Re: SIZE
Posted by Joe H
on January 24, 2008, 2:48 pm, in reply to "Re: SIZE"
213.249.154.X
--Previous Message-- : I THINK HEALTH SHOULD ALWAYS BE PUT FIRST. JIM : WEIGHS ABOUT 90LBS, HE'S AS BIG AS I'D WANT : AN OLDE TYME BULLDOG TO BE, NO BIGGER. I : THINK VAMPIRE SHOULD BE CLOSE TO MY ABSOLUTE : IDEAL. HOW MUCH DOES CAJUN WEIGH? : : --Previous Message-- : KNOW WHAT YOU MEEN JOE , : BUT ARE WE GOING DOWN THE BIGGER IS BETTER : ROUTE : LOOK WHAT HAPPEND TO THE ORIGINAL BULLDOG. : HEALTH AND AGILITY SACRIFICED FOR BIG CHESTS : AND : SMASHED IN FACES. : COULD A BULLDOG AT 90 LBS REALLY BE CALLED : AN : OLD TIME BULLDOG WHEN NO BULLDOG WAS ANY WAY : NEAR : THIS SIZE EVEN THE OUTCROSS TO SPANISH : BULLDOG : : --Previous Message-- : I LIKE THEM SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 60 AND 90LBS, : ANYTHING MUCH SMALLER AND I THINK THEY LACK : SUBSTANCE, MUCH LARGER AND I THINK YOUR : GETTING INTO AMERICAN BULLDOG AND : BULLMASTIFF TERRITORY. : : --Previous Message-- : THOUGHT ID SEE HOW MY FELLOW BULLDOGERS FELT : ABOUT SIZE. : WERE ALL PRODUCEING HEALTHY ACTIVE BULLDOGS : ALONG THE LINES OF THE MONOGRAPH BULLDOG. : ALTHOUGH THEY ARE VERY GOOD RECREATIONS OF : THE LONG LOST BULLDOG OF THE 1880S. BUT THEY : ARE BIGGER, THE BULLDOG OF THIS ERA WAS A : LOT SMALLER : SO DO WE KEEP THEM THE SIZE THEY ARE NOW. : WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SIZE MUST NOT : GET BIGGER,OR DO WE GRADUALY GO FOR A SLIGHT : REDUCTION IN SIZE BETWEEN THE TWO SIZES : IE CURRENT SIZE MALE AVE 70 LBS : OLD SIZE 50 LBS : SO COMPROMISE AT 60 LBS. : SO THE DOGS ARE A BIT MORE HISTORICALLY : ACCURATE : DISCUSS : : : : : : :
|
|
Message Thread:
- SIZE - BULLDOGGER January 22, 2008, 11:51 pm
- Re: SIZE - Joe H January 23, 2008, 7:09 pm
- Re: SIZE - BULLDOGGER January 23, 2008, 11:24 pm
- Re: SIZE - Joe H January 24, 2008, 2:21 pm
- Re: SIZE - Joe H January 24, 2008, 2:48 pm
- Re: SIZE - rich January 31, 2008, 5:27 pm
 « Back to thread
|