Chimera Kennels

after reading through here i see there are a few other bandog breeders. thought i would ask if any of you guys ever use bull terrier blood? why or why not?

I have never used Bull Terrier blood. The dropped nose is a weakness. If it was a true roman nose that was just a product of reinforcement over the nasal ridge, I think it would be much better, but by dropping the nose the really weaken the capacity of the bite due to poor leverage of the muscles that connect the lower jaw to the top of the skull and also the zygomatic arch.

Additionally, in terms of best to best...the APBT consistently trumps the EBT in pretty much every way...be it gameness, tenacity, stamina, power, size in the catch weight dogs, agility, and heat tollerances...regardless of what the European fans think.

Finally, the EBT is more prone to rank/dominance within the pack than is the APBT...which is something I don't like.

wow, that is not what i have been hearing for quite some time. glad i now know. 

can you elaborate on roman nose? never heard the term before.

RAMBO at January 7, 2012 at 10:46 PM

wow, that is not what i have been hearing for quite some time. glad i now know. 

can you elaborate on roman nose? never heard the term before.

"Roman nose" is a term that is often used when describing a type of nasal bridge in humans or other mammals. There is a lack of stop or dip between the eyes. Instead, the nasal bridge is built up and goes straight (or in some cases even archs outward) from the tip of the nose to the forhead.

The dip or stop between the eyes may reduce triangulation reinforcement to the nasal bridge...and therefore the lack of such a dip in a true Roman Nose may make a stronger nasal bridge for an animal such as the dog where it supports the upper canines...although I suspect it would be irrelivent in humans since the nasal bridge doesn't support the upper jaw for humans as it does with canines.

Both this man and the lamb have a "roman nose."

An extreme roman nose that archs up...which may appear to have a stop but if you look at the top of the nose it doesn't drop in to the eyes in relation to the forehead.

Now, for a canine, the bite pressure is not determined by the nose, as bite strength comes from the muscles that connect the lower jaw to the zygomatic arch and also the top of the skull; however, the nasal ridge on the upper jaw may still play a roll in just how much pressure the bite can deliver as it reinforces the foundational strength of the upper jaw...and therefore may play a roll in just how much pressure the lower jaw can apply against such.

Look at the strong nasal ridge of the hyena...and notice the lack of stop...which may be a "Roman nose." This is the strongest mammaliam bite known...and is the second strongest bite relative to body size among warm blooded creatures. The tasmanian devil also has a INCREDIBLY strong bite. Check out their nasal reinforcement and lack of stop between the eyes...It creates an ILLUSION of a shorter muzzle but if you look at the jaw itself the mouth is not shorter in length. Instead, there is just a "rafter" running down the forhead that reinforces the nasal ridge further out. If we removed the material on this nasal ridge so more stop was visible between the eyes...we would notice the muzzle itself isn't reduced in length (by any significant degree anyway).

Hyena...

The strength of their teeth is clearly visible...

Their skull...notice the reinforced nasal ridge, the reinforced lower jaw, and the size of the zygomatic arch as well as the "blade" on the top of the skull for muscle attachment

Tasmanian Devil (the king of bite power among warm blooded animals when adjusted for its size)...and if you look at the angle of the blade on the top of the skull, the size of the zygomatic arch, and the size of and the angle of the lower jaw in relationship to the skull...it is no wonder that their nasal ridge requires so much reinforcment in order to support the pressures the lower jaw is able to deliver.

This is NOT the design of the (English) Bull Terrier...as the EBT/BT has a nose that DROPS in relation to the skull. At first it may appear as if the EBT/BT doesn't have a stop, but the truth is if you look at the top of the skull...the nasal ridge drops JUST AS IF their is a stop...except after the drop it doesn't straighten back out. It just keeps going down. As a result, the lower jaw is NOT perpendicular to the muscle attachment that brings the lower jaw closed. The muscle attachment in the lower jaw in the EBT/BT is therefore working at a leverage DISADVANTAGE because of HOW the upper jaw's deformaty FORCES the lower jaw to have poor angle of pull/leverage from the force applied by the muscles coming from the zygomatic arch in relation to the top of the skull...which ultimately the zygomatic arch and the blade on the top of the skull are the "anchors" for bite force. Since the lower jaw of the EBT/BT is in such piss poor position, the BT has to work much harder to deliver the same bite force as another canine where the lower jaw is in better position.

