breed for longer muzzle , breed for less wrinkle , breed for straighter tail..so you would start with a bitch (like Dotty -Ch.Hilbull Sheeza Sunbeam Mystyle)and a dog with a longer muzzle , straight tail , less wrinkle , good eye , good all round conformation..(there are plenty out there contrary to the worst ones picked on in this blog):

      And..

      "The head on the second dog isn't a good example of a typical show dog's head. There were many dogs better at Crufts not nearly as extreme as your example."

      The dog I've compared Mabel to is Pringham's Rockstar - Top Male Bulldog 2010. Best of Breed Crufts 2011.

      Jemima

      Delete
    2. But isn't the point that the winners at Crufts are too extreme? There were several dogs with less extreme heads at the show this year. I am not saying that the judges put them up, just they were there. IK you got a lot of pictures of dogs at Crufts. Also you must be able to come up with a dog without a topline that is going to cause the dog trouble by 8 years old.
      By posting the pictures you did it seems like you are saying that people should accept faults that you think are OK.

      Delete
    3. I think you'll find your comparison dog was chosen more for who he belonged and how many judging appointments the owners had coming up.
      this happens in all breeds all to often in the dog show world .
      In order to create and 'push' the new standards requested, we should consider thinking of moving up the lesser known judges in waiting and drop away from the older pals club

      Delete
  21. Even though Mable's top line isn't how it should be, she is far more comfortable than most Bulldogs I know and I am very glad to see changes like this happening. If Mable was to be bred later in her life, I'm sure the breeder would put her with a mate with a good top line and try to work improve it. Improvements are improvements, and they don't happen over night. I applaud Mable's breeder and her supporters.

    I'm fine with brachycephalic dogs, but agree that they need to be structured so that they can breathe easily, with a more athletic build so they can enjoy life (and not too much excessive skin to weigh them down), and breed & birth naturally. And in all fairness, no one is saying that brachycephalic breeds are the only ones with problems. Plenty of other breeds with longer snouts that have their own problems.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Interesting re the breed standard and roached backs.

    The USA Bulldog standard says: “Topline -- There should be a slight fall in the back, close behind the shoulders (its lowest part), whence the spine should rise to the loins (the top of which should be higher than the top of the shoulders), thence curving again more suddenly to the tail, forming an arch (a very distinctive feature of the breed), termed "roach back" or, more correctly, "wheel back".”

    The UK standard also asked for a roach back until the KC imposed changes in 2009: “Slight fall to back close behind shoulders (lowest part) whence spine should rise to loins (top higher than top of shoulder), curving again more suddenly to tail, forming slight arch - request to reinstate "termed roach back, a distinctive characterestic of the breed" rejected.

    It's Mabel's cousin who is four, not Mabel herself - Mabel isn't yet 18 months.

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "forming slight arch"
      Mabel's spine doesn't form a 'slight arch', it forms an enormous one. Even with the previous breed standard her topline is extreme and faulty, and predisposes her to problems, poor girl. Such a shame, because the rest of her is so pleasing.

      I don't recall the bulldog standard ever requiring the croup/pelvis to be noticeably higher than the withers; perhaps you could confirm or deny?

      Delete
    2. In Mabels case she has what is called a "sway back", not a "roach back".

      Delete
    3. Yes, the Bulldog as US standard, is supposed to have a roached back, but nothing as severe as you see in a dog like Mabel. Mabel's roach is so severe it's more of a swayback than a roach back. In some dogs with roached backs, the bulking up of muscles due to maturation helps to reduce the severity of the roach, but in one as extreme as you see in Mabel I highly doubt her topline will look much better as she matures.

      Delete
    4. I have never seen a Bulldog here in the states with a topline like Mables. Her roach is over the loin and her back its self looks a bit like a sway back.

      Delete
    5. Anyone who thinks she has a sway back needs to get glasses or get a new prescription.

      Delete
  23. Great! Hope!

    ReplyDelete
  24. There are a lot of people arguing from a false premise. It's true that there are some Bulldogs of the show type that don't appear to suffer health problems. It’s also true that there are people who smoke and drink heavily and live to a ripe old age...some people beat the odds and some dogs do too.
    Exaggerated conformation does not always create crippled dogs but it is always an unacceptable risk factor. It's also a totally unnecessary one. I have little time for supposedly health focused breeders who are testing, profiling and otherwise knocking themselves out trying to find the secret that allows them to breed exaggerated dogs that don’t show clinical disease. It must be far better to adopt an approach that uses health testing to help breed away from exaggeration towards a more balanced dog like Mabel.
    Some might see Mabel as a “vanilla” dog lacking in true type. I see a dog that’s clearly a Bulldog and a Bulldog that looks a darn sight better than the other example shown.
    Kevin Colwill

    ReplyDelete
  25. But Kevin the back is terrible and also has the potential to be life limiting, neither are acceptable options to me tbh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely for people so knowledgable, and so experienced, that they can breed dogs that are completely unaffected by their lack of a snout, improving a fault like an inferior topline should be no real challenge.

      Delete
  26. bulldog havoc26 March 2012 15:37

    I am proud to see some people are trying to improve the bulldog for the betterment of their health. I do have some concerns for Mabel and any bulldogs similar to her though.

    For starters, the most obvious fault (health wise) is her spine. She seems to have a noticeable dip around the shoulder blades and it's been documented in some animals to cause nerve, breathing, and hearth problems.

    Although her bite does seem to look improved from the outside, I do hope they make the bite similar to a scissor cut as well as add on another inch or two to the muzzle.

    Here are some bulldogs (yes they are bulldogs despite being mixes) that seem to meet a better build for the dog health wise.

