# Big vs Small



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

This could make for an interesting discussion. Molly and I touched on it on another thread but, don't want to side track that thread. Are big dogs less agile than small dogs....blanket statement? Why?


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Bigger dogs seem to be less intuned with where their ass end is, unless you MAKE them aware of it. I see a tendency towards the smaller dogs being able to cut faster, twist better and balance. My big dogs have to LEARN to be agile, where the smaller ones just are. The big ones are all over the place and tend to get hurt more often, because of it. Smaller dogs seem to step out of the way, where big dogs seem to step in the way and trip your ass. 

Then again any statement can be called a "blanket statement", some Schmo will always have "that one dog".


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Michelle. It was a blanket statement, but realistically, I think it has to be narrowed down to be breed specific. Like a smaller GSD compared to a larger GSD of the same structure. It would be pointless to compare a Mastiff to a JRT in other words because it is far more than size being compared.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic (Jan 10, 2009)

Yes, and the simples way to look at it is to compare a racing car with a bus and see which one turns corners easier.


----------



## Rigel Lancero (Aug 22, 2007)

Don Turnipseed said:


> This could make for an interesting discussion. Molly and I touched on it on another thread but, don't want to side track that thread. Are big dogs less agile than small dogs....blanket statement? Why?


Generally,yes.

Both have advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## Debbie Skinner (Sep 11, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> This could make for an interesting discussion. Molly and I touched on it on another thread but, don't want to side track that thread. Are big dogs less agile than small dogs....blanket statement? Why?


Two dogs both with great structure with one being 50lbs and the other 95lbs of course, the 50lb dog can change directions quicker and maneuver quicker as he has less mass. 

However, I think if you are not just playing in agility, other factors come into play as many want a dog of a certain size and, power and strength in the work such as man-work. 

I believe it's overall safer to have a dog of a decent size and power doing protection work and taking bites from a 160-200lb decoy/agitator. Overall a well built working dog is going to be more agile than the decoy. There might be a surprise miss at the beginning is all. 

I would think for hunting large game, you want a descent size dog as well, Don?

You can see in horses where they have taken a piece of ranch work and made it into an event such as Cutting that the horses are overall shorter and lighter boned. However, if you wanted a horse to actually do the complete job of cutting stock out and the holding them (roping off the horse), you need a larger more powerful horse to work at cutting and roping off of all day.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> This could make for an interesting discussion. Molly and I touched on it on another thread but, don't want to side track that thread. Are big dogs less agile than small dogs....blanket statement? Why?


 I would say that in my experience the smaller sized dogs are more agile usually than the larger ones. They can cut faster due to having less weight to change direction, they are usually just lighter on their feet and can climb around a little better. The folks involved with USAR would be the best source for input here. Many of our clients dont want an oversized dog for several reasons that go beyond just agility. Of course there are exceptions but if I had to make a blanket statement I would say that smaller dogs are usually more agile than larger dogs, but you really have to put them through some pretty intense agility excersises to make it more obvious.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

mike suttle said:


> I would say that in my experience the smaller sized dogs are more agile usually than the larger ones. They can cut faster due to having less weight to change direction, they are usually just lighter on their feet and can climb around a little better. .




They are also a lot easier to throw over a fence.

DFrost


----------



## jacque gillis (Dec 13, 2009)

jmo wash and rinse, form follows functionhave seen 100lb dogs do amazeing things in the woods, they just dont last as long as the smaller ones. the best ones i have seen were structural wreaks according to show standars so whats that say! then wash and rinse some more cause its hard tellin not knowin


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I don't think it depends more on the structure of the dog. Big doesn't make a dog faster either. It is thye structure of the dog. Different breeds have such different stucture that they can'r be realistically compared. How do you compare a rottie to a dobe in terms of agility and speed? 

