I read some of these and have a question.
The argument is a good one, that in wild wolf society they are family groups. That the dominance traits only showed themselves when you mixed groups of non-family members. There are some useful things that can be taken from that but I also quesiton it.
What are we? No matter what age we bring a dog into a household we aren't the ones who gave birth to it or related to the one that did. We are bringing it into a situation just like the one at the zoos. We do the same thing when we introduce another pet, baby or person into the household. Also, with dog agression, surely meeting another dog in the park is going to be like two unrelated animals meeting, similar to how they met at the zoos? Surely then we can take atleast some lessons from the dominance theory that came from observing these wolves just as we can take some lessons from observing the family interactions in the wild.

The fact original studies were carried out on captive wolves as opposed to wild wolves forms only part of the argument.

In short, dogs are not wolves - captive or otherwise.

http://www.fun4fido.co.uk/blog/2009/7/31/what-shapes-canine-social-behaviour.html

http://doglifetraining.com/2011/01/dominance-and-the-wolf/

http://doglifetraining.com/2011/02/dominance-and-your-dog/

http://www.nonlineardogs.com/socialorganisation.html

I am sorry but I have to totally disagree with this, my opinion is based on working with this breed for many years and seeing many many examples.

In the Cane Corso, dominance certainly exists!

I would like to believe that dominance in Corsos does not exist. I think it does, but I also think that there is no simple explanation of what dominance actually is.
I have heard it used for a variety of reasons.

Exactly Roy. "Dominance" is quite the possibly the most misused and misunderstood word there is in dog training.

Would you guys (or anyone else for that matter) care to elaborate and explain in detail exactly what it is you mean by "dominance exists in the Cane Corso"? Provide a good, solid counter-argument, as it were, to the points raised in the links provided.

For example - how would you define dominance, in what ways is it relevant to dog behaviour, how does it present itself, how do you deal with it, can you provide any useful links, is your opinion based on any particular scientific research or study...etc.

We don't have debate teams in high school here like they do in America, I wish they did because then perhaps my debating skills would be a lot better than they are. I think the word is misused also, dominance is cried when really is a lack of structure and rules, which makes the dog act in a certain way, exhibiting a lack of respect or leadership.

I am more than happy to show you that dominance exists or a better term for it would be hierarchy.

I see it every single day in my own pack and also when rescues come here or when I have to rehabilitate dog aggressive dogs. If you can think of another word that I see, I would be all ears but for now I have to call it dominance withing a pack structure. Sorry.

It's not so much that I want to turn this into a full blown debate - I just think presenting each side of the argument would help readers reach an informed opinion.