Who is the Better Dogman?

[Officially Retired]

The guy who "goes through" a lot of dogs ... and only keeps "the best" ... or the guy who takes his time and brings out the best in each dog?

Curious where folks stand ...

Jack

[Doc Ellis]

Im fascinated by the story of a guy taking other peoples culls/curs and winning into good comp. Dont remember the name but to me that guy must be doing something really right.

if your just going thru the masses waiting for that ace or really good dog it just seems like youre relying on the dogs to do all the work.

this is coming from someone who hates culling so maybe my opinion is slanted.


the guys doing both, and I know theyre out there, are the dogfolks I wish I could, but will prolly never be.

[Officially Retired]

Im fascinated by the story of a guy taking other peoples culls/curs and winning into good comp. Dont remember the name but to me that guy must be doing something really right.
if your just going thru the masses waiting for that ace or really good dog it just seems like youre relying on the dogs to do all the work.
this is coming from someone who hates culling so maybe my opinion is slanted.
the guys doing both, and I know theyre out there, are the dogfolks I wish I could, but will prolly never be.


Ricky Jones is the guy who took Crenshaw's culls and made more winners, Champions, and Grand Champions with Crenshaw's culls than what Crenshaw ever made with what he kept ...

Good point!

Jack

[Acesaun]

The guy who "goes through" a lot of dogs ... and only keeps "the best" ... or the guy who takes his time and brings out the best in each dog?

Curious where folks stand ...

Jack

I always thought keeping the best dog and bringing the best out of him is the name of the game, I'm pretty sure most Dogmen aren't trying to bring the best out of a cur or any dog that's going to detrimental to his program.

[skipper]

Id like to be a combo. I'm always thinking of things that might be giving my dog an edge. Every dog in the yard has earned to be brought up to his full potential. There are other dogmen that would be able to get more out of the dogs, im sure. I'm not that high on myself. We can only do our absolute best for every dog every time. But if a dog doesn't work out. Get rid of it. Ending up with to many dogs will kill your progress.

[TopShelfKennels]

Some folks do/give the very minimum to there dogs and expect greatness from it. Cheap feed, sub-par housing for the dogs, and just poorly kept overal, and some people still blame the dog or line they come from when that type of owner is the problem. Those that give their dogs 100%, and aim for top health and nutrition are the type of dogmen i like to associate with.

[Officially Retired]

Some folks do/give the very minimum to there dogs and expect greatness from it. Cheap feed, sub-par housing for the dogs, and just poorly kept overal, and some people still blame the dog or line they come from when that type of owner is the problem. Those that give their dogs 100%, and aim for top health and nutrition are the type of dogmen i like to associate with.

:idea:

Bingo. That's the way I see it. Only after the farmer lays the proper soil, care, and maintenance does he have the right to expect the most bountiful harvest.

The minimalist dogman who blames "his dogs" for not turning out, when he never did his complete job as a dogman, is as stupid as the minimalist farmer who blames "his crops" for not turning out, when he never did his complete job as a farmer.

Similarly, the crops that do turn out for the half-ass farmer will never be as healthy as they turn out for the farmer who does everything he can. In the same fashion, really smart dogs need more than just "minimal care" ... and those dogmen who provide minimal care, that I have seen, do not have very smart dogs at all.

JMHO

[Officially Retired]

I always thought keeping the best dog and bringing the best out of him is the name of the game, I'm pretty sure most Dogmen aren't trying to bring the best out of a cur or any dog that's going to detrimental to his program.


So do you think it works the same way with farming? You should only do your best "after" the crops grow ... or do you think that a farmer's best has to be sown every step of the way first if he expects to get the best overall yield?

Jack

[skipper]

Some folks do/give the very minimum to there dogs and expect greatness from it. Cheap feed, sub-par housing for the dogs, and just poorly kept overal, and some people still blame the dog or line they come from when that type of owner is the problem. Those that give their dogs 100%, and aim for top health and nutrition are the type of dogmen i like to associate with.

Agreed

[CYJ]

Ditto Top shelf kennels & CA Jack. Some advice I use to give to a upcoming young dog man. Was not to go looking for the top dog man to pull with in the beginning and learning stages. But to meet as many dog men and note the condition of their dog yards and over all health of their dogs.

See a un kept yard and dogs not up to par. Set up a dog pulling show with that person. If they have the pull weight you want to go with. Better to learn and practice on this type dog man than a seasoned dog man practicing on you. LOL If person is to lazy to take care of the dogs properly will be to lazy to work one right. But make sure to wash the dogs and have a fee that is forfeited for not being on time for weigh in. Or coming in over weight.

Something else to consider, whether a newbie or a seasoned dog man.. No matter how good of a look you took of your dog in the schooling phase. Best to do a cheap or reasonable dog pulling fee on the first event. No matter how good a dog pulls in the schooling. Under dog pulling show conditions on the first go. Anything might happen. Never pay a entry fee you cannot afford to lose. Cheers

[Acesaun]

So do you think it works the same way with farming? You should only do your best "after" the crops grow ... or do you think that a farmer's best has to be sown every step of the way first if he expects to get the best overall yield?

Jack

I agree it is like farming, what you put in is what you get back, no matter if it's farming, breeding, raising a pup,ect but there are occasion when you don't get back what you expect so what do you do, you get rid of what's not needed so to get a higher % of greatness or the best you associate the best with the best, So IMO I don't think there anything wrong with wanting the best producer, the best athlete, the gamest, the best what ever it is that you look for in a dog in order to acquire the best...JMO

[Wise]

Well lets turn it up a notch, WHAT IS THE BEST? Some look for the dog that can rack up the most wins, some are looking for that ROM, some just want the deepest game one they can find.....

[ragedog10]

I find it funny how some of the people on here are so quick to give advice on here that they don't follow themselves! Does it make you a better dog man or woman just because you have new dog houses and you feed a thousand dollars feed? And yet this same person can roll a puppy at 11 or 12 months old and cull it when this puppy never made a bad move but their still a better dog person because they feed a more expensive feed or cause their dog house's are insulated? As said before You Reap wat you Sow! A good dogman or woman isione who's always trying to learn something not some one who you can't have a conversation with because they know everything! Had someone try and tell me everything this other camp is doing wrong when he has no record of comparison! Now don't get me wrong if you know your shit by all means share it but if you're not living by the standards of which you speak stop throwing rocks and hiding your hands!

[Officially Retired]

I find it funny how some of the people on here are so quick to give advice on here that they don't follow themselves! Does it make you a better dog man or woman just because you have new dog houses and you feed a thousand dollars feed? And yet this same person can roll a puppy at 11 or 12 months old and cull it when this puppy never made a bad move but their still a better dog person because they feed a more expensive feed or cause their dog house's are insulated? As said before You Reap wat you Sow! A good dogman or woman isione who's always trying to learn something not some one who you can't have a conversation with because they know everything! Had someone try and tell me everything this other camp is doing wrong when he has no record of comparison! Now don't get me wrong if you know your shit by all means share it but if you're not living by the standards of which you speak stop throwing rocks and hiding your hands!

Who are you talking to exactly?

[Officially Retired]

Well lets turn it up a notch, WHAT IS THE BEST? Some look for the dog that can rack up the most wins, some are looking for that ROM, some just want the deepest game one they can find.....

I would say, "the best" would be all of these things :)

But even a deep game dog with no other trick has value ...

[Officially Retired]

I agree it is like farming, what you put in is what you get back, no matter if it's farming, breeding, raising a pup,ect but there are occasion when you don't get back what you expect so what do you do, you get rid of what's not needed so to get a higher % of greatness or the best you associate the best with the best,

Very well said.

AFTER you've done your best, if the individual doesn't make it, then it sure isn't because of you.

We've all been disappointed by certain individuals, and we have all failed on our end with other individuals, but that doesn't mean new individuals still don't deserve our best.




So IMO I don't think there anything wrong with wanting the best producer, the best athlete, the gamest, the best what ever it is that you look for in a dog in order to acquire the best...JMO

I agree, there is nothing wrong with wanting your dogs to be the best, but there IS something wrong with this if the owner isn't willing to do his best first :idea:

Jack

[EWO]

The guy that is looking to get the best out of each dog is usually the guy who is doing the most with each dog, or the most that he can. The two dog men that turned me onto dogs were hard cullers. Dogs didn't get a lot of chances. They pretty much had to hit the ground running. They both looked at the failures as available chain spaces. Maybe the silver lining approach. I started off the same way.

I would roll on a guys dog and pretty much decide I would put him down. Some guy would keep that dog, breed that dog and two years later kick the shit out of me with the offspring. I am no brain surgeon but after awhile I started to see the value of dogs that were not necessarily match dogs. I am not saying making dogs out of curs but just because a dog is not a top quality match dog he/she can still have value, and in certain aspects even more valuable. One match dog that wins three or one brood dog that produces three dogs that wins three matches.

That in turns goes to the 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Some guys cull harder than others. Some guys cull dogs that are not match dogs but would be good brood dogs for a breeder but they themselves do not care about breeding/puppies. Some guys will not cull in the hopes of making chicken salad out of chicken shit. Takes all kinds.

One of the early lessons I learned was that the keep does not last eight weeks it starts at nine weeks before they are born. (The forethought/insight into the actual breeding). Any and everything from conception to show night matters. EWO

[Officially Retired]

The guy that is looking to get the best out of each dog is usually the guy who is doing the most with each dog, or the most that he can. The two dog men that turned me onto dogs were hard cullers. Dogs didn't get a lot of chances. They pretty much had to hit the ground running. They both looked at the failures as available chain spaces. Maybe the silver lining approach. I started off the same way.

I would roll on a guys dog and pretty much decide I would put him down. Some guy would keep that dog, breed that dog and two years later kick the shit out of me with the offspring. I am no brain surgeon but after awhile I started to see the value of dogs that were not necessarily match dogs. I am not saying making dogs out of curs but just because a dog is not a top quality match dog he/she can still have value, and in certain aspects even more valuable. One match dog that wins three or one brood dog that produces three dogs that wins three matches.

That in turns goes to the 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Some guys cull harder than others. Some guys cull dogs that are not match dogs but would be good brood dogs for a breeder but they themselves do not care about breeding/puppies. Some guys will not cull in the hopes of making chicken salad out of chicken shit. Takes all kinds.

One of the early lessons I learned was that the keep does not last eight weeks it starts at nine weeks before they are born. (The forethought/insight into the actual breeding). Any and everything from conception to show night matters. EWO


Another fabulous post :appl:

[jayblack]

The guy who takes his time and spends time with the dogs , I got a dog for free because he "wouldn't " start .. He was two yrs old . I kept him as a pet for another 8 months he became a 2xw , I had a daughter of dead lift same deal , she was my daughters dog she had no mouth she won 1 and showed extreme game ness . I always kept less dogs than I had space they all got house and family time and I think they performed better for me than the prior owner because of it ... Made ch. show time a ch she had no ability , made ch . Morena a ch. she had no mouth etc etc our kennel motto is we do more with less ...

[S_B]

One of the early lessons I learned was that the keep does not last eight weeks it starts at nine weeks before they are born. (The forethought/insight into the actual breeding). Any and everything from conception to show night matters. EWO

This is so so true, and while we all would like to think we ourselves "hit the ground running" truth is we have ALL fell, got up and dusted ourselves off a time or two. We have also made culling decisions we later looked back on and not regretted so much, but would have done things differently now that hindsight is 20/20.

Great posts above as well...

[Officially Retired]

More excellent posts fellas, well said on both counts.

[EWO]

A number of years ago I saw a dog make several deeply game scratches back to a dog that clearly outclassed him. There were only two souls in that building that thought he still had a chance. The dog just knew he would win on the next trip over. And the other was an older gentleman who saw something down the road. I made the comment to get him up but I did not have the gumption to buy him mid-stream and force the pick up. That dog was brought back out and won two. I saw him on the second one and he was ten times the dog the second time I seen him. The differences were one he was done two pounds heavier and with a different owner. I believe he would have avenged his earlier loss if given the chance. With that said,

for the most part a dog is the product of his environment, sometimes that is a positive but sometimes he is a victim of his circumstance...to no fault of his own. One of the things I believe firmly is that if every dog, an absolute 100%, was held til they were 28-30 months old before even their first bump the percentages across the board would increase, regardless of line, regardless of owner. These dogs are amazing. They overcome so much and if they were allowed to fully mature they would overcome so much more (owners shortcomings).

