Does anyone know how big the Rotts of the past realy were?

[jasonfarrish]

One major problem we have with the Dobermanns is that they are getting way to big. European Show champions are regularly reaching 100lbs + and the dogs are just massively built. It is affecting their working ability in a negative way. Back when the Dobermann was truly a working dog they were almost half the size! They are not being bred that large to increase their working potential they are being bred that way to impress judges.

Is it the same with Rottweilers?
How big were the old time Rotts? One of my favorite Rotts I have ever met is only 65 lbs or so, its breezy, her drive is fantastic and so is her speed. I am told she is way undersized for a bitch, so according to the standard an inferior example of the breed. I wonder how she can be inferior when at 7 years old she will leap almost 6 feet in the air to grab my arm?

I prefer this type of Rott to the monsters I have worked in the past and not just for back pain issues! Also there is a Rott in a local Schutzhund club who is only an 85lb male but has more drive and grip then just about any Rott I have seen.

[mmgy]

Is that what some people call a "Euro-dobie"?

[flyballmom]

I remember reading somewhere how big they once were.. I can't remember where, or how big it said they were. I do remember they were much smaller than todays "show" Rottweilers. The dogs of those days had to be small enough to drive cattle all day, yet large enough to do other "work" at home.

My girl is only around 75 pounds, and at the age of 6 1/2 is still able to play flyball, chase (and catch) my 30 pound Pit Bull, back pack...I'd rather have her size, too, even though she's "substandard."

[Mattweiser]

Originally Posted by flyballmom

My girl is only around 75 pounds.....even though she's "substandard."

I may need to go back and check my math, but a 75 lbs bitch is not substandard.

[samanthac]

Matt is right. Last I heard, bitches are supposed to range from 75 to 90-lbs and males from 85 to 110. Also, in the very beginning and I am not even sure that they were formally called Rottweilers at that point, there were two types of dog...a smaller lighter yet durable dog that worked and a larger more imposing type that pulled butcher carts and acted as protector. If you look back at some of the early protoypes of the Rottweiler, they were more lean and leggy and quite houndlike in appearance. Apparently they also came in quite a variety of colors, including brindle. It was not until a formal standard came about that balck and tan became the official color and the hieght/length rations, weight became standard.

Jason, I would say that your best bet would be to go back and pull up some of the old Korungs and some of the old dogs such as Hassan, Benno, Nero, Doc, Dingo as they were quite the 'standards' for their day. They will tell you height and measurement. I think you should be able to find some of these Korungs right on the Internet.

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by jasonfarrish

One of my favorite Rotts I have ever met is only 65 lbs or so, its breezy, her drive is fantastic and so is her speed. I am told she is way undersized for a bitch, so according to the standard an inferior example of the breed. I wonder how she can be inferior when at 7 years old she will leap almost 6 feet in the air to grab my arm?

Just to clairify, the poster did say 65, not 75lbs. Which is small.

However, something to keep in mind is that although small, she has wonderful drive. What about her confirmation? Is it good? What about her looks? Colour? Eye Colour? Hip/elbow/heart/eye Certifications?

I wouldn't say that a dog is "inferior" simply because it's small. And "inferior" is a very strong word. Not a good breeding candidate due to her small size might be accurate - but that doesn't make her "inferior". She may have other outstanding qualities that under the right breeding program, might make her a wonderful candidate (breeding being the only true reason to bother to evaluate examples of the breed - if they're not going to be bred, there's no reason to bother).

I knew a dog that was beautiful, had titles before and after his name and reached top honors - that had a pink mouth. Did that pink mouth make him "inferior"? If you couldn't make your way around it, sure. But if you could? Hardly! ;)

It's all in the eyes of the beholder / judge and discerning breeder. :D

[MARYDVM]

I have posted a picture of the most popular stud in the ADRK studbook of 1924 in the Picture This forum. You'll have to guess the weight, but it's clear how the breed has changed over the years.

[Mr. AlexaV]

I'm Realy feeling hurt right now, our Breezy is now 7 and I just found out she is INFERIOR!!! :(

Just kidding, Bree is 65 lbs and has med-small bone structure. She did OK in the show ring until she was about 9 months old and basicaly quit growing. We call he a "Pocket Rott". She is tall enough (on the short side though) but just never filled out. Most of you have seen pictures of her but maybe not stacked so here goes.

http://??????????????????/public/breeshow2.jpg

She looks more like a Rottie of the 1920's or 30's. :D

[Luvs]

Breezy is a beautiful girl! :) How tall is she?

