This article was originally published in Showsight Magazine, July 2015 issue.
Judging for all breeds of dog is a very sensitive topic, in the Cane Corso even more so, therefore this requires a large premise.
The breed standard is the description of the somatic characteristics of a breed. In earlier times there was complete liberty to describe the ethnic characteristics of a breed. In more recent times there exist two schools of thought with regard to standards; synthetic or analytical evaluation. The first focuses on more than synthetic regulation and leaves greater discretion to the evaluating judge. In this type of standard many adjectives and adverbs are used (moderately, somewhat, a little). The analytical type offers a detailed standard, constructed with precise dog measurements (measurements, relationships between different parts, degrees, etc.). It is quite evident that the analytical standard is based more on evidence and scientific rigor. On a practical level it requires much more effort in its application.
With time, international dog experts decided to adopt outlines for preparing standards that were more adapted for the purpose of consulting (one imagines for judges). This decision, understandable from an organizational perspective, has created many practical problems in its implementation, especially for the revision of the existing standard.
In this context, it is not surprising that the major adaptations have been based on standards put together in an analytical way. Bad practical implementation then followed this controversial decision. Indeed, the changes have not been made by the writer of the original standard, but by others. Therefore, with the necessity to sum up, cut and translate, often they have created authentic zootechnical havoc. The Cane Corso breed is a good example of this.
The first iteration of the Cane Corso standard was officially recognized in Italy in 1987. The author was Dr. Antonio Morsiani, a world renowned student of canine zoology. The document consisted of 19 typed pages. Now the FCI and AKC standards have only 3 pages respectively.
Unfortunately, there are also some additions, generally not for the better. For example, in the AKC standard it is indicated there is a tolerance for up to two missing teeth, without the indication which teeth (the importance of the teeth is not the same and the missing of some teeth cannot be absolutely accepted). I think that the tolerance of missing teeth must be only for P1, P2 and M3 (which presents itself only in the lower jaw).
In the interest of intellectual honesty, I want to be precise that in any case the biggest responsibility of the Cane Corso’s problems come from the country of origin, where some serious errors were made. For example, the pressure for premature international recognition, the lack of solid base of breeding and/or a zootechnical program. However, it is impossible to breed and/or to judge correctly without a correct and precise standard.
Continuing on the topic of the standard, I can say that the use of a synthetic standard is always dangerous because it leads to subjective judgments. This may be a problem for every breed, even in those that are more fixed in type and selection. In the case of the Cane Corso it can become a true disaster. This is one of the most important clarifications because after 20 years the Cane Corso has so few homogeneous examples.
Now let us identify some of the most important aspects that define type in Cane Corso. They are derived from the original breed standard and from the general principles of classical canine zoology.
Cane Corso is a trotter. Therefore, he needs to have a rectangular construction, 11% longer than the height at the withers. Here is an important footnote. In the AKC standard it states “to measure the height at the shoulder, from the highest point of the shoulder to the ground.” This is very strange because all animals are measured from height of the withers to the ground. The AKC standard also indicates the measure of the head with regard to its rapport with the measure of height at the withers. In the FCI, the measure of height is indicated traditionally at the withers. I think it’s useful to explain that this diction is also not precise, because the measurements are from a reference point to a reference point and the withers are not a point, but it is a region. In fact the correct measure must be made from the 4 vertebra of the withers to the ground tangent the elbow.
Size: medium-large size Molossus Dog. This is on the basis of Pierre Megnin classifications. In fact, the Cane Corso belongs with breeds marked by sexual dimorphism, in which the subjects exhibit two “size ranges”–medium size in females and large in males.
Another important (and current) part is the evaluation with respect to the habitus (habitus=meaning general constitution, especially bodily build) using the basis of the Duerst classification (see Fig. 1), the Cane Corso must have muscular a habitus, he would be the intermediate type between respiratory (Greyhound) and digestive (Neapolitan Mastiff). Morsiani, regarding this part notes “with an almost imperceptible tendency to the respiratory habitus” Why did Morsiani feel the need to specify this, when he wrote “imperceptible”? The meaning can only be: if an example of Cane Corso, may move a bit from the central desired position in the muscular habitus, the tendency cannot be in the direction of digestive habitus. This topic is bit complex, but it’s important that it is explained well, because it is one of the inherent problems of the breed. To do so I am forced into a digression of canine zoognostic. Essentially the increase in the mass can be obtained in two ways: with the change of classification or with the change of the habitus.
