When a sentence reads more like a physical anthropology dissertation than a clear, accessible description for dog fanciers without formal zootechnical or anatomical training, it risks obscuring the very breed it is meant to describe.
In 2018, the AKC approved an updated standard for the Dogo Argentino. Up until then, the standard was a close literal translation of the original Argentine/FCI-style language that reflected a European, zootechnical style of classification.
What changed, and why?
In the newer (and current) 2018 standard, the first line of the General Appearance section reads: “The ideal Dogo Argentino is a study in harmony. He is large, powerful, and athletic.”
What comes next is how you’ll see why an update may have been desired. The first line of the General Appearance section of the 2011 standard read: “Molossian normal type, mesomorphic and macrothalic, within the desirable proportions without gigantic dimensions.”
Huh?
When the Dogo Argentino entered the AKC system (initially in the FSS and then progressing toward full recognition), the AKC rewrote the opening description in plain, functional English, replacing technical morphology terms with a more narrative, visual description of balance, power, and purpose. So while the AKC version opens with “The ideal Dogo Argentino is a study in harmony…,” it is still describing essentially the same animal. The new language kept the same proportions and functional hunting dog emphasis but shifted away from dense, translated terminology that may have flown over the heads of some readers.
But why do it at all?
In short, because AKC breed standards are written for a different audience with different traditions and purposes than FCI standards. AKC standards are primarily written for judges, breeders, and exhibitors within the American conformation system. The language emphasizes clarity, visual assessment, and functional evaluation in the ring, using plain, descriptive English that can be readily applied during judging. FCI standards, by contrast, reflect a European, zootechnical tradition. They are often written using formal morphological and anatomical terminology intended for an audience familiar with classical breed classification systems, veterinary science, or academic animal husbandry. Because of this, AKC standards tend to translate or reinterpret FCI language into accessible, functional descriptions, while FCI standards preserve technical precision and taxonomic structure. The purpose—defining the same dog—may overlap, but the intended readership and evaluative framework differ, making the statement true.