LARGEST DOG BREED
Curiou...@hotdog.com
Am dying to know what the world's largest dog breeds are. Have heard
that mastiffs get pretty big. Any others? What about rare breeds
like the Caucasian Shepherd?
Thanks!
layna
Most big Mastiff-types are larger than the Caucasian sheepdog.
Everyone's going to say the St. Bernard, and I think they'd be right,
excepting that there are other Mastiffs like the Neopolitan that have
been known to get as big. Certainly the single largest dog in America is
a St. Bernard. There was a magazine that staged a contest to find
America's Biggest Dog, and after six (?) months of sifting through
entries found a FAT St. Bernard. This little old lady owned him in a
small yard, she said that he could eat several pizzas in a sitting,
every night. Donuts, burgers...it was tragically hysterical. I believe
he weighed in at 300+pounds. He was absolutely enormous.
Mortie
Chip Douglas
Curiou...@hotdog.com wrote:
>
> Am dying to know what the world's largest dog breeds are. Have heard
> that mastiffs get pretty big. Any others? What about rare breeds
> like the Caucasian Shepherd?
>
The two tallest dogs I have ever seen were a Great Dane and a lobo
Wolf in Pennsylvania. The heaviest were a Mastiff and a St. Bernard.
Chip
DobeFan
The IW (Irish Wolfhound) is the TALLEST breed.
Mary Alice
Chip Douglas
DobeFan wrote:
>
> The IW (Irish Wolfhound) is the TALLEST breed.
> Mary Alice
I like them, the tallest dogs I ever saw as individual dogs were a
45 inch at the shoulders Great Dane and a Lobo Wolf in Pennsylvania
which looked even taller. Irish Wolfhounds are truly very tall and
beautiful animals. Some of my animals get mistaken for them.
Chip
DogStar716
The tallest AKC breed is considered to be the Irish Wolfhound (up to 34
inches). I think the St. Bernard would be the heaviest. But there are so
many rare breeds out there now, who knows?
Chip Douglas
No, Great Danes are taller than 34inches, wolves are taller than 34
and St. Bernards can be that tall too. I will look around saturday
at my dog's playmates and see how tall they are.
Chip
Chip Douglas
LEHunger wrote:
>
> Heaviest dog = St. Bernard
> Tallest dog = Irish Wolfhound
> Largest dog ????....... take your pick :-)
QUESTIONABLE?
CHIP
LEHunger
IrishCu
Great Dane have to be at least 30 inches (Males) at the shoulder and
females at least 28 inches. 32 inches in males is prefered and 30 inches
in females.
Saint Bernard have to be at least 27 1/2 inches for males, 25 1/2 inches
for females.
Mastiffs- 30 inches (at least) for males, 27 1/2 inches for females.
Wolfhound- Minimum for males is 32 inches, 30 inches for females. These
would be considered very small Wolfhounds, most females are 34" and males
35" to 36" some going even larger (37" to 38")
Deerhounds- Males 30" to 32", Females at least 28".
Betsy Barton
I was under the impression that Mastiffs were about the heaviest dogs,
while Irish Wolfhounds were the tallest.
Betsy & the Schips (who are neither heavy nor tall!)
Miche
In article <334374...@earthlink.net>
layna <la...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Most big Mastiff-types are larger than the Caucasian sheepdog.
> Everyone's going to say the St. Bernard, and I think they'd be right,
> excepting that there are other Mastiffs like the Neopolitan that have
> been known to get as big. Certainly the single largest dog in America is
> a St. Bernard. There was a magazine that staged a contest to find
> America's Biggest Dog, and after six (?) months of sifting through
> entries found a FAT St. Bernard. This little old lady owned him in a
> small yard, she said that he could eat several pizzas in a sitting,
> every night. Donuts, burgers...it was tragically hysterical. I believe
> he weighed in at 300+pounds. He was absolutely enormous.
He would indeed be the HEAVIEST dog in America.
As far as TALLEST breed goes, it's between the Great Dane and Irish
Wolfhound, leaning towards the Danes.
Miche
------------
Remove <no-ads> in header before emailing me.
What's in my posts is my opinion only. <*>
"Share your second favourite thing in the universe with a friend."
- All I ever needed to know, I learned from Babylon 5
DogStar716
Excuse me Chip, I was just reading the general requirements for that breed
out of a breed book. Of course there are taller dogs than that. As for
Great Danes, Irish Wolf hounds are GENERALLY taller (like I said, there
are exceptions). Minimum height for a male Dane is 30 inches at the
shoulder, preferably 32 inches or more. Minimum height for a female Dane
is 28 inches at the shoulder, preferably 30 or more inches. I am a Dane
owner and I do show him, so I am not totally ignorant. As for wolves,
they are not dogs, and I believe we were talking about DOG breeds.
ooooooooooooooh
Wolves are doggy grandfathers. I also have a neighbor who shows her
dane and it is 42 inches at the shoulder. The doggy is female and it
is a champion...fawn...biggest darn dane I have ever seen.
Chip
aaahhhhhhhhh!
RedFox421 wrote:
>
> Malamutes are very big dogs,
> Keeshounds come from Dingoes so there probably Big,
> Bull Mastiff, very big dog.
They are all big if they are mad at you while they chase you...teeth
look very very big.
Chip
Melissa Schilling
Keeshonds aren't very big. Books tend to identify them as between 40-70
pounds, but most of the ones I have seen were about 35-45 pounds. They
have a lot of fur, but if you get them wet you realize that it's a fairly
scrawny dog (and my vet says that mine is fat!) :)
Melissa
RedFox421
Tess
In article <19970404012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
lehu...@aol.com (LEHunger) wrote:
> Heaviest dog = St. Bernard
Wrong. The "heaviest dog" record is still held by an Old Eglish Mastiff
that topped out just under 300 lbs. and resided in England - you can se
pictures of him the Marie Moore book on Mastiffs, and I beleive there are
also photos in the Baxter/Blaxter book. There are quite a few males in the
USA right now that weigh around 260 lbs., although larger is definately
not necessarily healthier.
Please note that the English OEM managaed to reach that weight without
snacking on any toddlers, contrary to what some of these morons might
claim.
- Carol
--
Carol Taylor & The Bullmarket Bullies -
http://www.frenchbulldog.org/bullmarket.html
bullm...@frenchbulldog.org
French Bulldog Resource Center -
http://www.frenchbulldog.org
aaahhhhhhhhh!
Wasn't that a St. Bernard and the lady fed him hamburgers? It was on
tv...Hard Copy and he was and is a St. Bernard.
Chip
Melissa Bruce
A Bullmastiff is *not* a "big Mastiff." A Bullmastiff is a
different breed; originally a cross between the Old English Mastiff
and the Old English Bulldogge.
The person who said (Old English) Mastiffs are the heaviest breed and
Irish Wolfhounds the tallest was correct. Bullmastiffs (although huge
by some people's standards) aren't even in the same league.
Melissa (Jax's Mom)
The Carrolls
> > Keeshounds come from Dingoes so there probably Big,
Melissa didn't say that...I'm responding to that rediculous statement
above.
KEESHONDEN do not descend from Dingo. Keeshonden descend from the same
races as the Malamutes, Samoyeds & Chows. Dingo descend from a branch off
of the same family as (I believe) the Basenji, and aren't related to the
Spitz as closely as you seem to think. Keeshonden are about 18-20 inches
at the shoulder, no more than 50 lbs, I'd expect. They're a bit bigger
than a Cocker Spaniel. That's nowhere near "big" in my mind.
Emily
Alan Cowen
Melissa Bruce <meli...@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote in article
<5ibdui$4...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>...
> In article WAA1...@ladder01.news.aol.com, redf...@aol.com (RedFox421)
writes:
> The person who said (Old English) Mastiffs are the heaviest breed and
> Irish Wolfhounds the tallest was correct. Bullmastiffs (although huge
> by some people's standards) aren't even in the same league.
>
> Melissa (Jax's Mom)
>
>
Quite true - Irish Wolfhounds are the largest breed of dog. They are both
the tallest and longest of breeds, and a male will average from 150-200+
lbs. (without being overweight). The Irish Wolfhound has the tallest
_minimum_ height standard of all the dogs. The mastiff is no doubt one of
the heaviest breed but "large'" relates to overall size rather than weight.
Alan Cowen
The Hounds of Darragh
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
According to the 97 edition of Guiness the heaviest dog was a 343 lb
Mastiff who was 37 inches tall. The tallest was a 41.5 inch dog who
wieghed over 200. 97 edition didn't give breed, but earlier editions
said it was a Great Dane.
GingerPen
ST: BENARD
LEHunger
I'm glad someone else agrees with me. I stand by my assertion that, day
in and day out, a Saint will weigh more than a mastiff or any other dog.
leh
Mojo's Mom
Terri
IrishCu
Tallest and longest - Irish Wolfhounds
Heaviest - English Mastiffs hands down. I have never seen an adult male
mastiff that wasnt at least 240 lbs. The largest I saw was almost as tall
as a Wolfhound and was about 280 lbs.
Harrypup8
Wrong but that's your opinion so that's ok.
Chip
king
The largest single dog, according to Guinness B of R, is an English
Mastiff at 343 lbs.
Alan Cowen
king <ki...@iglobal.net> wrote in article
<3354f4cb...@news.iglobal.net>...
Wouldn't that be the HEAVIEST not the Largest. "Large" means above average
in magnitude, and 'magnitude' denotes size, extent or spatial quality.
Weight doesn't even enter into the picture. The Irish wolfhound is the
LARGEST breed, Where can we access the data that shows this Mastiff as the
"Largest" dog (as opposed to the heaviest)??
Melissa Schilling
Hehehehehehe...
Why, it sounds as if the only way to settle this extremely important
argument is if we actually calculate the volume of the top contending
dogs. I think we could do this via water displacement. All we need now
is for everyone to submit their largest dogs, and a giant beaker. Shall
we require the dogs to shave first, or should the fur be included in the
magnitude assessment?
:)
Melissa
Kieron Dodds
Large denotes space, yes, a *heavier* dog will take up more *space*
(assuming somewhat equal densities) and shouldn't be confused with tallest.
:) In any case, who cares which breed is the 'largest'? Personally, I'ld
much rather have people know which dog is best suited to them and their
environment than which dog is the biggest/smallest/fastest/blah/blah/blah.
--
Kieron Dodds
kdo...@msn.com
Alan Cowen wrote in article <01bc4a8c$5e653860$0100007f@localhost>...
king
>On 16 Apr 1997, Alan Cowen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> king <ki...@iglobal.net> wrote in article
>> > The largest single dog, according to Guinness B of R, is an English
>> > Mastiff at 343 lbs.
>> >
>> Wouldn't that be the HEAVIEST not the Largest. "Large" means above average
>> in magnitude, and 'magnitude' denotes size, extent or spatial quality.
>> Weight doesn't even enter into the picture. The Irish wolfhound is the
>> LARGEST breed, Where can we access the data that shows this Mastiff as the
>> "Largest" dog (as opposed to the heaviest)??
