European Boxers -- Conformation or Schutzhund lines?

[BurningRiver]

The difference in the US boxer and European lies obviously in the conformation. The US boxer deviated with the birth of Bang Away of Sirrah Crest. Since then US boxers have been taller, less muscled and more slender then European boxers. My dig at this is, how can a dog work if it doesn't have the body for it?
More importantly, in my opinion in the US temperament has deviated. I know this is a sore topic with many so I go no further.

Sorry, I need to take issue with what you've written here, even though I realize that this is a whole other topic. . .

While I do believe that there are absolutely fantastic specimens over in Europe, just like here in the states, there are a whole lot mediocre ones. Across the board, some may claim that the US has achieved *too much* elegance (ie: yes, some have become racy), but on the flip side, as a whole, much of Europe has completely lost elegance and most (yes, I said *most*) are overdone and clunky.

I simply cannot support your claim that the European dog has maintained similarity to what our breed's forefathers had intended over their American counterparts, it just isn't true. In fact, I'll argue any day of the week that the American head is a thousand times closer to the Munich Silhouette than most European heads are.

Don't believe me? Here's a link to a page written by one of the worlds' most internationally recognized boxer breed judges, Judy Horton.

http://www.worldwideboxer.com/style8.html

And I can pull old photos of Lustig, et al and I think it's very easy to see that the vast majority of Euros look just as set apart from him as do their American counterparts. Where you call American dogs "too elegant", I'll just as readily call most Euros "clunky".

The bottom line is this: **Clunkiness is just as ineffective in a working dog as raciness is.**

I also won't tell Mia that you said that American dogs have crappy temperaments, because her trainer, a guy who trains all of the local police K9 units, used to think the same, until he met Mia. . . and now he wants me to go for her BH.

[fairview Boxers]

I think in a general statement we can all agree at how there are good lines in each country, and bad lines in each country.  A general statement cannot be made on longevity, health, temperment, or any other aspect of the breed by country....  Style statements can be generalized by country, but not the foundations of the breed.  There are total NA Boxers out there that are excellent working dogs, from lines that are excellent working dogs; but they are few and far between NOW...  The American Boxer world doesn't FOCUS on the working aspect as much as the cosmetic aspect of the breed.  It is looking that breeders are beginning to see that and  change it, but I don't think it is from the LACK of ability of the NA boxer, but more on the lack of WANTING it from the NA breeder....
We each see a style of Boxer that we prefer, but it doesn't mean that that is completely correct, just preferred by our eyes.... and our style or lifestyle...  That is a choice.  I could easily take Corky (who weighs all of 44# soaking wet, and teach her to be a great working dog, but just not as effective as an 80# one)....  It is all in how you perceive and train your Boxer, they are all intelligent and for the most part willing, some more than others.... now granted some TEMPERMENTS aren't up to par, but that is part of finding a reputable breeder, who is considering that issue!!!!!

[alncris]

and again......I know this is a sore topic with many so I go no further.

But I will make some respectful points....

No boxer from any line is perfect.

I never said that the European boxer maintained any similarity to what our forefathers intended. But the European boxer did evolve into their vision of what they intended. Again this is my opinion.

The Munich silhouette is an artist rendition, not a mold.

I never said crappy temperament, you did. Temperament, like fronts or rears needs to be bred for.

Not to debate any further, but read Fariview's prior post. Facts are facts. Opinion are opinions.

Burning River, PM me if you would like to further debate this. I think everyone by now knows our positions. No sense in ruining a good post and having it locked up.

[BoxerWB]

Lisa -  I think equating "more bone" with "sturdier" is a mistake.  Thick bones put together wrong are still going to cause problems.  Thicker bones and more bulk also doesn't necessarily mean stronger either. 

I'd suggest that whatever breeders you are interested in, check around w/the knowledgeable breeders of our little forum.  They may be able to tell you more about the breeder (both good and bad) that folks only really hear when they are involved with the breed.  I know I've learned quite a bit in off-board discussions with several of our breeder-members.

