Question on buying dogs.

[EarlyBird]

While Researching The Thought Came Up, When Buying Bulldogs With The Intention On Building Does It Matter whether Or Not The Source Is A Breeder or Active Dog Man.

[CYJ]

Early Bird, buy California Jack's new book (THE Pit Bull Bible). All your questions with good sound advice given on all phases of the dog game/dog care/dog breeding/buying dogs to build a yard. Will be answered with much wisdom and on hands experience. Cheers

[Officially Retired]

While Researching The Thought Came Up, When Buying Bulldogs With The Intention On Building Does It Matter whether Or Not The Source Is A Breeder or Active Dog Man.

First of all, thanks to CYJ for the kudos.

Second, everything matters if the evidence is there.

I am not quite sure what you meant by, "When Buying Bulldogs With The Intention On Building." Do you mean with the intention of building a yard?

It is your own intention that matters, ultimately. (Perhaps you can clarify your question.)

Jack

PS: Most "Active Dogmen" get their best dogs from good breeders, so that is where I would go to get mine.

[EarlyBird]

I Bought The Book, I'm Just Curious To See What others Think CYJ. As Far As The Building Part Jack Yes Building A yard. Thanks..

[bulldoghistorian]

my gutfeeling would say both
cause ultimately neither the dogger nor the breeder are complete

the one who can combine both and be succesfull for a period of time is the one I would get dogs from

[Nut]

So who could give me a list of 5 good breeders who are not active dogman. Who are modern day's CA JACK's?

And who on this board has built his yard around dogs that came of a breeder, who was no active dogman.

Just curious.

I think what really matters is your steps after acquiring the dogs.

[Officially Retired]

my gutfeeling would say both
cause ultimately neither the dogger nor the breeder are complete
the one who can combine both and be succesfull for a period of time is the one I would get dogs from

I disagree.

Historically-speaking, the best dogs in history 99% come from breeders exclusively--or from people who bred two dogs together purchased directly from breeders exclusively.

The rare dogman who can BOTH show dogs exceptionally well, and breed dogs exceptionally well, will never sell you his best dogs: he will keep them for himself.

You are almost guaranteed to get a "less than" dog from a competitive breeder/dogman, whose own money is riding on what he keeps :idea:

The legit breeder doesn't need to have conditioning experience to know what to look for in a dog, nor especially on how to reliably and consistently produce good dogs.

More importantly, a legit breeder (aside from having THE most experience breeding good dogs) will also sell you the best dogs he has, for the right price, because he wants his best stuff to get shown :idea:

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

I've built my yard around a son of Deacon, whose breeder wasn't active in matching or showing of dogs.

Before that dog, my yard was built around dogs from a breeder that showed one dog his entire time in dogs, and he made that dog a champion. So the ability to get quality dogs from quality breeders is there. You don't have to be a man that matches dogs to know what good dogs are or have the ability to breed quality dogs.

[EWO]

I think factoring in what the active dog man is breeding is a must. If he is active within the same family of dogs, breeding for the traits he desires from within that close/somewhat close family then that is a pretty good option. On the other hand if he is a dog man solely concerned with winning on show night, has really good dogs from multiple families, and then breeds best to best the percentages will be lower. Maybe to break it down further than the two choices, for the active man I would prefer he was successful with one family, if that makes sense.

EWO

[bulldoghistorian]

I disagree.

Historically-speaking, the best dogs in history 99% come from breeders exclusively--or from people who bred two dogs together purchased directly from breeders exclusively.

The rare dogman who can BOTH show dogs exceptionally well, and breed dogs exceptionally well, will never sell you his best dogs: he will keep them for himself.

You are almost guaranteed to get a "less than" dog from a competitive breeder/dogman, whose own money is riding on what he keeps :idea:

The legit breeder doesn't need to have conditioning experience to know what to look for in a dog, nor especially on how to reliably and consistently produce good dogs.

More importantly, a legit breeder (aside from having THE most experience breeding good dogs) will also sell you the best dogs he has, for the right price, because he wants his best stuff to get shown :idea:

Jack

in a sense of buying a grown dog yes

but for pups I dont see how one can determine which puppy is the best

[Officially Retired]

in a sense of buying a grown dog yes
but for pups I dont see how one can determine which puppy is the best

Cmon, you're telling me you have no idea which pups are going to be the best?

You're telling me you get it wrong more than right? :confused:

That damned sure isn't the case when I breed dogs.

IMO, anyone who really knows dogs knows which pups are superior, and at a very early age.

And anyone who knows how to breed dogs, does so in a way that he repeatedly gets litters with high-percentages of at least pretty good dogs, some really good.

In fact, the person who CAN'T tell which pups are going to be superior, and who CAN'T reliably produce above-average litters is NOT a good breeder (or dogman) IMO.

Seriously, how can you call such a man "good" at breeding ... he's basically an average, clueless retard? :lol:

Jack

[Officially Retired]

I think factoring in what the active dog man is breeding is a must. If he is active within the same family of dogs, breeding for the traits he desires from within that close/somewhat close family then that is a pretty good option. On the other hand if he is a dog man solely concerned with winning on show night, has really good dogs from multiple families, and then breeds best to best the percentages will be lower. Maybe to break it down further than the two choices, for the active man I would prefer he was successful with one family, if that makes sense.
EWO

Anyone who doesn't breed from a set family of dogs CAN'T be a good breeder, by default.

You simply CAN'T breed reliably from a hodgepodge of different stuff, so the dogman who is both breeder and shower, is always going to be working with his own family.

The dogfighter who has a whole bunch of different stuff is always going to be the guy who can't reliably and consistently breed his own good dogs ... and is going to also be a BUYER (not producer) of great dogs.

Active dogmen tend to keep their pups to themselves, and if they sell, I guarantee they're not selling what they perceive to be their "best" pups; they're selling what they're culling and perceive to be their worst pups.

Good breeders are in the BUSINESS of breeding/selling good dogs; the breeder BENEFITS by selling good dogs.
Good "do it all" dogmen are in the BUSINESS of breeding/matching their own best dogs; the dogfighter LOSES by selling his best pups.

So, unless the guy is a junkie, or unless he lo$e$ major ca$h after a major dog deal, he is not going to be selling his best, be they dogs or pups.

Jack

[Nut]

Macker, just so you know. Im gonna keep the best

[Macker]

Macker, just so you know. Im gonna keep the best

Just don't send me any retards.

They're down from chucky, they'll all be good lol.

[EWO]

Pretty much what I said. You said CAN'T and I said 'lower percentages'. Breeding from a hodgepodge is most definitely a slippery slope. Every now and again a good one will pop up but I can't see higher percentages with any type of consistency.

So to reference the original post, I would go with the breeder vs. the active matcher.

And I agree on the two trains of thought on available dogs. The breeder's best interest is to put his best dogs out there where as the active guy keeps his best dogs at home.

Good set of posts. S




Anyone who doesn't breed from a set family of dogs CAN'T be a good breeder, by default.