>>
>> Alan Cowen
>> The Hounds of Darragh
>>
Oh, I don't know - depends on how you define your terms. Guinness
says the heaviest single example of a dog is a 343 lb English Mastiff
and the tallest is a Great Dane at 41.5 in. It doesn't mention "size,
extent, or spatial quality" so I guess your quarrel is with Guinness.
Perhaps you could create your own little category!
Incidentally, size of dogs doesn't matter to me very much - I consider
performance to be significantly more important. I definitely don't
own any breed of dog that would contend for "Largest" anything except
perhaps "Biggest Attitude" or "Largest Percentage of Day Spent
Napping.". I cited Guinness just to bring a little objectivity to
your discussion.
Alan Cowen
king <ki...@iglobal.net> wrote in article
<3356c92d...@news.iglobal.net>...
Well again - where do you get your Guinness records from. Is there a
website I can go to and check because I had been under the impression that
the tallest dog on record was in fact an Irish Wolfhound and would like to
see when that changed. Certainly - there have been IW's on record that
topped 41.5" but it doesn't mean the owners registered with Guinness.
I don't think this thread ever had the intention of trying to see the
tallest 'individual' dog on record, but which is the largest breed. Of
course I can go to a show with my IW and occasionally see a Great Dane that
is taller, just as I could produce records of wolfhounds even taller than
that specific Dane. However - the Irish Wolfhound has the highest minimum
height requirement of any AKC registered breed and is generally known as
the largest breed.
Your comments about 'performance' are irrelevant to this particular thread.
Alan Cowen
Alan Cowen
Kieron Dodds <kdo...@msn.com> wrote in article
<5j6nf8$8...@argentina.earthlink.net>...
> Large denotes space, yes, a *heavier* dog will take up more *space*
> (assuming somewhat equal densities) and shouldn't be confused with
tallest.
Well don't assume equal densities. The IW has an extremely low bodyfat
ratio and and extremely high muscle to weight ratio so that fact that it
might have more actual mass when measured against another god (say a
mastiff) doesn't mean it's going to be heavier. However - it still will be
larger.
> :) In any case, who cares which breed is the 'largest'? Personally,
I'ld
> much rather have people know which dog is best suited to them and their
> environment than which dog is the
biggest/smallest/fastest/blah/blah/blah.
> --
I agree with you - I didn't start this thread I'm just stating the facts as
I know them. I personally don't care how big or small my wolfhounds are,
they are mine and I love them and they can still kick that 200-lb wolf's
ass!
Alan
ShowChis
Have you all forgotten the Irish Wolfhound? Larger than the Mastiff or
the Dane
Marie Moore
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------7DE144876201
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
ShowChis wrote:
>
> Have you all forgotten the Irish Wolfhound? Larger than the Mastiff or
> the Dane
Make that "TALLER than the Mastiff or the Dane" and you'd be
correct. "Larger" is ambiguous; Mastiffs normally outweigh
IWs (I don't know about Danes).
--------------7DE144876201
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="marie.sig"
Marie Moore, Sr. Technical Writer (marie...@template.com)
Template Software, Dulles, VA, USA (703) 318-1000
Visit Template Software at http://www.template.com
--------------7DE144876201--
cheeze1
A Dane that out weighed a Mastiff would be a sight to behold, considering
thier frame is just a bit heavier than a Wolfhound proportionally.
chas
Prabbit
Mojo's Mom <" terri_mcauley"@hp.com> wrote:
>LEHunger wrote:
>>
>> I'm glad someone else agrees with me. I stand by my assertion that, day
>> in and day out, a Saint will weigh more than a mastiff or any other dog.
>> leh
>Including the Newfie and a Great Pyranese? (sp)
>Terri
The Mastiff who won his breed at Westminster a couple years ago
weighed ~250 pounds! I think it would take an obese dog of any other
breed to top that.
But if I'm wrong, I'd love to hear about it.
-P
Mojo's Mom
paper lst year because he was right at or just a little over 300#!
I saw the picture, the dog really did need to be put on a diet.
Terri
--
I don't speak for HP and they don't speak for me.
Alan Cowen
Prabbit <Pra...@aol.com> wrote in article
<5kd0rm$1...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>...
> Mojo's Mom <" terri_mcauley"@hp.com> wrote:
>
> >LEHunger wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm glad someone else agrees with me. I stand by my assertion that,
day
> >> in and day out, a Saint will weigh more than a mastiff or any other
dog.
> >> leh
> >Including the Newfie and a Great Pyranese? (sp)
> >Terri
>
> The Mastiff who won his breed at Westminster a couple years ago
> weighed ~250 pounds! I think it would take an obese dog of any other
> breed to top that.
>
> But if I'm wrong, I'd love to hear about it.
>
> -P
>
>
That would make it the heaviest dog -- not the largest. Also the
largest/heaviest/biggest /tallest breed would not be predicated on a single
animal or a single record -- that would only make it the ****** dog on
record not the ***** breed.
Alan Cowen
Alan Cowen
ShowChis <show...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970501014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Have you all forgotten the Irish Wolfhound? Larger than the Mastiff or
> the Dane
>
Trouble is these guys can't figure out the difference between Largest and
Heaviest or Biggest and Heaviest. Tried to educate them but they just
don't get it.
Alan Cowen
The Hounds of Darragh
Irish Wolfhounds bred for Type & Temperament
Prabbit
"Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> The Mastiff who won his breed at Westminster a couple years ago
>> weighed ~250 pounds! I think it would take an obese dog of any other
>> breed to top that.
The heaviest, who is also not obese (i.e. Westminster best-of-breed)
would be as good a way as any to quantify a large animal.
>Also the
>largest/heaviest/biggest /tallest breed would not be predicated on a single
>animal or a single record [..]
All I'm saying is, show me another animal which is considered a good
standard example of his breed who is bigger.
-P
wwbo...@hotmail.com
On 6 May 1997 17:00:03 GMT, "Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Trouble is these guys can't figure out the difference between Largest and
>Heaviest or Biggest and Heaviest. Tried to educate them but they just
>don't get it.
>
>Alan Cowen
>The Hounds of Darragh
>Irish Wolfhounds bred for Type & Temperament
To me it is simple - MASS begets largeness - there is no question that
both as a breed, the English Mastiff is the LARGEST dog. Might not be
the tallest, or the longest or the widest, but it is the breed with
the greatest mass.
I think someone mentioned lean muscle mass. While Mastiffs are
muscular, they certainly don't have low bodyfat percentage compared to
other dogs (hounds in partiular) - this point even more to their mass
- muscle weights more than fat - lean, low bodyfat dog displaces less
volume than an equally heavy less-lean, higher bodyfat dog.
My two cents....
Darlene
Irish Wolfhounds and Great Danes BOTH grow to be (on average) 189 lbs.
I'm not sure about Mastiffs.
LEHunger
ditto
leh
A bad day fishing is better than a good day at work.
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Trouble is these guys can't figure out the difference between Largest and
: Heaviest or Biggest and Heaviest. Tried to educate them but they just
: don't get it.
The difference between largest and heaviest vs biggest and heaviest is
the difference between large and big. What exactly is that?
The trouble is you seem to be "trying to educate us" without any
definition. How can we "get it" if "it" is never explained? What are
you trying to say?
It started with "what is the largest dog breed?" If tallest isn't
largest, and heaviest isn't largest, what measurements do determine
overall largeness? If it's not height, or weight, what is it?
Several people, including me, listed breeds of the individual dogs who
held records for height or weight.
If the tallest dog ever was a Great Dane that means no dog of any
other breed has ever been taller. How then do you figure another breed
can be taller? Average height over the population of both breeds? How
would this be determined? Certainly not the breed standard-the breed
standard only describes the ideal of what humans think the breed
should be. In almost every breed there are dogs bigger and smaller
than the standard.
If you don;'t agree with the definitions generally used here for
"biggest dog", "tallest breed" and "heaviest breed", then it would
help if you tell us what definitions you use rather than just telling
everyone they're wrong.
Alan Cowen
Prabbit <Pra...@aol.com> wrote in article
<5knvdm$o...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>...
> "Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> The Mastiff who won his breed at Westminster a couple years ago
> >> weighed ~250 pounds! I think it would take an obese dog of any other
> >> breed to top that.
> [..]
> >That would make it the heaviest dog -- not the largest.
>
> The heaviest, who is also not obese (i.e. Westminster best-of-breed)
> would be as good a way as any to quantify a large animal.
>
No - the heaviest is the heaviest. The Irish Wolfhound is taller than the
Mastiff and has a longer body. I has very little body fat but that does
not change the fact that it's actual displacement (i.e. in cc's or cu ins)
is greater than the Mastiff. The AKC considers the IW the largest of all
breeds as it has the greatest minimum height requirement of all breeds in
its standard.
> >Also the
> >largest/heaviest/biggest /tallest breed would not be predicated on a
single
> >animal or a single record [..]
>
> All I'm saying is, show me another animal which is considered a good
> standard example of his breed who is bigger.
>
> -P
>
>
Stand a 195-lb wolfhound next to the 250-lb Mastiff (both in prime show
condition) and then ask 10 people which dog is bigger or larger and I think
we know what the answer is going to be. The Wolfhound will 'dwarf' the
Mastiff. Ask the same people which dog is the heavier and you might get a
split result because most people look at a wolfhound and completely over
estimate its weight. Even so -- the answer will tell you which dog they
think is the heavier - not the largest or biggest
Alan
Alan Cowen
Susan Mudgett aka little gator <s...@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in
article <5kpolc$u...@harvee.billerica.ma.us>...
>
> Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : Trouble is these guys can't figure out the difference between Largest
and
> : Heaviest or Biggest and Heaviest. Tried to educate them but they just
> : don't get it.
>
> The difference between largest and heaviest vs biggest and heaviest is
> the difference between large and big. What exactly is that?
>
Because weight is not a measure of size which is a measure of physical
dimensions. A
12' x 12' x 2" sheet of expanded polystyrene would certainly weigh less
than a 6' x 6' x 2" piece of hardwood. Which one is the largest or
biggest? The polystyrene (which is also the lightest).
> The trouble is you seem to be "trying to educate us" without any
> definition. How can we "get it" if "it" is never explained? What are
> you trying to say?
>
Well it was explained - perhaps you just didn't read it.
> It started with "what is the largest dog breed?" If tallest isn't
> largest, and heaviest isn't largest, what measurements do determine
> overall largeness? If it's not height, or weight, what is it?
>
'Large' is an indication of physical size or displacement. See the
polystyrene/hardwood example. 'Large' means exceeding others in 'quantity'
(as it relates to numbers) or 'size'
> Several people, including me, listed breeds of the individual dogs who
> held records for height or weight.
>
> If the tallest dog ever was a Great Dane that means no dog of any
> other breed has ever been taller. How then do you figure another breed
> can be taller?
According to your post -- "the tallest was a 41.5 inch dog who weighed over
200. 97 edition didn't give breed, but earlier editions said it was a Great
Dane." The fact that someone makes the effort to establish a record only
shows it is the tallest dog 'on record' and does not mean than no other
breed has ever been taller.
How would the Guinness people actually measure the dog to establish the
record (i.e. to the tips of the ears, top of the head, withers, shoulder??)