[BurningRiver]

Lisa -  I think equating "more bone" with "sturdier" is a mistake.  Thick bones put together wrong are still going to cause problems.  Thicker bones and more bulk also doesn't necessarily mean stronger either. 

Thanks--my point exactly. In fact, bulk in an improperly constructed dog can actually add to the problem in that there is more weight for the improper construction to lug around.

I never said that the European boxer maintained any similarity to what our forefathers intended. But the European boxer did evolve into their vision of what they intended. Again this is my opinion.

What are you basing this off of? Did you personally speak with our breed's forefathers? Did you read something that somehow stated that our forefathers intended for a clunky dog with a muzzle that is roughly 1:4 the length of it's skull?

IMO, the FCI did the breed a *huge* disservice when they wrote the word "elegance" out of their standard. Now, we see extremes in the other direction.

And if you feel that I'm being unfair, simply do a search for the word "racy" and you'll return posts in which I've talked about how I feel that American dogs are becoming too racy. The fact of the matter is that no one country has yet developed the perfect boxer, but I'm 100% tired of having American dogs trashed because people think the grass is greener on the other side of the pond. Euros have their problems too.

The Munich silhouette is an artist rendition, not a mold.

It was an artist's rendition of what was and should still be considered to be ideal. It was a rendition of what is written in our standard and it can easily be seen that it's obviously ideal, per our standard.

I never said crappy temperament, you did. Temperament, like fronts or rears needs to be bred for.

I stand corrected. You insinuated it.

Not to debate any further, but read Fariview's prior post. Facts are facts. Opinion are opinions.

What fact?

Burning River, PM me if you would like to further debate this. I think everyone by now knows our positions. No sense in ruining a good post and having it locked up.

You brought it up. You could have easily made your point without trashing American dogs in an already heated thread.

[fairview Boxers]

If you look at MANY Euro dogs (not I say many not all), their fronts are WAY bigger than their rears, and this causes disproportions and causes the gate to be off, as well as angles, and it throws the "true" ness of the dog off. 
Look for the style you like, from a reputable breeder, that has facts to base their dogs up.  Opions are great from many people, but everyone has one!!!  You are better to base your choices off of facts!  And, remember that just because a Boxer is winning in it's ring, doesn't mean it is the best choice!  Sometimes it is best to look for a Boxer that ISN"T in the ring or hasn't been in the ring for  a while....
You need to tally the style and structure you like, and see if there is an average dog amongst those lines... (do you know what I mean by an average dog?- meaning a dog that is in each of the pedigree's of the current dog(s) you like)....

[aquagirl900]

Ok, is it just me, or do a some, (not all) Euro boxers look like a Mastiff with a pug face?

[Lisa]

1. European dogs are NOT healthier.

Do you know that there is no difference in the incidence of cancer, heart disease, allergies, lifespan or anything else between European and U.S. Boxers?  It seems like there must be some differences, and it would be interesting to see data on the rates of things in the different populations.  It sure seems like I see a lot more European Boxers living into double digit years than U.S., based on my extensive reviewing of various breeders' websites and forum posts.

Yes. At one point, I was looking pretty intently at breeding to a Euro and doing all of the pedigree research that always comes along with any breeding consideration that I make. This usually includes making comparisions with unrelated dogs (heck, if I'm going to go to the expense of breeding to a dog from another country, I should check out what other options are available as well). While the dog I was looking at was *very* healthy and had *wonderful* longevity, the more I looked at others and asked around within the breeding community, the more I was told, "Stay faaaaaar away from x line, or be very careful of x breeder because they're not always truthful about health testing, or there are lots of problems with x in that line." All of these things most pet owners do not know about, and since the Euro community is *much* smaller here, secrets are much easier to keep covered up.

That's all good to know, but I don't see how it determines whether there is a difference in the rates of various health problems or average lifespans between U.S. and European Boxers.  I think it would be very odd if there were no differences.  I've long wondered where "average lifespan" figures come from, and it would be nice to have studies done and statistics available. 