You simply CAN'T breed reliably from a hodgepodge of different stuff, so the dogman who is both breeder and shower, is always going to be working with his own family.

The dogfighter who has a whole bunch of different stuff is always going to be the guy who can't reliably and consistently breed his own good dogs ... and is going to also be a BUYER (not producer) of great dogs.

Active dogmen tend to keep their pups to themselves, and if they sell, I guarantee they're not selling what they perceive to be their "best" pups; they're selling what they're culling and perceive to be their worst pups.

Good breeders are in the BUSINESS of breeding/selling good dogs; the breeder BENEFITS by selling good dogs.
Good "do it all" dogmen are in the BUSINESS of breeding/matching their own best dogs; the dogfighter LOSES by selling his best pups.

So, unless the guy is a junkie, or unless he lo$e$ major ca$h after a major dog deal, he is not going to be selling his best, be they dogs or pups.

Jack

[skipper]

Wow, Jack are u telling us you can see at a 8 week pup who's going to be the best of the litter? Guess that makes me a clueless retard. I have bred very few litters, but almost every time the ones i didn't believe in at all turns out to be the best. Then again im no breeder, and by your standards not even a dogman. Maybe if i ever become a big breeder i can gain that knowledge, but for now its always a gamble for me when picking pups. I'm very impressed with this ability to spot a good one.

[Officially Retired]

Wow, Jack are u telling us you can see at a 8 week pup who's going to be the best of the litter?

Yes, I do have that ability, and have almost never been wrong either.




Guess that makes me a clueless retard.

I don't see how my ability to see which pups are going to be better at an early age has anything to do with you.




I have bred very few litters, but almost every time the ones i didn't believe in at all turns out to be the best.

Okay, if that is true, then your ability to see which pups are the best does suck.

Here are two concepts you need to grasp:

1) Other people are simply better than you at certain things;
2) You are also better than other people at certain things.

If you can't see what to look for in a pup, athletically, then don't project your inability to see what you need to see onto other people. Other people really may blow you away in certain aptitudes, just as you may blow other people away in certain other aptitudes. And, really, if you've only bred a few litters, then how can you possibly presume to believe you have the same knack for breeding as someone who's bred scores of litters ... AND kept the same family in the winner's circle for decades?




Then again im no breeder, and by your standards not even a dogman.

You are a self-admitted non-breeder, and if you don't have the aptitude to pick the right pups, then you probably won't make much of one.

That doesn't mean you don't have a lot of skill in other areas that are important.

The fact is, most people suck at breeding, which is why they can't keep the same family winning, and are always "starting over" again, and buying dogs.




Maybe if i ever become a big breeder i can gain that knowledge, but for now its always a gamble for me when picking pups. I'm very impressed with this ability to spot a good one.

There is nothing to be impressed about; it's all common sense, and it's all based on very "seeable" traits.

If you're working with a high-percentage line, and you keep it that way, then the gameness comes by default in most individuals.

By contrast, if most of what you're putting out there is quitting, then you're working with a low-percentage line. Again, basic horse sense.

Once you have that FACT squared away, then you simply have an eye for movement, balance, bone structure, reflexes, etc. --- or you don't.

I can spot an athlete a mile away; I can tell by its stance, how it does things, etc., especially within my own line.

I don't see why this is such a big mystery, quite frankly.

Have I ever been wrong? Sure. But I am right 20-1.

There has never been a year in the history of my breeding dogs that we've lost more than we've won.
There has never been a year in the history of my breeding dogs that we've "broke even."
The worst year in the history of my breeding dogs we went 57% (my first year);
It quickly rose to 75% by my 3rd year, and has been in the 80th percentile ever since ... and this has been going on for over 20 years.

Do you really think it has all been "by luck" ... or by NOT knowing WTH I am doing in my selection?

I do believe breeding is ONLY considered "a crapshoot" BY the clueless.

Breeding is an art and a science to those who can reliably and consistently produce winners.

It is all explained in The Art of Breeding Dogs (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/content.php?171), but you have to read it and GET it.

If you do read it, get it, and practice those principles, then you cannot help but succeed as a breeder ... but if you don't, you won't.

Jack

[skipper]

I don't see how my ability to see which pups are going to be better at an early age has anything to do with you.

I was refering to your earlier post. #11 But your right it has nothing to do with me.


Okay, if that is true, then your ability to see which pups are the best does suck.

Here are two concepts you need to grasp:

1) Other people are simply better than you at certain things;
2) You are also better than other people at certain things.

If you can't see what to look for in a pup, athletically, then don't project your inability to see what you need to see in other people. And if you've only bred a few litters, how can you possibly presume to believe you have the same knack for breeding as someone who's bred scores of litters ... AND kept the same family in the winner's circle for decades?


Oh your absolutley right. I'm not even close to a breeder of your standards. And thats why i was impressed with this ability because i never heard of anyone being able to before.
For me it has been the case almost every time. The pups that are turning on early, great structure, movement and attitude are most often the ones getting beaten by the half skittish quiet ones. More than once have i thought of getting rid of pups i didn't believe in only to be proven dead wrong when times come to put em to the test.

You are a self-admitted non-breeder, and if you don't have the aptitude to pick the right pups, then you probably won't make much of one.

That doesn't mean you don't have a lot of skill in other areas that are important. The fact is, most people suck at breeding, which is why they can't keep the same family winning, and are always "starting over" again, and buying dogs.



Spot on again. Thats why all pups are kept with me or my close circle. At the end the best ones will still be available but i can't tell before they have been looked at. I'm also the first to admit i suck at breeding.



Ps. sorry for my crappy quoting skills. :D

[Officially Retired]

LMAO, we all have skills that suck, and skills we're good at.

For every one of the same 20 years I've bred winners, I have been told my people skills suck :lol:

Like you, I have been SURPRISED by ordinary-seeming dogs turning out better than I have thought, but very rarely have the gems of the litter turned out to be shit.

I mean, from Ch Stormbringer in 1999 to Ch Vengence in 2006, and a whole lotta dogs inbetween, I just knew these were going to be the best dogs in their litters.

U-Nhan-Rha, Jezebel, I could go on for a while. Thought they shined early on ... and they did as adults too.
Doesn't mean other dogs weren't good in these litters also, but when I see a pup that is clearly (and distinguishably) excellent, I can't honestly think of too many times where I have been wrong.

There have been a few, but by a longshot most of the time they pan out the way they shined to be when young :D

Jack

[skipper]

LOL yeah true. I would probably not send you to mediate peace in the middle east. But there are other things you're obviously good at.

[bulldoghistorian]

Cmon, you're telling me you have no idea which pups are going to be the best?

You're telling me you get it wrong more than right? :confused:

That damned sure isn't the case when I breed dogs.

IMO, anyone who really knows dogs knows which pups are superior, and at a very early age.

And anyone who knows how to breed dogs, does so in a way that he repeatedly gets litters with high-percentages of at least pretty good dogs, some really good.

In fact, the person who CAN'T tell which pups are going to be superior, and who CAN'T reliably produce above-average litters is NOT a good breeder (or dogman) IMO.

