All Rhodesian Ridgebacks are too thin!

[quote1266539416=Taina] me a good ridgie male with 36 kg`s? Here are RR males whosw weight is about 35 - 36 kg`s

Here are some excellent ridgebacks (which are both over the standard weight):

http://www.bongani.de/]Karoskloof

http://www.rachral-abayomi-hintza.de
The first one looks like it's still a pup and the second one looks like a lurcher, doesn't look true to type to me at all.

I have found it interesting to note the changes in RR's in Australia over the past 30 years. I owned 2 which I bought from a pioneer breeder of this breed back in 1981 and 1983. She started breeding them in 1968. My first boy weighed 105 pounds at maturity and my second one was 120 pounds. They were both around 27 inches at the withers. I was never interested in showing dogs but used to go along occasionally to the big dog shows to see her dogs being shown. Some of the lines being shown at the time were taller and larger than my two. One such line was favoured by Major Hawley at the specialty show for RR. They would regularly go around 29 inches and some could be over 30. In his book on the breed Hawley wrote that Von Royen's lion dogs were an inch taller and the standard was changed after his dogs passed away. These were actual lion hunting dogs.

A certain Canadian RR enthusiast wrote a book on the breed in the eighties declaring that a RR was predominately a sighthound. Before this it was considered that they use their sight, hearing and scent equally well. This was evident in tracking dog trials where they would be disqualified for cheating. This author was a dog judge as well and his opinion began to be accepted by the RR community in Australia but not without much criticism.

By about 1997 the dogs had markedly changed. They looked a lot more like a sight hound. People who had condemned the sight hound theory were now promoting it. I guess one has to go with the flow when it comes to showing dogs and this trend that was set has remained to this day.

I'd like to apologise for my bad spelling. Van Rooyens lion dogs is the correct spelling.

It's reassuring to get such positive feedback. Thank you desiree.

"The specimen you described must have been quite impressive." Yes to some at that time. At that time-1980's when I followed the breed my preference was for a dog 27 to 28 max. Conformation wise they were heavier than today. My first male who weighed 105 pounds I believe was a better specimen than the second who was 15 pounds heavier. There was a line of dogs I liked who were generally about the size and conformation of my first male. One of the people who showed them used to go out horse riding often and far. Her dogs would accompany her. Honestly I think some judges would overlook some minor faults when they saw the beautiful condition of these dogs.

RR's can really look impressive when they are in such condition. I think if I could get that kind of dog today I'd get another.

I think the opposite is true. I mean if you want something close to the original rhodesian ridgebacks. Well the original native dogs maxed out at 30 lbs, but even the colonial mongrel was a lithe long distance running hound of about 60 lbs. A lot of the modern ridgebacks have been inflated by the show crowd and outcrossed with bullmastiffs and the like, and now wouldn't stand a chance in hell leading the lifestyle that shaped the breed.

Hi Tonedog. Your talking about the Hottentot hunting dog which was the ridged native breed used in the creation of the Rhodesian ridgeback.

These small native dogs were crossed with hounds both scent hounds and sight hounds. Great Dane blood was also infused along with heavier mastiff. Stickbeard dogs showed Deerhound or Wolfhound crossings as well.

The observation was made that the dogs with ridges had better lion baying ability. A dog predominately sighthound has severe limitations when facing a lion. The build of the dog gives it less lateral movement when facing a dangerous predator.

If you ever get a chance to have a look at Tom Hawley's book on RR have a look at Barnes dogs. They are not lightweights.

There was a movie made years ago. I think in the 70's called When the North wind blows. It's about Siberian tigers. Worth a look. That way you can get an idea of what I'm talking about.

I know there's the difference between the native hottentot dogs and the rhodesian ridgeback, the ridgeback was developed by europeans using the native dog and crossing it with their own hunting dogs, like you said including scent and sighthounds, stock dogs and some mastiff and bullbreed, but the resulting lion hunting dog produced very rarely would have went over 60 lbs (still considerably bigger than the native dog they descended from). Quickness and lateral movement being critical like you said, as well as limitless stamina and heat tolerance, too much size is going to result in sacrifices being made in all of these departments. The ideal size is gonna be around 60 lbs. Like most curs and hounds used on dangerous game today.