I would love to know when this record was established as the prior record
stood since the 1920's and was an Irish Wolfhound named Ch. Broadbridge
Michael ) measuring 39½" at the withers.
There have been a number of Irish Wolfhounds exceeding this height and
there is actually one living in Colorado right now. He is a Rescue hound
and measures 42" at the withers. However - this is at the expense of his
conformation which is pretty poor. He has a roached back and in fact would
measure even more than 42" at the highest point of his back
> Average height over the population of both breeds? How
> would this be determined? Certainly not the breed standard-the breed
> standard only describes the ideal of what humans think the breed
> should be. In almost every breed there are dogs bigger and smaller
> than the standard.
>
Since there is no maximum height in the standard of any of the Giant breeds
there can not be a dog taller than the standard. Since the Irish
Wolfhound has the tallest 'minimum' height requirement in it's standard for
any breed recognized by the AKC it is generally considered to be the
tallest
>
> If you don;'t agree with the definitions generally used here for
> "biggest dog", "tallest breed" and "heaviest breed", then it would
> help if you tell us what definitions you use rather than just telling
> everyone they're wrong.
>
I have no problem with definition of 'heaviest' breed at all and never
have. 'Tallest' and 'Biggest' are not the same as 'Heaviest'.
As I mentioned in another post - if you took a 250-lb Mastiff and a 195-lb
Irish Wolfhound (and that is not to say IW's have not topped 230-lbs either
- I am talking about dogs in good show conformation) and perhaps the
largest Dane you could find and stacked them in a line and then asked 10 or
20 people which one is the biggest/largest/tallest I believe the majority
of votes would be for the Irish Wolfhound. If you asked them which one is
the heaviest, they would no doubt pick the Mastiff.
Alan Cowen
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > The trouble is you seem to be "trying to educate us" without any
: > definition. How can we "get it" if "it" is never explained? What are
: > you trying to say?
: >
: Well it was explained - perhaps you just didn't read it.
I didn't see it. So how do you measure a dog's volume? It isn't often
done, if ever. And the big problem is that to most people, rightly or
wrongly, "biggest dog" means "tallest and/or heaviest."
: > If the tallest dog ever was a Great Dane that means no dog of any
: > other breed has ever been taller. How then do you figure another breed
: > can be taller?
: According to your post -- "the tallest was a 41.5 inch dog who weighed over
: 200. 97 edition didn't give breed, but earlier editions said it was a Great
: Dane." The fact that someone makes the effort to establish a record only
: shows it is the tallest dog 'on record' and does not mean than no other
: breed has ever been taller.
Good point. I meant, "assuming the record is accurate" whihc is a
foolish thing to assume.
: How would the Guinness people actually measure the dog to establish the
: record (i.e. to the tips of the ears, top of the head, withers, shoulder??)
: I would love to know when this record was established as the prior record
: stood since the 1920's and was an Irish Wolfhound named Ch. Broadbridge
: Michael ) measuring 39½" at the withers.
I will look it up the next time I go to the library. I think that same
Dane was in my 1974 edition, which I no longer have.
I'll get the address too so you can see about getting the dog
described below checked out by them. If he qualifies, he deserves the
recognition.
: There have been a number of Irish Wolfhounds exceeding this height and
: there is actually one living in Colorado right now. He is a Rescue hound
: and measures 42" at the withers. However - this is at the expense of his
: conformation which is pretty poor. He has a roached back and in fact would
: measure even more than 42" at the highest point of his back
: > Average height over the population of both breeds? How
: > would this be determined? Certainly not the breed standard-the breed
: > standard only describes the ideal of what humans think the breed
: > should be. In almost every breed there are dogs bigger and smaller
: > than the standard.
: >
: Since there is no maximum height in the standard of any of the Giant breeds
: there can not be a dog taller than the standard. Since the Irish
: Wolfhound has the tallest 'minimum' height requirement in it's standard for
: any breed recognized by the AKC it is generally considered to be the
: tallest
The standard only says what a dog should be, not what the actual dogs
are. Therefore breed standards don't tell us anything about the size
of actual dogs.
: As I mentioned in another post - if you took a 250-lb Mastiff and a 195-lb
: Irish Wolfhound (and that is not to say IW's have not topped 230-lbs either
: - I am talking about dogs in good show conformation) and perhaps the
: largest Dane you could find and stacked them in a line and then asked 10 or
: 20 people which one is the biggest/largest/tallest I believe the majority
: of votes would be for the Irish Wolfhound. If you asked them which one is
: the heaviest, they would no doubt pick the Mastiff.
:
Most of the IW's I've seen have been lean enough that of the dogs I've
personally seen, based on memory only, I would expect the Mastiffs
would be generally larger in overall volume than any other breed. My
guess, and that's all it is, on volume would be 1: Mastiff, 2: Irish
Wolfhound, and a tie for 3: of Great Dane and Saint Bernard.
Michael Marsaglia
"Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Susan Mudgett aka little gator <s...@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in
>article <5kpolc$u...@harvee.billerica.ma.us>...
>>
>> Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>> : Trouble is these guys can't figure out the difference between Largest
>and
>> : Heaviest or Biggest and Heaviest. Tried to educate them but they just
>> : don't get it.
>>
>> The difference between largest and heaviest vs biggest and heaviest is
>> the difference between large and big. What exactly is that?
>>
>Because weight is not a measure of size which is a measure of physical
>dimensions. A
>12' x 12' x 2" sheet of expanded polystyrene would certainly weigh less
>than a 6' x 6' x 2" piece of hardwood. Which one is the largest or
>biggest? The polystyrene (which is also the lightest).
Ok weight is related to volume by density. ie w = V*d
It seems to me that you are using volume as a measure of
size. Now the density of dogs will vary slightly, with
fatter dogs being less dense (fat floats muscle and bone sink).
Dogs with large lung volumes will also be less dense. Overall
this means that a fat large chested dog will be even larger than
an equal weight thin dog.
>I have no problem with definition of 'heaviest' breed at all and never
>have. 'Tallest' and 'Biggest' are not the same as 'Heaviest'.
Weight is related to size. The difference between the most and least dense
dog might reach 20%.(This is an estimate I admit see below) This means a dog
that is 10% heavier may not be larger in volume, but a 20% heavier dog would
be at least as large.
>As I mentioned in another post - if you took a 250-lb Mastiff and a 195-lb
>Irish Wolfhound (and that is not to say IW's have not topped 230-lbs either
>- I am talking about dogs in good show conformation) and perhaps the
>largest Dane you could find and stacked them in a line and then asked 10 or
>20 people which one is the biggest/largest/tallest I believe the majority
>of votes would be for the Irish Wolfhound. If you asked them which one is
>the heaviest, they would no doubt pick the Mastiff.
A nearly 30% heavier dog with most likely higher bodyfat and larger chest
(lower density) is going to be much larger (your definition) than the lighter
but taller dog.
>
>Alan Cowen
mike
Estimated density of a dog
density of salt water 1.05
Density of water 1
density of oil ~.9
dog is between these .9-1.05
Alan Cowen
Michael Marsaglia <mars...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<5ksu6n$c...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> "Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>
>
> >Susan Mudgett aka little gator <s...@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in
> >article <5kpolc$u...@harvee.billerica.ma.us>...
> >>
> >> Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >>
> >> : Trouble is these guys can't figure out the difference between
Largest
> >and
> >> : Heaviest or Biggest and Heaviest. Tried to educate them but they
just
> >> : don't get it.
> >>
> >> The difference between largest and heaviest vs biggest and heaviest is
> >> the difference between large and big. What exactly is that?
> >>
> >Because weight is not a measure of size which is a measure of physical
> >dimensions. A
> >12' x 12' x 2" sheet of expanded polystyrene would certainly weigh less
> >than a 6' x 6' x 2" piece of hardwood. Which one is the largest or
> >biggest? The polystyrene (which is also the lightest).
>
> Ok weight is related to volume by density. ie w = V*d
> It seems to me that you are using volume as a measure of
> size. Now the density of dogs will vary slightly, with
> fatter dogs being less dense (fat floats muscle and bone sink).
> Dogs with large lung volumes will also be less dense. Overall
> this means that a fat large chested dog will be even larger than
> an equal weight thin dog.
>
Nope - I'm not using volume at all. Which is larger or bigger in the above
example - the sheet of polystyrene or the sheet of hardwood? This has
nothing to do with bone density or mass it has to do with 'size' - so which
is bigger?
>
> >I have no problem with definition of 'heaviest' breed at all and never
> >have. 'Tallest' and 'Biggest' are not the same as 'Heaviest'.
>
> Weight is related to size.
No - weight is related to density -- which weighs more in 2 equally sized
objects - the dense object or the voluminous object ?
> The difference between the most and least dense
> dog might reach 20%.(This is an estimate I admit see below) This means a
dog
> that is 10% heavier may not be larger in volume, but a 20% heavier dog
would
> be at least as large.
>
This is irrelevant - "Largest", "Tallest", "Biggest" relate to size or
volume (at least to most people - perhaps scientists might have different
ideas but that's a whole other thread).
"Density", "Mass", "Weight" and "Heaviness" all relate to having a high
specific gravity, or having great weight in relation to bulk and bear no
relevance to size as the polystyrene/hardwood example clearly demonstrates.
>
> mike
>
> Estimated density of a dog
> density of salt water 1.05
> Density of water 1
> density of oil ~.9
> dog is between these .9-1.05
>
Still irrelevant - see Polystyrene/Hardwood example
Alan
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Nope - I'm not using volume at all. Which is larger or bigger in the above
you're not? Now I'm really confused. I thought you were using
displacement, which is volume. What am I missing here?
And to use your sheet of whatever analogy-rectangular objects are easy
to measure the volume of, but live animals are not. The only way I can
think of would be water displacement. I don't think it's been
done. How can you humanely dunk an entire live dog?
Michael Marsaglia
"Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Nope - I'm not using volume at all. Which is larger or bigger in the above
>example - the sheet of polystyrene or the sheet of hardwood? This has
>nothing to do with bone density or mass it has to do with 'size' - so which
>is bigger?
I would say the polystyrene because its volume is larger.
I thought that was your point evidently not. So I am having to
Susans question over. What is your criteria for Largeness?
So far you have said that it is NOT
weight
height
volume
>This is irrelevant - "Largest", "Tallest", "Biggest" relate to size or
>volume (at least to most people - perhaps scientists might have different
>ideas but that's a whole other thread).
Now you say volume is related to largeness. just like to point out the fact
that you are contradicting yourself from just a few lines ago.
>"Density", "Mass", "Weight" and "Heaviness" all relate to having a high
>specific gravity, or having great weight in relation to bulk and bear no
>relevance to size as the polystyrene/hardwood example clearly demonstrates.
No actually it doesnt demonstrate anything about dogs. Dogs have similar
structures and compositions. Thus they have similar densities. Thus a
heavier dog is in nearly all cases the larger dog.
mike
Steve Barnard
Nancy E. Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin wrote:
>
> So all right already - if you have a 3lb Chihuahua and a 3lb Italian
> Greyhound which is biggest or smallest?
