History of the irish stafford.

The original standard-


- 1935 -

General Appearance
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a smooth-coated dog, standing about 15 to 18 inches high at the shoulder. He should give the impression of great strength for his size, and although muscular should be active and agile.

Head and Skull
Short, deep through, broad skull, very pronounced cheek muscles, distinct stop, short foreface, mouth level.

Ears
Rose, half jerk and jerk; these three to be preferred, full drop to be penalized.

Eyes

Dark.

Neck
Should be muscular and rather short.

Body
Short back, deep brisket, light in loins with forelegs set rather wide apart to permit of chest development.


Front Legs

Straight, feet well padded, to turn out a little and showing no weakness at pasterns.

Hind legs

Hindquarters well muscled, let down at hocks like a terrier.


Coat
Short, smooth and close to skin.

Tail

The tail should be of medium length tapering to a point and carried rather low; it should not curl much and may be compared with an old-fashioned pump handle.

Weight

Dogs 28 to 38 lbs., Bitches 4 lbs. less.

Colour
May be any shade of Brindle, Black, White, Fawn or Red, or any of these colours with White. Black and Tan and Liver not to be encouraged.


Faults to be penalized

Dudley nose, light or pink eyes (rims), tail too long or badly curled, badly undershot or overshot mouths.

http://www.bluestaffordshirebullterriers.co.uk/aboutthebreed.html

Just looking at that standard from the '30s, my dog a) has the wrong color eyes b) is about 6lbs heavy at the moment and I don't think he'll ever make 38 lol and c) is the wrong color hair, blue wasn't around back then maybe?

Harry wrote:is the wrong color hair, blue wasn't around back then maybe?

that old standard is how i ended up looking into how blue got into the stafford and came across info on the blue paul (or blue poll), an extinct bull terrier like dog that some sources say was bred into the stafford. how true it is i dont know but there's a bit of info out there on it. ive no idea of the timeline though.

[quote="YENALED"]
thanks for that... I presume Gentle Jim was a reg SBT in 1939 it seems odd that nearly 20 years past before they where reg here or have i got it all mixed up ????[/q

[quote="YENALED"]
there is a huge difference in that G/Jim dog to todays staffords like a lot of other breeds bred for looks, though saying that when some of these men bred these dogs early on or even possibly today health issues dont into the equation either as these where/are bred because of their certain abilities. Looking at the peds of these types of dogs they are very inbred especially going back to their fourth/fifth generations. [/qu

[quote="RickyB"]

YENALED wrote:
there is a huge difference in that G/Jim dog to todays staffords like a lot of other breeds bred for looks, though saying that when some of these men bred these dogs early on or even possibly today health issues dont into the equation either as these where/are bred because of their certain abilities. Looking at the peds of these types of dogs they are very inbred especially going back to their fourth/fifth generations. [/quote

Dogs that are bred for performance / work...rarely have any physical problems, as these problems usually get bred out because they would hinder what the dog is used for... show dogs and KC physical standard is the problem as all the breeds are bred for exaggerated features, inbreeding is not a big problem in working breeds, but when inbreeding is use just to get certain features is when you get all the problems

It does seem to be the case alright any health issues the Stafford or indeed the APBT have are few compared to their relatives despite some of the pedigrees consisting of the same dog and dam several times on both sides.

[quote=

[quote="Savage"][quote="Harry"]is the wrong color hair, blue wasn't around back then maybe?[/quote]

that old standard is how i ended up looking into how blue got into the stafford and came across info on the blue paul (or blue poll), an extinct bull terrier like dog that some sources say was bred into the stafford. how true it is i dont know but there's a bit of info out there on it. ive no idea of the timeline though.[/quote]

just interested in knowing the history (pre KC acceptance) and there's a ton of conflicting stuff out there.

as the stafford is essentially a cross breed (they didnt just appear out of thin air) i'm just trying to figure out the timeline and how they came about.

for instance how did the blue colour get into them? i know the blue paul was just another fighting bulldog but the blue colour had to get into staffords somehow, and ive read and posted articles claiming the blue paul was used for this purpose. are these old articles total BS?

and given that the stafford is a modern bull and terrier then what terrier was used? was it just a general terrier (whatever was good and at hand) or was it a very specific terrier?

do you get what im asking? if i read 10 articles on the history and colours im finding nearly 10 different versions of how they came about. and then adding KC conformation (and all its changes thru the years) into the mix just makes my head spin



i understand the general history - bulldogXterrier. but looking deeper is where it all gets messy and no-one seems to agree on anything. like you already said, you dont agree with ray delaney on certain aspects of the red strain, but i would have thought willie's son would no better than most. and then someone else that should be believed might have a different account to both you and ray. its a clusterf**K

can you pont to what you consider a 'definitive' account of the stafford history?