The wisdom/willingness to wait on a dog is I think what separates the two in the original poll. The hard culler is not going to wait. The man that wants the best will wait. EWO

[Officially Retired]

A number of years ago I saw a dog make several deeply game scratches back to a dog that clearly outclassed him. There were only two souls in that building that thought he still had a chance. The dog just knew he would win on the next trip over. And the other was an older gentleman who saw something down the road. I made the comment to get him up but I did not have the gumption to buy him mid-stream and force the pick up. That dog was brought back out and won two. I saw him on the second one and he was ten times the dog the second time I seen him. The differences were one he was done two pounds heavier and with a different owner. I believe he would have avenged his earlier loss if given the chance. With that said,

for the most part a dog is the product of his environment, sometimes that is a positive but sometimes he is a victim of his circumstance...to no fault of his own. One of the things I believe firmly is that if every dog, an absolute 100%, was held til they were 28-30 months old before even their first bump the percentages across the board would increase, regardless of line, regardless of owner. These dogs are amazing. They overcome so much and if they were allowed to fully mature they would overcome so much more (owners shortcomings).

The wisdom/willingness to wait on a dog is I think what separates the two in the original poll. The hard culler is not going to wait. The man that wants the best will wait. EWO


Another outstanding post. This is exactly what I prescribe in my chapters on Schooling and Game-Testing. I may well post these articles tomorrow, but you said exactly the gist of them: maturity and patience are everything.

A dogman expecting all his dogs to be 100% dead game before they're fully-mature is as clueless as a farmer expecting his crops to "taste their best" before they're fully-ripened. The time it takes to fully-mature must simply be understood and allowed-for.

What 90% of most dogmen don't realize is, dogs may achieve "sexual" maturity at 12-16 months ... but they do not achieve full, social maturity until they're 2.5 - 4 years old. That is a biological fact that will not be ignored by the intelligent dogman. This kind of deep understanding of dogs is what allowed dogs like Dibo and Chinaman to shine in their later years ... when they would have been culled by most of today's idiot-dogmen ... who would never realize what they lost due to impatience. The number of potentially-good dogs wasted due to not being allowed to mature is inconceivable.

Jack

[ragedog10]

Who are you talking to exactly? I'm not calling anyone out! Just stating Wat I have seen with more then one person on your board! if you think that you have learned everything in these hounds then Wats the since ? I wanna ask you this if you have your own breedings off your stock are you harder on them or would you be harder on a prospect that someone farmed out to you to see how it turns out? If you are a good dog man or woman then should you not know Wat a good one looks like when to and when not to cull and or breed! as someone has already stated if your not trying to better the breed of any hound then it's not right in my eye's as you have said your self jack if you don't have Some reads then your not being the best that you can be! Just knowing when to pick up and put your pride to the side could make all the difference! this is by far one of the best post on this site! You putting this site together with the amount information on here let us know you have a real love for not just bulldogs but for the k9 species overall!

[ragedog10]

Another outstanding post. This is exactly what I prescribe in my chapters on Schooling and Game-Testing. I may well post these articles tomorrow, but you said exactly the gist of them: maturity and patience are everything.1000000% With this deep understanding!

A dogman expecting all his dogs to be 100% dead game before they're fully-mature is as clueless as a farmer expecting his crops to "taste their best" before they're fully-ripened. The time it takes to fully-mature must simply be understood and allowed-for.

What 90% of most dogmen don't realize is, dogs may achieve "sexual" maturity at 12-16 months ... but they do not achieve full, social maturity until they're 2.5 - 4 years old. That is a biological fact that will not be ignored by the intelligent dogman. This kind of deep understanding of dogs is what allowed dogs like Dibo and Chinaman to shine in their later years ... when they would have been culled by most of today's idiot-dogmen ... who would never realize what they lost due to impatience. The number of potentially-good dogs wasted due to not being allowed to mature is inconceivable.

Jack 1000% with that deep understanding!Most people of these days think a fast lane is one that start acting hot at a young age! Learned that the hard way! A hot acting pup is just that! And after that life lesson Nothing is pushed to do it cause of how hot they act but are allowed to fully mature! world of difference! End up with more good ones just by give them that time to grow into dogs!

[Officially Retired]

I'm not calling anyone out! Just stating Wat I have seen with more then one person on your board! if you think that you have learned everything in these hounds then Wats the since ? I wanna ask you this if you have your own breedings off your stock are you harder on them or would you be harder on a prospect that someone farmed out to you to see how it turns out? If you are a good dog man or woman then should you not know Wat a good one looks like when to and when not to cull and or breed! as someone has already stated if your not trying to better the breed of any hound then it's not right in my eye's as you have said your self jack if you don't have Some reads then your not being the best that you can be! Just knowing when to pick up and put your pride to the side could make all the difference! this is by far one of the best post on this site! You putting this site together with the amount information on here let us know you have a real love for not just bulldogs but for the k9 species overall!

Okay, cool, thanks for clarifying.

[Officially Retired]

1000% with that deep understanding!Most people of these days think a fast lane is one that start acting hot at a young age! Learned that the hard way! A hot acting pup is just that! And after that life lesson Nothing is pushed to do it cause of how hot they act but are allowed to fully mature! world of difference! End up with more good ones just by give them that time to grow into dogs!


I put this post up because too many people act like owing dogs is a tough man contest ... whoever can be the coldest, cull the most dogs, and brag about "how hard it is to make it" on their yard means they're some sort of elite dogman. But the exact opposite is true.

That is like some farmer claiming that the fewer crops that make it to ripening, and to market, means he's the "best farmer." In point of fact, anyone with results like this is the WORST farmer.

The best farmers = those who have the HIGHEST yearly crop yields, not the lowest :idea:
The best farmers = those who do EVERYTHING they can to produce the most, and the best, quality crops every year :idea:
And farmers with success like this can only do so by doing everything they can first, before they ever see a ripened piece of fruit or vegetable.

But so many people in these dogs cannot see that all we are is "dog farmers" ... and we have to follow the same principles.
Our dogs need the most optimal genetics, the best fuels, consistent parasite control, and part of what they need is also care and attention to reach their uttermost potential.

So I am glad a lot of experienced people came here to share their stories in this regard, because there is no big "rush" to see what these dogs can do. I have a 2 year old right now, and my (now considerable) experience shows me that she is just a puppy. I can see it in her stance, the way she carries herself, her "view of the world," etc. She is starting to perk-up toward other critters now ... and would probably fire-up if I bumped her ... but she is still a puppy. She is still transforming into a fully-mature animal, socially (and even physically). I can just see that. I couldn't imagine doing anything really rough on her yet, even though she might stand up to it. To me, if I were still active, I would just barely be starting her school now.

Sure, I have started dogs off a lot younger, and each dog is an individual, and some dogs start earlier than others. But it still is best practice to wait before doing anything serious with them. Too many people expect the world out of puppies, and young dogs, while not expecting a thing out of themselves first.

It is refreshing to read the stories and accounts of those who do pay attention :)

Jack


.

[R2L]

Nice posts.
I also think culling dogs on a young age doesn't mean you'll keep the better dogs. (plenty people cull even before 1 year old) All you did was "separating" the early starters from the rest.
Im still regretting 1 i culled a year ago because i didn't allow him to fully mature. What if.
Though besides patience, space plays a big roll as well. I don't think i have to explain.
So my biggest respect would go out to someone with a really small yard, who would get the best out of each dog from pup to grown up.


PS: the stupidest thing i ever heard is something called "natural culling" I don't think i have to explain that either.

[No Quarter Kennel]

The guy who "goes through" a lot of dogs ... and only keeps "the best" ... or the guy who takes his time and brings out the best in each dog?

Curious where folks stand ...

Jack

Does not matter if you are talking dogs, business, marriage or raising children, you name it. The man who does the most with what he has is the better dogman, businessman, husbandMAN.....MAN PERIOD!

[Officially Retired]

That about sums it up, NQ, well said.

[Pedhelper]

"Does not matter if you are talking dogs, business, marriage or raising children, you name it. The man who does the most with what he has is the better dogman, businessman, husbandMAN.....MAN PERIOD!" - Amen, in my country a true MAN is a very rare commodity.

[No Quarter Kennel]

"Does not matter if you are talking dogs, business, marriage or raising children, you name it. The man who does the most with what he has is the better dogman, businessman, husbandMAN.....MAN PERIOD!" - Amen, in my country a true MAN is a very rare commodity.

That is every country now days.

[FrostyPaws]

The question is subjective.

Who is the better dogman? That could be any number of individuals on both sides of that fence.

Who would you rather associate with? That could be any number of individuals on both sides of the fence also.

I've personally learned a shit ton from both types of individuals, and I have both types of individuals within my mindset. I apply what I learn, from both types of individuals, to what I do. I don't normally start dogs until 2. I refuse to show any dog until right at 3. That being said, I don't have any issue sending a dog down it's way that doesn't fit what I like to see in my dogs. Have I gone through a bunch of dogs? Yes, and if you're in dogs for any length of time, you will for various reasons and not just quitting.

Factor in what it is that you're exactly breeding for. The well rounded individual, the ace head dog, the superb body dog, or just an honest dog. Where does your bar for all of those things start and stop. If your bar is the same at beginning as it is 10, 15, or 20 years down the road, then I'd say you've not seen much or know much of anything.

Your bar should be rising throughout your time. You should be striving to improve what you have the entire time. I was really lucky in starting off in dogs that I didn't toil for years with shitty dogs. I saw at the beginning what it meant to be around serious men and their dogs. That being said, my bar has constantly risen over the years. I've always attempted to better my yard, and I've been a lot more successful now since I adopted a mixture of the two mindsets instead of being just one or the other.

[Officially Retired]

The question is subjective.

Disagree. There are factual results that obtain that can be measured, quantified, and data drawn.

Same as we could measure the farming details, or overall crop yield, between two farmers and come out with objective facts that prove one methodology is superior to another.




Who is the better dogman? That could be any number of individuals on both sides of that fence.
Who would you rather associate with? That could be any number of individuals on both sides of the fence also.

Disagree again. That some dogmen can compete and win with "what's left" of their yard, and maintain respectable percentages with that, still doesn't change the fact that their overall percentages suck. In the same fashion, if a lousy farmer is able to sell a couple of fruits or vegetable at the market, it still doesn't change the fact he lost most of his crop that never made it to market.

And, since we're dealing with living animals that deserve a fighting chance and to be given all the tools they need, I would much rather associate with the kind of dogmen that give their dogs that chance and meet all of those needs.




I've personally learned a shit ton from both types of individuals, and I have both types of individuals within my mindset. I apply what I learn, from both types of individuals, to what I do. I don't normally start dogs until 2. I refuse to show any dog until right at 3. That being said, I don't have any issue sending a dog down it's way that doesn't fit what I like to see in my dogs. Have I gone through a bunch of dogs? Yes, and if you're in dogs for any length of time, you will for various reasons and not just quitting.

Once a person has done all he can, and the dog still doesn't live up to the standards, then he has the right to judge the dog. I personally don't like to cull dogs through killing, and have been able to maintain an awfully high % win record not doing so, while at the same time being very exacting in what I want in a dog, both athletically and gameness-wise. I like dogs. I like them for more than just their ability to fight, or to be game, I just like being around dogs. Yet I also know what it takes to win, and that in order to win against the best you can't breed based on whether you like an animal or not, but by whether (objectively) it has the skills, drive, tenacity to win. And I can breed to dogs like this, while not killing dogs that aren't like this.




Factor in what it is that you're exactly breeding for. The well rounded individual, the ace head dog, the superb body dog, or just an honest dog. Where does your bar for all of those things start and stop. If your bar is the same at beginning as it is 10, 15, or 20 years down the road, then I'd say you've not seen much or know much of anything.

Agree.




Your bar should be rising throughout your time. You should be striving to improve what you have the entire time. I was really lucky in starting off in dogs that I didn't toil for years with shitty dogs. I saw at the beginning what it meant to be around serious men and their dogs. That being said, my bar has constantly risen over the years. I've always attempted to better my yard, and I've been a lot more successful now since I adopted a mixture of the two mindsets instead of being just one or the other.

I agree, a person's bar should rise as his knowledge and experience rises ... and yet so, too, should his willingness to relax and be patient. Green dogmen have no idea what a good dog is (generally), and yet they're impatient and "want the world" while they themselves don't have the tools to provide it. They rush dogs, and are in a big hurry to "test" dogs, and don't seem to want to put in the time required to properly school a dog.