[Judi W]

Average measurements of the 21 males who passed the Korung in 1942
Height 64.5 cm
Chest depth 30.5 cm
Chest circumference 84.9 cm
Length of back 74.8 cm

from the 1991 book
Height 65.8 cm
Chest depth 31.6 cm
Chest circumference 89.0 cm
Length of back 75.1 cm

[Jodi S.]

Your girl looks my my dog's sister. Ashley is not breed standard -- she is a 'mini-Rottie" only 68 lbs but solid muscle and gorgeous. My big guys were all quite large and only lived to 10 or 11 so I am hoping a smaller package will have better longevity. Ashley may be little, but she's mighty! Love her!

Take care,

Jodi

[JaniceH]

I think Teazle must be inferior too. She is 4 1/2 months and only weighs 31lbs. I read how heavy other puppies are on the forum and thought, gosh there must be something wrong with Teazle..now I know....she is INFERIOR. Nice to put a name to it.

LOL...only joking, but I do think she is going to be small when I read about other 4 month old puppies weighing 40lbs. I am feeding her on a slow growth diet but it is hard to believe she will grow up to be a reasonable size. People do think she is younger than she is. She is about 19 inches at the shoulder.

There is a photo of her standing at 4 months in the Forum which shows photos..is it the Chit Chat Forum ? I posted it last week.

Does she seem underweight compared to your puppies at the same age ?

[wilko]

A lot of people have commented their dogs are quite small which I think was possibly the opposite of what jason expected to hear?

Max is a bit of a monster... huge in fact - a largely fat-free 140lbs last time we weighed him - and a few inches too tall as well. People often ask me "what is he he crossed with" because he does appear too big to be a rotty - I have even been asked "what type of mastiff is that then?" by a Neo owner!!

His size concerns me with regard to his joints, and the hammering round he does after our collie; but he seems happy enough at the moment. Certainly the larger size seems to mean he is less agile - a friend of mine has a much smaller rotty bitch who runs rings around him; but he is still athletic enough and can jump about in a way which would alarm anybody used to more sedate dogs his size.

With regard to europeans breeding big dogs - who knows? The pedigree dogs I know here in the UK range from below standard size through to above it - as is to be expected with pet animals I guess!

I think perhaps SOME breeders do as I often see a Boxer when out with our dogs who is about twice the size of any other Boxer I have ever seen - he must weigh about 115 pounds, he is huge! Also my Mum's friend got 2 golden retrievers from the same litter (both boys) and they didn't seem to stop growing until they filled the house, they are simply huge for their breed - ridiculously oversized in every dimension.

I suppose it could be some people see in rottie standard "dogs 25-27 inches" and "90-120 pounds" (sorry its late I can't remember exact sizes) and that means they want a 27 inch 120 pound dog. If breeders then breed to make most of their pups hit this size, inevitabley you will get one or two like mine who are a fair bit bigger - which then "distort" the breed if allowed to go on and reproduce?!?!

Either way they should be careful or before long we will have 300 pound mastiffs shaking the ground, and staffs the size of labradors! ;)

[JonandMichelle]

If people would like to get a decent reference of the past, you may want to read and see some of the "older generation" in The Complete Rottweiler," by Muriel Freeman. Excellent read. And you may find some of the answers you're looking for.

[Carina43]

MaryDVM posted this:
http://rottweiler.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31683
Yep, they were smaller and lighter boned!

Originally Posted by wilko

Certainly the larger size seems to mean he is less agile - a friend of mine has a much smaller rotty bitch who runs rings around him; but he is still athletic enough and can jump about in a way which would alarm anybody used to more sedate dogs his size.

With regard to europeans breeding big dogs - who knows? The pedigree dogs I know here in the UK range from below standard size through to above it - as is to be expected with pet animals I guess!

Daphne is definitely quicker and more agile than the boys (who are both well withing standard.) She's a lithe 70lbs, and she's MUCH faster.

I was in Barcelona, and the subway security people are accompanied by Rottweilers (how cool is that!) I was really impressed by them, they seemed quite large but every one I saw was beautiful, well muscled & in great shape.