zzzzzzzzz

[url=https://servimg.com/view/17243450/88][img]http://i44.servim zzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzz

RickyB wrote:First off there is a lot of people who believe the Stafford is not a mix breed, but direct descendant of the fighting Bulldog...with no terrier or at least very little terrier blood...the bulldog x terrier history is for the (English) Bull terrier.... the kc had recognized a breed of dog called Bulldog who was bred from Fighting Bulldogs and mixed with pug and that is where you get the kinked tail ,bug eyed, badly undershot mouths.... the old fashioned Fighting bulldog was agile, had a long muzzle, and whip tail, just like a modern APBT...this can be proven by old prints done at the time of bull, bear baiting... all shades of brindle ,red ,black, white...ware common in the Fighting bulldog

thats another totally different account of the staffy.

here's the one ive most commonly read

Although there has been some discussion through the years about the
origin of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, authorities generally agree
that the breed can be traced back to the Mastiff-like dogs through the
old Bulldog which, when crossed with British terriers, produced the
first "Bull and Terriers." Books published in the early 1800s which
refer to "Bull and Terriers," "Pit Dogs," and "Fighting Dogs" confirm
that the cross existed at that time.

The old-fashioned Bulldog was a fierce, courageous animal used in the "sports" of bear
and bull baiting as early as the mid-sixteenth century. When these "sports" fell from
public favor and were outlawed, their supporters turned to dog fighting and sought to
create a sporting dog that, while retaining the legendary courage and ferocity of the
Bulldog, would incorporate the greater agility of the terrier.


Terriers thought to have been used in the cross are the Manchester Terrier and the
now-extinct English White Terrier. In addition, crosses with various of the old working
terriers were made.

you see how it gets very very confusing?

zzzzzzzzzz

RickyB wrote:I will ask you one question... if you wanted to breed a Fighting dog... and you had dogs like the print Iv posted above, which show well made agile dogs... a breed that was known to be Deep game... WHY would you cross a terrier with it ? breeders like James Hinks did do this and produced a breed known then as Bull and Terrier...and these developed into the (English) Bullterrier... but they ware not for fighting they ware bred for sale to people when dog shown was first started...Bullterriers ware one of the few breeds bred for to be show dogs

firstly dont get me wrong, i prefer the older dogs. im not into what they were originally bred for but i do like the characteristics and drive that made them what they were. to me the modern show bred staffy is almost a different breed except in name.

i wouldnt have the first clue about what goes into making a good fighting dog. off the cuff i would have thought some terrier blood would be a good thing as they can be agressive little feckers and very quick to turn but thats just a guess from what i see of terriers. but then the bulldogs in those prints look wirey and fast enough anyway.

so do you reckon the quote above about the staffy origins isnt true? or partly true?

it would be interesting to see ahead another hundred years and get a glimpse of what way the breed has gone or if its even still around.

You only have to look at the first Colby dog's from the 1800's to see that the apbt that was bred for working/sporting purposes hasn't changed a single bit so if that's the way people keep breeding them and not for colour or nose or size then there is no reason why the breed should change in the next hundrede years.

any pics going around of those early colby pits phil?

Ye hundreds, just google J.P Colby for pics, I'll have a look now

Savage wrote:any pics going around of those early colby pits phil?

I saw a pic on the Colby website before, it was a pic from 1896 and 1996 and the two dogs were nearly exactly the same, could be wrong on the dates.

The reason the APBT and other working/sporting breeds haven't changed is because the shape that they have is close enough to perfect for fighting, pretty much the best mix of Power, Wind and Agility that can be found, along with the mental attitude and Gameness.

Any changes wouldn't be good for the fighting dog so they haven't happened.

Were startin to hijack your tread a little bit here Barry, there's plenty of other treads to talk about pitbulls on this forum so I'll let ye get back to the Staffies and I'll go back to the real dogs :p lol

Philly Mc00 wrote:Ye hundreds, just google J.P Colby for pics, I'll have a look now

cheers

@Ricky, is there any record of the size of the Bulldogs that were used back then? The ones like in the print you posted.

@Savage, after all the replies you've gotten, do you still think that it's the look and temperament/attitude of the dog that makes it an "Irish Stafford" as opposed to a regular SBT? Or have you accepted that it's the pedigree that decides whether it's "Irish" or not.

to be honest with you harry i dont wanna hear the words 'irish' and 'stafford' together for at least a month

So you don't want to admit you were wrong?

ray delaney says one thing, rickyb says another thing and others says its just code for pitbull (not that im stupid enough to believe that last one!)

all im going to admit is that im thoroughly confused

i need one of these!