As we get experienced, we're supposed to have a better idea of what a "good dog" is ... and yet we're also supposed to have the patience to allow these dogs to get up there in age, and to school them out properly and with purpose, before we go ahead and judge them.

Myself, I have always liked dogs, and while I have gained experience over the years, I personally have never found the need to be brutal or reckless in my culling of dogs. I have always given them time to grow up before I judge them. Knowledge-wise, the less I listened to the standard dullard in dogs (who focuses on "how much abuse" a dog could take "and still scratch") ... and the more I concentrated on what it takes to win (how smart & athletic they were, and how much they can control the situation, while pacing themselves), the more I have seen my win record grow. And I do have the factual statistics that show my win/loss record as a breeder continuously improved from 1997 (57%) to 1999 (75%) until it plateaued at ~87% from 2002 on out, where it's stayed. (This is across the board, in various states/countries, in various hands & levels of competence. I am absolutely the number would be higher if they were always, 100% in top hands.)

So I very much do believe that there are objective, factual statistics that prove one method is superior to another.

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

Disagree. There are factual results that obtain that can be measured, quantified, and data drawn.

Same as we could measure the farming details, or overall crop yield, between two farmers and come out with objective facts that prove one methodology is superior to another.

There is no factual data that can be used across the board to prove one way is better than another. Unless you have factual data from everyone that's ever owned dogs on how they do dogs, you will have nothing more than a small sample that can be swayed one way or another.






Disagree again. That some dogmen can compete and win with "what's left" of their yard, and maintain respectable percentages with that, still doesn't change the fact that their overall percentages suck. In the same fashion, if a lousy farmer is able to sell a couple of fruits or vegetable at the market, it still doesn't change the fact he lost most of his crop that never made it to market.

What's left from a man's yard is usually dictated on how they look at their yard. Percentages pertaining to what? Dogs making it to the box? Dogs actually winning? Dogs being game? Overall percentages can be construed in numerous ways. I know someone that said they've not had a dog quit in 6 years. While that's true, they leave out the fact of picking up dogs at the first sign of trouble. They leave out the fact of picking up dogs, during shows, when they're looking like they're going to pack it in. Maybe the most time they see out of a potential brood dog is 20-30 minutes, and they breed it. Once everything is factored into these individuals and how they do things, the “percentages” are shown in an entirely different light.



And, since we're dealing with living animals that deserve a fighting chance and to be given all the tools they need, I would much rather associate with the kind of dogmen that give their dogs that chance and meet all of those needs.

I would rather associate with men that could show me something I've missed over time, and I've learned things from both of those individuals. A lot of the men I know that were hard on their dogs gave their dogs all the chances they were willing to give their dogs. Not all dogs, given every chance in the world, are going to amount to anything that we define as a sport. If you do everything you can for a D class dog, it's still a D class dog, and most people don't want D class dogs for any particular reason.





Once a person has done all he can, and the dog still doesn't live up to the standards, then he has the right to judge the dog. I personally don't like to cull dogs through killing, and have been able to maintain an awfully high % win record not doing so, while at the same time being very exacting in what I want in a dog, both athletically and gameness-wise. I like dogs. I like them for more than just their ability to fight, or to be game, I just like being around dogs. Yet I also know what it takes to win, and that in order to win against the best you can't breed based on whether you like an animal or not, but by whether (objectively) it has the skills, drive, tenacity to win. And I can breed to dogs like this, while not killing dogs that aren't like this.

I guess we think about different things when we think of men who only want the best. The men I knew that did that didn't just cull dogs because they didn't start at 16 months old. They weren't idiots. A couple of them usually gave their dogs until the age of 3 to get with the program. It didn't always pan out for them. Some only gave them until the age of 2 to start. Those men knew their dogs. If the dogs didn't meet what it was they wanted, they did what they thought was best for their yard.



I agree, a person's bar should rise as his knowledge and experience rises ... and yet so, too, should his willingness to relax and be patient. Green dogmen have no idea what a good dog is (generally), and yet they're impatient and "want the world" while they themselves don't have the tools to provide it. They rush dogs, and are in a big hurry to "test" dogs, and don't seem to want to put in the time required to properly school a dog.

You're right about green dogmen. I guess I just don't think about greenhorns much as I generally don't deal with them. I know I've slowed down a lot on my rush to judgement over the years as I think most people do that are successful within dogs. Greenhorns will make every mistake in the book usually unless they have someone that is actually looking out for their best interest and their dog's best interest.



As we get experienced, we're supposed to have a better idea of what a "good dog" is ... and yet we're also supposed to have the patience to allow these dogs to get up there in age, and to school them out properly and with purpose, before we go ahead and judge them.

Agree



Myself, I have always liked dogs, and while I have gained experience over the years, I personally have never found the need to be brutal or reckless in my culling of dogs. I have always given them time to grow up before I judge them. Knowledge-wise, the less I listened to the standard dullard in dogs (who focuses on "how much abuse" a dog could take "and still scratch") ... and the more I concentrated on what it takes to win (how smart & athletic they were, and how much they can control the situation, while pacing themselves), the more I have seen my win record grow. And I do have the factual statistics that show my win/loss record as a breeder continuously improved from 1997 (57%) to 1999 (75%) until it plateaued at ~87% from 2002 on out, where it's stayed. (This is across the board, in various states/countries, in various hands & levels of competence. I am absolutely the number would be higher if they were always, 100% in top hands.)

So I very much do believe that there are objective, factual statistics that prove one method is superior to another.

Jack

The thing about trying to factor in how dogs win is actually seeing what they win over. This is just how I see it. I've seen many dogs win over 3 subpar and average dogs in my day, but those dogs are still Champions. It's not the dog's fault his opponent wasn't up to snuff. He did his job as he was supposed to do. There are ton of people who show a ton of dogs because they simply want to show dogs. That's what they want. And if the dog looks good in a few rolls against some dogs, then they take their chances and hope for the best. A lot of times, they're simply showing average dogs. That is how a lot of shows are done, won, and lost. The percentages are high for these kennels until they meet someone who actually brings a match quality dog to a match and not just some dog they want to show. All competition is not created equally, and to me, that's the crux of the entire percentage aspect.

If every dog that was shown would meet an equal opponent, then I guess percentages would mean more to me than they do. While it's nice to hear that a dog, or dogs, that you bred won, it simply doesn't mean that much to me unless the man that won REALLY knows what a quality dog is, and that man feels like he beat a quality dog and not just some average dog someone wanted to show.

[Officially Retired]

There is no factual data that can be used across the board to prove one way is better than another. Unless you have factual data from everyone that's ever owned dogs on how they do dogs, you will have nothing more than a small sample that can be swayed one way or another.

Strictly-speaking, you're right.

However, when you hear people talk about their low numbers, that usually is the result of either a person's poor knowledge of genetics and/or their poor practices.

This is as simple as I can put "the way things work," and I don't see how any knowledgeable dogman could disagree with the following:


Good genetics + good practices = higher percentage success.
Bad genetics + bad practices = lower percentage success.

It's pretty much that simple (plus any combinations thereof).




What's left from a man's yard is usually dictated on how they look at their yard. Percentages pertaining to what? Dogs making it to the box? Dogs actually winning? Dogs being game? Overall percentages can be construed in numerous ways. I know someone that said they've not had a dog quit in 6 years. While that's true, they leave out the fact of picking up dogs at the first sign of trouble. They leave out the fact of picking up dogs, during shows, when they're looking like they're going to pack it in. Maybe the most time they see out of a potential brood dog is 20-30 minutes, and they breed it. Once everything is factored into these individuals and how they do things, the “percentages” are shown in an entirely different light.

Well, the only percentages that can actually be measured is win/loss; the rest is speculation and/or opinion.

I understand what you're saying, but a lot of what you call "factors" are merely opinions. If a dog gets matched and wins, it wins. Whether it made a bad sign or not isn't a "factor," it's an opinion. If the dog loses, it loses, and if it scratches after it is picked up, then it scratches, and any "opinions" as to what may or may not have happened "after that" mean nothing. Now, if the owner fails to courtesy scratch, then I agree the owner is hiding something. But if he courtesies, and the dog scratches, that is all the dog can do.

Furthermore, "how hard" a dog is looked at in school means nothing either as to a win/loss record. I sold a dog to a good dogman in Canada. He matched the dog from me into a son of a well-known Champion, and the camp who brought the opponent claimed have "high standards," declaring they had two-dogged their charge for :50 ... and they said their dog would "never quit" ... but yet their dog quit to my dog in :53. The dogmen who lost could not believe their dog quit to the one dog from me where he did not quit to 2 dogs before. Why is that?


Different opponents yield different levels of control, therefore different results.
Different days yield different results.
Different states of condition/health yield different results.

Finally, there are also a lot of people who have good records, yet they really haven't matched into a top-caliber animal, nor produced a top-caliber animal. They win/lose against done-nothing dogs, or (maybe) a 1xW, into local boys. They have never faced a highly-regarded dogman, or a highly-regarded dog (nor have they produced one). In other words, the dogs they 'win' with are always against mediocre competition, so they might have been losers against elite competition, etc.




I would rather associate with men that could show me something I've missed over time, and I've learned things from both of those individuals. A lot of the men I know that were hard on their dogs gave their dogs all the chances they were willing to give their dogs. Not all dogs, given every chance in the world, are going to amount to anything that we define as a sport. If you do everything you can for a D class dog, it's still a D class dog, and most people don't want D class dogs for any particular reason.

I agree.




I guess we think about different things when we think of men who only want the best. The men I knew that did that didn't just cull dogs because they didn't start at 16 months old. They weren't idiots. A couple of them usually gave their dogs until the age of 3 to get with the program. It didn't always pan out for them. Some only gave them until the age of 2 to start. Those men knew their dogs. If the dogs didn't meet what it was they wanted, they did what they thought was best for their yard.

I don't know what you think about when you think about the best, but what I think about is producing the kind of dog that will whip and stop anything it faces its weight ... no matter whose hands they're in ... because, genetically, that dog has the athleticism, intelligence, drive, and mettle to do so. I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said.




You're right about green dogmen. I guess I just don't think about greenhorns much as I generally don't deal with them. I know I've slowed down a lot on my rush to judgement over the years as I think most people do that are successful within dogs. Greenhorns will make every mistake in the book usually unless they have someone that is actually looking out for their best interest and their dog's best interest.


And that is exactly why I made this post, because there are a lot of people still rushing their dogs and doing stupid shit with them. Not everyone has the same level of experience you do, but "even you" can (and eventually did) benefit by not being in such a hurry to make a decision on a dog, but instead to put more time into the dog and let it mature and get schooled before doing so.

In my case (and I know you have heard this story before, but it bears repetition here), my Diamond Girl (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=679) bitch quit in :05 on her first roll. She half-heartedly defended herself, scratched once, and then refused to go. All the "tough, hardcore" dogmen there told me to put the bitch down, but I ignored their stupid advice because she was just a 16 month old puppy, and I could just see she wasn't ready yet. Diamond Girl was never fully "on" until she was 3+ years old ... but when she did turn on, she proved to be as game as any dog I have ever bred. She produced an extremely-high percentage of game dogs, put Ch Nico Jr. on the ROM list when she produced Ch Buster (4xW) (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=18772), who was put down in a raid in-keep for #5. Diamond Girl is behind multiple Champions, 2 Grand Champions, one of which was the Philippine Dog of the Year for 2006.

The moral of the story is patience is a virtue, and giving dogs time to mature pays off, which is why the best dogmen are patient, which is the subject of this thread.




The thing about trying to factor in how dogs win is actually seeing what they win over. This is just how I see it. I've seen many dogs win over 3 subpar and average dogs in my day, but those dogs are still Champions. It's not the dog's fault his opponent wasn't up to snuff. He did his job as he was supposed to do. There are ton of people who show a ton of dogs because they simply want to show dogs. That's what they want. And if the dog looks good in a few rolls against some dogs, then they take their chances and hope for the best. A lot of times, they're simply showing average dogs. That is how a lot of shows are done, won, and lost. The percentages are high for these kennels until they meet someone who actually brings a match quality dog to a match and not just some dog they want to show. All competition is not created equally, and to me, that's the crux of the entire percentage aspect.

This is true, and that is essentially what I said a couple paragraphs above.

I know my dogs have faced the very best in the world, beaten Champions owned by some of the most competitive kennels in the world, done so without getting touched in some case, gone 2-3 hours into the best in the world, crawled 100% DG into the best in the world ... "as well as" won over no-name competition.