I don't think anyone is making rhodesian ridgebacks artificially small, that's just not what the show dog world does I think we should all know that by now. No I think the leaner lighter ridgebacks you see are most like the original colonial crossbred hunting dog of southern africa that the "rhodesian ridgeback" breed is an homage to, and the very large ones you see are a typical show-dog world exaggeration, with the help of recent outcrosses to bullmastiff and possibly dane. Breeds which may have went into the old school hunting dogs as well, but didn't influence the size in any way which would have been detrimental to the role asked of them.

I guess Tonedog that is why people write books about different dog breeds to acquaint people with their breed. Now you may not agree with different viewpoints in various RR books as I haven't. That is your opinion. It could be based on belief or fact. Fact is it's there in black and white photos in Major Hawleys book. Now you may choose to disagree. That is your choice. Those Lion dogs were not 60 pounds.

Did you just pull some arbitrary figure like 60 pounds out of the air? It isn't based on fact. Dane crossings were done before the 1920's. Sure the Dane of old was not as gigantic as todays. Hunters are pragmatists. When a crossing is done there is a functional purpose behind it. Historically there were many large breeds used to create the RR. Please do your homework.

Now through personal experience with this breed I have seen males standing as short as 25 inches at the withers from an African line of mahogany coloured dogs. These dogs had their followers. People joked at the time that they had bull terrier infused.I have seen another dog brought out from Africa 30 inches at the withers. This dog had Boerboel build. There were tall ones that were rangey. Chamwarri and Tugrabakh lines best exemplified this. Laughing willows lines were pretty standard 27 inches 90-110 pounds.(males that is) Lionheart dogs were big. Lionheart Antaeus father of my first male would have towered over him. Sixemm Randji replica a very solid dog who had a litter brother that was a demon on feral dogs. John Singleton's Purrline dogs. Buffalo hunters up in the territory. All large dogs.

When American bloodlines were introduced and started to dominate the show scene the build became more sighthound looking. Colours changed as well. No longer red wheaten to wheaten. Darker shades of brown were even included.

If you choose to believe Tonedog that RR shown today are closer to the Liondogs of old perhaps the validity of your reasoning is questionable. Showing RR is not about testing their functional purpose. Sure it would be a joke to do this. However wouldn't it be a more plausible, logical thing for these all breeds experts to have a look at RR history including the black and white photos? I don't think that's too much to ask.

People were breeding show dogs for impressive looks long before black and white photographs. A black and white photograph of a ridgeback doesn't automatically make it an example of a genuine lion hunting dog. It could very easily be a show dog and an early example of the mentioned outcrossings for impressive appearance.

Just saying, you might have more evidence these pics are of genuine lion hunting dogs, I can't see the book here and don't know. But so far nothing you've said leads me to think so. Some things lead me to think not.

People writing books about "their" breed are the absolute worst source of information about any breed in my experience. The major figures in a breed's history that worked towards getting it recognised and etc are similar. The 1920s are precisely the most suspicious time in the RR's history, that's when fancier groups started breeding them for no real reason and working towards getting them recognised as a purebreed. What this usually means, with any breed, is outcrossing is involved not for performance, but for stabilising a certain look to fit with the little story they've written up for the fake little fabrication they're working towards developing. Basically around 1920 is when the ridgeback stopped being a real ridgeback. Not due to the outcrossing (in fact, while it was the genuine article it was frequently being crossed hand over fist with whatever, cause that's how serious working dogs are bred), no but because it started being bred because it was a "rhodesian ridgeback", rather than because it was a handy mutt on a lion hunt. And so that is when it became something else. A show dog, rather than a hunting dog. 
Somewhat counter intuitively, I suppose, a dog stops being the real thing as soon as someone slaps a label on it defining it as that thing. When you try and pin a dog strain down as "breed x", that's when it stops being breed x. And for the ridgeback that was around 1920. So yeah black and white photos of big ridgebacks from around 1920 to me don't conflict with what I'm saying. In fact it's expected, that's precisely the time when people started blowing them up to look more like what they thought a lion hunting dog should look like. They were basically creating an image to sell.

