Appreciating UNIVERSAL BOXER TYPE
W hy is it that some breeds have a ‘Univer- sal Type’ that appears basi- cally the same throughout the world and other breeds, Boxers for instance, are phenotypically di ff erent depending on what part of the world in which they are created? For years, I have tried to understand this very chal- lenging concept, as it relates to the Boxer breed I dedicate myself to bettering, and I’m afraid to say that the answer may pos- sibly be the number of people actively breeding Boxers, that seem to have little understanding or interest in learning what makes a good Boxer, per the breed standard in any region worldwide. While there are some minor di ff erences in each region’s interpretation of their Boxer stan- dard, the standards are all fundamentally similar in their description of the breed. So why do the Boxers from di ff erent parts look so di ff erent than what we all see at
By Michael Todd
local shows? Th ough it seems rather awk- ward for a conformation judge to have so much variety in breed type to examine at a large specialty show or national event, and in many cases, you can note such variety in the classes of our American Boxer national specialty, that there appear to be di ff erent breeds competing amongst ‘our Boxers’. Th is original question of Universal Type in Boxers, is what I would like to discuss, as it relates to all Boxer breeders interested in joining e ff orts to produce dogs of uniform type at a global level, rather than sentimental attachment to show careers and changing the progno- sis of the breed, regardless of consistent universal breed likeness. Realizing that the many active breeders have chosen the Boxer as their breed for its di ff erent characteristics and for various reasons, I accept that this may be a di ffi cult con- cept for some and they may find it hard to relate. My early images of Boxers came from the time when I was just learning
about the di ff erent characteristics of the many breeds common then; these are images that stay with me throughout my experience as a breeder, though education from a few senior Boxer ‘specialists’ along the way has aided in a more thorough understanding of those characteristics most crucial to breed type. Other breed- ers must also work with their own early images as well, but I doubt that any two have the exact same images to draw from as they develop their own proposition of a Boxer. Presumably, those di ff erences in their early breed models, education of breed history and rendering of the ideas projected from the standard, together with sentimentality of the multitude of breeders in the position to make breed- ing decisions that influence the vision and foresight of the breed, all prove to be a challenge in achieving the end result of Universal Type in Boxers, at present… but it doesn’t hurt to share thoughts on the subject. Just as there are breeds which have experienced dissent among breeders and parent clubs regarding the purity of type in their breed—such as that of the great Japanese Akita/American Akita debate— it could be reasoned that Boxer breed- ers and parent clubs find similar issue in the future, as the breed image around the world has become less uniform over time. What will constitute an exemplary Boxer in one country, could someday be unaccepted as a Boxer in another coun- try, as their traits become more exagger- ated and breeders concern themselves with the fashion and style in their corner of the globe. Sure, this is a hypothetical situation, but not so o ff the wall when you consider the idea of breeding trends a ff ecting the form and functionality of both individuals within a breed and the breed in general. If you can follow what you’ve read so far, then you might be
4 )08 4 *()5 . "(";*/& . ": t
Powered by FlippingBook