I don't know all the specifics of what you've done, but I know I can say that about my dogs ... which have done so for 2 decades ... that they have competed with and BEAT the very best in the world ... and that they have also lost 100% DG to the very best in the world ... taking multi-winning dogs longer than all their previous opponents put together. I don't know how many people can honestly make the same statement. Beating "a dog" in a known dogman's hands isn't the same as beating his best Champion in that same man's hands.




If every dog that was shown would meet an equal opponent, then I guess percentages would mean more to me than they do. While it's nice to hear that a dog, or dogs, that you bred won, it simply doesn't mean that much to me unless the man that won REALLY knows what a quality dog is, and that man feels like he beat a quality dog and not just some average dog someone wanted to show.

I don't think any dogman has always put his dogs into the very best, every time, and that includes you.

Again, beating "a" dog in a known dogman's hands isn't the same as beating his finest Champion, etc. Therefore, unless you are always facing Champions, Grand Champions, DOYs, etc., you too are competing against "lesser dogs" yourself to some degree. Everyone is. Therefore, all things are relative, and therefore all wins mean something ... precisely because the dog that was put in there won, which becomes a statistical fact, and which win increases the factual record of the dogman.

Of course, I agree that quality of competition (in both dogs and men) alters "our perception" as to the worth of that win, but it doesn't alter the fact that both dogs won. For example, when Prime Ape recently won in 1:43 over a local dogman, it did not mean quite as much to me as when Ch Vengence (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=1126) destroyed GDI's Ch Soldier (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=27024) in :43, killed him without getting a hole in his skin, made the cover of Scratchback Magazine, and was featured in an article Rudy wrote, "The Best Dogs I have Ever Seen," etc.

Yet THE FACT IS Prime Ape still won, my percentages remain where they are, and I am still proud of that dog for his win. And another fact is, which again relates to the subject of this thread, Ch Vengence (like Diamond Girl) also quit when he was 16 months old ... in like :08 ... and yet, as a fully-mature dog, he whipped some of the best dogmen of his time, using the best dogs they owned, including killing a Champion his weight without getting bit back, as well as spotting weight and coming from way behind to win over Openhouse. So not only did Vengence win his last in 1:20, coming from behind, but he was also pushing 2 lb of weight.

Which, again, proves the point of this post ... allowing a dog to mature, and being patient, pays off :)

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

Well, the only percentages that can actually be measured is win/loss; the rest is speculation and/or opinion.


You're right in the only percentages that can be factually measured are win/loss ratio.



Furthermore, "how hard" a dog is looked at in school means nothing either as to a win/loss record. I sold a dog to a good dogman in Canada. He matched the dog from me into a son of a well-known Champion, and the camp who brought the opponent claimed have "high standards," declaring they had two-dogged their charge for :50 ... and they said their dog would "never quit" ... but yet their dog quit to my dog in :53. The dogmen who lost could not believe their dog quit to the one dog from me where he did not quit to 2 dogs before. Why is that?

There are plenty of reasons why a dog that was supposedly 2 dogged would quit. The 2 dogs were smaller dogs that he handled easily. Both dogs were subpar dogs, etc etc. Maybe the style of the dog you sent there frustrated him. The list can continue on and on. There is nothing wrong with holding your dogs to a higher standard than others if you actually have the ability to understand what that means.





Finally, there are also a lot of people who have good records, yet they really haven't matched into a top-caliber animal, nor produced a top-caliber animal. They win/lose against done-nothing dogs, or (maybe) a 1xW, into local boys. They have never faced a highly-regarded dogman, or a highly-regarded dog (nor have they produced one). In other words, the dogs they 'win' with are always against mediocre competition, so they might have been losers against elite competition, etc.

You're right, but winning is winning. It all counts toward a percentage, so whether the dog is top caliber or not doesn't matter. What matters is the dog won. Winning percentages aren't really about producing top caliber animals for someone only interested in showing dogs. I can see how that's important to breeders such as yourself. You're right about those dogs and mediocre competition, but that's all just opinion as they just as easily may have won against elite competition, etc.






I know my dogs have faced the very best in the world, beaten Champions owned by some of the most competitive kennels in the world, done so without getting touched in some case, gone 2-3 hours into the best in the world, crawled 100% DG into the best in the world ... "as well as" won over no-name competition.

I don't know all the specifics of what you've done, but I know I can say that about my dogs ... which have done so for 2 decades ... that they have competed with and BEAT the very best in the world ... and that they have also lost 100% DG to the very best in the world ... taking multi-winning dogs longer than all their previous opponents put together. I don't know how many people can honestly make the same statement. Beating "a dog" in a known dogman's hands isn't the same as beating his best Champion in that same man's hands.

I haven't bred a line of dogs for 20+ years, so I don't have dogs all over the world. I can't compare what my dogs have done to anyone when it comes to a breeding program. I've only bred my dogs for myself to keep what I like going in a direction I want. I'm not interested in being that person that created a line over the world. Beating “a dog” in a known dogman's hands could, at times, mean beating his best dog whether he has champions or not.






I don't think any dogman has always put his dogs into the very best, every time, and that includes you.

Of course I haven't as I have no control over that thing, but, as I stated, that is when percentages would matter to me as something to pay attention to IF people were able to do that.



Again, beating "a" dog in a known dogman's hands isn't the same as beating his finest Champion, etc. Therefore, unless you are always facing Champions, Grand Champions, DOYs, etc., you too are competing against "lesser dogs" yourself to some degree. Everyone is. Therefore, all things are relative, and therefore all wins mean something ... precisely because the dog that was put in there won, which becomes a statistical fact, and which win increases the factual record of the dogman.

No one is always facing the competition of dogs you mention on a regular basis. We all face “lesser dogs”. We're all glad to win, but the sense of accomplishment isn't the same as beating a quality dog. Sometimes there is no sense of accomplishment. If I were to win all shows in 40 minutes or less, my sense of accomplishment would be near the bottom rung of the ladder, if there at all. You're not getting any type of indicator of beating lesser dogs as that's something we all feel like we should do. A win only means something if the competitor that won attaches some worth to it. If there's no worth attached to it, it means nothing. At that point, it is simply a matter of fact, as you said.




Of course, I agree that quality of competition (in both dogs and men) alters "our perception" as to the worth of that win, but it doesn't alter the fact that both dogs won.

Agreed here, and perception is what a lot of decisions are made on and simply not simply a win. Above post :)



Which, again, proves the point of this post ... allowing a dog to mature, and being patient, pays off :)

Jack

Patience is something we should all have with dogs. At times, patience pays off. At other times, it makes zero difference.

[Officially Retired]

You're right in the only percentages that can be factually measured are win/loss ratio.


Agreed.




There are plenty of reasons why a dog that was supposedly 2 dogged would quit. The 2 dogs were smaller dogs that he handled easily. Both dogs were subpar dogs, etc etc. Maybe the style of the dog you sent there frustrated him. The list can continue on and on. There is nothing wrong with holding your dogs to a higher standard than others if you actually have the ability to understand what that means.

Agreed. And I do. And I am sure you do too :)




You're right, but winning is winning. It all counts toward a percentage, so whether the dog is top caliber or not doesn't matter. What matters is the dog won. Winning percentages aren't really about producing top caliber animals for someone only interested in showing dogs. I can see how that's important to breeders such as yourself. You're right about those dogs and mediocre competition, but that's all just opinion as they just as easily may have won against elite competition, etc.

What you said is true, except that 1) winning percentages are important to everyone, breeders and competitors alike, and 2) winning percentages are about producing top-caliber animals.

An individual win may not necessarily prove anything, one way or another, but the greater the number of random matches become the more accurate the statistics become. That is how intelligent people in sports rate EVERYTHING (from horseraces to batting averages) is based on percentages. And, in the sport of dogs, no one is going to build a FAR greater-than-average family record, consistently, by repeatedly sending out mediocre dogs into a random sampling of hands worldwide. No way in hell can that happen. The only way a consistently mediocre group of dogs can build a FAR better-than-mediocre record is by spot-picking, if sub-par dogs are always selectively placed in truly superior human hands who then set out to face average (or lesser) competition. Because even a great dogman given a mediocre dog will still lose to another great dogman, who's bringing a truly superior dog.

In point of fact, my dogs generally get dealt the opposite hand, and yet they still almost always prevail :idea:

My dogs don't always go to good or experienced hands; the fact is many times they're put in relatively green hands, and yet they almost invariably win or show game regardless, even when totally outclassed in levels of experience on "the human" end. Take Ch Vengence, for example. He was owned by Minute Man when he beat Ch Soldier. Minute Man faced Gamedog Inc., a highly experienced dogman, who had Captain America in his corner as the conditioner, who's as "fastlane" as it gets. These veterans had a pretty famous guy named STP on their side basically saying Ch Soldier was a "shoe-in" to make Grand Champion. Minute Man was a rank newbie by comparison, and so the disparity of "level of human competition" was literally night-and-day in that fight. And, just to put a punctuation mark on it, Vengence came in there light. Yet none of those "perceived intangibles" mattered, as Ch Vengeance outclassed the shit out of Ch Soldier, and pitched a shutout, precisely because he was a truly superior athlete.

The same thing happened when the relative beginner Griddog beat Harry Hargrove so bad with Ch Mr. Serious (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=6826) that Hargrove walked passed his own yard of dogs three times to go breed to Mr. Serious. No way is a man like Hargrove going to breed to some beginner's dog who beat him, unless he thought that beginner had a truly special animal. Time and again, my dogs get sent to relative novices, who take their dogs out and whip some of the biggest names in the history of dogs, and there is no way this can happen without my consistently sending people far greater-than-average dogs.

Any statistician will agree that the larger the sampling, the most accurate the statistics are, and my dogs have been put out there long enough, often enough, and with the same % results worldwide, regardless, that I am as positive as I can be that my dogs a far better than average and far more likely to win than lose, regardless of who or what they face.




I haven't bred a line of dogs for 20+ years, so I don't have dogs all over the world. I can't compare what my dogs have done to anyone when it comes to a breeding program. I've only bred my dogs for myself to keep what I like going in a direction I want. I'm not interested in being that person that created a line over the world. Beating “a dog” in a known dogman's hands could, at times, mean beating his best dog whether he has champions or not.

I understand what you're saying, and there is nothing wrong with what you're doing. In fact, it is arguably the best way for the dogs. To be honest, I often wish I had done things your way, and really mastered my own conditioning program, so that all my dogs got the same fair shake.

And yet, had I gone this route, I would never have gotten to breed as deep into my own line as I have. I would never have gotten to get the same feedback, worldwide, nor would my dogs have faced the wide variety of opponents that they have, and so I wouldn't have gotten to know how reliable and consistent they really are. Because the flipside is, dogs that are always in top hands are in some ways "sheltered." Even though your standards may be high, the conditions you keep your dogs in are optimal. Your experience is there.

Imagine sending your own dogs to a random sampling of people, from all over the world, to see how they do ... when things are NOT optimal for them. When they're done at a young age, or spotting 2-4 lb of weight, or put in keep 1 month after they just won a brutal war in over an hour (being put on a mill while still sore and limping) ... and yet they still keep winning in the same percentages. Some people who think they have good dogs, might find their percentages drop quite a bit when they get placed in less-than-optimal hands/conditions. So, despite how infuriating situations like this can be, because I have seen this happen to my dogs time and again, the flipside is I know they can stand up to just about anything out there, under just about any circumstance, and still prevail or die trying.




Of course I haven't as I have no control over that thing, but, as I stated, that is when percentages would matter to me as something to pay attention to IF people were able to do that,

There was a time when I paid attention to everything, and kept meticulous records, but I stopped doing this in about 2007. My dogs have both beaten and lost to the best, and sometimes they quit too, but the losses and quits are SO few and far between, compared to the wins, that they are nothing but a minor surprise to me that quickly gets forgotten when the next string of wins comes in.




No one is always facing the competition of dogs you mention on a regular basis. We all face “lesser dogs”. We're all glad to win, but the sense of accomplishment isn't the same as beating a quality dog. Sometimes there is no sense of accomplishment. If I were to win all shows in 40 minutes or less, my sense of accomplishment would be near the bottom rung of the ladder, if there at all. You're not getting any type of indicator of beating lesser dogs as that's something we all feel like we should do. A win only means something if the competitor that won attaches some worth to it. If there's no worth attached to it, it means nothing. At that point, it is simply a matter of fact, as you said.