It is my understanding that German Boxers are and have for some time been required to pass some health testing in order to have their offspring registered.

This isn't true. Germany has their fair share of BYB's as well. (I learned this straight from a German breeder's mouth.)

How do they get away with registering their puppies if there is a rule that they must pass a ZTP test to have registered offspring?

There are four (some say five) different kinds of drive. Pack, prey, fear and fight. (Some say sex and food drive are in there--I disagree. Food drive is a modified version of pack drive and sex drive isn't really usable in training, so it's of no consequence.) You don't want a dog that is high in any one of the drives, rather, you want a dog that is of an equal balance in all. Once you have a dog that tips the scale too far in one direction, you have a dog that is out of balance and one that becomes a problem. For example, a dog that has too high of a pack drive has separation anxiety. A dog that has too high of prey drive is unreliable in training. A dog that has too high of a fear drive is a spook. A dog that has too high of a fight drive is aggressive. A dog that has too high of fear *and* fight drive is a horrible dog to live with and a huge liability to their owner. A dog that is high in all four drives can conceivably have *all* of the issues that I mentioned above (and I currently have a dog living in my home that does and she's not been an easy keeper). A good breeder knows the difference and knows how to select for proper temperament and what mix in the "soup" creates a good pet and training prospect.

  Thank you for that explanation and information.

Cancer isn't something that can even be weeded out of a line at this point.. It is too unpredictable in any breed or any species of animal.  Unfortunately it is also found in EVERY single country and region as well... so if you are looking away from cancer, I am afraid your search will be fruitless...

I think a bloodline with a lower incidence of cancer is less likely to produce a dog who gets cancer.  I know it is possible to get a puppy with lots of health problems who dies very young despite every dog in its pedigree for 10 generations back living to 15+ years, and despite giving it the best of care.  I just think such a dog would be more likely to be healthier and live longer than one from a pedigree full of dogs who died young of heritable things like cancer or heart disease.

Definitely do your research as you would for a US boxer. Also be mindful that a long distance transaction can be a risky one. The breeders of European boxers are not all good citizens.

Thanks.  I won't be importing a puppy, don't even want to get one more than a day's drive from here.

Part of the reason I am interested in working lines is because they have to be very athletic and healthy to perform well, and I really want a healthy, athletic dog.  Successful Schutzhund performance would seem to indicate that a dog's conformation is at least good enough to be functional for an active life.  I'm probably using the wrong words to describe what I mean about European Conformation lines, U.S. Conformation lines, and Schutzhund lines tending to be built differently but it seems most people here agree with me that they do tend to be built differently.  To me, working Boxers tend to look more European, and usually are.  If I just decided to get a Boxer from Schutzhund lines it would most likely end up being European even if I wasn't looking for that, based on what I've been seeing so far.  So the topic of this thread might as well be "Should I get a puppy from Conformation or Schutzhund lines?"

I'd suggest that whatever breeders you are interested in, check around w/the knowledgeable breeders of our little forum.  They may be able to tell you more about the breeder (both good and bad) that folks only really hear when they are involved with the breed.  I know I've learned quite a bit in off-board discussions with several of our breeder-members.

  Thanks.  I am doing that as well.

[alncris]

Burning River : I think that you are flying way off the handle over the post. We all wants whats best for the breed. The point I am trying to make is not that the grass is greener on the other side, because they have their issues as well. Trust me, as I have learned the hard way. Perhaps one day we can meet at a show and chat about it civilly over coffee or if you ever vacation in Florida, please look me up.
My feeling is that the boxer in Europe is a better representation physically and temperament wise of what the boxer was and should be. I agree that the head is way off. Simply comparing the modern Euro head to the photos of Frau Stockmann dogs is amazing to me. Not to mention a shorter muzzle makes for smaller teeth, which is counter productive for a dog that should be able to bite. Clunky? I disagree.
The US boxer has fallen victim to greed.  Breeders produce what people want to buy. They want pretty dogs with soft temperaments. They are attractive to look at and easy to keep. As you know a working dog without a job is a PITA. Not to mention the liability of it all.
As far as speaking to forefathers I never did speak to them, wish I could. But it was you that initially dragged them into this....lol
I have said this many times before...I would like to see the US boxer gain some substance and temperament be a factor in the breedings. I think a middle ground needs to be reached. Until then I will stick with European dogs.