> (random breed choices made here <g>)
> Nancy
A 3 lb Chihuahua is nothing! I have it on good authority than Ken has a
30 lb Chihuahua named Brownie. That qualifies as the largest dog in my
book.
(She looks rather like a tick stuffed with blood, with only her pathetic
little legs sticking out and wiggling like crazy.)
Steve Barnard
IrishCu
So what you are saying is: a 5'6" man who is 300lbs is larger than a 6'4"
man who is 270lbs?
Alan Cowen
Michael Marsaglia <mars...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<5kttmd$c...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>...
Okay - I meant to say I am not using Density at all. See my post in reply
to Susan for a full explanation of what is Largest/Biggest etc.
>
> >This is irrelevant - "Largest", "Tallest", "Biggest" relate to size or
> >volume (at least to most people - perhaps scientists might have
different
> >ideas but that's a whole other thread).
>
> Now you say volume is related to largeness. just like to point out the
fact
> that you are contradicting yourself from just a few lines ago.
>
> >"Density", "Mass", "Weight" and "Heaviness" all relate to having a high
> >specific gravity, or having great weight in relation to bulk and bear no
> >relevance to size as the polystyrene/hardwood example clearly
demonstrates.
>
> No actually it doesnt demonstrate anything about dogs. Dogs have similar
> structures and compositions. Thus they have similar densities. Thus a
> heavier dog is in nearly all cases the larger dog.
>
> mike
>
That's bull - dogs do _not_ have similar structures and densities at all.
In the first place - different breeds have different bone densities. If
you doubt this ask a Veterinary Surgeon Board Certified in Orthopedics or
send an e-mail to UC Davis or Purdue. Secondly - many dogs have much
larger chest cavities than other breeds (i.e. they are deeper, longer and
wider) but since the internal organs are not proportionately as big (one of
the reasons for bloat and gastric torsion in some of the deep chested
breeds) they will not weigh proportionately more because they contain a lot
of open (undense) area. See my post on the 200-lb wolf for a visual
example
Alan Cowen
wwbo...@hotmail.com
>
>>This is irrelevant - "Largest", "Tallest", "Biggest" relate to size or
>>volume (at least to most people - perhaps scientists might have different
>>ideas but that's a whole other thread).
>
>Now you say volume is related to largeness. just like to point out the fact
>that you are contradicting yourself from just a few lines ago.
>
>>"Density", "Mass", "Weight" and "Heaviness" all relate to having a high
>>specific gravity, or having great weight in relation to bulk and bear no
>>relevance to size as the polystyrene/hardwood example clearly demonstrates.
>
>No actually it doesnt demonstrate anything about dogs. Dogs have similar
>structures and compositions. Thus they have similar densities. Thus a
>heavier dog is in nearly all cases the larger dog.
>
>mike
Gotta agree with that - mass in a dog to a large degree does equal
volume - and volume DOES equal largeness...
Since the dogs that have been "nominated" so far by popular support
are Irish Wolfhounds, Mastiffs and Great Danes - it is clear that
MASTIFFS are the largest - as they are the heaviest and having high
body fat percentages than the other two - they are less dense - so
they take up more volume for their weight than the other two dogs.
I will grant you that IW's are the TALLEST dogs as a breed - but
mastiffs are larger!
If McDonalds got a fry container that was tall and skinny and held 5
oz of fries and then had a fry container that was shorter and wider
and it help 9oz of fries - which do you think would be labelled LARGE?
One more example for those whining IW owners - if we help you down,
would you rather have a Mastiff sit on your head?? or and Irish
Wolfhound? I think that would give you an impression of large - if
nothing else - a large ass!! :)
Alan Cowen
Susan Mudgett aka little gator <s...@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in
article <5kt8ck$7...@harvee.billerica.ma.us>...
>
> Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : Nope - I'm not using volume at all. Which is larger or bigger in the
above
>
> you're not? Now I'm really confused. I thought you were using
> displacement, which is volume. What am I missing here?
Apologies - I am using volume which is not the same as displacement at all
.. Volume is defined in Webster's as "space occupied as measured in cubic
inches (or other units of measure)" Size is defined as "physical
magnitude" and "relative or proportionate dimensions" - both of these refer
to units of measurement not units of weight. Displacement refers to "the
volume or weight of a fluid displaced by a floating body of equal weight"
So which is larger or of greater size - the Polystyrene or the hardwood?
>
> And to use your sheet of whatever analogy-rectangular objects are easy
> to measure the volume of, but live animals are not. The only way I can
> think of would be water displacement. I don't think it's been
> done. How can you humanely dunk an entire live dog?
>
Susan - the analogy was simply to demonstrate that
Largest/Tallest/Size/Biggest is not the same as Heaviest/Densest. It
really doesn't matter _what_ you measure or how you measure it -- it is a
simple demonstration of the fact that while object "A" may be heavier than
object "B", object "B" can still be taller/wider/longer/bigger/larger than
object "A" and still weigh less no matter what you are weighing. Therefore
the "Heaviest" dog breed has no bearing on what is the "Largest" or
"Tallest". See my post on Harrypup's 200-lb wolf for a visual example.
Alan
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > you're not? Now I'm really confused. I thought you were using
: > displacement, which is volume. What am I missing here?
: Apologies - I am using volume which is not the same as displacement at all
: .. Volume is defined in Webster's as "space occupied as measured in cubic
: inches (or other units of measure)" Size is defined as "physical
: magnitude" and "relative or proportionate dimensions" - both of these refer
: to units of measurement not units of weight. Displacement refers to "the
: volume or weight of a fluid displaced by a floating body of equal weight"
: >
: Susan - the analogy was simply to demonstrate that
: Largest/Tallest/Size/Biggest is not the same as Heaviest/Densest. It
: really doesn't matter _what_ you measure or how you measure it -- it is a
: simple demonstration of the fact that while object "A" may be heavier than
: object "B", object "B" can still be taller/wider/longer/bigger/larger than
: object "A" and still weigh less no matter what you are weighing. Therefore
: the "Heaviest" dog breed has no bearing on what is the "Largest" or
: "Tallest".
I know that now, but it still doesn't answer my question: how can one
measure cubic centimeters(or whatever measure you use) of an something
as irregularly shaped as a live dog? One reason people rely so much
on height and weight is because there are easy methods to measure
them, and there is no way I know of to measure a dog's volume, except
by dunking it and measuring the water displaced.
If there's no way to measure it, there's no was of telling which dog
is larger by volume than another.
:See my post on Harrypup's 200-lb wolf for a visual example.
I don't have any way to read those files, but even if I did it
wouldn't matter. If the only source I have of the alleged wolf's
alleged weight information is harrypup, then it's worse than
useless. I wouldn't trust his word on anything, so I wouldn't believe
the animal weighs 200. It could well be that the wolfhound pictured is
heavier than the other animal.
I wasn't looking for this, but it leaped out of the AKC Gazette's
Irish Wolfhound breed column in the May 87 issue.
Credited as being adapted by Lois J. Thomasson from an article written
in 1972 by Rosalie Fox:
"Six other breed can and often do outdistance us in the senseless
height and weight race."
Followed by breed standard height minimums of 32 inches for males and
30 for females, no other information given. I'd love to know which six
breeds they were thinking of.
The column then goes on to topics other than size.
In my personal experience, I've only once seen a dog claimed to be 200
lbs. I was there when he was weighed at somewhere between 200 and
210, and he was a harlequin Great Dane. I don't remember his height,
which wasn't measured, but he was taller than most dogs(what Dane
isn't?) and not obese.
Alan Cowen
wwbo...@hotmail.com wrote in article
<33746ab...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...
>
> >
> >>This is irrelevant - "Largest", "Tallest", "Biggest" relate to size or
> >>volume (at least to most people - perhaps scientists might have
different
> >>ideas but that's a whole other thread).
> >
>
>
> Gotta agree with that - mass in a dog to a large degree does equal
> volume - and volume DOES equal largeness...
>
> Since the dogs that have been "nominated" so far by popular support
> are Irish Wolfhounds, Mastiffs and Great Danes - it is clear that
> MASTIFFS are the largest - as they are the heaviest and having high
> body fat percentages than the other two - they are less dense - so
> they take up more volume for their weight than the other two dogs.
>
Nope - you are totally wrong on that. That the Irish Wolfhound is taller
and longer than the Mastiff is a given. The breadth of a male Irish
Wolfhound's chest is easily equal to that of a Mastiff, furthermore - the
depth of its chest and overall girth are easily greater than any Mastiff.
The only part that is thinner and shallower is the tuck behind the ribs and
the rear itself. How can you say that the Mastiff is less dense - it is
clearly more dense than the Wolfhound (i.e. it will definitely weigh more
per cu.in than the wolfhound).? However - the Wolfhound will normally have
more cubic inches of volume than the Mastiff since it is taller and
longer, has more depth of chest, is as wide between the forward ribs, and
is just leaner -- less fat and more muscular.
> I will grant you that IW's are the TALLEST dogs as a breed - but
> mastiffs are larger!
>
> If McDonalds got a fry container that was tall and skinny and held 5
> oz of fries and then had a fry container that was shorter and wider
> and it help 9oz of fries - which do you think would be labelled LARGE?
>
Oh - how scientific! You are pre-supposing that the wolfhound is tall and
skinny but you are describing a Scottish Deerhound or Borzoi. Wolfhounds
may be lean as far as bodyfat is concerned, but they are not skinny so your
example may hold fries but it doesn't hold water! As I have said above -- a
well developed male wolfhound is easily as wide as the mastiff in the front
and between the forward ribs. Maybe you've only seen poor examples.
> One more example for those whining IW owners - if we help you down,
> would you rather have a Mastiff sit on your head?? or and Irish
> Wolfhound? I think that would give you an impression of large - if
> nothing else - a large ass!! :)
>
I'd rather they sit on _your_ head!! You are back on the subject of
'weight' again not 'size' - Would you rather the sheet of polystyrene fall
on your head or the hardwood??
Alan
Nancy E. Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
Alan Cowen
>
> Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : > you're not? Now I'm really confused. I thought you were using
> : > displacement, which is volume. What am I missing here?
>
>
> measure cubic centimeters(or whatever measure you use) of an something
> as irregularly shaped as a live dog? One reason people rely so much
> on height and weight is because there are easy methods to measure
> them, and there is no way I know of to measure a dog's volume, except
> by dunking it and measuring the water displaced.
>
into measurement of volume at all. See Webster's
> If there's no way to measure it, there's no was of telling which dog
> is larger by volume than another.
>
You dont need to measure volume to see if an object (whether regular or
irregular in shape) is bigger than something else you can see just by
looking.
> :See my post on Harrypup's 200-lb wolf for a visual example.
>
Go to http://www.tucows.com and download an image viewer. They have them
for Windows or Macs - for Windows I recommend LViewPro. Once you download
you can open the pics and see for yourself.
> I don't have any way to read those files, but even if I did it
> wouldn't matter. If the only source I have of the alleged wolf's
> alleged weight information is harrypup, then it's worse than
> useless. I wouldn't trust his word on anything, so I wouldn't believe
> the animal weighs 200. It could well be that the wolfhound pictured is
> heavier than the other animal.