I understand what you're saying. All wins my dogs gain bring me a sense of accomplishment, because they did their job ... yet how much sense of accomplishment is, as you say, relative to the perceived worth of the opponent.

Yet even a dog like Prime Ape, who just beat a local dogman (unknown to most) still gave me a tremendous sense of accomplishment, preceisely because of the odds he overcame. He was the smaller dog, and these local boys who had his opponent have beat some good dogmen in that area. They knew they were facing a stone killer dog in Prime Ape, and they brought what they thought was a truly badass dog, and he was. Wildchild said the dog's strength and mouth were incredible, as was his condition. Dogs don't know who their owners are, and even dogmen the level of Hardcore Kennels can still lose to relative beginners, as for instance when Ram's Flash (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=27161) beat HCK's SDJ Cover Dog, Ch Doogie (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=7497). The fact is, relative beginners can and do get their hands on some truly awesome dogs. So, even though "public perception" of a relatively unknown dogman might not be much, that has nothing to do with the fact that many are as hard to beat as kennels get.

And, BTW, it's a good thing most of my dogs win after the :40 mark, LOL, because that is generally what separates "the fastlane shit" from truly game bulldogs 8)




Agreed here, and perception is what a lot of decisions are made on and simply not simply a win. Above post :)

Agree and disagree.

My perception means everything to me ... whereas "the perception of others" never has. If I see a dog go with my own eyes, on my own yard, then I will make my decisions and be confident that they're better decisions than most. If I hear of my dogs performing in a way that "makes sense" based on how they're bred, then I will be proud of that dog. And if I hear that a dog didn't live up to the way I had hoped, and he's been done right, then I will be disappointed. I don't like being disappointed, so fortunately this doesn't happen very often :lol:




Patience is something we should all have with dogs. At times, patience pays off. At other times, it makes zero difference.

True enough. Sometimes patience makes no difference ... except in one very important detail ... we know in our bones that we did our job and the best we could for that dog, and its failure was therefore its own.

These dogs have a tough row to hoe, and things are hard enough for them even in a perfect world, so there is no sense making it harder than it has to be. Ultimately, if we want the best results, it is our job to clear the way for them, manage the intangibles favorably, and do the best we can for them, first, before we expect the best out of them in return. That is only fair.

I would rather waste my time being patient on 3 dogs that ultimately disappointed me, than to lose and unfairly waste 1 good dog that just needed a little more time and patience. For example, I took Bolo (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=966) back because the customer I sold him to said he was cold and sucked. You know the story on his parents, Pup Pup (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=968) and Super Red (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=974), who were absolutely as game as live ones could be. And these dogs were CHALK FULL of some of the gamest, baddest, and best-producing dogs a man could ask for. So I was 100% confident Bolo would "turn on" and live up to his incredible pedigree. But the fucker never did. He was absolutely mortified by fighting contact, and sailed over the wall every time he got touched. It was freaking embarrassing :lol:

So I made an experimental "double Pup Pup" breeding with him, just to see if I could "shake the genetic jar" and get game dogs back out of him. Most of those pups did turn out pretty good, but "pretty good" is not what I am after. I believe one male was cold also, and "coldness" is neither something I am used to, nor desire, so I just got rid of it all.

So, as you said, in that particular case my being patient didn't mean a damned thing. Still, I would rather waste my time with a dog like Bolo, and be disappointed on occasion, than EVER miss the opportunity to own a Diamond Girl or a Ch Vengence, who did turn out to be truly game, valuable animals thanks to a little patience. In other words, just because we might get disappointed by trying our best, is no reason to stop doing so. Truly good dogmen should never forgo the quality work of being patient and doing their job.

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

Thanks for the good discussion! :)

[EWO]

Great exchanges and good series of posts. EWO

[ToTheDogs]

damn im the only one who voted the.other way? if the fucker dont got it you shouldn't show them plain n simple.you cant.add.talent or.gameness so if you bring out the best in a bum its still.gonna be a bum. you gonna have the best bum possible lol. no.excuses.as soon as you have a reason not to show him you should cull him. im not.going.to breed.a.bum.just cause its breed a certain.way theres.enuff hounds thst have the ped and performance to not.hang onto.a hound that doesnt cut it. if you dont believe they can compete with the best in the world then they dont belong. go thtough them and when u get that world beater.that is when you put YOUR best into a hound that deserves it. you.dont take a ugly bitch out for steak and lobster do you? im not.talking.bout taking care of your hounds to the best of your ability we should always strive for that.

[CYJ]

Ditto totheDogs. But you see, like the Russian boxer told Rocky in the Rocky movie. (We Must Break You) of this way of thinking. LOL Just kidding to each his own. Ain't no Fools Ain't No Fun. LOL Keep on Keeping on. Cheers

[EWO]

There is nothing wrong with this concept, per se. This approach can lead to early culls. For me bad signs are bad signs and that is all I need to see. If my dogs were rated on a 1-10 scale I am not culling all the 7's and 8's while waiting for the 9's and 10's. With the 9's and 10's I am betting on my dogs. With the 7's and 8's I am betting on me, what I think I can do with that dog and then in the end I am betting on the dog. That is how I took the question. I am thinking my abilities will get that 7 and 8 dog to a successful spot.

My take on the question was is the better dog man the one that will work with that 7 or 8 dog or the one that knocks them in the head in hopes for the 9's or 10'. I voted for the guy who can wait and put in the time. EWO




damn im the only one who voted the.other way? if the fucker dont got it I aint fuckin with em. plain n simple.you cant.add.talent or.gameness so if you bring out the best in a bum its still.gonna be a bum. you gonna have the best bum possible lol. no.excuses.as soon as you have a reason not to show him you should cull him. im not.going.to breed.a.bum.just cause its breed a certain.way theres.enuff hounds thst have the ped and performance to not.hang onto.a hound that doesnt cut it. if you dont believe they can compete with the best in the world then they dont belong. go thtough them and when u get that world beater.that is when you put YOUR best into a hound that deserves it. you.dont take a ugly bitch out for steak and lobster do you? im not.talking.bout taking care of your hounds to the best of your ability we should always strive for that.

[R2L]

If my dogs were rated on a 1-10 scale I am not culling all the 7's and 8's while waiting for the 9's and 10's. With the 9's and 10's I am betting on my dogs. With the 7's and 8's I am betting on me

classic

[Officially Retired]

damn im the only one who voted the.other way? if the fucker dont got it I aint fuckin with em. plain n simple.

You are only 1 of 2 who voted the other way, while 29 voted the more sensible way.

So you would cull Little Tater, who was the game bum that produced Gr Ch Buck? Or Long's Werdo, who was the game bum that produced Ch Doogie, Ch Rutkus, Ch Rhino, Ch Whiskey, etc.?

The idea of culling game dogs is not too bright IMO ... especially game bums inbred on talented dogs ... as ability (like anything else) can skip a generation ... and those game bums are often fantastic stud dogs.




you cant.add.talent or.gameness so if you bring out the best in a bum its still.gonna be a bum. you gonna have the best bum possible lol. no.excuses.as soon as you have a reason not to show him you should cull him.

Now you're preaching what other people should do? Kill dogs the moment they can't be shown?

Sorry, but this is selfish, short-sighted, if not outright daft.

History is filled with all-time-great dogs that couldn't be shown, but were extremely valuable as producers.




im not.going.to breed.a.bum.just cause its breed a certain.way theres.enuff hounds thst have the ped and performance to not.hang onto.a hound that doesnt cut it.

Good thing Stone City didn't believe that when they kept and bred Awesome Baby, a cold bitch who out-produced every bitch in the history of dogs, except Honeybunch.

With your ruthless thinking, have you owned any bitches that could compare in any way to Awesome Baby's as a producer?




if you dont believe they can compete with the best in the world then they dont belong. go thtough them and when u get that world beater.that is when you put YOUR best into a hound that deserves it.

If you don't believe they can beat the best in the world, then don't put them in with the best of the world.

But that doesn't mean they can't beat a pretty good dog like themselves.

Have you ever really beaten "the best in the world" yourself? (By that I mean, a Grand Champion, Champion, DOY, etc.?) Or are you pretty much just going into "dogs" with (what you call a "world beater") ... without the actual accomplishment you're speaking of, namely beating the best in the world?
99% of all the matches that take place are NOT people going into "the very best"; they're just two dogmen doing what they think are pretty good dogs.

I agree you should go through your dogs, and I also agree that you should bet (and put them with) where you feel they belong ... and I further agree that, if they're not good enough to match, then don't match them.

But I can't agree with killing game plugs, because history is filled with game plugs that will outproduce the daylights over talented Champions, especially if they're bred well.




you.dont take a ugly bitch out for steak and lobster do you? im not.talking.bout taking care of your hounds to the best of your ability we should always strive for that.

I may not take the ugly bitch out for steak dinner, but I am not going to kill her either, especially if she has a good heart.

Jack


.

[No Quarter Kennel]

can't really top or add to what jack said, but I do agree 100% with Jack's perspective on this one.

[skipper]

We should take into consideration that some of us aren't breeders. I probably would've culled a bitch like awesome baby for being cold unless she were the last of a line or something like that. I can house 8 dogs at a time and i only keep one or two brood dogs. I like those dogs to be good dogs that fit my likings. Fully aware that cold dogs can produce especially when bred a certain way. I have no own bloodline and im not really interested in building one either. I make breedings to, but one every 3 years or so. I would love to have a good breeder send me dogs to work, not having to focus anything on breeding dogs. Therefore i might cull a potential producer once in a while, but my situation is what it is. Working dogs is what i love. Not breeding them.

I like to add that i don't like to cull a game plug and that im not a world beater in any way.

[Officially Retired]

We should take into consideration that some of us aren't breeders. I probably would've culled a bitch like awesome baby for being cold unless she were the last of a line or something like that. I can house 8 dogs at a time and i only keep one or two brood dogs. I like those dogs to be good dogs that fit my likings. Fully aware that cold dogs can produce especially when bred a certain way. I have no own bloodline and im not really interested in building one either. I make breedings to, but one every 3 years or so. I would love to have a good breeder send me dogs to work, not having to focus anything on breeding dogs. Therefore i might cull a potential producer once in a while, but my situation is what it is. Working dogs is what i love. Not breeding them.


I hear what you're saying. This is why (unless the dog is an ill-bred, no-talent cur), selling them or giving them away is a better option than culling.

Personally, I believe most people should NOT breed dogs, period, because they don't understand genetics and how to manage them. Essentially, most people view breeding dogs as a "crapshoot," where they're basically randomly mixing lines "to see what they get," rather than actually having a gameplan, zeroing-in on a small, high-quality gene pool, and thus ensuring what they get :idea:

If I killed everything I bred that didn't suit me, ability-wise, then a lot of great dogs and producers would never have existed, including Diamond Girl, Chase/Chita, etc., who are behind some of the best and most consistent dogs down from my bloodline.

I don't think anyone, who actually has bred a number of good/great dogs, agrees with killing game plugs.
In fact, many truly experienced breeders I have spoken with over the years almost expect the game plug littermate to outproduce its more talented sibling ... because their "hindsight" experience shows this happens quite often.

Jack

[skipper]

Personally, I believe most people should NOT breed dogs, period, because they don't understand genetics and how to manage them.

I'm probably one of them. haha

[Officially Retired]

I'm probably one of them. haha

Sometimes people with small yards shoot themselves in the foot by culling so ruthlessly.
It is almost like they get brainwashed into the genre of "kill anything that can't be shown," which is ultimately a flawed way to do things.

Suppose some "hard culler" does that, and their great Champion they kept dies DG for his 5th ... or gets put down in a raid ... or gets stolen, etc. ... and they killed off all the other siblings? What then? Start all over with new blood?

By contrast, if that dogman had placed the game bum with a friend or family member (or sold it to a beginner), he would still have access to his good blood ... while if he killed off the others he would have none of it.

People who "assume" what they keep will "always be there" often regret their foolishness and find themselves in a bad spot ... while those who place stores of their blood in other locations can always fall back on 2 important things: (1) they can still have access to their blood if they lose the better brother, and/or (2) they can still have access to their blood if they find the game bum is the better producer :idea:

In a nutshell, "Waste Not, Want Not," as the saying goes ...

