"No. Not when discussing bulldog skulls. Wouldn't a head that had good height when looking at him from the front have good length when viewing him from the side? Think of coming up to a mountain.. looks high.. when driving next to it, that height translates to a long distance, ie, length.
Requiring eyes and ears to be as far from each other clearly defines length in the skull."
Why is it used many times over in the Standard as a description then?
"Viewed from the front, it should appear very high from the corner of the lower jaw to the apex of the skull, and also very broad and square. Viewed at the side, the head should appear very high, and very short from the point of the nose to occiput."
So you're saying personally you don't like to use it as a description?
Height and length would translate to the same thing you're describing regarding a mountain. "Apex" which I mentioned and described in the Standard. I've seen dogs with good overall length of skull but lacked "height". Usually rounding off or leveling out near the ears so viewed from the front the head did not appear "very high" or from the side appear "very high" or as high as they should be. However the distance from eye to ear was good. That is still length of skull is it not?
"Two-planed" or .."shelfy" are describing dogs that do not have the single planed layback. It has nothing to do with a book shelf.
Dogs of this sort have no height to their foreheads because the skull "cuts back" to the back of the head instead of having a hard line through the furrow.
Term "Shelfy" I guess came about as a ways to describe that overhanging forehead.
Here is shelfy vs not shelfy;
Shelfy is not a Standard term which I stated and demonstrated how I was utilizing the word. I don't see much difference between your examples and mine.
"Dogs of this sort have no height to their foreheads because the skull "cuts back" to the back of the head instead of having a hard line through the furrow."
The dog in your picture appears to lack height to his forehead and the top of his skull. The Standard description regarding furrows.
"Stop -- The temples or frontal bones should be very well defined, broad, square and high, causing a hollow or grove between the eyes. This indentation, or stop, should be both broad and deep and extend up the middle of the forehead, dividing the head vertically, being traceable to the top of the skull."
Does the Standard not clearly state a lower part of the skull "between the eyes" middle "extend up the middle of the forehead" and top part "being traceable to the top of the skull"? You said the dog in your picture only lacked height to his forehead + hard line through furrow. I would have to disagree with that statement. I believe he lacks height to his forehead and top of his skull (overall height to his skull). If you want to call it a forehead, that's up to you. Maybe take into consideration what the term "fore" means. "Located at or toward the front; forward." "Earlier in order of occurrence" Just as the "foreface" comes before the rest of the head, "forehead" would come before the rest of the head/skull. Even if that dog had a hard line/furrow as you are saying the distance from eye to ear is still wrong as the Standard calls for the ears to be "as high, and as far from the eyes as possible". It is far from the eyes but not high. Just my opinion.
Posted on Jul 10, 2010, 8:22 PM from IP address 220.127.116.11