[Newcastle]

My feeling is that the boxer in Europe is a better representation physically and temperament wise of what the boxer was and should be.

I think this would be better stated as the Boxer in Europe is a better representation physically and temperamentally of what *you think* the Boxer was and should be.  The reality is that "European" Boxers (by which I mean Continental Europe) vary just as much from the original standard as American Boxers do, just in the opposite direction.  (In fact, it could be argued that American Boxers are closer to the original standard, because they in general retain elegance, balance, and the all-round, easy temperament described in the original document, moreso than Continental dogs do.)

That's all good to know, but I don't see how it determines whether there is a difference in the rates of various health problems or average lifespans between U.S. and European Boxers.  I think it would be very odd if there were no differences. 

Interesting - I'd find it odd if there were significant differences.  Granted, certain lines might have better health or longevity than others, but that's true in any country.  There do seem to be more problems with AS and spondylosis on the Continent than there are in the US.

I've long wondered where "average lifespan" figures come from, and it would be nice to have studies done and statistics available.

It would be nice, but they're not done yet.   The ABC Memorial Wall shows an average lifespan of about 9 years - primarily US and Canadian dogs - but this is skewed, because dogs who die young are more often honored on the Wall than those who die at advanced ages.  (And yet, there are many dogs that lived into their teens on the Wall.)

How do they get away with registering their puppies if there is a rule that they must pass a ZTP test to have registered offspring?

The same way breeders in the US get around Limited AKC Registrations; they find another registry. 

Also keep in mind that while the ZTP is a worthwhile test, it is done one time when the dog is two years old; with some of the late-onset diseases prevalent in Boxers, a dog that passes the ZTP at two might fail it at five. 

I think a bloodline with a lower incidence of cancer is less likely to produce a dog who gets cancer. 

I look at that from the other direction; a line with a high incidence of cancer is more likely than average to produce cancer.  However, since cancer in dogs is estimated to be 60% environmental, I wouldn't consider a line with a lower incidence to be of a lower risk than average.

I just think such a dog would be more likely to be healthier and live longer than one from a pedigree full of dogs who died young of heritable things like cancer or heart disease.

Of course; and as I know you know, that's true of a dog from any country.

Part of the reason I am interested in working lines is because they have to be very athletic and healthy to perform well, and I really want a healthy, athletic dog.  Successful Schutzhund performance would seem to indicate that a dog's conformation is at least good enough to be functional for an active life.

Possibly.  There are breeders who have generations of Agility dogs that would also indicate health and athleticism, especially those still competing at an advanced age.  Not to try to change your mind - everyone has a preference and if a Continental line is what you want, that's your option.   It does help others, I think, to discuss the various possibilities.

As far as "drive" goes, I think there are "drives" such as Jessica described, and then there's what people just call "drive", which can be likened to motivation or persistence or energy or heart or gameness - or, as one explanation I liked put it, in terms of a "high-drive" dog, as "more hunger than balance in virtually all situations".  The two are not mutually exclusive.   In general, those who breed for Schutzhund focus on this drive - this desire to keep going, and going, and going - and so it would make sense that puppies from these breeders would in general be more likely to have this type of temperament.  (Of course there will be exceptions, as there always are.)  It's not that these dogs are "better" or "worse" than the average-drive Boxer; they're just different, and can be more challenging for those who haven't lived with that sort of temperament before.  (A comparison, though more exaggerated, might be if someone who had always had Bassett Hounds suddenly brought home a Parson Russell; major difference in drive, energy, and temperament between the two breeds!)  These high-drive dogs typically have an "off" switch, and when that switch is flipped can be calmer and more self-possessed than average-drive dogs.