Jack

[skipper]

Good point. Stacking some dogs away even as pets is a good idea

[S_B]

:appl:
Sometimes people with small yards shoot themselves in the foot by culling so ruthlessly.
It is almost like they get brainwashed into the genre of "kill anything that can't be shown," which is ultimately a flawed way to do things.

Suppose some "hard culler" does that, and their great Champion they kept dies DG for his 5th ... or gets put down in a raid ... or gets stolen, etc. ... and they killed off all the other siblings? What then? Start all over with new blood?

By contrast, if that dogman had placed the game bum with a friend or family member (or sold it to a beginner), he would still have access to his good blood ... while if he killed off the others he would have none of it.

People who "assume" what they keep will "always be there" often regret their foolishness and find themselves in a bad spot ... while those who place stores of their blood in other locations can always fall back on 2 important things: (1) they can still have access to their blood if they lose the better brother, and/or (2) they can still have access to their blood if they find the game bum is the better producer :idea:

In a nutshell, "Waste Not, Want Not," as the saying goes ...

Jack

[ToTheDogs]

lol If you make a habit.of breeding hounds.like awesome baby your.program will follow her and what's behind her. she has had a ton of ones like her and some that.take her lineage. so jack what endearing qualities and or traits that she herself.possessed would make her a candidate.to breed knowing she has.shown you absolutely.nothing in terms of quality traits?

[ToTheDogs]

You're right, s_b.

[S_B]

hey sb I would appreciate if you.didn't.enter my.dogs.on here. thx.

Are you talking to me? What dogs are you speaking of? And instead of posting to this thread, which has nothing to do with "entering dogs" you could have PM'd me.

[Officially Retired]

lol

Good sir, before you "lol" at my post, you should at least take the time to answer my questions ... honestly ... because any laughter would quickly stop.

It is only through honest dialogue, and thorough responses, that the truth can be revealed :idea:




If you make a habit.of breeding hounds.like awesome baby your.program will follow her and what's behind her. she has had a ton of ones like her and some that.take her lineage.

You're misquoting me. Again, in order for any dialogue to reach the truth, a person must 1) answer the reasonable questions asked and 2) respond & ask their own questions honestly :idea:

I never at any time said a person should "make a habit" of breeding cold bitches. I never said any person should "always breed to bums" either.

What I said was, I agree that a person should go through his dogs, I agree a person should select for the best ... but what I SAID was was a person should NOT kill game dogs with lesser ability ... but to sell/place the lesser ability/game dogs out as back-up. I simply don't believe in killing game dogs, provided they're of reasonable temperament and healthy. So it would be helpful to this discussion for you to take the time to answer my questions honestly yourself, and then to make HONEST references to what I *did* actually say, rather than to make dishonest spins that become something I did not say.

Now then, regarding Awesome Baby, "what's behind her" are some of the best dogs/producers of all time ... and she's also thrown dogs like this ... and more of them than any other single bitch in history, save Honeybunch, and from fewer breedings than any of them too.

That really ought to prove my point.




so jack what endearing qualities and or traits that she herself.possessed would make her a candidate.to breed knowing she has.shown you absolutely.nothing in terms of quality traits?

Again, you're asking me questions without first demonstrating the courtesy of answering mine.

Regarding your question, it pretty much demonstrates a total lack of understanding of genetics, on your part, and how they work. You seem to be operating under the (erroneous) belief that if a dog doesn't possess a trait, then that trait is "lost" ... which is absolutely false. Take any buckskin/blacknose dog with a rednose mama, for example. That buckskin dog may not "have" a rednose, but (genetically) it can still throw them. In fact, if you breed that buckskin dog to another rednose bitch, you will statistically get rednoses 75% of the time. That rednose gene isn't "lost"; it simply skipped that generation, and if you make the right breeding choices you can reliably and consistently get rednoses out of that buckskin dog, in every breeding you make with him, even though he himself doesn't possess the trait.

Now then, if we take this same basic principle onto "ability and gameness," when you have a bitch like Awesome Baby who (though cold) still has some of the greatest performance dogs/producers in the history of the game right behind her ... and if you breed her to other good dogs/crosses down from her same family ... statistically you stand an AWESOME chance of still getting some absolutely great animals ... and her production record proves this.

So your question basically shows you have no understanding of genetics, how many traits/abilities are recessive in nature, and how ANY desired traits CAN be brought back out in the next generation through proper selection and creative breeding choices designed to bring the greatness back out.

Asking me "would I want a yard full of cold bitches" may be a wise-guy way to confuse the issue, because NO, the goal isn't to get a bunch of cold dogs. The issue is NOT throwing away the baby with the bathwater ... but, instead, to be as selective as you can, breeding to the best you have access to, while keeping other, lesser game dogs around "just in case."

Case in point would be Ricky Jones and James Crenshaw. Ricky Jones bred more Champions, Grand Champions, etc. from Crenshaw's culls than what Crenshaw built with what he kept.
Earlier on this thread, EWO had an associate who whipped his ass with dogs EWO likewise culled.

The moral is, just because you "cull hard" and THINK you're making the best selections doesn't necessarily mean you are :idea:
Just because you "got rid of" something doesn't mean that the animal has no value ... nor does it mean someone ELSE couldn't build a better monument with your discards than what you can build with what you keep :idea:
And, finally, if you yourself lose what you kept, it is always smarter to have its game relative to fall back on ... or even a cold relative ... than it is to start all over again (if you really like what you're feeding).

"Hard culling" is NOT the mark of greatness in a dogman or breeder, BUILDING GREAT DOGS IS :idea:
And the simple fact is (was and always will be) that great dogs do NOT always "come from" great dogs ... sometimes the greatest dogs of all time come from inbred bums ... or cold dogs ... which mark a "skipped generation" (just like a skipped rednose) ... but where the World Class Ability comes right back in the successive generation through a knowledgeable, creative breeding decision.

In short, I will always respect a guy like Stone City, who HAS built a monument of greatness out of a cold bitch, FAR more than I will respect a dogman who says he "culls hard" ... and who brags about "ruthless standards" ... but yet who really has never produced any authentically great dogs out of what he's kept.

This is not a slam on any individual here, it is just the absolute truth as far as "proof" and "pudding" go :idea:

Jack

[ToTheDogs]

We have bred, raised and campaigned several winners. Several winners, who beat top quality dog men. We beat the absolute best in our area, we've beat some great ones out of our area. We can't put those names out in this forum, because last time we tried to share information, we received messages BASHING us for doing so. We will say this, our dogs are 5-0 this year. We have 2 Champions in China right now and a gyp, they say has the hardest mouth ever. (To each his own on that though). Our Deadlift/Bolio cross is 19-0 since we did the cross in the early-mid 2000's. Now, don't get us wrong.. We have lost some shows over the last decade and a half, but most dog men would kill for our record. Now, on to our Mayday stuff, our main stud dog has been bred 5 times with a total of 18 pups. Out of those 18 pups, 13 are of age and he has 7 POR points to his credit. That's a little bit about what our dogs have done.

Now, We weren't referring to YOUR dogs or YOU as a breeder Jack. We're speaking of Stone City Kennels. Awesome Baby did produce well, BUT - Was it her? Or was it the males she was bred to? Seriously, she only produced 4 winners in 3 breedings. And because she was a cold gyp, there's ALOT of dogs down from her TODAY that follow HER traits as an individual, COLD. Being that, that's the blood we run. Redboy/Jocko/Tombstone/Bolio. We have done the research, if you wind up the Awesome Baby dogs and/or the Buck dogs too tight, they throw ALOT of cold dogs. Period. You HAVE to use that stock as an outcross only or the percentages drop tremendously.

We understand genetics perfectly, it's something we study. One of our friends, KAG, knows more about genetics that anyone we have EVER met in these dogs. He taught us ALOT. So, we understand about traits skipping generations.

Now, to answer some more of your questions.. We're not telling ANYONE what they should do with THEIR dogs. To each their own. We just know what we do with our dogs. Now, we weren't saying if the dog COULD NO LONGER work, it had to be culled. That was taken out of context. What we meant was, if the dog is cold to begin with, why keep it around? We only keep performance dogs, so if the bitch wasn't performing, then she would have to go. We wouldn't keep a dog, solely based on pedigree. There are far too many QUALITY, PERFORMANCE dogs that are well bred. You know? So, why hope those quality genetic traits the cold gyp comes from pass through her into her offspring? Now, if traits can skip a generation, then it would be completely feasible to think her offspring would be able to throw COLD dogs, right? That's not something we're willing to risk.

If the dogs aren't good enough (in our eyes) then why take out just "pretty good" dogs? We believe you should only bring out the best your can breed/acquire, otherwise like EWO said, you're not betting on the dog at that point, but yourself. Yes, we have beaten titled dogs, we've beat alot of really good dogs that were off ALOT of great dogs from really good dog men. When people like TCF are contacting us, to buy our stock, that says something about the quality of our stock, right? So, yes, we have "World Beaters" over here.

And we do understand what you're saying Jack, but we don't keep dogs for breeding purposes ONLY, our yard is NOT a Brood yard. We are NOT breeders. It's a performance yard, meaning if they aren't performing, then they don't make the cut. We don't have the luxury of having acres and acres of space to house 20+ dogs. So, we don't keep dogs "just in-case". It's like college football; did you think they put players on the Heisman list, just because they "TRIED REALLY HARD", but didn't have the ability to put up the statistics needed? Not at all. Do you think TOP Athletic Programs are giving FULL RIDE SCHOLARSHIPS to the average High School football player? No.

Not necessarily trying to argue, just the way we have done things from the time we started in these dogs. Just never understood the need/want to breed a cold dog with a good pedigree, when there are plenty of working dogs, that have good pedigrees.

Cheers,
ToTheDogs

[Officially Retired]

Great response ... I knew you had it in you :mrgreen:

Give me till later to crack my knuckles and respond, but kudos for the thoughtful effort here :hatsoff:

[ToTheDogs]

No problem. I'll be waiting! :pirate: Sorry, about the grammar in my previous posts, I was on my phone.. lol.

[Officially Retired]

We have bred, raised and campaigned several winners. Several winners, who beat top quality dog men. We beat the absolute best in our area, we've beat some great ones out of our area. We can't put those names out in this forum, because last time we tried to share information, we received messages BASHING us for doing so. We will say this, our dogs are 5-0 this year. We have 2 Champions in China right now and a gyp, they say has the hardest mouth ever. (To each his own on that though). Our Deadlift/Bolio cross is 19-0 since we did the cross in the early-mid 2000's. Now, don't get us wrong.. We have lost some shows over the last decade and a half, but most dog men would kill for our record. Now, on to our Mayday stuff, our main stud dog has been bred 5 times with a total of 18 pups. Out of those 18 pups, 13 are of age and he has 7 POR points to his credit. That's a little bit about what our dogs have done.

I understand about not wanting to put out names, but the flipside to that is (without them) there is no claim of "beating the best."

I can believe you with the 19-0 record with "Bolio/Deadlift" dogs ... as that is similar to the 18-1 Record (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_offspring.php?dog_id=1678&sex_id=2) the Warlock/Ginger breeding had ... it just makes things a little more interesting and believable to have some names/pedigrees to look at.




Now, We weren't referring to YOUR dogs or YOU as a breeder Jack. We're speaking of Stone City Kennels. Awesome Baby did produce well, BUT - Was it her? Or was it the males she was bred to? Seriously, she only produced 4 winners in 3 breedings. And because she was a cold gyp, there's ALOT of dogs down from her TODAY that follow HER traits as an individual, COLD. Being that, that's the blood we run. Redboy/Jocko/Tombstone/Bolio. We have done the research, if you wind up the Awesome Baby dogs and/or the Buck dogs too tight, they throw ALOT of cold dogs. Period. You HAVE to use that stock as an outcross only or the percentages drop tremendously.

I know you weren't referring to my dogs, as I have had less than 5 cold dogs in my life, but I was mainly referring to game bums.

My point is, Awesome Baby produced better than "well"; she was the best producing bitch in the history of dogs, save Honeybunch. From 3 breedings she produced Gr Ch Yellowbuck (6xW), Ch Nico (4xW, ROM), Ch Luger (4xW), Ch Miss Piggy (3xW), Dixie (2xW), etc. That is 19-1 also. Okay, so there may be some "cold dogs" in there too, but I can't help but notice the Champions and Grand Champions as well ;)

This isn't Stone City claiming to have a 19-1 record, but giving no names, this is a verifiable record and list of winners. I don't see anything like this coming from hardly any other bitches, good peds or not, great ability or not. You seem to want to give credit to the studs Awesome Baby was bred to, but the fact is those studs were also bred to other bitches, yet didn't produce the same quality dogs as when bred to Awesome Baby. Something was clearly special about her, as an individual.




