It’s Hip to Be Square (If You’re a Bullmastiff, That Is)

How important is shape? To a dog breed, I mean. (It’s also relevant when you’re surveying yourself in the mirror in jeans that stubbornly won’t zip, but that’s another discussion entirely.)

The importance of silhouette in a breed is a question I’ve long struggled with, especially when it comes to “head breeds,” which most — no, wait, ALL — Molossers are.

The Long and Short of It

Most Molosser breeds are slightly longer than tall. When a standard doesn’t attach a number to that subjective word picture, my ballpark percentage is 10 percent longer than tall.

As an example, the AKC Boerboel standard says the ratio of height to length is 9:10, or about 11 percent. Ditto for the FCI Cane Corso standard, while the AKC standard says 10 percent — pretty much the same thing, as that 1 percent difference is basically imperceptible. (In reality, many examples of both breeds are far longer, with the excess coming from a looooong loin.)

The AKC Mastiff standard says “rectangular,” so maybe we can allow for a touch more length there — again, as long as it comes from the ribcage and not the loin, which needs to be short because it’s the connecting point that transmits rear drive to the front assembly. But the standard also specifies it should be “somewhat longer” than the height — so again, restraint is needed to ensure that we’re not building freight trains.

(How to measure? Height is always measured from the top of the shoulder, or withers, to the ground. Length is a bit murkier. Some breeds measure from the prosternum, or breastbone; others measure from the point of shoulder — where the shoulder blade and upper arm meet. The problem with the last measurement is that in dogs that are very forward set — their front legs are under their noses instead of under their withers, where they belong! — the point of shoulder is often in front of their prosternum! Most standards don’t specify where length should be measured from; when in doubt, I measure from the point of shoulder. As for the end point of the measurement, it is typically the point of buttock, or pin bone — the bony protrusion of the pelvis found below the tail.)

Below is a chart comparing the various Molosser breeds and their proportions as described in their AKC and FCI standards (where applicable).

Fair and Square

There is one Molosser breed that is square — well, almost square.

And that’s the Bullmastiff.

Since the Bullmastiff is a direct descendent of the Mastiff, one way — but by no means the only way — to distinguish the two breeds is by their shape. Everything about the Bullmastiff is a squared, starting with the head (a “cube on a cube,” referring to the muzzle and the head to which it is attached). And when viewed from the side, the Bullmastiff’s body should give the impression of being close to square, too.

Back of a 1930s cigarette card, used to stiffen soft cigarette packs. Note the almost square shape of the dog, and the requirement of a "short back."

The FCI standard (which is taken word for word from the British version) does not address proportions. If does say that the body is “symmetrical”; however, that word is used in the standards of other breeds whose proportions are longer than tall, so it can’t be definitely  interpreted to mean equal in length and height.

The AKC standard is more precise, saying under “Proportion”: “The length from tip of breastbone to rear of thigh exceeds the height from withers to ground only slightly, resulting in a nearly square appearance.”

So the Bullmastiff is “nearly square” — squarish, if you will.

The photo is a little fuzzy, but the point isn't: Bullmastiffs should look almost square when seen from the side.

I take that to mean that at a glance, it appears more square than rectangular, even if precise measurements would yield a length of body that is 2, 3 or even 5 percent longer than tall.

Can the Bullmastiff ever truly be square? Probably not. If you consider the medium-large Working breeds that are required to be square — Doberman Pinschers, Boxers, Great Danes and Giant Schnauzers come to mind — all of them are up on leg. To achieve a truly square silhouette, a Bullmastiff would likely have to have longer legs, which in turn means lighter bone — and that would go against breed type.

I know it hurts your eyes to look, but Farcroft Finality, an early British champion from 1930, essentially had a true square profile. But it came at the cost of longer legs, less bone, and an overall loss of Bullmastiff type. 

Words Matter

So how badly should you fault a Bullmastiff that has too much length of body? What if instead of being only a few degrees longer than it is tall, it’s 10 percent — or more? And what if that long-bodied Bullmastiff has a gorgeous head — the “head of the Madonna,” as my Italian friends like to say. Could you, should you forgive it?

There is no right answer, because that question is about priorities. The standard gives you no guidance. You decide.

Speaking for myself, personally, profile matters, if only because once lost, the correct square profile is hard to regain.

(Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, including this one. In Neapolitan Mastiffs, for example, too-square dogs are the bane of the breed. It happens in Cane Corsos, too. In my experience, that vertical growth can often be attributed to Great Dane blood somewhere in the pedigree, as behind the Dane is the giant Sloughi, which not only has long legs but also a taller-than-long profile.)

There’s also the discussion of function. The Bullmastiff is assessed in the show ring at the trot, but its working gaits are really the walk and the gallop. When he accompanied a gamekeeper on his nightly rounds, the Bullmastiff was walking beside his handler. And when a poacher was sighted, and the dog released, his lightning-fast reaction was facilitated by a gallop: The dog bounded over the ground to hurl himself at his target.

A square silhouette helps in both these scenarios and with both these gaits, while a longer body makes the dog able to cover more ground at the trot.

An overly long body can start to blur the line between Bullmastiff and Mastiff type.

Of course, proportions aren’t the single most important part of type, but they’re right up there with a correct, typey head. Sometimes, judges are put in a position of having to choose between one or the other. If the choice is between a correctly proportioned Bullmastiff with a weak, atypical head, and a somewhat longer-bodied one with an excellent head, all things being equal of course one would have to go for the latter. A dog has to look like a Bullmastiff to start with, after all.

But if the choice is between a square dog with a good head and a long dog with an exceptional head, then things get trickier.

How to prioritize? I guess it depends on how important silhouette is to you. If it’s very important, then one acts accordingly. As a good judging friend of mine told me when I was struggling with this very discussion in another breed (Boston Terriers, whose standard says they are “distinctly square,” so no fudging there!):

“If you don’t want to see it again, don’t point to it.”

Summing Up

I guess the most important thing is awareness — awareness that length in a Bullmastiff need to be kept under control, because if not, at a quick glance the similarity to the Mastiff starts to blur the lines between the two.

One of my favorite mottos is “It’s better to ask forgiveness than permission.” But in the case of excessive length, it’s better to select breeding stock with the standard in mind, so that asking forgiveness is only an occasional necessity — and doesn’t become a chronic one.