[Lisa]

That's all good to know, but I don't see how it determines whether there is a difference in the rates of various health problems or average lifespans between U.S. and European Boxers.  I think it would be very odd if there were no differences.

Interesting - I'd find it odd if there were significant differences.  Granted, certain lines might have better health or longevity than others, but that's true in any country.  There do seem to be more problems with AS and spondylosis on the Continent than there are in the US.

I would think that two populations kept separate for the most part for this long would develop differently in health as well as conformation.  More AS and spondylosis in one group than the other would be an example of what I mean.

How do they get away with registering their puppies if there is a rule that they must pass a ZTP test to have registered offspring?

The same way breeders in the US get around Limited AKC Registrations; they find another registry.

Maybe I learned sooner than most people, we had a couple of UKC registered dogs growing up, but I remember even as a child knowing that only the AKC and UKC were real, legitimate registries in the U.S., the others were jokes, and don't know how so many people get away with selling dogs as "registered" with other papers.

cancer in dogs is estimated to be 60% environmental

Is that for all types of cancer?  When I was reading about lymphoma at least a couple of sources said it was primarily genetic.  And if it's mostly environmental then why would it be so common in some breeds such as Boxers and Golden Retrievers but so rare in others?

Part of the reason I am interested in working lines is because they have to be very athletic and healthy to perform well, and I really want a healthy, athletic dog.  Successful Schutzhund performance would seem to indicate that a dog's conformation is at least good enough to be functional for an active life.

Possibly.  There are breeders who have generations of Agility dogs that would also indicate health and athleticism, especially those still competing at an advanced age.  Not to try to change your mind - everyone has a preference and if a Continental line is what you want, that's your option.   It does help others, I think, to discuss the various possibilities.

I am definitely interested in other possibilities, thanks.  Are there people who breed Boxers with a focus on Agility competition?  One thing I asked in my original post is whether there is another option besides getting a dog from a Conformation show breeder or a Schutzhund breeder.  It seems that many Schutzhund dogs compete into their later years too so there's that plus the ZTP and other physical testing done when they're young as evidence of their good health.

[fairview Boxers]

My understanding of the German registration (which could be wrong, I am still learning) is that a dog that passes the ZTP will have that listed on their registration papers, a dog that isn't cleared by the ZTP will have that listed on their registration papers so as to "forwarn" the buyer.. BUT, as Jennifer stated, if they go with another registration club, that would nullify the results...


Jessica, the drive explanation was excellent....  Completely excellent, I was just educated!!!!!!

[blynn03]

As far as "drive" goes, I think there are "drives" such as Jessica described, and then there's what people just call "drive", which can be likened to motivation or persistence or energy or heart or gameness - or, as one explanation I liked put it, in terms of a "high-drive" dog, as "more hunger than balance in virtually all situations".  The two are not mutually exclusive.   In general, those who breed for Schutzhund focus on this drive - this desire to keep going, and going, and going - and so it would make sense that puppies from these breeders would in general be more likely to have this type of temperament.  (Of course there will be exceptions, as there always are.)  It's not that these dogs are "better" or "worse" than the average-drive Boxer; they're just different, and can be more challenging for those who haven't lived with that sort of temperament before.  (A comparison, though more exaggerated, might be if someone who had always had Bassett Hounds suddenly brought home a Parson Russell; major difference in drive, energy, and temperament between the two breeds!)  These high-drive dogs typically have an "off" switch, and when that switch is flipped can be calmer and more self-possessed than average-drive dogs.