Pictures of ridgebacks from around 1860 would be of more significant interest as to what the real dogs as shaped by the task were like, the dogs before they were known as rhodesian ridgebacks, the real dogs that the rhodesian ridgeback and it's legend are nothing but a mere homage to.

Have any of those pics?

I'm not saying the show dogs today are closest to the original dogs, in fact the show dogs I see here are often huge and over 100 lbs. But anyway I'm just saying the lither ones you see here and there are closer, while still undoubtedly not really accurate portrayals of the dogs they're supposed to be. You might be right that within the show dog world a second trend has come along to breed ridgebacks smaller than the ridgebacks of old and maybe added too much sighthound or whatever. I'm just saying your "ridgebacks of old" were show dogs too, they're a breed that has been a show dog for a long time compared to a lot of other breeds. Their distinct ridge on the back and the dramatic exciting occupation drew in fanciers and enthusiasts early on who wasted no time getting stuck into making a mess of things, as they do.

The reality first and foremost to remember is the original dogs were performance bred mutts and there would have been variation in size just like there is in "aussie pig dogs", however a larger bolder dog is favoured for pigs in australia than what would have been favoured for lion in africa, and that comes partly from my research on this topic and also from simply understanding what the respective roles entail and what dog type is naturally going to be favoured.

Tonedog you are making assumptions based on gigantic leaps of faith. If you are looking for a type that represents your ideal RR before 1920 forget it. Doesn't exist. So you can say this is what a RR should look like back in 1860 but you won't have a type. Based on that sort of belief because as I said that is all you have, a RR could look like anything at all. Evidence please.

Lions aren't pigs. Blue heeler can hold a big boar by the nose and control it. Bullarabs without Dogo or Pit crossed back in can't work pigs in rainforest or sugarcane for that matter. Legs are too long, can't move laterally. I'm digressing a bit but it's to make a point that if you look at the RR standard which says 25 -27 inches at the withers for males and apply that standard to a dog built to move in all directions to weigh 60 pounds you'll never get it. You would have a much shorter dog height wise. So consider that.

Another consideration as well. Have you watched RR tracking game. Wind scent and then trail scent. Best of both worlds. They follow that trail to Mr Lion. Do you think the Lion is going to run away. Ridgebacks were bred to bay Lions. Lions won't run away but the dog has to survive long enough for the hunter to arrive either by foot or on horseback. So I could say based on my limited hunting experience with RR on goats and big black wallaroos that scent ability was important. Lateral movement as well on big roos. They would only run at first. Point I'm making is RR is built to run, scent and then move in all directions. Those lithe sighthound types Tonedog is endeared to may meet a nasty end. Best thing Tonedog is read your RR history books and watch that movie. You will enjoy it I'm sure. Lastly buy a RR. You won't regret that either.

I was doing a few calculations with height to weight ratios. Here's what I came up with. The 60 pound RR mentioned above would have a height if it was within the RR standard of 24 - 27 inches. Lets take an average at 25.5 inches. OK now divide the weight 60 by the height 25.5 = 2.35 pounds for each inch.

I did the same with the American standard for RR working on averages 70 divided by 25.5 = 2.75.

Two other breeds I found with similar ratios were the Spanish greyhound for the 60 pound dog. The Borzoi actually worked out a little higher than the American RR. I then did the same with a heavier RR say 85 - 110 pounds with an average height of 25.5. I came up with 97.5 divided by 25.5 = 3.82. The Dogo Argentino was a little lighter than this at average 88.5 divided by 24.5 = 3.61.

