Where Have All the Good Fronts Gone in Mastiffs?
For years, I have admired the beautiful front assemblies to be found in the Mastiff ring. More dogs than not had forequarters that many in other breeds would kill for.
It’s really worth writing about, I always told myself. But for some reason I never did.
And now, it appears, I am too late.
Lay of the Land
Perhaps we should start with the definition of what a good front is, which is easier said than done, as it requires the alignment of a number of separate components.
First, the length and angle of the shoulder blade, or scapula. In an ideal world, the shoulder blade is long enough so it doesn’t appear slapped on to the side of the dog, or “mutton withered.” If you have no idea what this is, take a look at a sheep and note how coarsely the shoulder blades are set onto the body. Aside from length, the scapula should be sloped enough to meet the upper arm at an angle that is as close to 90 degrees as possible — that is, at a right angle.
Now that we’ve brought the upper arm into the equation, it too needs to have adequate length — long enough to bring the elbow directly under the dog’s withers, which is the highest point of the scapula.
In a correct front, the front leg is placed under the withers, which is represented by the orange line.
If these two bones are adequately long and correctly placed, then the dog will have good front fill: Otherwise, you’ll place your hand between the two front legs and feeling nothing but air because they are set too far forward.
But sometimes, even if the legs are correctly placed, there still isn’t enough prosternum, the technical term for the frontmost part of the ribcage. A prominent knob of protruding bone, the prosternum is the ribcage’s anchor, providing stability and strength to the entire front assembly.
Here's an American Mastiff from the late 1800s, The Lady Coleus. While she has her fair share of faults — both pin-headed and apple-headed with a steep croup and a need for more substance — her prosternum is quite lovely. Note where her front leg is in relation to her withers — right where it belongs.
I was recently talking to a Mastiff breeder-judge who echoed this dismay over the current state of fronts in the breed — in particular the lack of prosternum. But Mastiffs often have a deceptive amount of much flesh in this area, making it look as if there is adequate prosternum when in fact it’s all flab. This breeder-judge uses a clever method to examine this area: With your hand flat, place your fingers in front of and perpendicular to the point of shoulder (where the scapula and upper arm meet), and gently push them forward. If the front is correctly made, they will be stopped by the prosternum, that protruding knob of bone at the most forward point of the dog. If all you feel is squish, then you’ve found a fooler.
Is this prosternum or just a lot of flesh? Only a hands-on-examination will tell.
Blame the Dane …
The Mastiff standard is very clear about how important the right profile is for this breed: “The height of the dog should come from depth of body rather than from length of leg.”
The introduction of Great Dane into the Mastiff in the late 20th Century accomplished the goal of giving the breed more soundness. (Before those illicit cross-breedings, one professional handler likened the breed to circus seals crossing the ring — albeit with beautiful heads.) While that infusion of Dane blood helped with Mastiff structure, one of the unintended consequences was increased length of leg.
A Mastiff from the 1970s whose outline clearly evokes a Great Dane. The judge is iconic Mastiff breeder Marie Moore.
Even in the ring today, the Dane-influenced dogs are easy to spot for that reason: While they may have beautiful heads, fantastic bone and wonderful movement, they are too vertical. The correct dogs are more rectangular in profile — a horizontal orientation that’s emphasized even more when the dog has the correct prosternum.
The long bones on these Dane-influenced Mastiffs aren’t just restricted to their legs — the shoulder blades are longer, too. And generally speaking, while we focus more on short shoulder blades being faulty, those that are too long create a different problem: They are more upright, making it less likely that the dog will approach the desired 90 degrees made by the scapula and upper arm.
The growing number of shorter-bodied Mastiffs these days could also have to do with our fascination with tabletop flat toplines. It’s simple geometry: The shorter the back, the flatter it tends to be. While no one wants a Mastiff whose back does a flawless impression of a hammock, considering the required length of this breed a little leeway can be given.
Ch. Young Mary Bull, a British Mastiff from the 1920s with a lovely front. Below is an image drawn from this photo that was published in a book of standards by the Australian Kennel Club. Among the improvements was a straightening of her back — a nod to our modern demand for table-top straight backlines.
A Fault Without Borders
Now here’s the new wrinkle I’m noticing in the Mastiff ring: Even the correctly proportioned dogs — those who get their height from their depth and which are therefore more likely to have correct fronts — have lost them, too.
What’s going on here? Well, forward-placed fronts are in large part to blame. When the upper arm isn’t long enough, the front legs aren’t found under the withers, but rather under the neck — sometimes even more forward set than that. This leads to a “tubular” body connecting front and rear.
Rears in Mastiffs are notorious for being overly straight — something I can forgive if they aren’t too weak and are accompanied by a good front, which carries most of the body weight anyway. But a forward-set front matched with a straight rear, and connected by a tubular body, is not functional for this breed, even if the required depth of body is present.
What’s to be done? Without question, breeders need to seek out better fronts in future breedings. The good news is that the breed in the past had a good reservoir of these desirable forequarters; the bad news is that good fronts, once lost, are notoriously difficult to regain.