We understand genetics perfectly, it's something we study. One of our friends, KAG, knows more about genetics that anyone we have EVER met in these dogs. He taught us ALOT. So, we understand about traits skipping generations.

No one understands genetics perfectly, and I don't know who KAG is or what his record is as a breeder, but no one is perfect.

If you understood genetics perfectly, you wouldn't question the skipped generation or ask "why" breed to a dog that, itself, is less than perfect (provided it has truly excellent dogs up close in its ped). You would already know the answer why. You would also be aware that truly badass dogs sometimes can't produce well, and that many deeply-game, inbred dogs may not have match ability ... but can throw it better than most match dogs. This is indisputable.




Now, to answer some more of your questions.. We're not telling ANYONE what they should do with THEIR dogs. To each their own. We just know what we do with our dogs. Now, we weren't saying if the dog COULD NO LONGER work, it had to be culled. That was taken out of context. What we meant was, if the dog is cold to begin with, why keep it around? We only keep performance dogs, so if the bitch wasn't performing, then she would have to go. We wouldn't keep a dog, solely based on pedigree.

I understand what you mean about cold dogs. I tried to keep and work with one, just to experiment, but (ultimately) I felt the same as you, that I was wasting my time, and it was very hard to want to go breed to "him" (even though I personally knew how game his parents were) ... when I could breed to some truly talented World Class dogs on my yard ... with parents that were just as good or better. Ironically, that "cold gene" also happened to come down from the most talented dog I ever had. No one can deny that many cold dogs (Loposay's Buster ROM, Sorrells' Bull ROM, Little Gator ROM, Awesome Baby ROM, Polly ROM, etc.) have produced some truly, game, truly great dogs.

I may not have pursued breeding to my own cold dog, but I do understand why (if the blood was there), someone would give it a shot, especially if they liked the results.




There are far too many QUALITY, PERFORMANCE dogs that are well bred. You know? So, why hope those quality genetic traits the cold gyp comes from pass through her into her offspring? Now, if traits can skip a generation, then it would be completely feasible to think her offspring would be able to throw COLD dogs, right? That's not something we're willing to risk.

Anytime you breed dogs, you "risk" breeding a cold, cur, and/or no-talent dog. There is simply no way around this.

I absolutely agree that, through selection, you can minimize (or maximize :lol:) the "risk" of getting shitty dogs ... so it makes sense to minimize that risk by avoiding known pitfalls ... yet, ultimately, the "risk" is unavoidable no matter what you use. I absolutely agree that you should ALWAYS select the best performers you can use, as a rule; my point was in not killing the game littermates. We got thrown off track a bit with the cold Awesome Baby, but my main point of contention with you was saying you'd cull the game dogs with no ability. Killing game dogs is not cool (or too smart) IMO, even if they have better littermates.




If the dogs aren't good enough (in our eyes) then why take out just "pretty good" dogs? We believe you should only bring out the best your can breed/acquire, otherwise like EWO said, you're not betting on the dog at that point, but yourself. Yes, we have beaten titled dogs, we've beat alot of really good dogs that were off ALOT of great dogs from really good dog men. When people like TCF are contacting us, to buy our stock, that says something about the quality of our stock, right? So, yes, we have "World Beaters" over here.

Again, I completely agree with trying to breed the best that you can ... and there have been many, many "titled dogs" that have fallen to my dogs as well ... and a Who's-Who list of dogmen along with that. My point is, not every "title-winning" dog is off of a badass animal. Many (including Gr Ch Buck) were off of inbred, game bums. To say that every dog needs to be a badass match dog to "get bred" (or produce great dogs) is simply folly. Many of the greatest dogs in history were not sired by great dogs themselves, but rather by game bums inbred off great dogs.




And we do understand what you're saying Jack, but we don't keep dogs for breeding purposes ONLY, our yard is NOT a Brood yard. We are NOT breeders. It's a performance yard, meaning if they aren't performing, then they don't make the cut. We don't have the luxury of having acres and acres of space to house 20+ dogs. So, we don't keep dogs "just in-case". It's like college football; did you think they put players on the Heisman list, just because they "TRIED REALLY HARD", but didn't have the ability to put up the statistics needed? Not at all. Do you think TOP Athletic Programs are giving FULL RIDE SCHOLARSHIPS to the average High School football player? No.

Again, I completely understand the "small yard" thing. My point was most small yards shoot themselves in the foot, sooner or later, because what they keep will not produce as well as the game dog they got rid of. They also don't have enough breeding experience to understand how things work. All large-scale breeding operations would agree with what I am saying, because they have the large-scale perspective to see the whole picture.

Your college football example is only valid from a superficial perspective. If you want to take a closer look, not every Heisman player was sired by another Heisman father; most, in fact, were not ... so upon closer inspection your argument here supports mine, not yours. I never suggested giving "game bums" a scholarship ... or betting heavy on them in a match ... what I am saying is not to kill them. What you're counseling is killing the players who try hard, but aren't selected for the Heisman, and that my friend is borderline retarded. I would never kill anything for showing heart, for trying its best, never quitting at any time, whether it had ability or not. The willingness to try as hard as possible, even in the face of death, is something special to me ... and it should be to all dogmen.

We do not call these dogs "ability dogs" ... we call them GAME DOGS ... and, when they're game, they deserve to be honored and respected, not killed off. In fact, Frank Fitzwater summed it up best when he said, "Boys, breed your game dogs and you're get your fighting dogs."




Not necessarily trying to argue, just the way we have done things from the time we started in these dogs. Just never understood the need/want to breed a cold dog with a good pedigree, when there are plenty of working dogs, that have good pedigrees. Cheers,ToTheDogs

I can understand what you're saying about the cold dog thing, but yet I can also see why it can be worth a shot for some.

I will never understand, or agree, with killing ANY truly game dog, ever, so long as it is in good health and has a decent temperament. Truly game dogs, especially if they're inbred on some truly great dog, are oftentimes THE most valuable dog on the yard ... the proverbial Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs :idea:

Jack


.

[EWO]

Great exchange. Kudos to the board itself. On the other boards by now someone's Mom would be wearing combat boots. or would be so fat....

I can see both sides. Both have valid points. I do not have the breeder background but I can see why placing a well bred game bum for future use elsewhere is a far better option than culling. At the same time I can see where if one's litters were of high percentages of match dogs, a couple of game yet talentless bums, and an occasional cur the couple of game but talentless bums would add up in time taking many chain spaces. It can cut both ways.

The guy with the smaller yard would have to find a few trustworthy people to farm out those dogs to save his chain spots for the match dogs. Another variable that would not be all that comfortable to some. I have met people who pretty much decided if it did not make it here it would not be allowed to make it elsewhere. This is a 'limiting' way of thinking but I think it is acceptable for smaller, competitive yards.

I too am not a fan of names. This was discussed in another thread as well. I understand it can provide validity, credibility and even the chance to offer insight or a difference of opinion by some one who knows them as well. I just choose not to do it. I use 'the guy' as an identifier by choice. For me if a person wants to put his business out there then he/she should be the one doing it. Once they do that his/her name and record can be discussed in an open forum. I use Jack as an example lots of times when making a point. Those examples are what he has put out himself so I do not feel I am infringing upon his privacy. At the same time I can see both sides.

I think the hardest thing to dog is to split the 'dogs' into groups and then expect people to stay within their own set. The breeders over here, the matchers over there, the conditioners and handlers over there and the peddlers over here. As long as people were identified and did not stray the dogs would be much simpler. When the same guy can belong to multiple sets and moves back and forth amongst them those lines get blurry. Then there are differences of opinion. Those differences are what makes the dogs great. At the end of the day there are multiple right ways as well as multiple wrong ways. If not it would be a cookie-cutter dog world. Boring to say the least.

Again, great exchanges. EWO

[ToTheDogs]

I understand about not wanting to put out names, but the flipside to that is (without them) there is no claim of "beating the best."

I can believe you with the 19-0 record with "Bolio/Deadlift" dogs ... as that is similar to the 18-1 Record (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_offspring.php?dog_id=1678&sex_id=2) the Warlock/Ginger breeding had ... it just makes things a little more interesting and believable to have some names/pedigrees to look at.





I know you weren't referring to my dogs, as I have had less than 5 cold dogs in my life, but I was mainly referring to game bums.

My point is, Awesome Baby produced better than "well"; she was the best producing bitch in the history of dogs, save Honeybunch. From 3 breedings she produced Gr Ch Yellowbuck (6xW), Ch Nico (4xW, ROM), Ch Luger (4xW), Ch Miss Piggy (3xW), Dixie (2xW), etc. That is 19-1 also. Okay, so there may be some "cold dogs" in there too, but I can't help but notice the Champions and Grand Champions as well ;)

This isn't Stone City claiming to have a 19-1 record, but giving no names, this is a verifiable record and list of winners. I don't see anything like this coming from hardly any other bitches, good peds or not, great ability or not. You seem to want to give credit to the studs Awesome Baby was bred to, but the fact is those studs were also bred to other bitches, yet didn't produce the same quality dogs as when bred to Awesome Baby. Something was clearly special about her, as an individual.





No one understands genetics perfectly, and I don't know who KAG is or what his record is as a breeder, but no one is perfect.

If you understood genetics perfectly, you wouldn't question the skipped generation or ask "why" breed to a dog that, itself, is less than perfect (provided it has truly excellent dogs up close in its ped). You would already know the answer why. You would also be aware that truly badass dogs sometimes can't produce well, and that many deeply-game, inbred dogs may not have match ability ... but can throw it better than most match dogs. This is indisputable.





I understand what you mean about cold dogs. I tried to keep and work with one, just to experiment, but (ultimately) I felt the same as you, that I was wasting my time, and it was very hard to want to go breed to "him" (even though I personally knew how game his parents were) ... when I could breed to some truly talented World Class dogs on my yard ... with parents that were just as good or better. Ironically, that "cold gene" also happened to come down from the most talented dog I ever had. No one can deny that many cold dogs (Loposay's Buster ROM, Sorrells' Bull ROM, Little Gator ROM, Awesome Baby ROM, Polly ROM, etc.) have produced some truly, game, truly great dogs.

I may not have pursued breeding to my own cold dog, but I do understand why (if the blood was there), someone would give it a shot, especially if they liked the results.





Anytime you breed dogs, you "risk" breeding a cold, cur, and/or no-talent dog. There is simply no way around this.

I absolutely agree that, through selection, you can minimize (or maximize :lol:) the "risk" of getting shitty dogs ... so it makes sense to minimize that risk by avoiding known pitfalls ... yet, ultimately, the "risk" is unavoidable no matter what you use. I absolutely agree that you should ALWAYS select the best performers you can use, as a rule; my point was in not killing the game littermates. We got thrown off track a bit with the cold Awesome Baby, but my main point of contention with you was saying you'd cull the game dogs with no ability. Killing game dogs is not cool (or too smart) IMO, even if they have better littermates.





Again, I completely agree with trying to breed the best that you can ... and there have been many, many "titled dogs" that have fallen to my dogs as well ... and a Who's-Who list of dogmen along with that. My point is, not every "title-winning" dog is off of a badass animal. Many (including Gr Ch Buck) were off of inbred, game bums. To say that every dog needs to be a badass match dog to "get bred" (or produce great dogs) is simply folly. Many of the greatest dogs in history were not sired by great dogs themselves, but rather by game bums inbred off great dogs.





Again, I completely understand the "small yard" thing. My point was most small yards shoot themselves in the foot, sooner or later, because what they keep will not produce as well as the game dog they got rid of. They also don't have enough breeding experience to understand how things work. All large-scale breeding operations would agree with what I am saying, because they have the large-scale perspective to see the whole picture.

Your college football example is only valid from a superficial perspective. If you want to take a closer look, not every Heisman player was sired by another Heisman father; most, in fact, were not ... so upon closer inspection your argument here supports mine, not yours. I never suggested giving "game bums" a scholarship ... or betting heavy on them in a match ... what I am saying is not to kill them. What you're counseling is killing the players who try hard, but aren't selected for the Heisman, and that my friend is borderline retarded. I would never kill anything for showing heart, for trying its best, never quitting at any time, whether it had ability or not. The willingness to try as hard as possible, even in the face of death, is something special to me ... and it should be to all dogmen.