Going back to RR history it was stated that the test for a RR before it was considered tough enough to go out Lion hunting, was for it to kill a fully grown male Baboon. I'm just thinking that the bigger heavier dog with the broader head meaning more PSI jaw power would stand a better chance.

Anyway I'm just talking about structure and not temperament but I still think that the heavier dog would have had a place in the Lion hunters pack.

I have seen a few impressive Ridgebacks in my time, but they were all pretty athletic and muscular animals. I can't see them looking any good at under 100 pounds. Of course, I am one of those guys that think dogs just can't get big enough! Its a problem, but I am coping with it... :)

I think mentally, the Ridgeback is in a really bad way. Every one of them I have seen in the last 5 or 10 years has been really nervy. I wouldn't get one anymore, just becuase I think they are usually too weak nerved.

I am very interested to hear what you said soldiermonkey about nervous RR. I was talking to Diane Price of Lionheart kennels about their temperament at a dog show back in 2000. I was saying how greyhoundish they all looked. I was then told that their temperaments aren't the same anymore as well. Instead of the laid back easy going temperament, they were starting to accept aggression as a characteristic of the breed.

Historically there would have been no place for a nervous, aggressive RR in a dog pack. I used to see them at dog shows in the 80's and they would be piled up like sardines. Dogs, bitches and puppies would be stretched out in the sun all laying together and on top of one another.

I also liked the raw sinewey look of RR back then as well. They were strong, muscular and tough. They didn't have to prove it to other dogs which made them so easy to take anywhere and to live with.

The "nervous" critique of RRs is a very very common complaint amongst boar hunters who try them out. The word "gutless" is also used. I don't think it's recent poor breeding that has made them that way, I think they're supposed to be like that, like all baying hounds of dangerous game. A bold brave balls to the wall ridgeback hunting lions would just get killed immediately. They have to be extremely wary and being a bit nervous and jittery can actually help to make them focussed on the potential danger in what they're doing and ready to spring back out of harms way at any moment. Boar hunters buy them expecting them to just torpedo into a nasty big boar like a bully grey or something but they're much more careful and wary and can seem "gutless" to the perspective of the hunter.

Like I said it just makes sense given their background, I don't think it's a new "flaw" bred into them. For starters greyhound aren't gutless, they're recklessly brave in fact, don't know their own limitations and get hurt if hunted with pure for this reason. Also I'd maintain that breeds like bullmastiff have been infused into recent RR lines, making them more brave and laid back, and this is why today some of the RRs hunters get for boars do work out. I think if they had access to the original lion hunting stock every single dog they tried would seem way too nervous and gutless for what they expect from it.

I've heard this one so many times. Sure RR love to play. Yes it's pointless to expect them to behave like a different breed. Being nervous has nothing to do with a RR ability to hunt. They have superior intelligence and a sense of fun to go with it. They take longer than other breeds to become an ear dog because they have different drives. Weekend hobbyists will take there pet RR out and ask " Why didn't he act like my pig dog and grab its ear?" Answer because he's not a pig dog. RR can be trained to act like a pig dog and that takes longer. RR loves being chased by an angry pig, bull or anything for that matter. It's all a big game. I'd watch mine on big roos. Biggest game out. They'd put their bodies in front where the roo can grab them.Soon as it makes a move they've gone behind it barking. Angry bulls the same. They would love stirring them up to charge. Then let them get close as possible but never close enough. Horses too. They'd stay just in front of the hooves. They wanted to be chased. All a big game. Nervousness is an alien idea when it comes to the correct RR temperament.

It is a great pity that breeders get hold of a bloodline for looks and don't research temperament enough with RR.

I think the Bullmastiff or Boerboel crossings have been going on for a very long time. I guess sighthounds could be more recent?

Tonedog if the original Lion hunting stock was bred to be a pig dog then what you are saying makes sense. They weren't, so what you are saying is they should be looking for a different breed. Absolutes like "I think if they had access to the original lion hunting stock every single dog they tried would seem way too nervous and gutless for what they expect from it."are better left unsaid.You have no proof. Just your belief.