The EBT/BT skull in the middle in relationship to OLDER BT or other breeds...(it should be noted that skulls all placed in the same position when looking at the top of the skull). Purebred bull terrier skulls from 1931 (Top), 1950 (Middle), and 1976 (Bottom).

The following pictures are more EBT/BT pictures from 1930, 1950, and 1980, and here you can see how this altered upper jaw forces the lower jaw to change it's position.

1930...

1950...

1980...

They had a decent thing going, and then in my opinion took it too far. Just because a little is good doesn't mean a lot is better. I think this happened because the breed turned "show" after the APBT evolved and made the EBT obsolete. Also, look at the canines on the lower jaw in the 1980 photo. They don't line up at all with the upper jaw...perhaps this all can be fixed quickly, but I feel that is starting from behind the starting line. I think the BT of 1930 would be superior to the ones of 1980, but I do not say the same thing for the APBT. I think the APBT of 1980 was just as good as anything going on in 1930.

This last picture is a cat jaw, but it labels one part I want to bring attention to...the ramus and the coronoid process.

If we look at the coronoid process in the Bull Terrier in 1930, notice that it sticks up higher through the zygomatic process than it does in the BT in 1950 and 1980. Now, the EBT/BT may not be completely ruined because the ramus and coronoid although smaller, they have remained RELATELY close to the same position, but they are smaller and the body of the lower jaw is severely dropped. Changing the body angle in the lower jaw is most likely less critical than changing the ramus and coronoid process...but personally I would have to believe the ideal skull would be more along the lines of the hyena or tasmanian devil...which is NOTHING like the BT. Unfortunately, the hyena or the tasmanian devil are not canines nor are they domesticated...so that isn't possible or even something I would want to do either.

after reading it several times and looking at the pics i finally understand it. and was able to pinpoint what you are saying as in there is a drop, but it doesnt stop. in these last pics the 1950 skull doesnt look too bad. i had read somewhere else that the bt has the strongest bite due to its head shape but after being broken down and explained like this your point is clear to see. you are the only person i have heard of that has a degree and is breeding dogs. im sure i will learn a lot here.

so it could be possible to have something beneficial added in....if u were to find the right bt i guess. with as you said a true roman nose.

check these bt's out and hopefully im on the right path

this one seems to exhibit the roman nose

where as this one clearly has a stop, and then the drop

how about this dogue brasielerio? this dog raises the question of an apbt/bt cross skull type would be good?

thanks for going into such detail. i can tell im going to learn a lot here.

Thanks for the compliments. I did see one thing I needed to clarify so I re-wrote this paragraph. I believe this is better written that I had it originally.

"The dip or stop between the eyes may reduce triangulation reinforcement to the nasal bridge...and therefore the lack of such a dip in a true Roman Nose may make a stronger nasal bridge for an animal such as the dog where it supports the upper canines...although I suspect it would be irrelivent in humans since the nasal bridge doesn't support the upper jaw for humans as it does with canines."

I agree with your observations on the 1950 skull. If we had the ramus and the coronoid process of the lower jaw seen in 1930 BT, but the lower jaw body and upper skull of the 1950 BT...that would be SUGGESTIVE of power IMO. Of course, all of this is "form breeding" and needs to be kept in perspective. Bite really should be measured in power.

Your pictures - The position of the white dog's head is so high I can't tell for certain. I would have to get a better view of the top of the skull from the occiput to the forehead to get an idea of the relationship between the skull and the muzzle. The 2nd picture does represent a full drop...and is not a structure I would seek out. The last one is not bad.

I can't speak for anyones BT, but my own.They are the closes thing that I have found to a true APBT.The major difference is they have more of an edge(civil) to them.Never have I had a rank driven BT in all the years I have owned or know them.They are typical terriers high in prey,and just want to please their owners.They are extreemly courageous ,and are great workers.The negatives are strong willed(stuborness) sometimes dog agreesion, and poor targeting because of the stop or lack of. I have used them in sport, catch work , and PP. They excell in each. There are still some good ones out there you just have to know were to look . : ) Ben

http://www.wastelandbullies.com/index.html

I would suspect the "civil aggression" and "stubborn/strong willed" behavior is connected to rank drive even if it isn't creating dominant challenges between you and the dog. Of course, you seem to be pretty knowledgable and have probabaly established some good expections of behavior betwen your relationship with him.

these are awesome little dogs.....dogue brasileiro. basically a boxer x ebt cross. i think an apbt x ebt would probably be better though. get the post of both worlds.