I want to add something here - I don't think there is really a difference between the types of drives as you describe (the "four drives" versus "drive/motivation/persistence, etc.").  That second "high drive" dog you mention is really just one that has high pack, prey and fight drive, and low flight drive - that motivation is due to pack and prey drives, that persistence is from pack/prey/fight drives, the "gameness" is fight drive (if I'm understanding the use of "gameness" correctly, that is), etc.   While I do agree that Sch. breeders are looking for a the right temperament, I think that this "high drive dog" is just a certain balance of the 4 drives Jessica mentioned.

One example of this is the way I worked with Bella to make her "more drivey."  I can't really change what she was born with, but I can try to enhance certain things.  She has relatively high prey drive, but only medium pack drive (the other drives don't play a role in this particular situation).  In order to make Bella respond better to agility training, I worked on enhancing her pack drive in a couple ways.  Firstly, I used her prey drive to help - by playing various food games and tug games.  Secondly - I hand fed her meals occasionally, but ALWAYS on agility class night.  Her pack drive was enhanced because she learned that I really control ALL resources (versus just putting a bowl of food on the floor - she had to do what I told her for every morsel of that meal).  She became much more focused on me during training/working situations - it was awesome.

And another note - without doing this type of training regularly (since we're not currently doing agility or anything) - she has slowly reverted back to being more independent and less focused on me.  To me this is evidence that you can enhance, but not permanently change (unless you continue X training for the rest of their life), what they're born with.

[BurningRiver]

As far as "drive" goes, I think there are "drives" such as Jessica described, and then there's what people just call "drive", which can be likened to motivation or persistence or energy or heart or gameness - or, as one explanation I liked put it, in terms of a "high-drive" dog, as "more hunger than balance in virtually all situations".  The two are not mutually exclusive.   In general, those who breed for Schutzhund focus on this drive - this desire to keep going, and going, and going - and so it would make sense that puppies from these breeders would in general be more likely to have this type of temperament.  (Of course there will be exceptions, as there always are.)  It's not that these dogs are "better" or "worse" than the average-drive Boxer; they're just different, and can be more challenging for those who haven't lived with that sort of temperament before.  (A comparison, though more exaggerated, might be if someone who had always had Bassett Hounds suddenly brought home a Parson Russell; major difference in drive, energy, and temperament between the two breeds!)  These high-drive dogs typically have an "off" switch, and when that switch is flipped can be calmer and more self-possessed than average-drive dogs.

I want to add something here - I don't think there is really a difference between the types of drives as you describe (the "four drives" versus "drive/motivation/persistence, etc.").  That second "high drive" dog you mention is really just one that has high pack, prey and fight drive, and low flight drive - that motivation is due to pack and prey drives, that persistence is from pack/prey/fight drives, the "gameness" is fight drive (if I'm understanding the use of "gameness" correctly, that is), etc.   While I do agree that Sch. breeders are looking for a the right temperament, I think that this "high drive dog" is just a certain balance of the 4 drives Jessica mentioned.

And I'll argue that a dog like this is a trainwreck, both in training and in the home. A dog with high prey drive can't be trusted around cats, squirrels, children, etc, etc. And a high fear drive certainly isn't desirable in a working prospect.

Again, I have a dog, currently living in my home, who is high in all drives. She has separation anxiety (pack drive), she'll take off after squirrels, rabbits and cats (prey--she *cannot* be trusted to hold a down stay outside, despite the countless hours of training I have into her), she's shy of men and some environments (fear drive--it affected showing and training, it's very unpredictable and I can't be sure what situations she's going to be uncomfortable in) and she can be dog aggressive (fight). This bitch is also stubborn and persistent. "High drive" is a complete misnomer and totally incorrect and IMO, shouldn't be used. "High drive" does not make a good working prospect. A balanced dog does.

[blynn03]

"High drive" does not make a good working prospect. A balanced dog does.

I'll agree that there is a such thing as being too high in any/all of those drives.  But in a balanced dog - at least for a boxer - you would want prey, pack and fight drive to be approximately equal (at what "level," who's to say), and flight drive to be a little lower than all of the others, right (which would account for the "fearless courage if threatened" part of the standard)?