Seriously, how can you call such a man "good" at breeding ... he's basically an average, clueless retard? :lol:

Jack

Honestly I can't I have bred 6 litters (6th coming up) , this year I have known this breed for 30 years , bred my first litter in 2000
I have never been able to tell which one will turn out, If I have to pick , I just pick on looks.
I like the bulldog types and I love the color brindle

Come to think of it , I am not a breeder , the choice to start breeding came out of necessity ( I figured I could not do worse than the ones I was buying) , I am just down to the third generation and I only breed when I need something.

to give you a picture of where I stand
I have a litter on the way because I have 4 empty spaces ( the dam is almost 5 and is her first litter , might even be her last)
my last litter was 4 years ago
I hope to get 4 males and if there more I get rid of the rest

So and this an assumption
I think if you breed quite a lot and see a lot of those pups than you might develop some sense of which may turn out
so I breed far less to actually develop that sense

[bamaman]

I don't have a big yard myself..But I think the advantage of getting the better dogs goes to a bigger yard that's just my opinion and doesn't mean I'm right by any means..I'll admit when I did go to buy stock I liked the bigger yards.its very hard to have a big yard these days unless you own a bunch of land..Too many nosey people these days.

[Officially Retired]

LOL yeah true. I would probably not send you to mediate peace in the middle east. But there are other things you're obviously good at.

:rotflmao:

[Officially Retired]

Honestly I can't I have bred 6 litters (6th coming up) , this year I have known this breed for 30 years , bred my first litter in 2000
I have never been able to tell which one will turn out, If I have to pick , I just pick on looks.
I like the bulldog types and I love the color brindle


Honestly, I would never make a breeding if I thought I would only have 1 turn out.

I make breedings that (I believe) the average dog in the litter will simply be gamer and smarter than the average dogs in other people's litters.

The "type" I look for is smart, athletic, and sure of itself.

The gameness has to be there genetically (you can't "see" it in a dog). But you can spot an athlete (not from a pic, but by watching it move).

They have a certain stance I like, a certain way they do things; it's almost like a "stamp" I can see in them that they bred "true to type."





Come to think of it , I am not a breeder , the choice to start breeding came out of necessity ( I figured I could not do worse than the ones I was buying) , I am just down to the third generation and I only breed when I need something.
to give you a picture of where I stand
I have a litter on the way because I have 4 empty spaces ( the dam is almost 5 and is her first litter , might even be her last)
my last litter was 4 years ago
I hope to get 4 males and if there more I get rid of the rest

Well, what I think you are doing, really, is making sure you keep the best one, rather than "hoping you choose" the best one, and letting the rest go.

There is always a risk of being wrong, so what you're doing is just ensuring you get what you want.





So and this an assumption
I think if you breed quite a lot and see a lot of those pups than you might develop some sense of which may turn out
so I breed far less to actually develop that sense

Which is understandable and the way it works in pretty much everything.

I have bred the same line for basically the entire time I have been in dogs. While all of the dogs are individuals, when you linebreed, you should be breeding for a TYPE, and almost invariably when I see that "type" I am looking at a true Poncho dog: fast, smart, game, pit savvy, tough, gets better the longer it goes, etc. That is just their "type."

All throughout the entirety of my breeding, I selected game dogs that came from entire litters of game dogs, not just "the one" game individual in a litter of curs. That right there set me apart from most.

People who breed to "the one" game individual in a litter are basically breeding to have ONE (or no) game individuals in their litters. (They don't think of it like that, but in essence that's what they're doing.) Such people can never believe in high-percentage litters because they have never experienced them. (Nor will they ever, until they move on to dogs that come from them.) That doesn't mean they can't have great individual dogs; but it does mean they will never have high-percentage turnouts, unless and until they start to breed for them.

I assume gameness in my line, because I have always made sure that most of the pups (or all) turn out game in the litters I produce. The foundation dogs I used (Hammer, Trinx, No Regrets, etc.) were absolutely game dogs who came from an entire litter of absolutely game dogs. That kind of selectivity makes all the difference in the world. People say "all-game litters don't exist," but they do. Such people may have never seen one, but that is because they're looking in the wrong lines (or wrong individuals).

Only if a person really looks for, finds, and then sticks with dogs that come from percentages like that, can he then produce percentages like that.
If you don't breed to such dogs, you surely won't get such dogs. Again, this should be common sense, but most don't think of things like this.
There is nothing about breeding that is 100% certainty, but can surely increase (or decrease) your odds, dramatically (one way or the other) through your selection :idea:

So if I can't get high percentages down, then I am not even at the point of breeding bulldogs yet IMO; I am breeding something else.

Further, I have always bred for a type of dog that "prevails in the end," more so than prevails right off the bat. A lot of times my dogs may establish control right away, on the head, but they seldom blow other dogs out of the water (unless there's a Coca Cola influence). What they do is pace themselves, conserve their strength, systematically dismantle, and save themselves for later. My dogs tend to get stronger and more serious the longer it goes ... while most people's stuff burns themselves out early, and starts fading out after :30-1:00. It is a recipe that has worked for a very long time ...

A lot of people call my dogs "low ability" because they don't kill everything early, but they do have "the ability" to win in the end, which is the most important kind of ability there is. What happens "at first" or "starting out," ultimately, is meaningless. Silverback was a rare exception to my usual dog, by his ability to just steamroll a dog and finish right away, but yet he threw dogs that could go 2+ hours, even though he himself could DOA a dog in :10. That is *not* typical of my line, but it is typical that they can beat dogs who can do this ...

Jack

[bulldoghistorian]

wouldn't you say that from a performance aspect the quicker the better.
I mean the quicker you get out of there , the lest dents on the dog, more chances to have him ready for a next one.

[Bullman]

For me it is quicker the better also. Have had some dogs like Jack described who get stronger as it goes on but while I admire them they take too much punishment. I like a dog who has the ability and mouth to get the damage done early and get out with out taking too much stick.

[S_B]

LOL yeah true. I would probably not send you to mediate peace in the middle east. But there are other things you're obviously good at.

I disagree completely! :rotflmao:

[Black Hand]

wouldn't you say that from a performance aspect the quicker the better.
I mean the quicker you get out of there , the lest dents on the dog, more chances to have him ready for a next one.

actually, it is the exact opposite. If my dog is taking your killer into deep waters, that obviously means your dog is not inflicting as much damage as you anticipated he would. Most likely your one hitter quitter blew his wad and you are about to find out what he is made of. Good for me, bad for you.

[Black Hand]

For me it is quicker the better also. Have had some dogs like Jack described who get stronger as it goes on but while I admire them they take too much punishment. I like a dog who has the ability and mouth to get the damage done early and get out with out taking too much stick.

That previous answer was in reference to bringing a dog like Jack described. Yes, it is better to be on the winning end as fast as possible. I know guys who will only bring one out if it's a sure bet, if they think they can win easy with him. Going into something like that, the longer the better for me. Everyone wants to bring and breed mouth monsters. If he has enough mouth to beat you in :20 and you're still there at :40 then you're doing pretty good. But yeah, fast win is best. Last answer was misleading.

