Mmmm - the AKC is a registry body only. Nothing more and nothing less - which rather makes their opinion of whether a dog breed is small, medium or large a moot point. They do not set the breed standard, they merely reproduce it - on behalf of the American boxer club,
who write it and say medium. One might also note that since the AKC is not even aware of what colours boxers come in (you can register a "boxer" of a colour pattern that doesn't exist within the breed), their categorisation of size really doesn' inspire confidence
That said, nobody's categorisation of size really has much relevance when it comes to dog food. Even the food manufacturers can't agree (on what is "large" and what difference it should make to the food anyway). One might be tempted to say who cares anyway, because much of the time size-specific dog food is nothing more than a gimmick. LOL - in some cases, the singular difference (other than the picture on the package) between food for large breeds and food for toy breeds is the size of the kibble bits. In short, I would suggest forgetting about the gimmicks on the packaging and look at what is
inside the bag to determine whether or not it is a suitable food. Same goes for foods labelled for particular life stages.
Quote:
|
The standard is the rule for boxers only . So i think what they looking for is a medium size build within the boxer breed (not to small and not to large ).
|
Absolutely
not the case
It says a medium sized dog, and that is what it means. Most of the standards for this breed around the world state quite specifically how large the dog should be (height and weight). That includes the FCI standard, btw, which is the one set by the German Boxer Club (you know - the people who invented boxers
).