Let's take a 50 lb GSD and a 75 lb GSD of the same structure. The bigger dog is 50% bigger. Picture a rubbish pile at a collapsed building. How much difference do you think it takes to turn left foir either dog? Put the front left foot to the left and it is done for either one. In this case, what has agility got to do with the turn? They have both changed directions in one step. The smaller dog apears to have done it quicker but has it really? Now, take them away from the rubbish pile and get bo0th dogs running full out on good ground. Then the smaller dog will have a bit of an advantage on a sharp turn because of inertia and gravity. The advantage to me on the turns is it is easier to pick up a 50 lb dog than it is to pick up a 75 lb dog.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Here is a picture of two dales. The one jumping is under 50 lbs and about 19". The other is a 28" dog and between 76 1/2 lkbs. Look how agile the smaller on is!!. Let's go back to the rubbish pile. She is agile and can jump over things at a rubbish pile. That is a good thing? The other dog will never look as agile because he can casually walk up and step over the object she has to jump. Don't kid yourself, the bigger dog is as agile as the smaller but he won't look it . The truth is, if the going really got tough, she isn't agile enough to jump things he can jump easily. Small dogs are more animated through necessity, but, that doesn't make them more agile even though the do look it. IMO when it comes to agile jumping for the smaller dog, the advantage is still that they are easier to pick up.


----------



## Molly Graf (Jul 20, 2006)

I think you might be comparing apples to oranges when it comes to comparing Terriers to GSDs - Terriers are more agile "in general" - maybe size doesn't matter as much when they are spring-loaded for agility. But IMO in GSDs and other similar heavier working breeds NOT bred to leap straight up 8' in the air while doing loop-de-loops and landing on their feet (like a cat or a terrier), smaller = more agile.

You could possibly compare the Malinois (in general) being a smaller, lighter breed than the typical GSD - and I would consider Malis a lot more agile (in general) than GSDs, due to their size/build.

molly


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

If you do a comparison of breeds typically used in USAR, a 90 lb. GSD who is confident on the rubble can cover the same ground as a 65 lb. GSD. Temperament (drive) and confidence seem to be more indicative of the dog's agility ability than size. However, a larger dog obviously carries more weight and there is more stress on his joints while moving around the rubble. A larger dog is also more difficult to carry, which is definitely something to consider.

Those last two points are why I like to work smaller dogs in USAR. I have seen 90 lb. GSDs move really well on the rubble, but by 9 years of age they have slowed down considerably compared to smaller GSDs, Labs and Malinois. And, who the hell wants to sling a 90 lb. dog over their shoulder? Not me.


----------



## Molly Graf (Jul 20, 2006)

Yes, as I said if/when I work a dog in SAR (I have great interest, just no time to do it at this point in my life) - my SAR dog will be a female GSD or smaller male. I think the size is important, at least from what I can see. Though I have also seen larger dogs doing a great job, I think the smaller, lighter more agile dogs have more chance to do the same job, better.

molly


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Molly Graf said:


> I think you might be comparing apples to oranges when it comes to comparing Terriers to GSDs - Terriers are more agile "in general" - maybe size doesn't matter as much when they are spring-loaded for agility. But IMO in GSDs and other similar heavier working breeds NOT bred to leap straight up 8' in the air while doing loop-de-loops and landing on their feet (like a cat or a terrier), smaller = more agile.
> 
> You could possibly compare the Malinois (in general) being a smaller, lighter breed than the typical GSD - and I would consider Malis a lot more agile (in general) than GSDs, due to their size/build.
> 
> molly



MMmmm. Actually I thought I compared 2 airedales in one example and 2 GSD's in the other. My point being, it is tough to compare different breeds together and say smaller is more agile. In the jumping scenario, why would the bigger dog have to look agile when he can carefully step over obstacles that the smaller "more agile" dog has to jump. So which is more agile. It was said a big dog may tire quicker but, let's face it, he should because he has covered twice the ground in said amount of time. I have 100 lb doig that are not faster than a 50 lb dog. I have 80 lb dogs that are more agile than 50 lb dogs. It depends on the structure not the size IMO

The first thing I look at is the back legs. The length from the hock to the foot determines the dogs running gear. The longer it is, the more power it takes to move the dogs mass. I want to see a short distance between the hock to the foot and a long upper leg bone. Other factors determine real agility. A short stiff back makes the dog look really agile but it is an illusion. Sharp turns is dependent on the speed being traveled. If the dog is walking carefully across a rubble pile, it is simpley a step to the desired direction for any dog, big or small.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Interesting Don. I find the biggest diff in the GSD's is the ammount of bone, a heavy boned dog is just plain slower, heavier, prettier to look at but can't turn like a lighter built dog. My last real light dog was still 80lbs but he was tall as hell, all legs, looked built like a cheeta. Pretty strait legs, more like your dogs or a Mal than a "correctly" angulated GSD. Couldn't turn for shit but he could jump and run like the wind. Any rabbit/rat dumb enough not to zig zag was had. Not a gracefull dog, he was just built fo speed.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Michelle, here is a picture of what I am talking about when a dog is just walking. Agility has nothing to do with the turns. This is the same 28" dog, turning is a matter , in this case, of moving the left foot to the left. He has turned on a dime in a very short radius.....just akes a bit for the rest of his body to make the turn....but he is now going 90 degrees to the left. He can turn sharper than a smaller shorter, thick bodied dog that has no flex. This is why I say it isn't the size, it is the structure in my mind.