[Officially Retired]

wouldn't you say that from a performance aspect the quicker the better.
I mean the quicker you get out of there , the lest dents on the dog, more chances to have him ready for a next one.


This is a whole other can of worms, but I hear you, and I agree with you ... in a sense.

If you're looking to produce a multi-winning animal, many of them are the type to "blow things out of the water" ... however many of the greatest ever were NOT.

Robert T (a 9xW who beat two 4xWs and two Grand Champions) was a steady, distance animal.
Gr Ch Buck (a 7xW, who beat two Champions and a Gr Ch) was a steady, distance animal.
Gr Ch MelonHead (a 14xW, which is the most wins of any modern animal) was a steady, distance animal.

Oftentimes, the dog that CAN run over a lesser dog early canNOT do that to a truly tough, truly rounded animal ... and so winds up losing in the end.

To give you an idea of what I am talking about, when compared to humans, I prefer to breed a dog like Marvin Hagler, Julio Cesar Chavez, or Muhammad Ali.

None of these guys was known as a 1-punch KO artist. None of these guys swarmed their opponents.
And none of the awesome punchers in their weight class could just run out there and KO these guys either.
Hagler, Chavez, and Ali were too tough, too smart, and too good to let ANYone do that to them. Ever.

In fact (in their primes) ALL of these guys beat fighters who hit harder than they did by being superior ALL AROUND fighters, by pacing themselves, and by gradually INcreasing the pressure as the fight wore on ... rather than burning themselves up early. And they were ALL considered superior fighters to the heavier one-punch KO artists of their day. And they beat virtually all of them too.

That is the kind of dog I try to breed ... a dog you "can't" just blow out of the water, one that is too tough to do that to, and who has A LOT of skills to draw from, and the intelligence and absolute determination to get you at some point.

Jack

[Bullman]

I would disagree on the comparison between Ali, Hagler and Chavez. In my opinion Ali is the polar opposite of Hagler and Chavez.

Hagler was a devastating puncher 62 wins with 52 kos. He put constant pressure from the start to the end and most of his kos were in the first half of the fight! Take two or three flush punches from Hagler and it was lights out. He was not a puncher like Liston, Jackson or Tyson but at the time he was probably the hardest punching middleweight.

Chavez was a pressure fighter too but not near the level of Hagler. He too was a very hard puncher not the one punch ko specialist but still he is the total opposite of Ali.

Both Hagler and Chavez were devastating body punchers while Ali has went entire fights without throwing one shot to the body.

What I would say these fighters had in common was their durability their heart and their chins.

Now I don't usually compare dogs to human athletes/fighters but if I were to I would not use boxers I would choose to compare them to amateur wrestlers, Jiu Jitsu practitioners or MMA fighters. These dogs are in constant contact when hunting where as boxers are rarely in contact like this except in a clinch.

So if I were to choose a fighter to explain the type of dogs I like I would say Cain Velasquez. Constant pressure can finish fast but if not he can go the distance and still win.

If I were to choose a boxer then yes Hagler would be the top of the list without doubt!

[Officially Retired]

I would disagree on the comparison between Ali, Hagler and Chavez. In my opinion Ali is the polar opposite of Hagler and Chavez.

Hagler was a devastating puncher 62 wins with 52 kos. He put constant pressure from the start to the end and most of his kos were in the first half of the fight! Take two or three flush punches from Hagler and it was lights out. He was not a puncher like Liston, Jackson or Tyson but at the time he was probably the hardest punching middleweight.

Chavez was a pressure fighter too but not near the level of Hagler. He too was a very hard puncher not the one punch ko specialist but still he is the total opposite of Ali.

Both Hagler and Chavez were devastating body punchers while Ali has went entire fights without throwing one shot to the body.

What I would say these fighters had in common was their durability their heart and their chins.

Now I don't usually compare dogs to human athletes/fighters but if I were to I would not use boxers I would choose to compare them to amateur wrestlers, Jiu Jitsu practitioners or MMA fighters. These dogs are in constant contact when hunting where as boxers are rarely in contact like this except in a clinch.

So if I were to choose a fighter to explain the type of dogs I like I would say Cain Velasquez. Constant pressure can finish fast but if not he can go the distance and still win.

If I were to choose a boxer then yes Hagler would be the top of the list without doubt!


I understand Hagler and Chavez had different styles from Ali. You're right.

I didn't mean for my point to be lost in arguing human fighters; but to be made that (1) NONE of these fighters was a 1-punch KO artist; (2) NO ONE could just walk out there and steamroll these fighters; and (3) these fighters BEAT harder punchers than they were.

My point was I prefer these types of all-around, good, tough fighters (whether they be rock-durable pressure fighters, or rock-durable slick fighters) to "big punchers" that ultimately prove lacking in other departments, as is so often the case.

Jack

PS: To say that Chavez was "not at the level" of Hagler is absolutely wrong. Chavez had a better record, and a higher-KO percentage at his best weight (Junior Lightweight) than Hagler. Chavez was absolutely on the same level, if not a higher level, pound-for-pound, than Hagler when both were in their primes. So too did Monzon. None of these fighters were 1-punch KO artists. All were authentically-tough, authentically-game, WELL ROUNDED fighters, that could stand up to anything that was thrown at them, never falter, and would systematically dismantle their opponents and get them in the end.

[Officially Retired]

As a matter of fact, to quote Marvin Hagler as to why he was considered one of the greatest middleweights of all time, and yet not a 1-punch KO artist, he said:


"Oh, I don't try to get you out of there right away. I take my time with you. I give you an ass whipping, and I make sure you're not the same man when you get out of here as you were when you got in."

That statement right there has always stuck with me. It describes the kind of gradual thorough destruction I was talking about ... and, to me, is a ultimately a more brutal way to get defeated than by a one-punch KO.

Similarly, in the dogs, I think suffering a constant, thorough, progressive ass kicking ... where a dog gets better and better the longer it goes ... likewise describes an ultimately more thorough, more bruat way to truly beat a dog than by "a lucky bite," hold, hitting a bleeder, etc.

Jack

[Bullman]

Yes in my opinion Chavez was not on Hagler's level, I believe if they were in the same weight class Hagler would have beat him. I think Chavez was hyped up from early on. His first 50 or so fights were against novices, he was awarded some dodgy decisions also. The fight against Whitaker was shocking, Whitaker outclassed him. Hagler was the type of fighter that no one could have outclassed.

I understand we all have our favorite fighters, Hagler is one of mine, Chavez is one of yours, we are going to speak up for them lol.

Ok back on the dogs. I agree, durability is one of the best traits a dog can have without a doubt. I do like a dog that gets it done quick but they must be able to stay in there if need be too. I am not talking about a dog that if he can't get it done quick he can't win.

At the end of the day no one wants to go home after hunting with a half dead dog so this is why I prefer a dog that gets the job done as quick as possible.

