So much to respond to.... this might be a bit disjointed, but that's about par for the course.
The ABC members did not "create" a breed standard in 1938, they simply revised the original one from Germany that had been in use in the US from the beginning. Herr Phillip Stockmann was very involved in this revision, by the way (he is the husband, of course, of Frau Stockmann, the Mother Of The Breed.)
This site has the various revisions of the standard from 1902/1904 on:
http://www.geocities.com/Petsburgh/9666/Standard.html
Meta would not meet the standard today, no. Aside from her coloring, she is short of muzzle and longer than she is tall. I'm not sure what your point is here, the standard has evolved from that time and she did meet the standard at that time. The original standard did allow white coloration, that has never been disputed. And remember in the photos you're only seeing one side of the dog, they could very well have different coloration on the other side.
I'm not sure what you mean about my being non-responsive to the history from the ABC, in the first place I'm not sure how you can be responsive to history and in the second place I tend to think that the ABC history is going to be the most accurate history of the breed in the US, and since I've not seen a history from the other National Clubs around the world that contradict what the ABC has I feel it's probably correct.
I never put down other breeders, I don't know where you got that idea. I simply said that the fact that your white Boxers are on full registration tells me things about the breeder - that is a completely neutral statement. If you read negative things into it, they are you own conjecture.
Thanks for the clarification on Wagner's publishing date, I had thought 1936 originally but the quotes I was referring to on the ABC history page cited 1950 so that's the date I went with.
Nicki, the ABC Code of Ethic prohibits the registration or inclusion in the litter count a Boxer of any color not allowed by the standard. The BCC (Boxer Club of Canada) allows whites to be registered on a non-breeding contract (similar to AKC registration), because by Canadian law for a dog to be sold as purebred it *must* be able to be registered with the CKC.
About the Code of Ethics breeding stipulation - the only disqualifying coat is more than 1/3 white markings. Flashy Boxers do not carry this fault and so it is not an infraction to breed them. There are other considerations, of course, and I too am of the opinion that if you do not want to produce white puppies, you should not breed two flashy Boxers together. (Then again, there are many breeders who accept white Boxers and feel they are just as worthy of a life and loving home as their colored littermates, and so don't mind producing them.) The prohibition is not against breeding dogs that might produce a disqualifying fault, but against breeding dogs that have that fault. That is an important distinction.
There is no difference statistically between the number of flashy puppies in a litter when breeding two flashy parents or breeding one flashy and one plain - in both you would expect 50% flashy puppies. The difference lies in the other 50%. In a flashy x flashy breeding, there would be 25% plain and 25% white; in a flashy x plain breeding the 50% would be plain.
Flashy Boxers are in general more desirable in the ring, but that too is changing. And yes, Sarah, white Boxers *are* all flash, since white is really just an extreme marking pattern
:D