We find a good example of different classification in the Schnauzer breed. They have three formats or classifications; miniature, standard and giant (Riesenschnauzer), in this situation we are in front of an enlargement (like a photo). The range in the size fixed in the standard follows this approach. Completely different is the case of change to habitus, the mass increases, and the consequences result in changes in the construction of the dog. One of the biggest mistakes committed by the breeder (and often not penalized by the judges) is to use this wrong way to increase the bone structure and the mass. They not only create the hyper-type (incorrect over typey Cane Corsos, see Fig. 2), but in this manner they also warp other characteristic of breed. In the end I have serious doubts whether to consider them poor examples of a Cane Corso or another breed entirely).
In fact, the brilliant insights of Duerst were recently borne out by studies of constitutionalists. Digestive situations connected to Habitus can occur, penalizing from a functional point of view the endocrine system to which the subjects are hypooxidative and hypo-thyroid. These situations have the consequence of less capability to utilize the muscular energy and less reactivity—vivacity. In fact Morsiani also there refers to normal build (“or slightly hyper-oxidative”).
The increase in mass, which seems the fancy of many Cane Corso lovers, has other drawbacks related to the functional nature of a working dog.
In animal mechanics; canines included, there are passive organs of movement (skeleton and viscera) and active ones (muscles). Since the latter are linked to the external body; as size increases, their growth in proportion to body weight is lower. This means that dogs of a smaller size (in proportion) are faster and have more resistance than larger breeds.
There is a brilliant demonstration of this by Professor Giuseppe Solaro in his book (see Fig. 3). For those that are not convinced, here is another clarifying example in the case of attack of a man or another animal-the force of impact, the kinetic energy (Ec) expressed in kilogram-meters causes the subject to be influenced more by the speed than the weight.
This is calculated using the formula for kinetic energy Ec:
With reference to the formula we can deduce that a subject weighing 50kg launched at a speed of 40 km/h (equal to m/s 11,111) will have an impact force equal to 314 Kgm (kilogram-meters), whereas a subject with a weight of 40 kg and a speed of 50 km (equal to m/s 13.890) will have a higher impact force; equal to 393 Kgm. The extreme example would be that of the bullet, its devastating strength comes from its impact velocity; its weight is in fact a few grams.
Another penalty coming from the increase in mass is the greater difficulty in heat dispersion, as shown efficiently by a study of Mr. Coppinger (see Fig. 4). Therefore, big dogs have less resistance to work, especially during warm days.
In conclusion it is important to pay close attention to the correct construction of the dog, as the Cane Corso is a wonderful example of balance between strength and agility, which leads to a functional beauty that expresses harmony of form and the optimum capability of work.
Additionally, the section of the AKC standard that pertains to body that I find would not be an accurate description is the following: “Depth of the ribcage is equal to half the total height of the dog, descending slightly below the elbow”. In the original Italian standard it is “descending at the elbow”. This difference in writing might seem very small but it is dangerous because it leaves an opening for a dog with heavy construction to be able to hide the fault of a short arm.
A sensitive topic is the head. This is especially so in Europe where, with the goal to obtain the undershot bite, they produce dogs that far exceed the “slightly undershot” bite indicated in the breed standard, trespassing into hyper-type. Normally in these cases the problem is not only the dentition, but we find grave difference in other regions. Generally there is an accentuated convergence of the axes of the skull and the muzzle. In this case it also changes the position of the eyes from a sub-frontal to frontal position. The consequence of this change is also seen in the shape of the eyes, because in frontal position they become round. This scenario leads to the muzzle often being too short and nose backlog.
English is not my first language, however reading the AKC standard, “the depth of muzzle is more than 50 percent of the length of the muzzle” I can understand incorrectly that depth could be few more of the half of muzzle. I think it may be better to write “the depth of the muzzle is 50% greater of the length of the muzzle (one time and half).” It is just the case to remember that the measure of the depth of the muzzle is an axis from the top line of the muzzle to the inferior referral points the commissure of the lips. See Fig. 5.