Just to clarify, I have nothing against dogs that get stronger as the show goes on and show their gameness in winning at the end, I love that but given a choice I would prefer to go home without having to see how game my dog is.

To each his own :D

[bulldoghistorian]

actually, it is the exact opposite. If my dog is taking your killer into deep waters, that obviously means your dog is not inflicting as much damage as you anticipated he would. Most likely your one hitter quitter blew his wad and you are about to find out what he is made of. Good for me, bad for you.

I think that's a common misconception that a hard hitter wouldn't be able to go some distance
No dog will win multiple times without meeting one where he will need some time to figure it out

[Officially Retired]

Yes in my opinion Chavez was not on Hagler's level, I believe if they were in the same weight class Hagler would have beat him. I think Chavez was hyped up from early on. His first 50 or so fights were against novices, he was awarded some dodgy decisions also. The fight against Whitaker was shocking, Whitaker outclassed him. Hagler was the type of fighter that no one could have outclassed.


Okay, we disagree then. Chavez was awesome at his weight. Simply awesome. Hagler is also among my favorites (that's why I listed him and quoted him).

You say Hagler was the type of fighter no one would have outclassed, I guess you forget how Leonard made him look silly :)

You see, this is where the art of thinking correctly comes into play :idea:


Hagler did lousy against an old, retired welterweight who was 13 lb lighter than he was, naturally at his best weight, yet Leonard (spent and retired) moved up to face Hagler and beat him ... yet you sing the praises of Hagler :lol:

So, while you point out the fact that Chavez struggled to fine a slick Whitaker, who was in his prime, you fail to understand it was CHAVEZ who moved up 10 lb to face Whitaker ... at his best weight!!!

You see, you're not thinking correctly. I mean, if you don't factor in things like this, weight, etc., then how can you make accurate statements? You can't.

Chavez was 87-0, and up 10 lb over his best weight, when faced Whitaker. That isn't "hype," buddy, that is one bad mofo.
Hagler was 62-2-2 when he faced the spent, naturally 13-lb smaller Leonard, who "bulked up" to face Hagler.

Chavez cleaned out his entire division, facing everybody who was anybody, and never lost.
Hagler was awesome, and cleaned out his division, but he did lose twice (avenging them), and then let a little bitty guy bitch-slap him for 12 rounds.
Hagler never once moved up ... because he knew he would have been in BIG trouble, trying to move up and face Michael Spinks ... as Chavez moved up and blew away Rosario, etc.

So think again on your "rating system" ;)

Hell, had Chavez stayed at Junior Lightweight, I can't even begin to imagine him EVER losing to a little bitty guy coming up 10 lb to fight him ... no way.




I understand we all have our favorite fighters, Hagler is one of mine, Chavez is one of yours, we are going to speak up for them lol.


Hagler is definitely one of my favorite fighters, which (again) is why I mentioned him and quoted him ;)

But you are wrong about Chavez and not thinking correctly if you call that BEAST of a fighter (for his weight) "all hype" ...




Ok back on the dogs. I agree, durability is one of the best traits a dog can have without a doubt. I do like a dog that gets it done quick but they must be able to stay in there if need be too. I am not talking about a dog that if he can't get it done quick he can't win.

Gameness and durability are THE backbone of what a bulldog should be ... and, of course, if you can build on that foundation and add things like speed, brains, mouth, finish, then I like that too :)





At the end of the day no one wants to go home after hunting with a half dead dog so this is why I prefer a dog that gets the job done as quick as possible.


I understand. The flipside to that is, a dog that gets it done as quick as possible tends not to pace itself. That can be okay, if he's physically superior to his opponent. It will make him look real good.

However, dogs like this, when they face a "Hagler" (since you like him, lol), a dog that is every bit as strong and capable as it is, but who is a WALL, and CAN'T be steamrolled ... the barn-burner is NOT going to get it done early; they're just not.

And if they're not used to pacing themselves, and if they're not used to being in the trenches with an equal, this is usually why you see the "fast dog" quitting when they get in a war: they're not used to it and they don't handle it as well.




Just to clarify, I have nothing against dogs that get stronger as the show goes on and show their gameness in winning at the end, I love that but given a choice I would prefer to go home without having to see how game my dog is.
To each his own :D

I didn't say I wanted to see my dogs get banged up. I said I like it when they're just able to stay out of trouble, nullify the attack, establish control ... and just pace themselves. They pour it on when they other lets up, and then really pour it on. I don't want my dog to be a stupid punching bag "that just scratches."

That is not what Hagler did, what Chavez did, or what Ali did, was it?
Did they just sit there and "scratch" with no skills? No.

So that is not what I want in a dog, either.

I want the dog to be gamer, tougher, stronger, and relentlessly dismantle ... I never said anything about "having to prove" their gameness.

I think Hagler was game as hell ... but I never really saw him have to prove it by "coming from behind" ... he proved it by how badly he wanted to win, by relentlessly demolishing his foes.

Hope that clarifies :)

Jack

[Bullman]

Ok, I get what you are saying about the dogs and I agree but I never said that I only like a dog that can only barnstorm. I like a dog that can finish quick but can stay there if need be. Like Bulldoghistorian said it is a common misconception. For instance there was a dog once who breezed through schooling wrecking everything. First show did the same, second show met a dog who was close to his equal but the damage done at the start caught up with him in the end but that hunt was back and forth for 40 min. Even for a head dog you would have to have a fairly special one to avoid getting touched for an entire show. They don't come around too often. I like both types but if I choose the dog that has the best chance to finish early. That is just my preference.

Now on the boxing you could not be more wrong! If you think Leonard made Hagler look silly that is just plain wrong. I suggest you watch the fight again. Leonard basically tried to steal rounds in the last 30 seconds. Now he did win a number 3 or 4 of the first 6 rounds of that fight until Hagler decided to stop trying to box Leonard and begin to hunt him down. I thought Hagler won that fight but it could have went either way. Please watch that fight again and you will see what I mean. To say Leonard slapped Hagler silly is complete nonsense.

So if we are going to talk about making accurate statements and thinking correctly and factoring in weight etc how about the demands Leonard had for that Hagler fight. 12 rounds instead of 15, 10oz gloves instead of 8 and he wanted no smaller than a 20 ft ring.

Leonard was dying a death in that fight from the 5th round on. Hagler pummeled his body, hurt him several occasions. I am pretty sure if that was a 15 round fight Leonard would not have made it. Leonard was the pretty boy and he stole the rounds in the last 30 seconds!

You know that Goody Petronelli complained about an british judge that was supposed to judge that fight because he thought he would favor Leonard's boxing over Hagler's pressure. They had him replaced by a Mexican judge who scored the fight a ridiculous 118-110 for Leonard. The English judge scored it at home 115-113 for Hagler. Now had they not complained about that judge then Hagler would have been the winner.

Don't forget Leonard later went up in weight again to super middleweight and light heavy to win more titles. It is not that Hagler was huge and way too big for Leonard. A lot of fighters move up in weight as they get older to say that their proper weight is the weight they started at is not accurate either. You said Chavez moved up to face Whitaker, yes he did but not 13lbs. He was the champ at light welter and Whitaker the champ at welter so he moved up 7lb. Chavez was the bigger fighter and Whitaker also started out his career at super featherweight also.

