It is interesting to note, for example, the fact that among males of bullmastiffs - winners of the World and Specialized Exhibitions for the last seven years there was not one whose height at the withers and weight would not exceed the existing standards!
And this trend continues. There are several reasons that explain.
The first: one of the main, if not the main, scourge of dogs of large breeds is the tendency to easy and fast shredding, i.e. degeneration. Probably, judges, assessing the state of the breed in the world, prefer larger dogs, while maintaining all other requirements for harmony, activity, type of movements, temperament, etc.
The second. The bullmastiffs are practically nowhere, except Great Britain, used as “forester’s dogs”, for which they were actually bred. Of course, they can be used as guards in the Rockefeller estate (USA), and in the De Beers diamond mines (South Africa), and as police dogs (Belgium), companion dogs, and pets (everywhere), but it all says only that their functional specialization is practically lost. In this case, other requirements and preferences come into effect.
As, for example, the view of a guard dog (escort dog) or guard something must be intimidating in itself. A Rottweiler, for example, the blacker (darker burners or their practical absence) and larger - the worse. The view of the bullmastiff and so inspires, at a minimum, fear and respect, and the large bullmastiff is an extraordinary sight. The third is fashion.
It exists in the environment of dog lovers, just as in the environment of jeans or car lovers. A large dog (but necessarily harmonious, not skinny, like a greyhound, and not swollen, like a beefy Saint Bernard) looks simply beautiful, while retaining all its other positive characteristics.
An excellent commentary on the standards of the bullmastiff was proposed by Douglas B. Olif in his well-known work Mastiff and the Bullmastiff, which has been reprinted 7 times since 1988. With the absolute majority of his comments can not disagree.
However, among the judgments of this so authoritative expert one can find enough of those that can be called controversial. For example, the “struggle” of a respected expert is not fully understood, apparently originating from the first official standard (1925) for the correct ears of the bullmastiffs, especially their size. It is argued that they should not be too large.
But can such a deficiency affect the working qualities of the dog? This is reminiscent of the prejudice of judges against black German shepherd dogs. In exhibition rings, they are invariably at the very tail of the series. But does their color prevent them from executing commands as well as their cheprachnymi or gray brethren?
So, the standard of the Bullmastiff breed is certainly an extremely important document fixing the requirements for dogs of a given breed during the period of time when it was compiled. A wide variety of additions and changes to it are made over time, which is absolutely natural.