Resist the Hounds — When It Comes to Boerboel Type, That Is

Recently on Facebook — where else? — I came across a graphic showing different “types” of Boerboels.

Hound type, Terrier type, Mastiff type.

All that was missing was ... Boerboel type.

What those categories on social media were trying to communicate is that type in the Boerboel can sometimes shift too far in the direction of some of its ancestors. Since there can only be one type — the correct one — I’ll substitute the word “style,” though that’s not exactly right, either: Style implies a variation within type, while these categories are something of a departure from true type because of the drag of other breeds.

A Boerboel doing an excellent impression of a Bullmastiff. The deep stop and high skull are to be avoided at all costs, as they are relics of Bullmastiff influence.

Mastiff-style Boerboels, for example, retain too many of the characteristics of the Bullmastiff, which was a major — if not the major — contributor to the breed. (The most obvious fault? Too deep a stop.) The Terrier style is cobbier in build, with heads and bodies that remind of bull-type terriers such as the American Staffordshire Terrier.

A good example of "Terrier type." Even the expression from the side looks like it belongs on an AmStaff or Staffie Bull.

But it’s the Hound style that presents the greatest threat to the breed, as it is the most generic, and so is the one that most judges will drift toward if they don’t have the ideal type firmly in mind.

Release the Hounds

Where does the Hound influence in the Boerboel come from? The Rhodesian Ridgeback, of course.

Boerboels and Rhodesian Ridgebacks were developed by the same people — the Boers of southern Africa. The Ridgeback ventured north with the Voortrekkers into Rhodesia, where the British got hold of the breed and formalized it, writing a standard that was more a wish list than a description of the breed at the time. The Boerboel, meanwhile, took the other fork in the road: It stayed largely a South African land race, with no formal guidelines to shepherd it into the 20^th and 21^st centuries.

Boerboel puppy at left, Ridgeback puppy at right. Similar, but different.

Today, there is zero cross-pollination between Ridgebacks and Boerboels, and I don’t mean just genetically. With their breeds classified in different groups, the two communities of fanciers are largely oblivious to each other, other than the few oddballs — present company cheerfully included — who care to explore the connections between the two.

And the connections are many, the most significant of which is the Bullmastiff contribution to both breeds.

Bullish on Bullmastiffs

Years ago, when Modern Molosser was a print magazine, I attended a Bullmastiff national specialty. During the sweepstakes competition, my eyes landed on a yearling Bullmastiff. In that lineup, he just popped out at me, like an old friend spotted in a crowd of strangers. He simply was familiar.

And that’s because he was off type — for a Bullmastiff, at least. He was a bit longer in leg and muzzle, a bit narrower overall, with a light, easy way of going.

He was a little too Ridgebacky, though I doubt a Bullmastiff fancier would have identified him that way. Of course, he didn’t place — and he shouldn’t have, because he lacked breed type.

Odd as it may seem at first glance, the Bullmastiff is a major genetic contributor to the Ridgeback, thanks to De Beers, which in the early part of the 20^th Century bred both Bullmastiffs and Ridgebacks as candidates to patrol its diamond mines. (Both flunked out, with German Shepherds finally taking their place.)

Early Bullmastiff Roger of the Fenns.

Above is a long-ago dog called Roger of the Fenns, born in 1929. Every Bullmastiff alive today has Roger in his pedigree. He’s an important dog to look at, especially for our purposes, as he is as close as I can find to a fork-in-the-road dog. He is well off for bone, but still quite agile. His head is strong, but still not so short in muzzle that we can call him a brachymorph.

Looking at Roger, we can see the points of departure for both Molosser-like and Hound-like offspring — the Boerboel and Ridgeback, respectively. He is on the threshold of type for both breeds.

A young "houndy" male Boerboel. Compare him to Roger of the Fenns, above.

As a longtime Ridgeback breeder, I have bred dogs that evoke good old Roger. They are squarer and more compact. Their muzzles are a bit shorter. I’ve also bred others that could be mistaken for a light-boned Broholmer on a bad day.