----------



## Debbie Skinner (Sep 11, 2008)

It's always about structure. Look at the Quarter Horse. Look at the length of back vs under belly. Look at the stronger bone on the speed horse and strength of the gaskins. Look at the slope of the croup. The angles, slope of shoulder, etc. Of course the animal needs character and heart. But, w/o the structure, no amount of heart is going to win the race or competition.

One for Speed/Race - Dash for Cash

One for Cutting/Agility - Doc O Lena

Please don't say they look the same ](*,)


----------



## Molly Graf (Jul 20, 2006)

an even more obvious comparison if using the very good example of horses - is a cutting/ranch-bred QH (shorter, stockier, thicker rounder muscles, shorter/smaller in stature) built for agility (and speed during turns/stop/starts) compared in structure to a racing Thoroughbred (taller, longer, lighter bone, longer muscles) built for speed, (and stamina on the straight-way). 

molly


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

The bigger ths horse the better as far as I am concerned............the bigger ones provide more dog food.:razz:


----------



## Debbie Skinner (Sep 11, 2008)

mike suttle said:


> The bigger ths horse the better as far as I am concerned............the bigger ones provide more dog food.:razz:


and the farther the fall to the ground!


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

I'll take a smaller QH (less than 15 hands), please! I'm skeered of the big ones :wink:


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Talking of horses....you can get some very agile Clydesdales (huge, heavy and hairy), who can jump remarkably high and turn very sharp.... you wouldn't think it to look at them, they just aren't what you would call the quickest.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

What it comes down to to me is that because a dog is on the large size doesn't mean he isn't as agile as they come. Likewise I have seen lots of smaller dogs in a breed that move like toads. The one thing a big dog can never do that a small dog can is be easier to carry. Any smaller dog has that in the bag.
The smaleer is more agile argument used to be used as the reason coyotes could whip even big dogs. I got to questioning that when I saw a 75lb dog corner a coyote and wade in and go toe toe with a 35 to 40 lb yote. Fight ended and the dog didn't have a mark on him and coyotes are as agile as they come.


----------



## Debbie Skinner (Sep 11, 2008)

Molly Graf said:


> an even more obvious comparison if using the very good example of horses - is a cutting/ranch-bred QH (shorter, stockier, thicker rounder muscles, shorter/smaller in stature) built for agility (and speed during turns/stop/starts) compared in structure to a racing Thoroughbred (taller, longer, lighter bone, longer muscles) built for speed, (and stamina on the straight-way).
> 
> molly


Yes, agree that it's easier to see if you show really, really extremes in structure.

I disagree on the bone though as race horses should have a lot bone and that's where the good legs come from. They start racehorses as 2 year old so it's harsh and eliminates a lot of them as the weak or immature don't hold up. The ones that lack bone and leg strength aren't bred as they usually breakdown and are put down. Just recently breeders were using TB and Racing Quarters to improve the bone on cutters that were getting too refined and "stylized". 

Here is a photo of my Poco Bueno bred mare (Foundation Ranch/Cutting) and "Vista" her daughter (Sire is Azyoucansee->First Down Dash --> Dash for Cash). "Vista" (brown filly) could practically outrun her at a couple weeks of age... Take a look at the leg on her. Mom has that big Quarter rear to sit down on with a big stop and turn on a dime though. 3rd photo is Azyoucansee (Vista's sire) race horse. Then 4th a cutter we used to own - Sorrel/Red "Missy' (Colonel Freckles grand-daugher). Missy could jump side wise so fast she'd leave the unexpected rider behind. Same about her spins, if you were not experienced she'd spin you right off onto the ground. She was built for agility. However, even with her big heart, she would be left in the dust, running her short legs off trying to keep up with Vista. The same goes for Buena..big stops and turns, but no speed.

It's really the same with dogs...structure all the way and good muscling.