[QUOTE]They weren't, so what you are saying is they should be looking for a different breed. [/QUOTE]

That's exactly what I'm saying and exactly what I say to pig hunters when I see them complaining about RRs. They have the wrong idea of what a rr is supposed to be, it's not a hard lugging dog akin to a bullbreed, it's just not the way they hunt, doesn't make them worse or better, doesn't make them "gutless", their method of hunting is different because it's been honed on different game, different game your typical pig dog with it's reckless brazen attitude and approach would die hunting nearly 100% of the time.
For what boar hunters want and expect from RRs, they don't deliver. Understanding what being a "lion dog" entails could have saved them a lot of hassle. It's like they assumed RR's were some super dogs that lugged up lions like a bull terrier will lug a pig, obviously not the case.

Hi gsicard. That's a beautiful looking dog. I like his head and feet. Good depth of chest as well. Looks to be in nice condition . Can you tell me something about him like age when photo was taken. Was it taken recently? I think I'd take him without asking too much about temperament. I'm such a hypocrite.

Is he from American bloodlines?

Yeah sorry Tonedog. I tend to over react sometimes. I really had a passion for Rhodesian ridgebacks. I guess I still do.

When I bought my first dog I remember Diane (Lionheart) saying a bomb could go off and they wouldn't lift an eyelid. They were that stable in temperament.

Sometimes their sense of humour seemed a bit one sided. I used to walk Karinda ( first one ) around a golf course at twilight. That's when he'd become "Lion dog" and I'd get chased. He'd just give me a little nip(to him) on the elbow or the back of the knee and I'd be down. Next thing he would be standing over me with a twinkle in his eye with his open mouth over my neck not exerting any pressure. I'd watch him launch himself in the air then hurl his body sideways at someones knees. Devastating, but not pleasant for the recipient. Leo my second one wasn't as playful as Karinda. I started feeding him on rabbits from the time I got him. I used to trap and shoot them. Trouble was trying to get the shot or trapped rabbit before he did. Leo would get his puppy teeth in my hair and start shaking. He wouldn't let go easily. Pig hunter at Mourilyn (can't remember if that's how its spelled) who I got my first Bullarab from used to hunt pigs with RR. He said he found them too playful with his children as puppies. They'd do the old teeth in the hair thing and the kids would go beserk.

Hey Paint, I agree with you when it comes to out-crossing the RR with the Boerboel. This is also the kind of dog I prefer, considering the ceossing is well planned and not done for extra mass only.

Hi Castanha. Back in 1982 I met some people in Sydney that had moved over from South Africa and had brought their RR with them. I had my first RR, Karinda with me when I was talking to them. He dwarfed my dog in height and size. They told me he weighed somewhere between 140 and 154 pounds. Told me he was great with kids but would drag the owners across a football field if he saw a dog he didn't like. I'd say he was at least 30 inches at the withers and looked like a RR with Boerboel in it to me.

Well I don't believe boerboels are supposed to be anywhere close to the size they often are either, I share this opinion with south african farmers I've met, who think the boerboel was more like an american bulldog (performance type) than the giant monstrosity it is today.

Around 90 - 100 lbs.

This is my cousin's ridgeback x bullmastiff, it weighs about 90 lbs, if that.

Which is typical for a working cross of these breeds. Chances are both the ridgeback and the bullmastiff in it's parentage were considerably bigger than it, but it has serious work to do and so naturally adapted into a more functional size. One that probably harks back to a size it's parent breeds had back when they had to work. This tells me fairly strongly that neither bullmastiffs nor ridgebacks are supposed to be anything close to the sizes they commonly are today. A quick bit of research into the history of the bullmastiff (night dogs, gameskeeper's dogs, bandogs, etc) shows that 90 lbs was a big one, 100 lbs a huge one that would be lucky to function, but great news if it did.