Similarly, I’ve seen Boerboels whose length of leg, quality of muscle and head type, among other things, whisper “Ridgeback” to me.

Painting a Picture

Before we discuss what makes a Boerboel “houndy,” let’s nail down what makes a Boerboel “Boerboely.”

I’ve written before that the Boerboel occupies the middle ground between the Bullmastiff and the Dogue de Bordeaux — more Bulldoggy than the former, but not as much as the latter. And that’s the key to Boerboel type — that hint, that whiff, that whisper of Bulldog.

Bulldog influence in the Boerboel is seen in the huge neck — and I don’t use the word “huge” loosely. There is no other breed in dogdom that has a neck as wide or powerful.

The Boerboel's neck is incredibly broad and powerful. Also note the drop from the withers to the back.

Sitting on top of that incredibly voluminous neck is an equally enormous head. The standard says the eyes are “widely placed.” Remember: Widely placed eyes on a blocky, broad head will inevitably be, to quote the standard again, “forward facing.” That’s an important point we’ll return to.

Seen from the front, the muscling on a Boerboel's front legs should give the illusion of bowed bone.

The Boerboel standard uses the word “muscle” a half-dozen times, and here more Bulldog influence is apparent. The Boerboel’s muscling is dense, strong and bulky; when seen from the front, the Boerboel’s upper-arm muscle is so developed that it can mimic the Bulldog’s bowed front legs. To be sure, in a correct Boerboel those legs are straight, but the sheer muscularity of the dog makes it appear otherwise.

The Boerboel should have a level back, but in the very best dogs, there is often a tremendous slope from the withers extending almost to the anticline, or where the vertebrae of the spine change direction.

Now that we’ve painted the picture of a correct Boerboel, let’s see how a houndy influence can change it.

Got Ridge?

The biggest tipoff to Hound type in the Boerboel is the loss of that “whisper” of Bulldog.

Yes, the dogs are relatively heavy in bone, with big heads, but there is, for lack of a better word, too much verticality to them. They look to me more like Tosa Inu in their length of leg and toplines that begin their straight run almost from the withers. Their muscling is flatter, their heads large but not huge. And the movement is much more generic, with more forward thrust. After all, the standard’s statement on movement — “without excess body roll” — implies that some roll is expected, given the Boerboel's breadth.

When I look at a houndy Boerboel’s expression, I see Ridgeback in one particular place: the eye placement. The eyes on a correct Boerboel face front; the eyes on houndy Boerboels are somewhat lateral  — that is, they are placed just a bit to the side of the head. There is also less development of the zygomatic arch, or cheekbone, than on a correct Boeboel.

Left: Correct wide- and frontally placed eyes on a Boerboel. Center: Closer and more laterally placed eyes and less developed zygomatic arch give a houndier look. Right: Ridgeback head. In terms of eye and expression, the two dogs at right are more similar.

Houndy Boerboels are, for lack of a better word, more elegant, more familiar looking, than their truly typey counterparts.

And because of that, many judges are drawn to them.

Comparison of body styles. From left: Correct Boerboel, houndy Boerboel, Rhodesian Ridgeback. Note the absence of bulliness, the lesser neck circumference and the lesser drop in withers to back in the houndy Boerboel — characteristics that evoke Ridgeback type.

Babies and Bathwater

Now, let’s be clear: These “houndy” dogs are still very much Boerboels. And Hound style in the breed is not an absolute deal-breaker. They serve a purpose, which is to help the breed correct when it gets too bully or mastiffy. Said another way, those houndy dogs act as a bit of leavener to keep the Molosser influence from pushing the breed toward the opposite extreme, which would be Mastiff type.

That reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with Molosser expert Bas Bosch about mastiff-style Dogues de Bordeaux. These dogs are just a touch longer in leg, a bit flatter in rib spring — in short, a touch more Mastiff. They are useful in a breeding program, he explained, because they keep the breed from reverting too far back to its Bulldog roots. In recognition of that, they might deserve a place in a judge’s line-up.

But do they belong at the very front of the line?

In my opinion, not if other equally sound examples with true Boerboel type are present.