----------



## Debbie Skinner (Sep 11, 2008)

maggie fraser said:


> Talking of horses....you can get some very agile Clydesdales (huge, heavy and hairy), who can jump remarkably high and turn very sharp.... you wouldn't think it to look at them, they just aren't what you would call the quickest.


I had a big, course Appy gelding "Grappa" that was a jumper so I know what you mean. However, having ridden athletic quarter horses, I would call him powerful and a strong jumper..I was like a flea on his back. But, not quick like a cutter and nothing is like being on the back of a running quarter from stop to flat out...makes your eyes water.


----------



## Debbie Skinner (Sep 11, 2008)

Konnie Hein said:


> I'll take a smaller QH (less than 15 hands), please! I'm skeered of the big ones :wink:


I just realized that women hijacked one thread to talk about horses and another to talk about cute decoys!  I'm waiting for the guys on the list to revolt.


----------



## Molly Graf (Jul 20, 2006)

I love hunting (foxhunting) on "drafties" - big, heavy-bodied and heavy-boned draft-horse cross "heavy hunters". They can definately jump. But it's not because they are quick or agile or even fast (they are definately not fast) but because they are incredibly strong, powerful animals - they can jump without much effort, a smaller animal would take much more effort to jump the same height, and need to get more speed/impulsion in order to do it. Power and strength, definately increase with size (and thicker muscle structure) - but not agility IMO.

Rotties can jump amazingly well, too - but are they agile? Not IMO.

Speaking of jumping - if you watch the Grand Prix jumpers - Olympics or Championship levels - the jumps are very high, very wide, and the course must be fast - the fastest run wins, but there must not be any poles knocked down. This takes speed (time limit) AND agility (don't knock any bars - in order for the time to be fast corners must be cut and jumps taken at odd angles AND strength (very high, very wide jumps) The breeds of choice for the most part are warmbloods - a sport horse bred (originally) from crossing Thoroughbred-type horses with Draft-type horses - creating a heavier, steadier horse with strength, stamina and agility for equine sport. Now, occasionally you will see a Thoroughbred in these top competitions. Much smaller (shorter, lighter in body) and much faster, more agile - so they have two parts in the winning combination (speed and agility), while the warmblood has only one (strength) when compared to the TB. Yet in the end, most of the time the warmbloods are the breed of choice for these competitions, and most of the time they do the best - because their strength prevails in the end, over the speed and agility. Because the faster, more agile animal who doesn't have the strength to carry it over the huge jumps at odd angles without taking down rails - loses in points even if the time is faster.

interesting discussion.

molly

molly


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Debbie Skinner said:


> I had a big, course Appy gelding "Grappa" that was a jumper so I know what you mean. However, having ridden athletic quarter horses, I would call him powerful and a strong jumper..I was like a flea on his back. But, not quick like a cutter and nothing is like being on the back of a running quarter from stop to flat out...makes your eyes water.


Yep, know what ya mean re eyes watering. I was 'gifted' a TB who had been favourite for the 'Melbourne Cup' a few years back for retraining..... all I remember was flying round the track for a few months on a daily basis.... still couldn't tell you anything about the scenery


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

You're absolutely right Molly, agree with all you say. I see you're from PA, I worked a showjumping yard there for a short time a lot of years ago....a place called Doylestown, do you know it ?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Apologies for thread hijack.... but there's no stopping some wimins when they get to talkin' horses :-s


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Debbie Skinner said:


> I just realized that women hijacked one thread to talk about horses and another to talk about cute decoys!  I'm waiting for the guys on the list to revolt.


Im not gonna touch the hot guys and horses thing. LOL


----------



## Molly Graf (Jul 20, 2006)

I do know where Doylestown is - not too far away.

Here is a video of Grand Prix Show jumping - the winner here was McLain Ward with Sapphire (a mare, by the way) who was also the 2008 Olympic Gold Medalist in Show Jumping. This video is a jump off - when the riders who went "clean" (did not take down any rails and were within a time limit) then come back to "jump off" in a faster, tighter, more complicated, shorter course - in the jump off the fastest cleanest (no rails down) time wins. 
In this particular jump off there are no TBs - they are all warmbloods - not agile or fast compared to a TB jumper (you can see this in the tight turns, though you may be able to compare the smaller/lighter horses to the heavier ones in how quick/agile they are in the tight turns and acceleration), but at this level, it's strength that prevails. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=421NpDxZlWI


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Debbie Skinner said:


> I just realized that women hijacked one thread to talk about horses and another to talk about cute decoys!  I'm waiting for the guys on the list to revolt.