>
>
Well - you would have absolutely no question about which one is the
'largest' so this goes to show that visualization is also a good measure,
and you don't have to dip them in water to figure it out.
>
>
> I wasn't looking for this, but it leaped out of the AKC Gazette's
> Irish Wolfhound breed column in the May 87 issue.
>
> Credited as being adapted by Lois J. Thomasson from an article written
> in 1972 by Rosalie Fox:
>
> "Six other breed can and often do outdistance us in the senseless
> height and weight race."
>
Well - Lois owned the dog whose picture I sent along (S.Bis Ch. Fleetwind
Magnum) and that is her husband in the picture. It is true you can often
see Great Danes and Wolfhounds at shows where the Dane may in fact be
larger than the Wolfhound but that happens. There are of course some males
that are spot on the 32" minimum, and would easily be overshadowed by a
large Harlequin for example. However - that doesn't mean that the
Harlequin couldn't easily be outsized by a good number of IW males.
> Followed by breed standard height minimums of 32 inches for males and
> 30 for females, no other information given. I'd love to know which six
> breeds they were thinking of.
>
I will ask Lois what the 6 breeds were since most of my wolfhounds are
descended from her Fleetwind Kennels.
>
> In my personal experience, I've only once seen a dog claimed to be 200
> lbs. I was there when he was weighed at somewhere between 200 and
> 210, and he was a harlequin Great Dane. I don't remember his height,
> which wasn't measured, but he was taller than most dogs(what Dane
> isn't?) and not obese.
Well I've seen a number of Wolfhounds top 200-lbs that really shouldn't, so
weight is only a factor of weight and not of size.
Alan
Alan Cowen
Nancy E. Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin <fmka...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
article <01bc5ccb$bcfac9c0$57a4...@fmkaffen.ix.netcom.com>...
I would think the IG. Don't they normally measure Chihuahua's in ounces?
<g> That would make it one great porker!
Alan
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Well I've seen a number of Wolfhounds top 200-lbs that really shouldn't, so
: weight is only a factor of weight and not of size.
Of course weight is related to size. Big dogs weigh more than small
dogs, and obese dogs are not only heavier than thin dogs of the same
skeletal build and weight, they're bigger too. Fat takes up volume as
well as mass. If a fat 200 pound Wolfhound loses some of those 200
pounds, it would become smaller.
Anyoine who has lost or gained weight knows that they get smaller or
larger-you can tell by how your clothes fit.
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: You dont need to measure volume to see if an object (whether regular or
: irregular in shape) is bigger than something else you can see just by
: looking.
:
No you can't see just by looking, especially if it;s something of
irregular shape. The whole reason there is so much disagreement is
because no one can tell which dog is bigger by volume just by looking
at it, unless there's a big difference. All you can do is guess, and
your guess is worth no more than anyone else's.
If it's two rectangular blocks of equal length and depth and different
widths, then it's possible.
Sure, it's easy to tell that a Great Dane's bigger than a MinPin, but
if you have two dogs, one 30" tall and 200 lb, the other 32" tall and
180 lbs, no one could tell just by looking which was bigger in volume.
The whole reason people reply so much on weight and height in
comparing a dog's size is that those things *can* be measured. Height
can vary tremendously as a dog's posture changes from minute to
minute, and that's one reason weight is preferred by so many people as
the thing to measure.
Unless there's a way to measure it, volume is useless as a way to
compare dog size.
Alan Cowen
Susan Mudgett aka little gator <s...@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in
article <5l1mcj$i...@harvee.billerica.ma.us>...
>
> Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : You dont need to measure volume to see if an object (whether regular or
> : irregular in shape) is bigger than something else you can see just by
> : looking.
> :
>
> No you can't see just by looking, especially if it;s something of
> irregular shape. The whole reason there is so much disagreement is
> because no one can tell which dog is bigger by volume just by looking
> at it, unless there's a big difference. All you can do is guess, and
> your guess is worth no more than anyone else's.
>
Of course you can tell by looking if the differences are great enough.
> If it's two rectangular blocks of equal length and depth and different
> widths, then it's possible.
>
> Sure, it's easy to tell that a Great Dane's bigger than a MinPin, but
> if you have two dogs, one 30" tall and 200 lb, the other 32" tall and
> 180 lbs, no one could tell just by looking which was bigger in volume.
>
You are not using a realistic example. A 30" Mastiff (at the withers)
would probably be close to maximum height so you should use a 36½ -37½
Wolfhound (many have been documented in this range) for comparison.
Regardless of how fat the Mastiff is -- the Wolfhound would be 6½-7½"
taller, probably 12-15" longer, equally as broad in the front, narrower in
the rear, with a much deeper more cavernous chest cavity. You would have
to be blind not to see which one is the largest (as opposed to the
heaviest).
> The whole reason people reply so much on weight and height in
> comparing a dog's size is that those things *can* be measured. Height
> can vary tremendously as a dog's posture changes from minute to
> minute, and that's one reason weight is preferred by so many people as
> the thing to measure.
>
Not in our breed - we don't give trophies to the heaviest or fattest
wolfhound.
> Unless there's a way to measure it, volume is useless as a way to
> compare dog size.
>
One doesn't need to measure volume unless the comparison is extremely
close. Bring me another dog that is anywhere close to a large male
wolfhound and we'll dip 'em in water and see
Alan
king
On 9 May 1997 23:58:25 GMT, "Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>> I know that now, but it still doesn't answer my question: how can one
>> measure cubic centimeters(or whatever measure you use) of an something
>> as irregularly shaped as a live dog? One reason people rely so much
>> on height and weight is because there are easy methods to measure
>> them, and there is no way I know of to measure a dog's volume, except
>> by dunking it and measuring the water displaced.
>>
>That measure the dogs displacement and not volume. Weight is not factored
>into measurement of volume at all. See Webster's
>
Alan,
You seem to like to quote Webster's frequently, and you obviously
regard the dictionary as a reliable source. If you'd like to learn
why everyone is telling you that volume of an irregular object is
discovered by measuring the volume of the water displaced when the
object is totally submerged, simply consult Webster's again.
Look for the entry a couple down from volume. Do you see volumeter?
That's the device the scientist dips an object into in order to
measure volume. My Webster's states, and I quote, "Physics: an
instrument used to measure the volume of... solids by the amount of
liquid they displace." If you choose not to rely on Webster's in
this case, feel free to call any high school physics or chemistry
teacher - they'll tell you the same.
If you'd like to determine beyond any shadow of a doubt what dog has
the largest volume, just find the owner of that huge Mastiff and the
IW you perceive to have the greatest volume and dip 'em both at your
friendly neighborhood university's volumeter.
Darrin
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Susan Mudgett aka little gator <s...@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in
: Of course you can tell by looking if the differences are great enough.
And you can't tell if the differences aren't great enough.
: > Sure, it's easy to tell that a Great Dane's bigger than a MinPin, but
: > if you have two dogs, one 30" tall and 200 lb, the other 32" tall and
: > 180 lbs, no one could tell just by looking which was bigger in volume.
: >
: You are not using a realistic example. A 30" Mastiff (at the withers)
: would probably be close to maximum height so you should use a 36½ -37½
: Wolfhound (many have been documented in this range) for comparison.
: Regardless of how fat the Mastiff is -- the Wolfhound would be 6½-7½"
: taller, probably 12-15" longer, equally as broad in the front, narrower in
: the rear, with a much deeper more cavernous chest cavity. You would have
: to be blind not to see which one is the largest (as opposed to the
: heaviest).
You misunderstood my point. I didn't name breeds in this example
anyway, so your assumption that I was comparing a Mastiff to a
Wolfhound is irrelevant. The example works just as well if both dogs
are the same breed. The two hypothetical dogs I described are every
close in size. One is taller, the other is heavier. Which is bigger?
If you take any two dogs with a 6" height difference the taller one
will probably be bigger. I was not describing the biggest, or tallest
dog of both breeds, but two individuals that would be close in size
but different in shape. Two dogs whose size is similar enough that no
one could tell just by looking, but different in height, weight, and
shape.
:
: > The whole reason people reply so much on weight and height in
: > comparing a dog's size is that those things *can* be measured. Height
: > can vary tremendously as a dog's posture changes from minute to
: > minute, and that's one reason weight is preferred by so many people as
: > the thing to measure.
: >
: Not in our breed - we don't give trophies to the heaviest or fattest
: wolfhound.
Do you give trophies to the biggest by volume? If you do, what
criteria do the judges use?
: > Unless there's a way to measure it, volume is useless as a way to
: > compare dog size.
: >
: One doesn't need to measure volume unless the comparison is extremely
: close. Bring me another dog that is anywhere close to a large male
: wolfhound and we'll dip 'em in water and see
I know dunking in water is a stupid thing to do to a dog, but you have
yet to suggest a better way to measure a dog's volume. Until a better
way is found, bigness as you define it is unproveable.
Alan Cowen
Susan Mudgett aka little gator <s...@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in
article <5l1mcj$i...@harvee.billerica.ma.us>...
>
> Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : You dont need to measure volume to see if an object (whether regular or
> : irregular in shape) is bigger than something else you can see just by
> : looking.
> :
>
> No you can't see just by looking, especially if it;s something of
> irregular shape. The whole reason there is so much disagreement is
> because no one can tell which dog is bigger by volume just by looking
> at it, unless there's a big difference.
But there _is_ a big difference in the size of a maxed-out Mastiff and a
maxed-out Irish Wolfhound. That's just the point.
All you can do is guess, and
> your guess is worth no more than anyone else's.
>
Okay Susan - a simple example....
Get a Chevrolet Blazer and a Chevrolet Suburban. Fold the seats down in
the Blazer and fill the vehicle with bricks occupying every available
square in of space. Now take the Suburban and take out all the seats and
toss them to one side. Stand back a few feet and look at the two vehicles.
Which one is Larger/Bigger/Taller? Which one is Heavier?? How does
weight have any relevance to size ?? You could do the same with a Ford
Taurus and Ford Taurus Station Wagon (filling the sedan with bricks). They
are of similar shape but not so uniform that you could get a volume
measurement. The brick-laden sedan will definitely be heavier but it
wouldn't take Einstein to figure that the Station Wagon is bigger.
Alan
wwbo...@hotmail.com
>Nope - you are totally wrong on that. That the Irish Wolfhound is taller
>and longer than the Mastiff is a given. The breadth of a male Irish
>Wolfhound's chest is easily equal to that of a Mastiff, furthermore - the
>depth of its chest and overall girth are easily greater than any Mastiff.
>The only part that is thinner and shallower is the tuck behind the ribs and
>the rear itself. How can you say that the Mastiff is less dense - it is
>clearly more dense than the Wolfhound (i.e. it will definitely weigh more
>per cu.in than the wolfhound).? However - the Wolfhound will normally have
>more cubic inches of volume than the Mastiff since it is taller and
>longer, has more depth of chest, is as wide between the forward ribs, and
>is just leaner -- less fat and more muscular.
So you are telling me that an Irish Wolfhound has an equal fat to
muscle ratio as an English Mastiff?? No?? I didn't think so..