Boxing is full of fighters that have moved up from their supposed best weight and doing better than ever. Pacman moved up 8 divisions and still doing it better than ever. Mayweather 5 divisions, Cotto 4 divisions, JMM 5 divisions, the list goes on and that is just current fighters. A fighters lowest weight is not always his best weight as evidenced by these fighters.

As I said to each their own, I think Hagler was a better fighter than Chavez you think otherwise that is fine by me.

I have said my piece on this, I have not typed this much in years, we can debate boxing until the cows come home but I think people have different views on it and when favorite fighters are involved no one is going to cave so on that note I am out ;)

[Officially Retired]

Ok, I get what you are saying about the dogs and I agree but I never said that I only like a dog that can only barnstorm. I like a dog that can finish quick but can stay there if need be. Like Bulldoghistorian said it is a common misconception. For instance there was a dog once who breezed through schooling wrecking everything. First show did the same, second show met a dog who was close to his equal but the damage done at the start caught up with him in the end but that hunt was back and forth for 40 min. Even for a head dog you would have to have a fairly special one to avoid getting touched for an entire show. They don't come around too often. I like both types but if I choose the dog that has the best chance to finish early. That is just my preference.

Okay, we agree (for the most part) on the dogs.





Now on the boxing you could not be more wrong! If you think Leonard made Hagler look silly that is just plain wrong. I suggest you watch the fight again. Leonard basically tried to steal rounds in the last 30 seconds. Now he did win a number 3 or 4 of the first 6 rounds of that fight until Hagler decided to stop trying to box Leonard and begin to hunt him down. I thought Hagler won that fight but it could have went either way. Please watch that fight again and you will see what I mean. To say Leonard slapped Hagler silly is complete nonsense.

What I said was not plain wrong. You're just in plain denial.

I agree Hagler was the better man. Physically. And by a country mile. I also agree Leonard fought to steal the rounds, as opposed to trying to beat the man, Hagler, in a legitimate fighting effort. You're right again.

But Leonard was the smarter man and beat Hagler, mentally, before the fight even started by getting him to go along with setting the stage for this very thing to happen :idea:

I don't need to watch the fight again; I have it on tape and have seen it dozens of times. Everything you said is correct ... except you're still in denial. You even just finished saying, "I thought Hagler won but it could have went either way."

The point you can't seem to accept is Hagler let that happen. There was nothing he could do to KO a 13-lb smaller man. You yourself admit, "It could have gone either way," when Leonard was a little man bulked-up against the NATURALLY-BIGGER Hagler.

The other point you can't seem to accept is that Chavez fought a similar "pick em" fight with Whitaker, where it could have gone either way, but yet Chazez was the smaller man against the bigger Whitaker. You can't seem to get this through your head. You even LIED to get yourself to keep thinking Hagler is as good as Chavez (see below).




So if we are going to talk about making accurate statements and thinking correctly and factoring in weight etc how about the demands Leonard had for that Hagler fight. 12 rounds instead of 15, 10oz gloves instead of 8 and he wanted no smaller than a 20 ft ring.

Again, you are too blind to see the truth of Hagler's mental inferiority in your own statements :idea:

You're right: Hagler gave in to all of Leonard's demands. That means he put Leonard's interests over his own interests. That is a loss right there, a mental loss. Hagler basically bent over and said, "Give it to me, Sugar."

That means HAGLER LOST BEFORE THE FIGHT STARTED. He gave in on every level.

I absolutely think Hagler would have won a 15 round fight, in a smaller ring, 8 oz gloves ... and so did Leonard ... and so Leonard got Hagler to cave in on everything. Hagler didn't even know HE was the Champion. Hagler should have said, "Fuck you chicken boy, you want my title, you come to fight me for it, not run from me.", but Hagler just said, "Yessuh, Mr. Leonard, anything you say, sah," which is why he lost the fight before it started.





Leonard was dying a death in that fight from the 5th round on. Hagler pummeled his body, hurt him several occasions. I am pretty sure if that was a 15 round fight Leonard would not have made it. Leonard was the pretty boy and he stole the rounds in the last 30 seconds!

Leonard was dying in the 11th and 12th only. He was doing fine with his ploy during MOST of the fight, however.

But still, in the end, Marvelous Marvin Hagler was out-negotiated, out-smarted, and out-maneuvered by a retired, 13-lb-smaller welterweight ... and there is no way in hell any "smaller man" would have done that to Chavez at junior lightweight. Chavez was UNDEFEATED at his best weight, and he had NEARLY 60 FIGHTS at junior lightweight. Period.






You know that Goody Petronelli complained about an british judge that was supposed to judge that fight because he thought he would favor Leonard's boxing over Hagler's pressure. They had him replaced by a Mexican judge who scored the fight a ridiculous 118-110 for Leonard. The English judge scored it at home 115-113 for Hagler. Now had they not complained about that judge then Hagler would have been the winner.

Blah-blah, has nothing to do with point of this discussion.





Don't forget Leonard later went up in weight again to super middleweight and light heavy to win more titles. It is not that Hagler was huge and way too big for Leonard. A lot of fighters move up in weight as they get older to say that their proper weight is the weight they started at is not accurate either. You said Chavez moved up to face Whitaker, yes he did but not 13lbs. He was the champ at light welter and Whitaker the champ at welter so he moved up 7lb. Chavez was the bigger fighter and Whitaker also started out his career at super featherweight also.

You're reaching and scrambling. I don't care how many weight divisions Chavez (or Whitaker) or Leonard moved up.

I am talking about WHERE THEY SPENT THE MOST TIME, THEIR PRIME WEIGHT CLASSES.

Chavez fought the first 55 fights of his career at 129 lb or less. That is basically DOUBLE the amount of fights Whitaker even had at that point. I mean, you can't even think clearly, if you want to talk about Chavez moving up to 147. That is 17 lb over his best weight!! For a little guy! Hell, Chavez could only come in at 142 it was so far off where he was supposed to be at 129. That is 13 lb over his best weight. Whitaker was at 145 also, 2 lb under the limit, and 3 lb heavier than where Chavez came in. Whitaker began his career at 135. That is also where he was at in the Olympics. What fucking planet do you live on to call Chavez "the bigger man" than Whitaker? I can't even have a discussion with someone this clueless. It's too frustrating, and it is a waste of my time.

Genius. Chavez fought nearly 60 fights at 129!
Do you know how many fights Whitaker had at that weight? ZERO.
Whitaker started his pro career at 135; he even weighed this much (and more) in the Olympics.

Wake TF up and stop making outrageously-false statements just to keep talking.
I can debate facts all day; I can't stand debating outright lies and stupidity.