We do not call these dogs "ability dogs" ... we call them GAME DOGS ... and, when they're game, they deserve to be honored and respected, not killed off. In fact, Frank Fitzwater summed it up best when he said, "Boys, breed your game dogs and you're get your fighting dogs."





I can understand what you're saying about the cold dog thing, but yet I can also see why it can be worth a shot for some.

I will never understand, or agree, with killing ANY truly game dog, ever, so long as it is in good health and has a decent temperament. Truly game dogs, especially if they're inbred on some truly great dog, are oftentimes THE most valuable dog on the yard ... the proverbial Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs :idea:

Jack


.


Great reply!

[Officially Retired]

Great reply!

Thank you ... and thank you for the PM as well.

Very nice pedigree on that sensational breeding ... and totally respect the desire for privacy 8)

Cheers,

Jack

[ToTheDogs]

:hatsoff:

[kandyman]

I always believed the saying "the man that wins the most with the least amount of dogs is the better dogman." Dogman is really a complicated term. Some lines produce a lot of culls, but true monsters can come from there breedings. While other lines may produce alot of good dogs, but very rarely a true monster.

[Officially Retired]

I always believed the saying "the man that wins the most with the least amount of dogs is the better dogman."

I agree with this: and that is why I always followed percentages, not raw numbers.

If one breeder has 250 dogs, and has been in the game for 40 years, he should have producde more great dogs than another breeder who only has 30 dogs and has only been in for 15 years.

Yet what people don't realize is that, if the guy with 30 dogs is producing 3 Champions a year ... while the guy with 250 dogs is producing 15 Champions a year ... then the guy producing the 3 Champions a year is producing more Champions percentage-wise (10%) than the guy who's producing 15 Champions (6%). Most people are only going to be counting the number of Champions produced, completely oblivious to the fact it took 17x as many dogs to produce only 5x as many Champions.

Worse, if the guy with only 30 dogs only has 3 quits a year (10%), while the guy with 250 dogs has 60 quits a year (24%), then you're really dealing with a disparity in true quality here :idea:




Dogman is really a complicated term. Some lines produce a lot of culls, but true monsters can come from there breedings. While other lines may produce alot of good dogs, but very rarely a true monster.

This is very true.

The thing about it is, a "true monster" is a relative term. And even if you get a so-called monster, if you have to cull dozens of dogs to get one then you're dealing with mostly-garbage bloodline. There are some people who don't mind killing lots of dogs, so I guess they might be into such a "needle-in-a-haystack" proposition. However, as a dog breeder, this would be a losing proposition, because you'd be replacing more dogs than getting happy customers. In fact, you'd likely be replacing the replacements at some point.

As a breeder, I wanted to be in the "Damn, I need another one of those!" business not the "Can you replace this piece of shit?" business. I liked thinking I was creating mostly good dogs, not mostly lousy dogs :lol:

Jack


.

[evolutionkennels]

I agree with this: and that is why I always followed percentages, not raw numbers.

If one breeder has 250 dogs, and has been in the game for 40 years, he should have producde more great dogs than another breeder who only has 30 dogs and has only been in for 15 years.

Yet what people don't realize is that, if the guy with 30 dogs is producing 3 Champions a year ... while the guy with 250 dogs is producing 15 Champions a year ... then the guy producing the 3 Champions a year is producing more Champions percentage-wise (10%) than the guy who's producing 15 Champions (6%). Most people are only going to be counting the number of Champions produced, completely oblivious to the fact it took 17x as many dogs to produce only 5x as many Champions.

Worse, if the guy with only 30 dogs only has 3 quits a year (10%), while the guy with 250 dogs has 60 quits a year (24%), then you're really dealing with a disparity in true quality here :idea:





This is very true.

The thing about it is, a "true monster" is a relative term. And even if you get a so-called monster, if you have to cull dozens of dogs to get one then you're dealing with mostly-garbage bloodline. There are some people who don't mind killing lots of dogs, so I guess they might be into such a "needle-in-a-haystack" proposition. However, as a dog breeder, this would be a losing proposition, because you'd be replacing more dogs than getting happy customers. In fact, you'd likely be replacing the replacements at some point.

As a breeder, I wanted to be in the "Damn, I need another one of those!" business not the "Can you replace this piece of shit?" business. I liked thinking I was creating mostly good dogs, not mostly lousy dogs :lol:

Jack


.
:)

[Eliman]

Great topic and some great responses

First I want to say putting 100% into providing a quality life for your hounds should be an effort based on your love for the breed and your livelihood for the lifestyle.

I do not believe that the best housing, the best food, and optimal time spent with a individual hound will change the fact it could be a cur.

I do believe the best housing, the best food, and optimal time spent with a individual hound influences it's overall health, physical ability's and intelligence on a day to day basis. Personally I keep my hounds active so they stay familiar with the tools I use to work them and what I expect of them when I use them also familiarizes them with things that can spook a hound who has never left its chain spot for 18 months. Developing this understanding saves critical time when it's time to hunt so they benefit as much as they can when in a keep not waisting time trying to figure out how to get them to work them or them being distracted on the date by unfamiliar surroundings and sounds . The obvious bond that develops IMO can help pull a hound through a tuff spot NOT STOP HIM FROM QUITTING but when behind and opportunity shows itself to gain some ground a encouraging 'WORK' from its master can move mountains.

RoughNeck

[Handsome84]

:appl:
The guy that is looking to get the best out of each dog is usually the guy who is doing the most with each dog, or the most that he can. The two dog men that turned me onto dogs were hard cullers. Dogs didn't get a lot of chances. They pretty much had to hit the ground running. They both looked at the failures as available chain spaces. Maybe the silver lining approach. I started off the same way.

I would roll on a guys dog and pretty much decide I would put him down. Some guy would keep that dog, breed that dog and two years later kick the shit out of me with the offspring. I am no brain surgeon but after awhile I started to see the value of dogs that were not necessarily match dogs. I am not saying making dogs out of curs but just because a dog is not a top quality match dog he/she can still have value, and in certain aspects even more valuable. One match dog that wins three or one brood dog that produces three dogs that wins three matches.

That in turns goes to the 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Some guys cull harder than others. Some guys cull dogs that are not match dogs but would be good brood dogs for a breeder but they themselves do not care about breeding/puppies. Some guys will not cull in the hopes of making chicken salad out of chicken shit. Takes all kinds.

One of the early lessons I learned was that the keep does not last eight weeks it starts at nine weeks before they are born. (The forethought/insight into the actual breeding). Any and everything from conception to show night matters. EWO

[Handsome84]

:bookworthy:
A number of years ago I saw a dog make several deeply game scratches back to a dog that clearly outclassed him. There were only two souls in that building that thought he still had a chance. The dog just knew he would win on the next trip over. And the other was an older gentleman who saw something down the road. I made the comment to get him up but I did not have the gumption to buy him mid-stream and force the pick up. That dog was brought back out and won two. I saw him on the second one and he was ten times the dog the second time I seen him. The differences were one he was done two pounds heavier and with a different owner. I believe he would have avenged his earlier loss if given the chance. With that said,

for the most part a dog is the product of his environment, sometimes that is a positive but sometimes he is a victim of his circumstance...to no fault of his own. One of the things I believe firmly is that if every dog, an absolute 100%, was held til they were 28-30 months old before even their first bump the percentages across the board would increase, regardless of line, regardless of owner. These dogs are amazing. They overcome so much and if they were allowed to fully mature they would overcome so much more (owners shortcomings).

The wisdom/willingness to wait on a dog is I think what separates the two in the original poll. The hard culler is not going to wait. The man that wants the best will wait. EWO

[Frank43]

The guy that is looking to get the best out of each dog is usually the guy who is doing the most with each dog, or the most that he can. The two dog men that turned me onto dogs were hard cullers. Dogs didn't get a lot of chances. They pretty much had to hit the ground running. They both looked at the failures as available chain spaces. Maybe the silver lining approach. I started off the same way.

I would roll on a guys dog and pretty much decide I would put him down. Some guy would keep that dog, breed that dog and two years later kick the shit out of me with the offspring. I am no brain surgeon but after awhile I started to see the value of dogs that were not necessarily match dogs. I am not saying making dogs out of curs but just because a dog is not a top quality match dog he/she can still have value, and in certain aspects even more valuable. One match dog that wins three or one brood dog that produces three dogs that wins three matches.

That in turns goes to the 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Some guys cull harder than others. Some guys cull dogs that are not match dogs but would be good brood dogs for a breeder but they themselves do not care about breeding/puppies. Some guys will not cull in the hopes of making chicken salad out of chicken shit. Takes all kinds.

One of the early lessons I learned was that the keep does not last eight weeks it starts at nine weeks before they are born. (The forethought/insight into the actual breeding). Any and everything from conception to show night matters. EWO


Genius

[Frank43]

True

[Frank43]

You are only 1 of 2 who voted the other way, while 29 voted the more sensible way.

So you would cull Little Tater, who was the game bum that produced Gr Ch Buck? Or Long's Werdo, who was the game bum that produced Ch Doogie, Ch Rutkus, Ch Rhino, Ch Whiskey, etc.?

The idea of culling game dogs is not too bright IMO ... especially game bums inbred on talented dogs ... as ability (like anything else) can skip a generation ... and those game bums are often fantastic stud dogs.





Now you're preaching what other people should do? Kill dogs the moment they can't be shown?

Sorry, but this is selfish, short-sighted, if not outright daft.

History is filled with all-time-great dogs that couldn't be shown, but were extremely valuable as producers.





Good thing Stone City didn't believe that when they kept and bred Awesome Baby, a cold bitch who out-produced every bitch in the history of dogs, except Honeybunch.

With your ruthless thinking, have you owned any bitches that could compare in any way to Awesome Baby's as a producer?







If you don't believe they can beat the best in the world, then don't put them in with the best of the world.

But that doesn't mean they can't beat a pretty good dog like themselves.

Have you ever really beaten "the best in the world" yourself? (By that I mean, a Grand Champion, Champion, DOY, etc.?) Or are you pretty much just going into "dogs" with (what you call a "world beater") ... without the actual accomplishment you're speaking of, namely beating the best in the world?
99% of all the matches that take place are NOT people going into "the very best"; they're just two dogmen doing what they think are pretty good dogs.

I agree you should go through your dogs, and I also agree that you should bet (and put them with) where you feel they belong ... and I further agree that, if they're not good enough to match, then don't match them.

But I can't agree with killing game plugs, because history is filled with game plugs that will outproduce the daylights over talented Champions, especially if they're bred well.





I may not take the ugly bitch out for steak dinner, but I am not going to kill her either, especially if she has a good heart.

Jack


.


Genius

[apeman]

Still relevant

[Frank43]

Yep. Y’all ever look at success rate with number of dogs bred or owned

[Moechief]

If we hold ourselves to the same standard as we want to hold these dogs.....then we would all be superhuman....Daily...I learn more from these dogs when I think of just the gameness of the breed than I do just associating with many who also own the breed. When I find a stand up guy in these dogs...I can usually find a damn good dog that person is feeding! Quality people usually demand the most quality out of what they are responsible for.

[Frank43]

If we hold ourselves to the same standard as we want to hold these dogs.....then we would all be superhuman....Daily...I learn more from these dogs when I think of just the gameness of the breed than I do just associating with many who also own the breed. When I find a stand up guy in these dogs...I can usually find a damn good dog that person is feeding! Quality people usually demand the most quality out of what they are responsible for.


Its funny how that stuff works. I think the dogs and the owners feed off each other. Plus there are probably small things in the management of the dog that makes differences in how they develop. Lets say everybody wants to see what their dog will do. Do you rush them. Let a dog thats too much hit a dog with a puppy mind. Then he can't figure out why all the dogs come out shy and afraid of contact. They may not necessarily be curs but they were hit to young and their psychology ruined. Or if a younger pup shows good signs. What do you let pass. If they touch another pup and you break it up let them scratch you're giving them a taste that wont ruin them. All that probably goes into the ego of the man breeding and raising them. I think the dogs and owners vibe off each other. Did they rot on a chain before you rolled them or did they know you and bond with them. Did they walk. Did they have some strength and agility going into it? Do they know they man behind me cares about me, and has my back and do I want to kill this dog to keep it off him?

[bossman311]

The guy who goes thru each one of them is better IMO.
Some can get lucky and not have to cull as much therefor won't have hands on with as many.
While the one that goes thru each one will check each regardless & only base choices from seeing all regardless .