2 decent vids to get a good look at the dogs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY5MVbF7sfY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0hsK01pBpU

and a working clip...check the dog run up and down those walls...granted it looks like the wall has some "holds" making it possible but still impressive imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eg2wGKzdc8

I was arguing with somebody on an Olde English Bulldog Board earlier this evening about whether an undershot bulldog jaw/bite would be stronger than a scissor bite.  My opinion is that either  the traditional or reverse scissor bite would generally, when based strictly on comparison, be stronger than an undershot bite. The other person made the claim that the undershot of 1/4 to 1/2 inch bite was stronger because of added length and leverage??? I remembered this post here and was curious what everyones opinion is on this topic? Mr. Robinson I think you may know the guy he goes by Irish Ben Jackson. I mentioned that I had a pup from you before and he said that you might know who he is? I base my opinion off the dogs that I've been bitten by, other's opinions that have taken many more bites than myself, and the fact that in mammalian carnivores in nature none that I can find have undershot bulldog type jaws. I know there are other more important factors that contribute to bite strength, but somebody please tell me if I am wrong. Thanks.

If all else is equal (assuming the both have similar desire to bite hard, same length muzzle, head type/sagittal crest, similar zygomatic arches, and similar development of the ramus, coronoid process, where muscle attaches)...then the longer body of an undershot bite would be weaker. Jaw muscle doesn't attach to the "body region" of the lower jaw and therefore additional body length of lower jaw would not increase the mechanical advantage (ability) of the jaw muscles. Instead, the added length in the jaw body would actually increase the distance between the resistence and the fulcrum...and would therefore work against the jaw by reducing the mechanical advantage of the jaw.

In physics, we learn that when working with leverage, the greater the distance between the force (muscle) and the fulcrum the more powerful the lever...meanwhile the greater the distance between the resistance and the fulcrum the weaker the lever. Length of each lever is determined by their distance from the fulcrum (the pivot). The fulcrum is the joint. The terminology for such is "mechanical advantage" or "MA." One can calculate the MA by dividing the length of the force lever (the distance from force to fulcrum) by the length of the resistance lever (the distance from the resistance to the fulcrum). The greater the MA, the more power can be delivered.

Nature knows this well...and that is why our molars (our crushing teeth) are at the rear of our mouths; therefore, closest to the fulcrum. This is also why some people believe a shorter muzzle (upper jaw) can bite harder than a longer muzzle...and in theory it could, but in practice when one shortens the muzzle too much, the dog isn't able to catch anything or get a good grip when it does rare get something. This is just one example as to why extremes should be avoided, and be replaced with balance.

Now, to some degree...this discussion is relatively mute because the problem with the English Bulldog isn't "longer lower jaws" creating an undershot bite, but is instead a product of a shorter and underdeveloped upper muzzle.

All things being equal a 2 inch muzzle will have more force at the end than a 4 inch muzzle, but the force will be the same 2 inches from the joint on both. Since dogs are trained to catch with full bites at the back of their mouths it's the same. The differences are the shorter muzzled dog will have more issues with heat and breathing. He'll also have less over all mouth to catch with, that limits him to biting smaller areas of the body. As for the underbite vs the scissor bite, even if the lower jaw were extended to make an underbite the canines are unsupported, while in a scissor bite the upper and lower canines support each other. When holding struggling prey the stresses on the teeth can be incredible, I think this is why so many hog hunters say boxers are bad about breaking teeth on the bite. Also bite pressure is nothing without hold, the interlocking configuration of the canines in a scissor bite make a very strong hold, while the out of line underbite leaves the top canines pushing against premolars and the bottom canines pushing against nothing. Any jaw upper or lower that doesn't meet it's counter part isn't biting surface because a bite has to be between two surfaces squeezing together. The english bulldog below can't bite you with the first 3rd of his lower jaw, all he can do is push up. With nothing to push down against it there is no bite. The last thing for me is the fact that every wild predator in the order carnivora use the scissor bite that tells me nature has constant selective pressure to maintain that bite. If there were a use for the underbite you'd see it somewhere in nature but for those animals who catch or die the scissor bite is preferred.