Well does muscle tissue weigh MORE than fat tissue?? Yes?? Good,
that's what I thought too..
Does that mean a pound of fat has more volume than a pound of muscle??
Yes?! We're getting this now!
Now that we have that straight... does the AVERAGE English Mastiff
outweigh the AVERAGE Irish Wolfhound?? Absolutely, by a long shot!
If we put that all together, what do we have?? The English Mastiff is
pound for pound larger in VOLUME than an Irish Wolfhound! (And we
already figured out that these guys aren't competing pound for pound -
it is a pound and then some of English Mastiff for each pound of Irish
Wolfhound.)
I can't wait for your scientific explanation as to how the average
Irish Wolfhound is taller, longer, and wider than the average English
Mastiff, all while being outweighed by a breed that is not as lean.
(Next you'll be telling that the weight of the average Irish Wolfhound
is greater than that of the average English Mastiff...)
** This all aside, I am actually truly impressed with the Irish
Wolfhound breed - I am as truly taken aback by their presense and
imposing height as I am of the sheer magnitude of a stately English
Mastiff (I wish I could have a Irish Wolfhound in addition to my two
English Mastiff and two Chinese Shar-pei's - but that's been nixed by
the SO <pout> **
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
: > Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: But there _is_ a big difference in the size of a maxed-out Mastiff and a
: maxed-out Irish Wolfhound. That's just the point.
You have yet to give any argument or proof more believable than
"because I said so."
: All you can do is guess, and
: > your guess is worth no more than anyone else's.
: >
: Okay Susan - a simple example....
: Get a Chevrolet Blazer and a Chevrolet Suburban.
(snip)
This would be analagous to dogs only if one dog had its insides
removed and the other dog was stuffed with bricks. In comparing live
dogs, both would be filled with live dog guts, so the
height/weight/size ratio would be similar enough that your example has
no relevance.
So you never did answer: I have two hypothetical dogs of unknown
breed. One is 200 lbs, 30 inches tall. The other is 180 lbs and 32
inches tall. Which is bigger, and how do you tell?
Or two other dogs, one 10" tall and 15 lbs, the other 9" tall and 17
lbs. Which of them is bigger, and how do you tell?
wwbo...@hotmail.com
>You are not using a realistic example. A 30" Mastiff (at the withers)
>would probably be close to maximum height so you should use a 36˝ -37˝
>Wolfhound (many have been documented in this range) for comparison.
>Regardless of how fat the Mastiff is -- the Wolfhound would be 6˝-7˝"
>taller, probably 12-15" longer, equally as broad in the front, narrower in
>the rear, with a much deeper more cavernous chest cavity. You would have
>to be blind not to see which one is the largest (as opposed to the
>heaviest).
A 30" Mastiff is close to the maximum height?? Come on now.. from my
experience that is an average - to less than average - male's height -
surely not the maximum. I have a small female Mastiff that weighs
right around 140 that is 29" (she's still only 1 1/2 years). And I
have a 7 month old male - don't know his weight - that is just about
that tall and he's a good 8 inches shorter in length right now.
This really just boils down to your Irish Wolfhounds being the biggest
- good for you. I still love how your 20-60+ lbs lighter IW dog is
taller, longer, and as broad "with a much deeper more cavernous chest
cavity." compared to an English Mastiff. I guess your dogs (which are
also - as I keep saying - a leaner dog as far as muscle to weight
ratio goes) are just EXEMPT from physical laws.
They are the magic dogs with the empty insides and the English Mastiff
are those funny small dogs that just happen to have been born with a
load of bricks in them.
Alan Cowen
>
>
> You misunderstood my point. I didn't name breeds in this example
> anyway, so your assumption that I was comparing a Mastiff to a
> Wolfhound is irrelevant. The example works just as well if both dogs
> are the same breed. The two hypothetical dogs I described are every
> close in size. One is taller, the other is heavier. Which is bigger?
>
are we discussing the largest dog ever recorded, - we are discussing
"Largest Dog Breed" which means the largest (generally accepted and on
average) dog breed.
> If you take any two dogs with a 6" height difference the taller one
> will probably be bigger. I was not describing the biggest, or tallest
> dog of both breeds, but two individuals that would be close in size
> but different in shape. Two dogs whose size is similar enough that no
> one could tell just by looking, but different in height, weight, and
> shape.
>
That's not what we are debating here. If we were comparing 2 similar dogs
(Mastiffs or Wolfhounds - it doesn't matter) it is generally accepted that
the one that measures the tallest at the withers (measured properly and at
the same time in the same location with a wicket) would be considered the
Largest and the one that weighs the most on the same scale would be
considered the heaviest.
Alan
Alan Cowen
king <ki...@iglobal.net> wrote in article
<3374cbf0...@news.iglobal.net>...
> On 9 May 1997 23:58:25 GMT, "Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> You seem to like to quote Webster's frequently, and you obviously
> regard the dictionary as a reliable source. If you'd like to learn
> why everyone is telling you that volume of an irregular object is
> discovered by measuring the volume of the water displaced when the
> object is totally submerged, simply consult Webster's again.
>
That tells you the volume of water (or fluid) displaced by that object and
is no indicator of size or "largeness" (which is what this thread is about)
whatsoever.
> Look for the entry a couple down from volume. Do you see volumeter?
> That's the device the scientist dips an object into in order to
> measure volume.
But it does not measure size. This thread is "Largest Dog Breed" not "Most
Volumetric Dog Breed"
>
> If you'd like to determine beyond any shadow of a doubt what dog has
> the largest volume, just find the owner of that huge Mastiff and the
> IW you perceive to have the greatest volume and dip 'em both at your
> friendly neighborhood university's volumeter.
>
> Darrin
And if you want to determine which is the Larger - you do not need to dip
either of them in Water.
Alan
Alan Cowen
wwbo...@hotmail.com wrote in article
<33749315...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...
>
> >Nope - you are totally wrong on that. That the Irish Wolfhound is
taller
> >and longer than the Mastiff is a given. The breadth of a male Irish
> >Wolfhound's chest is easily equal to that of a Mastiff, furthermore -
the
> >depth of its chest and overall girth are easily greater than any
Mastiff.
> >The only part that is thinner and shallower is the tuck behind the ribs
and
> >the rear itself. How can you say that the Mastiff is less dense - it is
> >clearly more dense than the Wolfhound (i.e. it will definitely weigh
more
> >per cu.in than the wolfhound).? However - the Wolfhound will normally
have
> >more cubic inches of volume than the Mastiff since it is taller and
> >longer, has more depth of chest, is as wide between the forward ribs,
and
> >is just leaner -- less fat and more muscular.
>
> So you are telling me that an Irish Wolfhound has an equal fat to
> muscle ratio as an English Mastiff?? No?? I didn't think so..
>
> Well does muscle tissue weigh MORE than fat tissue?? Yes?? Good,
> that's what I thought too..
>
> Does that mean a pound of fat has more volume than a pound of muscle??
> Yes?! We're getting this now!
>
> Now that we have that straight... does the AVERAGE English Mastiff
> outweigh the AVERAGE Irish Wolfhound?? Absolutely, by a long shot!
>
> If we put that all together, what do we have?? The English Mastiff is
> pound for pound larger in VOLUME than an Irish Wolfhound! (And we
> already figured out that these guys aren't competing pound for pound -
> it is a pound and then some of English Mastiff for each pound of Irish
> Wolfhound.)
>
I already acknowledged that the Mastiff is heavier (i.e. per cu inch) than
the IW. We are discussing the "Largest Dog Breed" not the heaviest, most
dense volume or anything other than the "Largest" dog breed.
> I can't wait for your scientific explanation as to how the average
> Irish Wolfhound is taller, longer, and wider than the average English
> Mastiff,
No - I said "as wide between the forward ribs" (i.e. measure the width at
its widest point). I have already said that it is thinner and shallower
behind the ribs. You seem to only read what you want to see sometimes.
> all while being outweighed by a breed that is not as lean.
> (Next you'll be telling that the weight of the average Irish Wolfhound
> is greater than that of the average English Mastiff...)
>
No - I have acknowledged that the Mastiff is the heaviest breed it's just
not the 'Largest'.
> ** This all aside, I am actually truly impressed with the Irish
> Wolfhound breed - I am as truly taken aback by their presense and
> imposing height as I am of the sheer magnitude of a stately English
> Mastiff (I wish I could have a Irish Wolfhound in addition to my two
> English Mastiff and two Chinese Shar-pei's - but that's been nixed by
> the SO <pout> **
>
If you are this interested - get a copy of "The Irish Wolfhound Guide" by
Gen. Alfred de Quoy. The Chapter on "Standard of Excellence" has some
interesting statistics on Height and Weight (unfortunately it does not
include the English Mastiff as its standard does not include an 'average'
height requirement, but does include the Saint and Great Pyrenees) and
shows average heights (where stipulated in those breeds standards)
Dogs Bitches
Irish Wolfhound 32-34" 30-32"
Great Pyrenees 30-32" 25-29"
Newfoundland 28" 26"
Bullmastiff 25-27" 24-26"
The book is quite full of many interesting photos of midgets (as Chip would
claim) and their towering wolfhounds. Page 47 is quite a nice pic
Alan
Alan Cowen
Susan Mudgett aka little gator <s...@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in
article <5kvtqd$e...@harvee.billerica.ma.us>...
>
>
> I wasn't looking for this, but it leaped out of the AKC Gazette's
> Irish Wolfhound breed column in the May 87 issue.
>
> Credited as being adapted by Lois J. Thomasson from an article written
> in 1972 by Rosalie Fox:
>
> "Six other breed can and often do outdistance us in the senseless
> height and weight race."
>
> Followed by breed standard height minimums of 32 inches for males and
> 30 for females, no other information given. I'd love to know which six
> breeds they were thinking of.
>
None in particular - according to Lois Thomasson the context of the article
by Rosemary Fox is written as a reply to people who only want a wolfhound
because "I want the biggest dog".....she writes, "Six other breeds can and
often do outdistance us in the senseless height and weight race. (Our
standard sets the minimum height at 32" for males and 30" for bitches)."
In this context her comment should really be interpreted to mean "There are
plenty of other breeds around if all you want is a 'big dog' - that's just
not a good enough reason to want a wolfhound" and a means of dissuading
would-be owners of wolfhounds and point them toward other breeds.
Alan
Mr.King
The tallest regular dog I have ever seen was a 42 inch female great
dane. Call Anne Arundel County, Md and ask for the animal control
licensing dept and ask about great danes. Then check for the show dogs
and you will find a grand champion at 42 inches at the withers. She
has the longest legs I have ever seen on a dog. Just beautiful and she
is fawn in color.
Mr King
Mr.King
Look Alan, the largest dog is not the wolfhound. Generally it is the
great dane, etc. You seem to think that a tabby cat could take a tiger!
You seem to think wild animals can be taken by regular dogs...you are
not thinking straight. I had a pet bobcat that could have taken your
wolfhound anytime...because cats have claws remamber them?