Another important characteristic of the Cane Corso is the alignment of the incisors, these teeth must be in a straight line, and the canines are meant to be far apart. Mr. Morsiani put in evidence of this situation and gave us the indication that in the males the distance of the canines at the top must be at minimum 5, 5-5, 7 cm (about 2, 16-2, 44 inches). This type of dentition is useful, the lateral sides of the muzzle are parallel, therefore more width of the jaw, more bone, more muscle, more power to the bite.
Referring to the parallelism of the lateral side of the muzzle, it is very important to note that in the AKC standard it is not indicated, while another section states, “The top and bottom muzzle planes are parallel.” I sincerely don’t understand this description, because it is impossible. The lower profile is determined by the lips and them having a rounded form that remount in the direction of the nose. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding during the translation from Italian language.
As I said earlier, the Cane Corso is a trotter. Zoognostic science describes the different characteristics of a trotter as compared to a galloper and they must be made clear. In addition to a rectangular construction, they have good angulation, good angle of the metacarpal, oval feet. All these parts are connected. When we read of moderate angulation the meaning is for it to be not so extreme like the German Shepherd (that is considered the prototype of the trotter). The angle of the metacarpal and the oval shape of the feet it is very important, because they act as shock absorbers during movement (see Fig. 6). Looking at the picture you can understand exactly how wrong the description of the Corso’s feet in the standard is “Feet—Round with well-arched toes (catlike)”; this probably happened because round feet may be considered more elegant, but it’s contrary at the principles of zoognostic science and in fact the Cane Corso does not have the same feet as a galloper like a Doberman. To pretend the Cane Corso (trotter) has round feet is like having an off-road car with slick tires!
An aspect of the breed that judges should pay attention to would be the topline. The AKC standard states “Highest part of shoulder blade slightly rising above the strong, level back”. I don’t think this is the best description, and it doesn’t address the breed’s profile, the top line is the outline of the dog from the withers to the tail set (following the spine). The original standard states “upper line dorsal region straight, slightly convex at loin, the withers are clearly highest of the dorsal plane and the croup. Slightly convex at loin”. It must not be confused with convexity of the entire top line; this is of value, because it acts as a bridge between the front and back, it should be short, a slight camber gives further strength. The observation of the top line is also important because it may be a sign of other faults. For example if we note that the topline line doesn’t go up to the withers, but the rear is higher, probably we will have subjects with limited angulation (see Fig. 7).
If the dog has correct angulation, then it is likely that the subject will have short arms (see Fig. 8).
Another aspect that is very important in the judging of the breed is the knowledge of particular situations in relation to the eyes. Dogs have the capability to reflect light onto the retina, by means of the so-called “tapetum lucidum”, in this way amplifying the rays of light. For this it’s important to pay attention to backlight, otherwise the eyes will seem lighter. For the judges it’s important, during the judgment, to remember that the human eye is subject to optical illusion (in truth the illusions are not due to the eye, as it acts like a camera in fixing the images, but by our brain during the image’s processing). This is important during the evaluation of the dimension, in fact a white mass appears to be 20% larger than the equivalent in black. This can lead to errors in the evaluation in the Cane Corso breed with coats of different tones. The same for the brindle dogs, because vertical lines tend to stretch the vision, while horizontal ones widen it.
The last topic that I want to address is presentation. In the past, there were a lot of dogs presented at the shows without any ring training. This was not good and made it difficult for the judges to judge dogs that were without composure. Today, especially in the important shows, this problem was been solved, but perhaps it is exceeded in the opposite direction, because the dogs are now too much manipulated during the presentation. This is not good, with the training it’s possible to present the dog in an unnatural manner to hide the fault. I think that the judges must look at the dogs like they are presented and after (moving the position) revise them in a natural position.
I understand the important role of the handler, especially in a vast country like the US. They permit the participation of an important number of dogs that otherwise, because of the problem of the distance (and costs) would stay at home. This said, I want to always remember that the dog is judged, not the presentation itself.