Hmmm, or enjoy it thoroughly. 5,781 views on a post that has just 130 comments. Someone is finding it interesting for sure. :idea:


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

That was an enjoyable link....but I would not go as far as to kick out TBs though, you can get a large variation in TBs in the world. Some are thicker and shorter set and strong and good showjumpers at this level, although not as many as the warmbloods. You'll even see some working sheep in OZ and wintering out. Just sayin

Don... you still there ??


----------



## Molly Graf (Jul 20, 2006)

not kicking them out - in fact there have been a few TBs who did make a name for themselves at this level of show jumping - Gin Twist ridden by Greg Best - geez can't remember his name now - won "everything" and was on the olympic team - was a TB - and an itty bitty bay off-the-track TB mare - smoked Gin Twist in a jump off, now can't remember her name. I'm sure there were TBs in this GrandPrix - the one in the video and most others - but they just didn't make it to the final round. Probably because of knocked rails. But they definately can be competitive! And one thing a TB has that a warmblood or other breed may not have, is a desire to WIN - that's what makes them great for racing - they are very competitive by nature, which can give them a definate edge in some cases.

molly

molly


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

As an all rounder they are my breed of choice.... with a good one there's not a lot you can't do.

I do hope Don has appreciated a little insight into the qualities of horses when describing dogs....

Big is good... but so is small !! Clear as mud LOL


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Yes, I amj here...but my last post kind of closed the main thread down. Go head on.


----------



## Jennifer Marshall (Dec 13, 2007)

I agree with Don in that it is not the weight of the dog, it is the proportions/structure! One 90 pound dog is not equal to another 90 pound dog, one 50 pound dog is not equal to another 50 pound dog. This dog is 92 pounds:

















He is quite agile and outruns/turns dogs smaller than he is. 

If you want to go to extremes in type, look at the siberian husky... and the english bulldog. Both breeds have comparible average weights, but a 45 pound EB cannot compare to a 45 pound Sibe in speed or agility. It is the dog's build, not the weight alone, that matters.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

I think it is more than the actual build and structure (skeleton and muscle mass), perhaps the drive/desire and temperament is somewhere in there too.... otherwise, explain the Clydesdale horse (relatively speaking of course). And of course, the specific requirements that are to be met of the dog.... kind of 'horses for courses' no ?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Here is a picture of an 85# + dog. Could turn on a dime fighting hogs. He had to. At 28 1/2 " he was fast. You can see the power in the rear end. He was built to run. As things go on lists, I posted this picture and the airedale show breeders board when they told me the show dogs had the perfect working conformation. One show lady told me she had a 22" males, built to the standard that could blow this dog away in a race. At that point I just cash it in as it is pointless. Her dog may have been fast but it was still bred for looks and the standard. This dog was bred to run down fast game. Just as a point on agility, dogs, big or small that fight hogs in the brush have to be agile to survive. I need the power but the disadvantage is that even agile big dogs are a bigger target.


----------



## Jennifer Marshall (Dec 13, 2007)

No amount of drive can make up for poor working structure or physical types like the EB/shorty bulls/etc. I don't care how drivey it is, an EB is not going to be a disc dog, it is limited by it's physical abilities.

If you are comparing two dogs of similar type and weight etc then yes drive makes all the difference, a dog that has a low energy level and little drive won't be inclined to use it's ability whereas a dog that is higher energy and driven, does.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Jennifer Marshall said:


> No amount of drive can make up for poor working structure or physical types like the EB/shorty bulls/etc. I don't care how drivey it is, an EB is not going to be a disc dog, it is limited by it's physical abilities.
> 
> If you are comparing two dogs of similar type and weight etc then yes drive makes all the difference, a dog that has a low energy level and little drive won't be inclined to use it's ability whereas a dog that is higher energy and driven, does.


Why would I be comparing dogs of a different breed ?? Hey, I've been comparing with horses. Who is talking about poor working structure ? Have you read the thread ?