Mr King
IrishCu
Alan,
You can't educate these people, why waste your time? Mr. King, Chip
...etc (the same 10 year old) has this wild view of his "wolf" and all
thing wild. Maybe he is in the middle of the childrens book "Where the
wild things are", it is about 25 pages and he should finish in about the
month. Just pray that his "wolf" does not get into your kennel and eat
all your wimpy, small, slow, spike wearing wolfhounds (LOL).
It's amazing that Irish Wolfhounds have been successful at hiding from
these killer wolves for well over 2,000 years. Can you imagine, 2,000
years of Wolfhounds hunting down wolves and no reported IW's killed. Now
Chip (Mr. King) has proof (that I am still waiting for) that in a single
hunt three (3) IW's torn to pieces by a wolf.
Have you seen any of the "singing swords" dogs. I have seen many from
this breeder that are in excess of 35"-36" and are well over 200lbs. The
largest IW I have seen was "Druid" : 38.5" and 225lbs ( great shape, moved
well).
Alan Cowen
IrishCu wrote in article <19970512223...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>Alan,
>You can't educate these people, why waste your time?
Well -it brough us together didn't it ???
Mr. King, Chip
>..etc (the same 10 year old) has this wild view of his "wolf" and all
>thing wild. Maybe he is in the middle of the childrens book "Where the
>wild things are", it is about 25 pages and he should finish in about the
>month. Just pray that his "wolf" does not get into your kennel and eat
>all your wimpy, small, slow, spike wearing wolfhounds (LOL).
He'd have to get past my seven cats first. Cats have claws you know (to
paraphrase Chip)
>It's amazing that Irish Wolfhounds have been successful at hiding from
>these killer wolves for well over 2,000 years. Can you imagine, 2,000
>years of Wolfhounds hunting down wolves and no reported IW's killed. Now
>Chip (Mr. King) has proof (that I am still waiting for) that in a single
>hunt three (3) IW's torn to pieces by a wolf.
He's talking about the Irish Stealth-hound. He really is a confused little
boy.
>Have you seen any of the "singing swords" dogs. I have seen many from
>this breeder that are in excess of 35"-36" and are well over 200lbs. The
>largest IW I have seen was "Druid" : 38.5" and 225lbs ( great shape,
moved
>well).
>
Yes - a friend of mine owns Ch. Singing Sword Mozart (in top 5 in the US
this year). Mozart can kick that wolf's butt too.
Alan
Alan Cowen
Mr.King wrote in article <337795...@juno.com>...
>Alan Cowen wrote:
>
>Look Alan, the largest dog is not the wolfhound. Generally it is the
>great dane, etc. You seem to think that a tabby cat could take a tiger!
>You seem to think wild animals can be taken by regular dogs...you are
>not thinking straight. I had a pet bobcat that could have taken your
>wolfhound anytime...because cats have claws remamber them?
>
>Mr King
>
Send him over Chip - my IW will kill it in less than 30 secs. Coyotes and
Wolves have sharp teeth but they just don't get a chance to use them. We
have wild bobcats in the canyon behind our house. Did you know they make a
"clucking" noise like a chicken when they know a wolfhound is around??
Alan
Alan Cowen
wwbo...@hotmail.com wrote in article
<33767e95...@news.atl.bellsouth.net>...
> >You are not using a realistic example. A 30" Mastiff (at the withers)
> >would probably be close to maximum height so you should use a 36˝ -37˝
> >Wolfhound (many have been documented in this range) for comparison.
> >Regardless of how fat the Mastiff is -- the Wolfhound would be 6˝-7˝"
> >taller, probably 12-15" longer, equally as broad in the front, narrower
in
> >the rear, with a much deeper more cavernous chest cavity. You would
have
> >to be blind not to see which one is the largest (as opposed to the
> >heaviest).
>
>
> A 30" Mastiff is close to the maximum height?? Come on now.. from my
> experience that is an average - to less than average - male's height -
> surely not the maximum. I have a small female Mastiff that weighs
> right around 140 that is 29" (she's still only 1 1/2 years). And I
> have a 7 month old male - don't know his weight - that is just about
> that tall and he's a good 8 inches shorter in length right now.
>
My mistake - and I stand corrected. I went to the Mastiff FAQ page and saw
that the minimum height for a male is 30" .
> This really just boils down to your Irish Wolfhounds being the biggest
> - good for you.
Well - isn't this what the thread was all about "The Largest Dog Breed" not
the largest dog on record (incidentally - contrary to was Susan? may have
said about the Great Dane in the Guinness Books of Records - the Mastiff
FAQ attributes this record to a Mastiff called "Zorba" at 314.5 lbs)
>I still love how your 20-60+ lbs lighter IW dog is
> taller, longer, and as broad "with a much deeper more cavernous chest
> cavity." compared to an English Mastiff.
I said they are taller, longer and 'as broad in the front' (not all the way
back). As I stated previously - the wolfhound's chest is cavernous (i.e.
it contains a lot more open space in relation to other dogs chests as the
internal organs are not as proportionately large), and of course open space
doesn't weigh as much. What would you say the girth of a Mastiff's chest
would be? The picture I sent of a dog with a 44" girth.
Alan
Alan Cowen
Susan Mudgett aka little gator <s...@harvee.billerica.ma.us> wrote in
article <5l4cge$o...@harvee.billerica.ma.us>...
>
> : > Alan Cowen (adc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : But there _is_ a big difference in the size of a maxed-out Mastiff and
a
> : maxed-out Irish Wolfhound. That's just the point.
>
> You have yet to give any argument or proof more believable than
> "because I said so."
>
>
> : All you can do is guess, and
> : > your guess is worth no more than anyone else's.
> : >
> : Okay Susan - a simple example....
>
> : Get a Chevrolet Blazer and a Chevrolet Suburban.
> (snip)
>
> This would be analagous to dogs only if one dog had its insides
> removed and the other dog was stuffed with bricks. In comparing live
> dogs, both would be filled with live dog guts, so the
> height/weight/size ratio would be similar enough that your example has
> no relevance.
>
>
No it's perfectly analogous as it was in reply to a statements to the
effect that if a dog "weighs" more than another dog it "has" to be larger
(actual quote was "Dogs have similar structures and compositions. Thus they
have similar densities. Thus a
heavier dog is in nearly all cases the larger dog.") and this demonstrates
that this is not so no matter what you are comparing.
> So you never did answer: I have two hypothetical dogs of unknown
> breed. One is 200 lbs, 30 inches tall. The other is 180 lbs and 32
> inches tall. Which is bigger, and how do you tell?
>
We're not talking about hypothetical unknown and similar sized dogs - the
thread is "Largest Dog Breed"
> Or two other dogs, one 10" tall and 15 lbs, the other 9" tall and 17
> lbs. Which of them is bigger, and how do you tell?
>
Dunk - em in gravy for all I care - it bears no relevance as to what is the
"Largest Dog Breed"
Alan
Michael Marsaglia
"Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
If you are comparing items of different compositions, they can have vastly
different densities. I think everyone can agree on this. My claim was and is
that dogs are not very different in composition. And so have similar densities.
Short of you presenting some verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will
continue to believe this, and rantings on brick filled trucks only makes
you look dumb.
I feel that lean body mass would be the best measure of size,
but I personally don't care what the largest breed is.
Mike
Dogman
On a cold day in Hell, 12 May 1997 19:24:10 GMT, "Alan Cowen"
<adc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
>I already acknowledged that the Mastiff is heavier (i.e. per cu inch) than
>the IW. We are discussing the "Largest Dog Breed" not the heaviest, most
>dense volume or anything other than the "Largest" dog breed.
I swear, I just can't understand this "argument."
Take that 900 pound guy in New York who was STUCK in his own house
because he was too LARGE to move around. He was billed as the LARGEST
man in America, eh? Yet he was only 6 feet tall.
Elephants are considered to be the LARGEST land-based animal, eh? Yet
the giraffe is MUCH TALLER than the elephant.
Shaquille O'Neil is considered to be the LARGEST man in basketball,
yet Minute Bol (and others) towers over him.
Sumo wrestlers would be considered among the LARGEST men on earth, yet
many men, even many women, tower over them.
Stand Orlando Pace, a 6' 7'' 340 pound offensive tackle, next to
Michael Jordon, at 6' 9'' and maybe 215 pounds, and I think that most
ANYONE would agree that Pace is the LARGER man, eh?
Well, for the same reasons (and all semantics aside), in my opinion,
the Mastiff will always be the LARGEST dog.
--
Dogman
qbt...@v1.arg
E-mail address rot13 encoded to foil advertising spam
Join in the hunt for NicKenChip! <<-- A "must see" for newbies and oldies alike!
http://www.i1.net/~dogman/thehunt.htm
Remember the Pierce collies!
http://www.i1.net/~dogman/pierce.htm
On retriever field trials!
http://www.i1.net/~dogman/ontrials.htm
wwbo...@hotmail.com
On 12 May 1997 18:47:46 GMT, "Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>My mistake - and I stand corrected. I went to the Mastiff FAQ page and saw
>that the minimum height for a male is 30" .
>Well - isn't this what the thread was all about "The Largest Dog Breed" not
>the largest dog on record (incidentally - contrary to was Susan? may have
>said about the Great Dane in the Guinness Books of Records - the Mastiff
>FAQ attributes this record to a Mastiff called "Zorba" at 314.5 lbs)
I was being sarcastic...
btw, I believe that the person who mentioned the Great Dane said that
he held the record for TALLEST dog (remember, TALLEST doesn't
necessarily equal LARGEST - oh, that's right - with you it does!!)
Zorba holds the record for LARGEST (oh, is that heaviest?? same
thing! *lol*)
>I said they are taller, longer and 'as broad in the front' (not all the way
>back). As I stated previously - the wolfhound's chest is cavernous (i.e.
>it contains a lot more open space in relation to other dogs chests as the
>internal organs are not as proportionately large), and of course open space
>doesn't weigh as much. What would you say the girth of a Mastiff's chest
>would be? The picture I sent of a dog with a 44" girth.
*LOL* Did you dissect a IW to determine that they have lots of unused
space inside?? Could you use one as a drum??
My seven month old male English has a 36" chest and he's probably at
somewhere around 65% his full adult weight (ie - he hasn't filled in
yet) and he is not going to be a really big male in all likelihood -
his Dad was 175 at 2 years. Wonder what a nice big 250 lbs male
mastiff's chest would measure??
king
>>It's amazing that Irish Wolfhounds have been successful at hiding from
>>these killer wolves for well over 2,000 years. Can you imagine, 2,000
>>years of Wolfhounds hunting down wolves and no reported IW's killed. Now
>>Chip (Mr. King) has proof (that I am still waiting for) that in a single
>>hunt three (3) IW's torn to pieces by a wolf.
>
I've participated in this thread, but I think someone is confusing me
with someone else in this newsgroup (if that Mr. King refers to me).
My first name is Darrin, not Chip. Frankly, I don't profess to know
anything about wolves except what you see on the Discovery channel.
While we're on the topic, though, how long ago were IWs used
functionally as wolfhounds? Were they only used in Ireland, or did
their effectiveness at eliminating wolves result in their being
exported? Were other wolfhounds (like Borzoi) developed
independently, or are they all related?
