The Norwegian Kennel Club does a lot of good work, and one of the actions that fall into that category, is issuing a series of compendiums for training of judges. These booklets contain much instructive and informative material.

One of the books concerns itself with the question and understanding of type, perhaps one of the most difficult and least concrete subjects in the whole world of show dogs. Among other things, one of the questions that is discussed here, is how breeds have developed and changed in various parts of the world. One obvious message is that the major changes have taken place in North-America. Regarding the Boxer, we find this message put across very forcibly in the caption to two photographs: 

“The boxer is a German breed that is very popular all over the world. The original, powerful type, here represented by a German champion born 1990, has in the USA developed into a fine and tall, elegant show dog (American champion 1992).” The illustration is reproduced here and shows these two dogs, which ought to be familiar for many readers. 

This statement is quite representative of many such generalizations I have heard, where the conclusion is that the German boxer represents the original type, and that the American boxer has changed away from the true boxer type. In the sport of dog showing, generalizations are very common, and I thought it would be interesting to have a closer look at the basis for this one. Is there really a well founded basis for making such a sweeping statement? I am not going to drag the British boxer into this, but that is only because it usually is the Continental and the American boxer that is put up against each other as the two extremes.  

Incidentally, I am not going to try to evaluate the quality of the two dogs mentioned by the Norwegian Kennel Club booklet, but I will say that it might be considered a bit unfair to illustrate their point by comparing a five year old, mature male with a very young one. A photo of the American dog as a more mature male might have been more sensible.

Anyway, what I wanted to have a look at was the basis for making such a sweeping statement, and to do that I have pulled out photos of German and North-American show winners from around second world war up until today to see if they might tell us a story.

The Standard

What we see in the dog should ideally be a reflection what the standard says. Any differences should be founded in differences in the standard in the various countries. That makes it easy, as one of the accepted truths (at least in my corner of the world), is that the Americans have, indeed, changed their standard so that it deviates from the original idea. Or have they?

If you go through the FCI standard (the 1989 revision, which is the one that is valid today), the previous German standard and the ABC standard, you can make some interesting observations. Piece by piece and detail by detail, they are basically the same. You can make the same dogs fit them all. But you do find differences and changes, and some of them can have serious implications, especially on how we should interpret the words of the standard.

In the introduction to the American one, you find these words: “ Developed as a guard, working and companion dog, he combines strength and agility with elegance and style”. The previous German standard had a very similar formulation here, emphasizing the fact that for a boxer to be able to serve the tasks and do the kind of work it can be asked to do, it has to be both substantial and elegant.

These words are absent from the current FCI standard. It does say, however, that the boxer should neither be too light nor too heavy, but the word “elegant” has disappeared. The only phrase in the introduction that goes in that direction, is the requirement for noble movement. In the previous German standard you also find the description of the boxer as a powerful lightweight athlete that combines speed and endurance. This also has been removed in the 1989 revision, along with the directions on how to judge the boxer. On this, the American standard says:

“In judging the boxer, first consideration should be given to general appearance, to which attractive color and arresting style may contribute. Next is overall balance with special attention devoted to the head, after which the individual body components are examined for their correct construction, and efficiency of gait evaluated.” A similar instruction you find in the previous German standard; first you look at the overall impression and evaluate the balance between the various parts of the dog, then you evaluate correct structure and function of each body part. The 1989 revision of the FCI standard lack these instructions.

When looking at these standards, there can’t be any question that standard wise, America is in fact closer to the original than Germany. Also, while the detailed descriptions of the parts of the dog don’t deviate much between the standards, the introduction of the FCI standard might very well lead the interpretation of the standard in the direction of a heavier animal, with less emphasis on style and class than what you find in the American standard and the older German one. Also, remember that the American standard of today is basically the same as the one drawn up by, among others, Philip Stockman and John Wagner in 1938, and that standard was more or less equal to the German standard of that time. In my opinion, the American standard is not only the most original one, but also the best one, especially for those who want to study and learn about the breed. An entirely different question is, of course, how well the boxers in the different countries adhere to their standard. I am not going to flag any opinions about that here.

The dogs

This exercise is not meant to be any kind of statement about my opinion of the quality of North-American boxers vs. Continental boxers. Ourselves, we own and have bred from an American dog, and we have bred to Continental dogs and will probably do so again. You can find good and bad boxers everywhere.

When selecting photos, I have chosen dogs that have won at important shows in their part of the world, as you would think these are dogs that are representative of the type and the ideal there and then. I have avoided photos of the more mediocre dogs that necessarily also will be around.  

When you look through the photos, you can ask yourself some questions:

• Which boxer represents the “original type”, and when and by whom was the original type defined?

• What changes have taken place and where?

• Have changes taken place to adjust the look of the dog to changes in the standard, or have the standard been adjusted to accommodate changes in the boxer type that have already taken place?

I am not going to try to answer these or other questions, or draw any conclusions about the dogs based on these photos. Of course another selection of photos could give another impression (but you can’t dismiss the fact that these dogs are all important winners!). I do think, however, that one conclusion is valid: you certainly can discuss whether the sweeping generalization in the judge’s compendium is backed up by facts.

I must admit that I find a bit sad that an authoritative compendium like this one expresses opinions that will only underline and perhaps reinforce the differences that might exist. In my opinion, the future of the Boxer lies in more breeders working actively with the purpose of bringing the geographically separated types closer together again. This would be valuable both because it may give us a more homogeneous Boxer type, and also because it may help the health and genetic diversity of the breed.

It is a myth that you cannot get good Boxers by blending lines from different continents. We can let this bitch be a proof for this and the end of this article She is born in Holland and she has German, American and Dutch ancestors close up in her pedigree.