Boerboels are nothing more than bullmastiffs that found their way to south africa, with undoubtedly a bit of outcrossing but to even smaller breeds so there's no reason they should be bigger. And like I said farmers tell me working ones aren't. 90 lbs or so is about right. A gripping dog is nothing if it can't support it's own weight with it's grip, and that was the boerboel's role on the farm- gripping dog.

A ridgeback as a lion baying hound I would think smaller still, you can certainly see how being nimble and quick and light on their feet was even more imperative.

I just don't see the ridgeback as being too thin or too small, the show dog/purebreed world doesn't do that, they blow dogs up as soon as function no longer matters. Happens to every breed and I think clearly the RR as well. I just don't see the benefit of being bigger and chunkier for a ridgeback. Compared to boerboels and bullmastiffs whose sole focus was on close quarter combative gripping engagements and being built to endure the punishment with them. They topped out at 90 to maybe 100 max when they were serious working dogs. Ridgeback it seems should have been a good deal lighter for their area of expertise.

I guess if we could go back in history it would help. Everyone has an agenda to their opinion. Bullmastiff is a comparitively new breed. Mastiffs and Bulldogs were taken there before Bullmastiff blood was added. Probably depends on the purpose the Boerboel was bred for. For leopard killing I think a smaller dog would be more useful. For pinning a lion if they are just used as holders then more size would be an advantage. So once again function is the criteria.

In Carl Semencic's book Gladiator dogs in the chapter on Boerboels there is one on p258. She stands 25 inches, weighs 112 pounds and looks like there is RR blood in her for sure.Even her colouring is similar.For contrast on the previous page there is a Boerboel standing 27 inches and weighing 172 pounds. This one shows the dark brindle from Mastiff or Bullmastiff.

I totaly agree about the funtional size of a working farm dog heavy dogs can't run for long with very few exeptions people want bigger dogs to sit on their couches to have  the biggest useless dog and if it costs them a small fortune they have more to brag about then they feed it as much as they can so you could never feel a rib and get upset with me when i tell them that you should be able to feel the ribs easely no mater the breed that there  limping artritic dog would be much healtheir if it lost 20 pounds. A hunting RR should be lite and fast because even if you had a two hundred pound beast it will die if it fights a lion the key is to have enough balls to harass  the lion and fast enough to get away when then lion comes after them or you would need new dogs every hunt.

Once again depends on the dog, whether you can feel their ribs or not. Conditions would have dictated that the Lion hunting dogs wouldn't have been fat. Conformation wise all modern RR can trace their ancestry down to one dog anyway. The dog's name was Ginger a Lion hunting dog. This dog had the type that resembled other lion hunting dogs at the time. A more sturdy dog without the excessive sighthound influence seen in most of today's RR.

So if modern opinion says that a heavier dog than today's sighthound type couldn't hunt Lions, well I don't really need to tell you how much it's worth.

Your agenda may be true for running down animals. Sighthound type dogs aren't going to hold a Lion at bay. RR have also been used as one individual to bay a lion. Because the dog that could do this didn't live today and didn't get shown makes no difference to its ability. It was of the old type. This type was picked purely for functional purposes. Temperament was matched to this type. The cool headed laid back temperament was there for a reason.

History of the RR has been documented. Why not read it. It's a lot more persuasive to me than someones knee jerk, emotional response to this question. Pointing a finger at RR owners whose dogs are too fat for your agenda doesn't mean much. Then to claim that a 200 pound RR can't hunt Lions is pretty much stating the obvious. Then to base your conclusions on this ridiculous fact means even less.

If you want to exaggerate fine go ahead. It does make your credibility a bit suspect though.

I was  talking about breeds in general being bred larger than they should be the original village dog was about 18 inchs tall lean and muscular then they were crossed with sighthounds danes bulldogs whatever they had that would hunt well then they based the first standard on the dalmation because they were simalar build and size lean and mucular now they can be heavier as with many breeds and any breed be it neo bullmastiff or any heavy set dog in good condition you should be able to feel rib under the muscle now you might like a fat dog so you can say my dog weighs alot so whos credibility is in question?