You can't even put Hagler in the ballpark with Chavez, really. Hagler didn't equal Chavez' record at their respective divisions, and Hagler never came up at all. He NEVER ONCE moved up to risk getting his own ass demolished up at 175, which is proportionally less weight for a bigger man to move up. He wouldn't even go up to 168. And, in the end, Hagler lost his 160-lb title to a natural 147-lber, bulked up.

You are just in left field here ...





Boxing is full of fighters that have moved up from their supposed best weight and doing better than ever. Pacman moved up 8 divisions and still doing it better than ever. Mayweather 5 divisions, Cotto 4 divisions, JMM 5 divisions, the list goes on and that is just current fighters. A fighters lowest weight is not always his best weight as evidenced by these fighters.

Three facts are true:

1) NONE of the fighters you mentioned had SIXTY FIGHTS at one weight ... before they moved up. (Except Hagler, who lost 3, and drew 2, while Chavez lost ZERO at his best weight.)
2) ANYone who fights that many fights "at one weight" has had THEIR PRIME YEARS at that weight.
3) Anyone who cannot see, understand, and acknowledge this is either a retard, or not being reasonable, one or the other.





As I said to each their own, I think Hagler was a better fighter than Chavez you think otherwise that is fine by me.


You have shown, on many levels, that you're not thinking, and this evaluation would just be one more area.






I have said my piece on this, I have not typed this much in years, we can debate boxing until the cows come home but I think people have different views on it and when favorite fighters are involved no one is going to cave so on that note I am out

You mean, said your peace (not piece).

You are entitled to have your favorites, as is anyone else. But, while you did say many true things (about Hagler/Leonard, the pre-fight terms, etc.), you also failed to see the weak mind it proved Hagler to have, by comparison to Leonard (and anyone else with a brain). And the statements you made about Chavez being "the bigger man" than Whitaker, were outright falsehoods.

I will gladly keep debating you on any boxing subject, so long as I don't have to field flat-out lies like "Chavez was the bigger man," when he was 3 lb smaller in the actual fight, and 5 lb smaller at their prime weights.

Jack

[Bullman]

Jack you are wrong on so many things it is not even funny. I am in no mood for drawn out long winded posts as I have a yard to look after.

Ok you said Leonard slapped Hagler silly WRONG.

You said Chavez was in a pick um fight with Whitaker WRONG Chavez barely won 3 rounds.

You said Whitaker never fought at super featherweight WRONG.

Go and add up Chavez opponents records for his first 55 fights see what you come up with.

No need to throw insults Jack I am not here to take your abuse about spelling mistakes and other crap, seems to be a habit of yours when someone does not agree with what you say. Not a very good sign of character in my opinion.

[Officially Retired]

Jack you are wrong on so many things it is not even funny. I am in no mood for drawn out long winded posts as I have a yard to look after.


I am right on everything I said, which is why you have nothing of merit left to say.

If you want to run off and hide, rather than concede YOU were wrong on Chavez, that would be typical of your kind ...





Ok you said Leonard slapped Hagler silly WRONG.

By that I mean, bitch-slapped and pitty-patted, while Hagler couldn't do shit about it.





You said Chavez was in a pick um fight with Whitaker WRONG Chavez barely won 3 rounds.


Um, genius, the fight was a draw.

If you want to again depart reality (you know, the actual cards), and go off of your own, "imaginary card," then we can't have a discussion, because you're talking fantasy not reality.




J
You said Whitaker never fought at super featherweight WRONG.


You show me one professional fight Pernell Whitaker had at super featherweight.
You show me one Olympic fight Pernell Whitaker had at super feather.

Pernell Whitaker won the Olympic Gold medal at LIGHTWEIGHT, genius.

I said not one thing wrong ...

If you are (again) reaching, and talking what weight Whitaker may have fought at "as a teenager" ... then this only goes to prove how DENSE you are ... how LITTLE you can actually stick to what was really being said, and how FAR you are willing to reach to keep avoiding THE TRUTH.

Hell, son, Chavez used to weigh 6 lb ... AS AN INFANT ... but that has not one focking thing to do with what HIS BEST PRIME FIGHTING WEIGHT was :rolleyes:

At their PRIME, PROFESSIONAL BOXING WEIGHTS, Chavez was 129 and Whitaker was 135.
When they fought each other, Chavez was 142 and Whitaker was 145.

What focking planet do you live on which prompted you to call Chavez "the bigger man" ...?





Go and add up Chavez opponents records for his first 55 fights see what you come up with.


Why don't you say something intelligent? Chavez was 55-0. Anyone can look up his record.

Why don't YOU show ME what medal Pernell Whitaker won in the Olympics, and why don't YOU tell ME what weight class?

Why don't YOU show ME what professional junior lightweight fight Pernell Whiaker ever had, genius.

Back up your own lies, or admit you were lying (or that you didn't know WTH you were talking about).





No need to throw insults Jack I am not here to take your abuse about spelling mistakes and other crap, seems to be a habit of yours when someone does not agree with what you say. Not a very good sign of character in my opinion.

It is actually a habit of the people who argue with me (1) to be unable to spell correctly in the same sentences they're (2) unable to think correctly.
The defects tend to go hand-in-hand ;)

What is not a very good indication of character is you lying to sustain your argument.

Now YOU tell ME what weight Chavez was Champion at for the majority of his career, and retained for 9 title defenses.
You tell ME what weight Pernell won his Olympic Gold in.
You tell ME what weight Pernell began his professional career in.
You tell ME what weight Pernell was, and what weight Chavez was, when they fought each other.

Then YOU admit to ME *which* you were doing, LYING or BEING CLUELESS, in your statement "Chavez was the bigger man" than Whitaker.

Let's see how stout your character is :idea:

I have FACTUALLY destroyed you. Let's see if you can admit this.

The only thing you have done is argue your "imaginary boxing card" as to who won the Chavez/Whitaker fight, in defiance of the actual cards :lol:

Jack

[Bullman]

Ok GENIUS here you go http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=555&cat=boxer check his first two fights, this is his professional record GENIUS what weights were those at? NOW ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG.

You said SRL slapped Hagler silly, not bitch slapped or pitty patted. I said Hagler was never outclassed and you said "oh you must have forgot about Leonard"

The fight was a draw on the cards duh we all know that, that does not mean it was close. Lennox Lewis vs Holyfield was a draw too ON THE CARDS but anyone with half a boxing brain knows who won those fights.

Jack I know this is the highlight of your life arguing online all day because you have no family life and no dogs so off you go. I will show my true character now by not replying to you anymore so you will have to find someone else to keep you occupied.

[Officially Retired]

Ok GENIUS here you go http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=555&cat=boxer check his first two fights, this is his professional record GENIUS what weights were those at? NOW ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG.

You said SRL slapped Hagler silly, not bitch slapped or pitty patted. I said Hagler was never outclassed and you said "oh you must have forgot about Leonard"

The fight was a draw on the cards duh we all know that, that does not mean it was close. Lennox Lewis vs Holyfield was a draw too ON THE CARDS but anyone with half a boxing brain knows who won those fights.