----------



## Jennifer Marshall (Dec 13, 2007)

Yes I have read the thread. Poor working structure is seen in every breed and is essentially what the thread is about. What the work is will help determine the proper structure, but in this case the specific points are speed and agility. If the work requires speed and agility and the dog is not fast or agile (and has drive/energy) then it has poor working structure.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic (Jan 10, 2009)

> Put the front left foot to the left and it is done for either one. In this case, what has agility got to do with the turn? They have both changed directions in one step. The smaller dog apears to have done it quicker but has it really?


Agility is the ability of a dog to change its centre of gravity fast, ie. dog that can do that will do it faster. Whether its taking turns or whatever else, that is what agility means. So, smaller dog will be able to change directions faster (regardless of whether they are play wrestling in the back yard or running after a cat) because smaller dog's centre of gravity is closer to the ground. Of course, longer the legs better ground coverage a dog will have, but it is give and take in any function.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic (Jan 10, 2009)

> Just as a point on agility, dogs, big or small that fight hogs in the brush have to be agile to survive. I need the power but the disadvantage is that even agile big dogs are a bigger target.


Yes but your question isnt whether a dog is agile enough for the job its supposed to do, but whether smaller is more agile than big. Of course, as I said, its a trade off between different things depending on the job you need them to do.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Don is right. All things being equal the dog that wants it more will be the fastest. But if you make one of them bigger, the bigger one will be faster. The fastest dog in the world is a greyhound, not a whippet, and they have the same structure. But if you go see them in lure coursing you will see that the whippets look like the fastest thing on the field but their strides are only about 60% of the greyhound's so they post higher times. 

Another huge factor is the structure. For instance , a 55lb GSD will have a hard time keeping up with a 75lb Malinois. GSDs are simply not built to run fast, jump and turn quickly.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic (Jan 10, 2009)

Speed isnt equal to agility. Greyhounds are much bigger than whippets and therefore can of course cover greater ground. A lot of hunting dogs are very leggy, but you wouldnt call them agile compared to smaller dogs. Then look at dogs that have a job in looking after livestock. They are smaller than ridgebacks but more agile. Take a greyhound and put it to a lure course, you will see how much they slide when they need to take turns compared to keplies, for example. You can tell that their long legs are doing them a disadvantage. Why do you think they try and do everything they possibly can to make race cars not only closer to the ground but also lighter? The arguement however has to be " all other things being equal."


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Sandra said,
"Speed isnt equal to agility."

Why is a dog timed on an agility course? It is tough to judge a dogs agility walking carefully on a rubble pile.
How is it that big dogs run agility and do well?
Why don't they run the smaller dogs with the bigs dogs?


----------



## Sanda Stankovic (Jan 10, 2009)

I thought we were talking about dogs of the same breed, not different breeds. In comparing different breeds, many things come into play. If you compare grayhound with a JRT, well of course greyhound will finish that course faster, because despite its lack of agility compared to a keplie or a APBT, its lack of agility is compensated for by his 5x greater size compared to JRT. So he could be walking the course, he would probably finish faster than a JRT. :lol: But I am yet to see greyhounds on average kick kelpie's butt in agility.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I think a lot has to do with what is the dog bred for.
In your instance Don, your breeding for not only quickness and speed but more importantly heart/gameness. Heart/gameness will trump speed or agility any day of the week.
I've seen many of the 12-14 lb terriers go head to head with 20-25lb raccoons and get the job done. Most any dog can probably run down a **** in the open. Do they want to? Most don't! 
It's like you commented before. When that coyote looks like he's pulling away from a dog, is it really? 
Hell no! It MAY have the speed. It MAY have the agility. It just doesn't have the heart for it.
With the dog that "collects" the coyote, is it size, agility or heart? The coyote is there because it was probably cornered. The dog is there because it wants to be. Heart trumps speed and agility again! Not that much to do with size.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> When that coyote looks like he's pulling away from a dog, is it really? Hell no! It MAY have the speed. It MAY have the agility. It just doesn't have the heart for it.


Judging from the Super Cross main event race that I watched tonight, when Kevin Windham was overtaken by another rider for the lead, which he had maintained for just under 1/2 the race, once that happened I think there was something like a 17 second lead between him and Villopoto (the winner) when the checkered flags were waved - so, I totally get your point. There's a reason this guy hasn't won more than 16 or so main events in a career that has spanned a decade.


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

Somewhere out there in the disc dog and agility world is a ratio used for selecting dogs. It is just weight vs. height and I don't remember what the ideal numbers are.