    English Bulldog x Beagle

    English Bulldog x APBT

    English Bulldog x Cattle Dog

    They look the part but are healthier alternatives. I think mixing the purebred english bulldog with other bulldog types and breeding from that stock will yield healthy dogs that meet a more respectable breed standard.

    But bravo for this breeder who's trying their best to improve the breed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. how can they be Bulldogs despite being mixes?
      bulldogs are a world known and recognised breed, mixes are one breed short of a mongrel!

      Delete
  27. Kevin, the back on Mable is just as bad for her as pinched nostrils on some other Bulldogs.
    I am curious as to why some people find it OK to have a terrible back It seems to me Mable is an example of the standrd taken to the extreme with regards to the back.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Did anyone else have to stop and search for the nose on the showdog profile?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Kevin ..Jemima really has it in for Pringhams,having previously used Eclair photos and it is one extreme to the other .

    ReplyDelete
  30. so many complain about the GSD's and then PRAISE THIS????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the words of many anons over the last two years.....THINGS CANNOT CHANGE OVER NIGHT!

      I take it you prefer a bulldog with a pointless undershot jaw, wrinkles that serve no purpose, a head so big it gets stuck in the birth canal?

      Bravo to Mable's breeder for breeding a bulldog without the above exaggerations.

      Delete
  31. Two different Anons state that this is a sway back. A sway back is a back that dips from withers to point of hip; think of an ancient horse who has a big dip where the saddle would go. A roach back is one with a rise in it. It is not possible for a dog to be "so roached it's a swayback"; the two are opposites.

    I agree I'd be concerned about her back, though, as already stated. Is she a growthy late-maturing pup or is this permanent? I had a cat who spent a few months with her high-end so high she looked like a Jack rabbit and she leveled out (for a cat; cats are higher behind naturally). But she was under a year when this happened.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I'm no bulldog expert, but I'd say Mabel is a puppy still and it's too early to call on her top line. If she were a Labrador, I'd be saying she's bum-high and hope she grows out of it.
    At first glance, puppies almost always look healthier than older dogs.
    She also looks pretty brachy to me. The distance between the tip of her nose and the plane of her eye sockets is not much greater than that in the photo labeled 'Showdog'. The bigger differences seem to be in bite and wrinkles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, but are you looking at the same pictures I am? Huge diffenece IMO between nose and eye socket.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 12.03; ignore the "nose-rope" and look at the distance between the actual nose leather and the eye in both profiles. They're pretty much identical. The one labelled 'showdog' appears to have a proportionately longer skull than Mabel but that could be an illusion caused by the ear carriage.

      Delete
    3. I just transfered both images onto paint and measured. The distance from the corner eye to the nose end on the Champion dog is a good amount shorter - it is 75% of the length of the pet bred dog. The lower jaw is also far more forward on the Champion dog.

      Kary

      Delete
    4. Which end of the nose (top or bottom) did you measure to, Kary? I was going to the base of the nose leather, not the top. I agree the 'showdog' is more undershot than Mabel.

      Delete
    5. I went from the top of the nose, front tip, which is barely visible under the Champions skin role, to the eye corner.

      Kary

      Delete
    6. How do the measurements compare when you measure from the base of the nose leather, which is clearly visible in both?

      Delete
  33. Personally, I see little difference in the two dogs' head shapes. Would you look at the skullshape, they are probably more or less the same shit. The showdog have lot of wrinkled skin, but the length of the nose seems to be about the same.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The head shot of Mabel looks like she is much younger than other pictures ???

    ReplyDelete
  35. I've been showing successfully since 1977 (never breed, and only deal with "natural looking" breeds). I would definitely take Mabel and her roach back over any show-winning bulldog. While Mabel is purebred, seeing her running at the park reminds me of a time back in the 90's when I saw a Pug x Chihuahua cross at our local dog park. This dog looked almost exactly like a Pug, but with a moderate muzzle and fewer skin folds. That dog could run... and run... and run! It was so nice seeing a basically Pug-looking dog escape from the terrible anatomy suffered by its purebred Pug parent.

    And about people who aren't concerned with the skin fold in the show specimen, have you even seen PDE? There is a great scene there of a Bulldog under anesthesia who has its skin folds separated...to expose nothing but oozing infections and "crud" like layers of mud. And that was a well-cared for dog with owners rich enough to pay for surgery. Exposing the skin folds was just a sideline to the fact that the dog needed surgery for something else (I think breathing difficulties).

    ReplyDelete
  36. Good gravy, army of anons. This dog is neither roach-backed (highline GSD, Bedlington) nor swaybacked (old nag horse). She has an arch over the loin. This, in moderation, is a good thing, adds power to the dog at a gallop.

    She does appear to be downhill, but as has been stated, may grow out of it. It can be a teenage phase. Slightly downhill is a small structural issue compared to the others that beset the bulldog.

    I still think her muzzle is FAR too short for health and welfare, and not that much different from the show dog she is compared to. But at least she has legs.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mabel's muzzle looks flatter than the show bull dog's muzzle. The only difference that I see is the wrinkling and wrinkles do not make a dog less fit nor do they adversely impact on respiration. Wrinkling makes a dog's skin more puncture resistant which can be a good thing from a function perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Can somebody PLEASE TELL ME WHO TOOK THIS PICTURE OF MABEL? URGENTLY

    ReplyDelete
  39. May I ask why you want to know and why it is so urgent? Feel free to email me privately if you prefer - jem@pedigreedogsexposed.com

    Jemima

    ReplyDelete
  40. The black dog in the last picture is better than mabel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think both dogs are just as great, Anon. Mabel is perfect (not to mention healthier) and she still looks like a bulldog (it least to me). Even Ms. Harrison thinks that Mabel is fit for function. How could you not love Mabel, she is fabulous.
      - with respect, sincerely Fang.

      Delete