Jack I know this is the highlight of your life arguing online all day because you have no family life and no dogs so off you go. I will show my true character now by not replying to you anymore so you will have to find someone else to keep you occupied.


Son, I am arguing FACTS, you are arguing "opinion." And, YES, Leonard outclassed Hagler with his brain (I have already covered why).
And the fight wasn't a "draw" either; the FACT is, Hagler LOST. Your "opinion" means nothing.

Now, as to Chavez/Whitaker (which you're trying to avoid), classic, you provide a link which PROVES you are too freaking clueless to realize that 134 lb is still within the LIGHTWEIGHT limit :lol:

Admit "I" was wrong?
Um, genius, you need to step up and admit YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT :lol:

Reality check: 135 is the MAX a fighter can be and still be a Lightweight.
That means a 134 lb fighter is still a lightweight, 1-lb shy of the MAX for that division :embarrassed:

130 lb is the MAX a fighter can be to be a Junior Lightweight ... which means 134 lb is 4-lb OVER the Junior LW limit ;)
Whitaker was NEVER a Junior Lightweight (even in the Olympics, he fought as a Lightweight);
Chavez' last fight at Junior Lightweight, after 55 fights, was @ 129 lb

Whitaker was always a LIGHTWEIGHT ...
Jesus, can you get anything right :embarrassed:

By your own link, Whitaker clearly BEGAN his pro career at 134, 5-lb bigger than Chavez was after his 55th fight;
Meanwhile Chavez FINISHED his Junior Lightweight career (55 fights) at 129, or less, which is 5-lb lighter than Whitaker was when he began his pro career);
(Chavez began his pro career at 121.)

So, again, YOU are the one who is wrong on every level;

You can't add and subtract;
You think "your opinion" is a "fact," which makes you unable to be reasoned with;
You can't admit something as obvious as the numerical fact that 134 is greater than 129;
You can't admit something as obvious as the numerical fact 145 is greater than 142 (which is the weights Whitaker/Chavez actually fought at);
You don't understand 134 lb, the weight Whitaker first was when he turned pro, is still in the lightweight division;
You don't see that Chavez first began his career at 121, and fought under the 130 lb limit for all of his prime career, while Whitaker began his career just under the 135 limit, and then quickly moved up;
(Whitaker even fought at the 135 lb limit as an amateur in the Olympics as a very young man ...)

There is not ONE, SINGLE objective fact which gives you a reason to say, "Chavez was the bigger man," which makes you (and your entire belief system surrounding Chavez) WRONG.
The FACT is, Chavez was the SMALLER man, all throughout his career, as well as on the actual fight night (Chavez' 88th and Whitaker's 33rd).

Thus YOU are the one who needs to man-up and admit he is wrong here ... "genius" :-w

[Officially Retired]

Now Regarding Hagler vs. Chavez ... and which one was FACTUALLY the better fighter, pound-for-pound ...

Here are THE FACTS:

Hagler was 62-3-2 (67 fights total / 93% wins / 78% KOs) at his best weight;
Chavez was 55-0-0 (55 fights total / 100% wins / 84% KOs) at his best weight;

Hagler was 62-2-2 when he faced Leonard, at his own best weight, yet he lost, and then quit boxing altogether;
Chavez was 87-0-0 when he faced Whitaker, 3 weight divisions over his best, he got a draw, and kept fighting and winning afterward;

Hagler's best weight was 158
Leonard's best weight was 147

Chavez' best weight was 129
Whitaker's best weight was 135

Hagler LOST to a naturally 11-lb smaller man;
Chavez DREW to a naturally 6-lb bigger man;

FACT: Chavez moved up in weight class, to Lightweight, NEVER lost, and DESTROYED everyone he fought there too;
FACT: Hagler never moved up in weight class, lost 3x and drew twice, in his best weight class;

FACT: EVERYONE who beat Hagler was his same size, or smaller; and so he never risked moving up;
FACT: NO ONE Chavez's size ever beat him;
FACT: NO ONE the next weight class up, Lightweight, ever beat Chavez either;
FACT: The only losses Chavez ever suffered were 2-3 weight divisions above his best, after he had NEARLY 90 FOCKING FIGHTS WITHOUT A SINGLE LOSS!!!

FACT: Chavez had a better record, on every level, any way you want to slice it, than Hagler did. Period.

So now, you tell me "why" ... what OBJECTIVE FACTS you have in your hand ... that could possibly place Hagler over Chavez pound-for-pound ... and what OBJECTIVE FACTS made you say Chavez was "the bigger man": than Whitaker :@:

Jack

Bottom Line: So, no, you don't know how to think accurately ... so let me turn the light on for you :idea:

[Pit Bull Committed]

Anyone who doesn't breed from a set family of dogs CAN'T be a good breeder, by default.

You simply CAN'T breed reliably from a hodgepodge of different stuff, so the dogman who is both breeder and shower, is always going to be working with his own family.

The dogfighter who has a whole bunch of different stuff is always going to be the guy who can't reliably and consistently breed his own good dogs ... and is going to also be a BUYER (not producer) of great dogs.

Active dogmen tend to keep their pups to themselves, and if they sell, I guarantee they're not selling what they perceive to be their "best" pups; they're selling what they're culling and perceive to be their worst pups.

Good breeders are in the BUSINESS of breeding/selling good dogs; the breeder BENEFITS by selling good dogs.
Good "do it all" dogmen are in the BUSINESS of breeding/matching their own best dogs; the dogfighter LOSES by selling his best pups.

So, unless the guy is a junkie, or unless he lo$e$ major ca$h after a major dog deal, he is not going to be selling his best, be they dogs or pups.

Jack

This is true. I've see too many, been there too many times. I simply won't give my money away for a pup that I seriously didn't think it was the best one in the litter.

[bamaman]

Lol then they get mad because you won't buy them..I know some of you have been offered free dogs and alot of the times you run into the same thing as mentioned above but not all the times..I don't mind spending cash for something I want but sometimes a deal can't be made and its better to just shake hands and walk away.

[Officially Retired]

This is true. I've see too many, been there too many times. I simply won't give my money away for a pup that I seriously didn't think it was the best one in the litter.

Yeah, but here's the thing: sometimes the best performer isn't the best producer :-$

For example, Ch Stormbringer (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=211) was the best dog in the litter, but his brother Crews' Sandy (Warlock (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=1678)) was the best producer.

Another example, Ch Vengence (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=1126) was the best dog in his litter, but his sister was an ace too, and his brother Techno (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=7383) was the better producer (Vengence was sterile).

Another example, Jezebel (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=219) was the best dog in her litter, but Duke Nukem (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=348), Laguna Sunrise (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=3000), Mystery (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=157), and Athena Red (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=4389) were all extremely game, conformationaly-flawless dogs who produced winners and DG animals.

Bottom line is, in a legitimately good litter, there will be A LOT of good dogs, not just "one" ... so if you think only "one" dog in the litter is going to be good, then I wouldn't get any dog from that litter.

And if it's a damned good breeding, then you should be happy with any of them, because there will be MANY valuable dogs produced, not just one :idea:

Jack