Although you'll find most of these twisty,turny, explosive sprint dogs are close to 40 pounds and about 16 - 18 inches at the shoulder.

I had a dog that was 30 lbs and 16 inches the was CRAZY agile. Another was 40 lbs and 18 inches and he got the job done, but there was a big difference. Now I have one that is 40 lbs at 16 inches - very agile, but not nearly as fast.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> Judging from the Super Cross main event race that I watched tonight, when Kevin Windham was overtaken by another rider for the lead, which he had maintained for just under 1/2 the race, once that happened I think there was something like a 17 second lead between him and Villopoto (the winner) when the checkered flags were waved - so, I totally get your point. There's a reason this guy hasn't won more than 16 or so main events in a career that has spanned a decade.


 Will you marry me?


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

I agree with the point that Don is trying to make here for the most part. But if I look back at the last 200 Malinois that I have had here, usually the smaller ones (50-65lbs) were the most agile when it came to climbing and crawling around on extreme rubble, keeping their feet and having the best balance and reflexes.
What it really boils down to is nerves and confidence to a point as well. There are some dogs who just dont want to climb much, and some who dont have the drive to be motivated to do it. But of the ones who had the nerves and the drives to try it, the smallers ones could usually do it better.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

There is a reason a 330 pound back has never won a rushing title. In the same vain, there are circumstances where that 330 pound back are extremely useful. 

DFrost


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I have two males that are in the 100 lb range. . The biggest, Odin, beat out all the 50 pounders at the nationals so he can get around quick enough but there is nothing agile about him. He doesn't have to be agile to get the job done. Odin would fit right in with Davids 330 lb example. Wild Bill on the other hand, is a racy agile dog that is about 5 lbs lighter, has a longer back, and is several inches taller than Odin. He is pretty darn agile.

Watching the different dogs in the field and fighting game, I have noticed a few things. The smaller dogs look more animated than the bigger dogs. Speed equals velocity in the smaller dog world. When they come to a 5' or 6'washout, they are indeed impressive while they make all the fast moves looking for the right spot to launch themselves across this huge 5' or 6' void. They find their spot, quick crouch and explode into the air because the quick explosiveness gives them the velocity to get across the void. The big long legged dog won't go through any of the antic's, he just cassually hops across because he can. They have both accomplished the same exact feat but one had to look more agile to do it. Now, stretch that void out to 10' wide. The smaller dog stands there looking at this huge space with no animation because he isn't jumping. Now the big dog is looking agile because now he has to do what the smaller dog did to make the 6' jump. 

Agility course a the same. A 20" dog gets 20" jumps and he looks really agile doing them. Put a 28" dog on the same couse and he walks along and casually steps over the jumps and looks like a real plodder. Raise the bar to 28" and bingo, now he looks agile because the situation required it.
Most things dogs are faced with are in our world and suited to our size. We are giants next to a 20" dog. My recliner requires the smaller dog to jump to get into, the 28" dog just casually steps onto it. Maybe a few are seeing what I am getting at. 

The smaller dog is going to stay in better shape and look more agile out of necessity. The bigger dog is going to look, and ,less and less agile because he isn't challenged like a smaller dog is to live in our world. Run them through rough country and you will see agile big dogs because the environment is now challenging them. Same reason mountain lions and bears are so agile. A 350lb bear may not look agile but they would leave most people standing there with their mouth open if they actually saw the moves they can make.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

mike suttle said:


> Will you marry me?


LOL, Mike you are awesome!


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> LOL, Mike you are awesome!


 I was just in shock when you referenced the supercross from last night. I live for that! Kevin Wyndam is still a trooper, even though he does not make the podium a lot, he is always in the hunt year in and year out, indoors and outdoors. He is an old man by MX standards but still hangin in there.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

You gotta give him that much and when he's on he rides a good race. There's some who will always be on top and others who are in it for the long haul and love of the race. Kinda the same in all walks of life I guess.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I have the theory that bigger dogs are not more clumsy, they just care less. Generally speaking. That smack into the wall bugs the smaller dogs more. I have seen small clumsy dogs as well. They just didn't care.

It is a threshold thing. LOL


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

My little pup Nyx goes zipping through the house, to get the older dog to chase her, comes down the hall on the vinyl floor at full speed and smacks right into the doorway on a sharp turn (threshold). Small and fast, but clumsy and just doesn't care, then repeat cycle.


----------

