[porschabu]

XL IS used by many, who aren't educated or are trying to pawn off poorly bred dogs to make money. If everyone just used the proper terminology then there wouldn't be any misnomer or BSL.
Extreme bullies are just poorly bred dogs that couldn't be registered with the ABKC because they're almost all genetic nightmares. Comparing one to the other is like saying a Ford and a Rolls Royce are the same kind of car. High rear is a fault with every REPUTABLE registry. So I still stand solid behind what I said and anyone that says different should take it up with the reputable registries who created the breed standard in the first place.
You have a very good looking dog. His rear is not very high. I think if he were in a proper stack that rear wouldn't look so high and I also believe he has ample time for the front to catch up. My friend has an English Mastiff who literally looked like an At At from Star Wars for the first whole year of his life. He is perfectly proportioned now at a year and a half old. I mean, he still has to fill out, but the right structure is there now to support his future frame.

SORRY I DONT AGREE. MY PUPPY IS REGISTERED WITH ABKC. HE IS AN XL BULLY, NOT POORLY BRED.

 

[Metalocalypse902]

SORRY I DONT AGREE. MY PUPPY IS REGISTERED WITH ABKC. HE IS AN XL BULLY, NOT POORLY BRED. View attachment 91116 View attachment 91117
View attachment 91116
View attachment 91117

I think he typo'd XXL for XL. I mean it's kind of a senseless argument. I've spoken to ABKC personally on the phone where they stated that the XL specifically is common to have a "slight" high rear. Where in the other classes is zero tolerance. He doesn't gotta like it but it's what they said. He's welcome to calling

 

[EckoMac]

A dog can be registered with any KC, but as they say, PURE bred doesn't always mean that it's WELL bred.