Compare the english bulldog on top to the wolf on bottom.

also

And btw

EBT 1915

Thank you very much for the responses gentlemen. I appreciate your taking the time very much. I'm glad you posted on the other board I was talking about as well Mr. Robinson. I didn't take the time to post as informative a response as you did and hopefully people will respect your statements there. I often post contrasting opinions to what several others do on there but get lashed out at everytime because I'm not part of their "clique". I like this board much better because everyone here acts like mature adults at all times. Thanks again for the great responses Sirs.

Mr. Ishee may I crost post your response on the other board? I would like for the members there to read it.

Once I saw the topic, I had to post my thoughts there too...lol.

David's post is equally on mark and 100% correct. Nice post David.

I am NOT correcting David's post...but just emphasizing the same point. David is a good writter and thinker IMO.

"All things being equal a 2 inch muzzle will have more force at the end than a 4 inch muzzle, but the force will be the same 2 inches from the joint on both. Since dogs are trained to catch with full bites at the back of their mouths it's the same."

Well said...in theory...but I would like to add emphasis on one of your follow up remarks that if the teeth of the lower jaw don't match up with their proper counterpart (as is the case with the EB), they just aren't able to do their job as well. When one considers that, while the "squeeze" may be there, the ability of the just isn't the same.

"The differences are the shorter muzzled dog will have more issues with heat and breathing. He'll also have less over all mouth to catch with, that limits him to biting smaller areas of the body."

Another good point.

"Also bite pressure is nothing without hold, the interlocking configuration of the canines in a scissor bite make a very strong hold, while the out of line underbite leaves the top canines pushing against premolars and the bottom canines pushing against nothing."

Yup, and that doesn't make for a bite...as a bite requires pressure on both sides.

That wasn't the first time I've encountered that type of response from him and others on there as well. The funniest thing is that I never said that undershot bites couldn't ever be strong, just that they weren't inherently stronger than scissor bites. I really liked his posts about all the undershot Bulldogs tearing up lions; tigers; and bears. I'll never understand why people get that defensive about someone disagreeing with them??? There are some good folks that frequent that board, but there are several who view themselves as "saviors" of the OEB and their egos are ridiculous. I think from here on out I'm just going to stop posting there. I really hate to see false statements posted as fact though. Thanks again.

Oh...the truth upsets any subjective person that has a motive to promote contrary views.

chimerakennels at January 29, 2012 at 9:55 AM

If all else is equal (assuming the both have similar desire to bite hard, same length muzzle, head type/sagittal crest, similar zygomatic arches, and similar development of the ramus, coronoid process, where muscle attaches)...then the longer body of an undershot bite would be weaker. Jaw muscle doesn't attach to the "body region" of the lower jaw and therefore additional body length of lower jaw would not increase the mechanical advantage (ability) of the jaw muscles. Instead, the added length in the jaw body would actually increase the distance between the resistence and the fulcrum...and would therefore work against the jaw by reducing the mechanical advantage of the jaw.

In physics, we learn that when working with leverage, the greater the distance between the force (muscle) and the fulcrum the more powerful the lever...meanwhile the greater the distance between the resistance and the fulcrum the weaker the lever. Length of each lever is determined by their distance from the fulcrum (the pivot). The fulcrum is the joint. The terminology for such is "mechanical advantage" or "MA." One can calculate the MA by dividing the length of the force lever (the distance from force to fulcrum) by the length of the resistance lever (the distance from the resistance to the fulcrum). The greater the MA, the more power can be delivered.

Nature knows this well...and that is why our molars (our crushing teeth) are at the rear of our mouths; therefore, closest to the fulcrum. This is also why some people believe a shorter muzzle (upper jaw) can bite harder than a longer muzzle...and in theory it could, but in practice when one shortens the muzzle too much, the dog isn't able to catch anything or get a good grip when it does rare get something. This is just one example as to why extremes should be avoided, and be replaced with balance.

Now, to some degree...this discussion is relatively mute because the problem with the English Bulldog isn't "longer lower jaws" creating an undershot bite, but is instead a product of a shorter and underdeveloped upper muzzle.

i know understand why everyone is against the boxer.

if you take a dog, and cross it with the boxer, what type of bite are you going to get?

the positive attributes of a boxer cross would be the stamina i guess, but would it be worth adding to compromise the bite? or would the bite not be an issue?