Darrin
Alan Cowen
-
>
>If you are comparing items of different compositions, they can have
vastly
>different densities. I think everyone can agree on this. My claim was and
is
>that dogs are not very different in composition. And so have similar
densities.
>
>Short of you presenting some verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will
>continue to believe this, and rantings on brick filled trucks only makes
>you look dumb.
>
>I feel that lean body mass would be the best measure of size,
>but I personally don't care what the largest breed is.
>
>Mike
>
>
I already told you Mike - check with any veterinary orthopaedic surgeon of
the Veterinary schools at Purdue or Davis and they will tell you quite
clearly that different breeds have substantially different bone mass and
density. If you don't want to verify that it's your problem - you're the
one who claims they all have the same density not me
Alan
wwbo...@hotmail.com
On 12 May 1997 18:01:03 GMT, "Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>That's not what we are debating here. If we were comparing 2 similar dogs
>(Mastiffs or Wolfhounds - it doesn't matter) it is generally accepted that
>the one that measures the tallest at the withers (measured properly and at
>the same time in the same location with a wicket) would be considered the
>Largest and the one that weighs the most on the same scale would be
>considered the heaviest.
LOL!! The heaviest is the heaviest, and the tallest is the largest??
What kinda of convoluted logic is that?
I say the heaviest is the largest and the tallest is the tallest!!
haha - i sure sound like an idiot, don't I? But that logic stands on
just as firm ground as your logic - well, ok.. if you insist - mine
is better :)
MASS and VOLUE = largeness in my book.... and I still firmly believe
that as a breed, English Mastiff outdistance all breeds in both of
these.
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
Can anyone tell me how I can figure out which of my dogs is larger?
Anyone who says they can tell just by looking will be ignored.
Molly is a Bluetick Coonhound and Sara is a Black and Tan
Coonhound. Both breeds are almost identical except for color. Both
are spayed females. Molly was whelped April 19, 1989, and Sara's
birthdate is unknown but her age was estimated to be a few months
older than Molly.
Both have been meaured a few years ago as between 22.5 and 23.5 inches
at the withers. I forget the exact measurements, but Molly appears to
be about 1/4 to 1/2 inch taller.
The last time they were weighed on the vet's walk-on scale, within the
past year, Molly was 47 lbs and neither fat nor thin. Sara was 51
pounds and slightly fat.
Sara's ears are longer, wider, and thinner than Molly's. Molly has a
bigger head and a longer, wider, thicker muzzle. Their legs and tails
look identical in size and shape except that Molly has better rear
angulation. Sara's collar is set at 17", Molly's at 18" so Molly has a
thicker neck.
Seen from the front or above, Molly has a broader chest. In profile,
Sara's chest is deeper but she has more tuckup.
layna
Susan Mudgett aka little gator wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me how I can figure out which of my dogs is larger?
> Anyone who says they can tell just by looking will be ignored.
Hmmm, how about...
Which dog eats more food? Maybe the dog that is consuming more food,
thus raw nutrients, has the larger body to sustain? Of course, the
flaws here are at least three things. 1. Do they eat the same food.
2. Are the two breeds dependent upon different nutrional requirements
than one another, as a characteristic of either breed. 3. Does one dog
get more exercise than the other.
Maybe it's a start, just noodling.
Mortie
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ask me about the Shar-pei... China's real blue-collar
fighting dog. Surprise...there's more to the dog than
the AKC, the FAQs, and the "Pei" crowd. Mingxing Fu
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
layna (la...@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Which dog eats more food? Maybe the dog that is consuming more food,
: thus raw nutrients, has the larger body to sustain? Of course, the
: flaws here are at least three things. 1. Do they eat the same food.
: 2. Are the two breeds dependent upon different nutrional requirements
: than one another, as a characteristic of either breed. 3. Does one dog
: get more exercise than the other.
: Maybe it's a start, just noodling.
It might be a good staring point, except for the points I will mention
in part 2.
1: yes, same brand, formula, and feeding schedule. Sometimes they get
the same daily amount, But usually Sara gets less. She's more likely
to get fat than Molly, see 3 for why.
2: the two breeds have almost no differenec other than color, but
there's another problem. Any two dogs will have different metabolism
and different nutritional needs. My first dog Brindle was bigger and
heavier than either Molly or Sara(height 25 to 26 inches, ideal weight
63 lb) yet she did well on a much smaller amount of food. Sara and
Molly currently get 4 cups a day and Brin at one point was fat(71 lbs)
on one cup a day, though she got a different type of food. Then when
she was old her weigh dropped into the 40s not matter how much she ate
due to being hypothryroid. Hypothyroid dogs are usually inclined to be
fat but Brin didn't go by the rules.
3. This is the most obvious difference. Molly is a very active dog who
is always bouncing when she's awake, while Sara is a lazy slug. When
they get excited Sara stands still and wags her tail while Molly yells,
jumps, bounces, and runs in circles. On walks, Sara walks and Molly
charges around and fidgets. When they are let out in their yard, Sara
strolls around and Molly sprints around barking. No wonder Sara's
fatter.
Alan Cowen
wwbo...@hotmail.com wrote in article <3379d5d6...@news.atl.bellsouth.
net>...
>On 12 May 1997 18:01:03 GMT, "Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>That's not what we are debating here. If we were comparing 2 similar
dogs
>>(Mastiffs or Wolfhounds - it doesn't matter) it is generally accepted
that
>>the one that measures the tallest at the withers (measured properly and
at
>>the same time in the same location with a wicket) would be considered
the
>>Largest and the one that weighs the most on the same scale would be
>>considered the heaviest.
>
>LOL!! The heaviest is the heaviest, and the tallest is the largest??
>What kinda of convoluted logic is that?
>
Well - it depends on what you define "Large" to be. Might as well quote
Webster's again.
"Large - exceeding most other things of like kind esp. in quantity or size"
No mention of weight here - so the above example (using to objects of
'like kind' being two Mastiffs) is correct. The one that exceeds the other
in 'size' is the larger, and the one with the most weight is the heavier.
>I say the heaviest is the largest and the tallest is the tallest!!
>haha - i sure sound like an idiot, don't I? But that logic stands on
>just as firm ground as your logic - well, ok.. if you insist - mine
>is better :)
>
No - I dont insist (other than the fact that you sound like an idiot)
>MASS and VOLUE = largeness in my book.... and I still firmly believe
>that as a breed, English Mastiff outdistance all breeds in both of
>these.
>
Well - your book is at variance with other more prominent books. Mass
refers to a large quantity, amount or number. Volume refers also to mass,
and space occupied as measured in cubic inch (or other unit of measure).
Neither have a direct correspondence to size. Large (as stated above)
refers to quantity (as in numerical quantites) or size.
Alan
Michael Marsaglia
"Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>-
>>
>>If you are comparing items of different compositions, they can have
>vastly
>>different densities. I think everyone can agree on this. My claim was and
>is
>>that dogs are not very different in composition. And so have similar
>densities.
>>
>>Short of you presenting some verifiable evidence to the contrary, I will
>>continue to believe this, and rantings on brick filled trucks only makes
>>you look dumb.
>>
>>
>>
>I already told you Mike - check with any veterinary orthopaedic surgeon of
>the Veterinary schools at Purdue or Davis and they will tell you quite
>clearly that different breeds have substantially different bone mass and
>density. If you don't want to verify that it's your problem - you're the
>one who claims they all have the same density not me
>Alan
Alan my problems are continuing to post to offtopic, brain dead threads, and
arguing with idiots. I will try to do better in the future.
Mike.
Alan Cowen
king wrote in article <3378ba1f...@news.iglobal.net>...
>I've participated in this thread, but I think someone is confusing me
>with someone else in this newsgroup (if that Mr. King refers to me).
>My first name is Darrin, not Chip. Frankly, I don't profess to know
>anything about wolves except what you see on the Discovery channel.
>
>While we're on the topic, though, how long ago were IWs used
functionally as wolfhounds?
Kind of debateable -- of course the wolfhound was used in Ireland actively
for hunting wolves, and this went on until around 1710 which is the last
recorded date of a wolf being killed by a wolfhound (in Kerry NI).
However - there is ample evidence of wolfhounds outside of Ireland being
used to hunt and kill wolves even as late as 1930's in America. The
American Kennel Gazette date Septembeer 1, 1931 had a great article
including photos of a South Dakota trapper called Charlie Cummins. One
photo shows him in front of a display of 151 wolf hides bagged in 59 days
of hunting by Charlie and his dogs. The dogs were Irish Wolfhounds,
Deerhounds and Greyhounds and Lurchers. He had a specially equipped car
that generally havd special compartments with control levers that allowed
him to open the gates and slip dogs from his moving vehicle.
>Were they only used in Ireland, or did
>their effectiveness at eliminating wolves result in their being
>exported?
Well not just their effectivenes at killing wolves, but also their
effectivenes as a fighting dog and dog of war. They have been exported
since early times, and have been written about by several Greek and Roman
writers as far back as the sixth century BC. In a letter from Quintus
Aurelius Symmachus, a Roman Consul to his brother in the year 391 AD it
reads ... "In order to win the favour of the Roman people for our Quastor
you have been a generous and diligent provider of novel contributions for
our solemn shows and games, as is proved by your gift of seven Irish Dogs"
>Were other wolfhounds (like Borzoi) developed
independently, or are they all related?
> Darrin
While the Borzoi is a sighthound (as is the wolfhound) it is really not
related. The only 2 descendent of the original Irish Wolfdog are the Irish
Wolfhound and the Scottish Deerhound. The Borzoi (or Russian Wolfhound)
hunts the wolf in a pack and not individually as theIrish Wolfhound does.
>
Alan
Alan Cowen
Mike McBee
On 1997/05/12 "Alan Cowen" <adc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Well - isn't this what the thread was all about "The Largest Dog Breed" not
>the largest dog on record (incidentally - contrary to was Susan? may have
>said about the Great Dane in the Guinness Books of Records - the Mastiff
>FAQ attributes this record to a Mastiff called "Zorba" at 314.5 lbs)
<snip>
My apologies, but the MASTIFF FAQ is out of date on this subject, mainly
because I'm a bit of a cheapskate. I have an old copy of Guinness, and,
instead of buying a new one each year, I just just spot checked in the
bookstore occasionally to make sure that Zorba was on top. What I didn't
notice (until someone recently pointed it out on here) was that Zorba,
who had originally qualified in 1987 at 314.5 lbs. (age 6), requalified
for the record in 1989 (age 8) at 343 lbs. Guinness also has him as the
LONGEST DOG. I'll have the FAQ corrected in the next update. It'll say:
According to the Guinness Book of Records the record holder for the world's
largest dog is Zorba, a Mastiff, at 343 pounds. He stood 37 inches at the
shoulder and was 8 foot 3 inches from the tip of his nose to the tip of his
tail. Zorba set this record in November, 1989, when he was 8 years old.
Sorry for the mis-information.
-------------------------------------------
Mike McBee - StoneHouse Mastiffs
MCOA Mastiff Breed FAQ rel 1.03 (3/31/97)
http://www.zmall.com/pet_talk/dog-faqs/
Prabbit
Molly's bigger.
:-)
-P