[PyrNet-L] Re: Size, et al

["Maureen & Dave Simon" <msimon@ptd.net>]

> jdmigas@email.msn.com writes:
> I have
>  been told by many of people that my dog is too typey ?  whatever, that is
>  supposed to mean. >>
>> Hey, Dianne, sounds like double speak to me.  You must have a really nice 
>>dog 
>> if they go to that length to criticize.
>> 
>> Joe

Believe me, Joe; she does. And more than one. Lene would not have been 
disappointed with the pictures.

I've often been amused / infuriated by this common (American?) phrase "too 
typey". What else can it really mean except "too close to the description for 
the standard type for the breed"? This is SUPPOSED to be the breeder's GOAL!

In each breed, the same phrase has different connotations, but in 
American Pyr circles it's usually shorthand for too (falsely & stereotypically) 
'French'; especially in reference to the head. In the speakers view, the dog 
doesn't have either enough skull mass for the length of muzzle, or enough 
stop, or enough bone for the height, or all the above. POSSIBLY valid 
points, but unfortunate language. Since "typey" is, by definition, a good  
thing, I've long ago switched to the word "style" to refer to the various 
preferred 'looks' that Pyrs can have. 

In general, I would like to congratulate the List, and especially Joe, for 
maintaining the overall quality and demeanor of the "breeding / standard / 
size" discussions. Too many can not even discuss these subjects without quickly 
lapsing into divisive partisanship for their particular preferences. Over the 
years, I've found that most folks tend to stick with the "style", for 
good or ill, of Pyr with which they first fell in love. This would 
only be natural. Some chord inside them was plucked which said "Now THIS is MY 
kinda dog". Whether that means a lumbering, drooling, droopy-eyed beasty, 
or a tiny, snipey, wisp of a thing, it's equally hard and rare for people to be 
open to persuasion by the words "no - now THIS is what you should love 
instead" if it doesn't match the picture in their hearts. Only those who 
can separate the Breed from their backyard and come to equally love the 
abstraction are open, through educated, to a true change of heart.   

>Its probably just semantics and so subjective to not be
>worth the debate. Giant, massive, immense or whatever
>the breed should be large.

Correct Joe. For the revision to the current Amer. Standard, the AKC was quite 
adamant about using words which would muddy the comparison between one breed 
and another in the mind of a judge. If the old "immense size" was left in, 
what words would be left for the Irish Wolfhouds; "extra gigunda"? :-) The 
term "great" was picked to convey "big", while remaining subjective enough to 
leave wiggle-room for everybody else. It always reminded me of the sizes on the 
cans of black/ripe olives; "extra large","jumbo", "colossal" and some others. 
Which one is bigger, anyway?

Dave Simon
------------------
All opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
Everyone else is required, by law, to find something else to say.
------------------
Maureen & Dave Simon              msimon@ptd.net
Whitehope Great Pyrenees
Harrisburg, PA 717-545-4477