THE HARDCORE FARMER

[Officially Retired]

http://www.thepitbullbible.com/funstuff/hardcore_farmer.jpg

THE HARDCORE FARMER
What would you think of someone who came up to you and told you he was going to become a “Hardcore Farmer?” Forget the sissy stuff, he told you, this man was going to be hardcore.

This man told you he had decided to get into the farming business, but he told you he wasn’t going to do “all of the bullshit” associated with extended nurturing and agricultural cultivation, learning about plant husbandry, botanical nutrition, etc., as this involved “too much work” and “too much B.S.”

“Forget about planting good seeds in fertile soil,” he told you, and “Forget about watering, nurturing, and cultivating!” This person made it clear that he was just going to throw his seeds wherever he damned well pleased, and then he was not going to lift a finger to help the progress of his growing crops. “The rain will water them!” he told you in his best tough-guy voice. “And who gives a shit about the bugs?”, he said, “Only the strong will survive!”

Remember now, this man was “hardcore,” and he was making a point to let you (and the world) know that he had “tough standards.” This man made it absolutely clear that he wasn’t going to lift a finger to care for his crops, or to control diseases and parasites (to ensure that as many developing plants as possible survived and thrived for the season) ... NOPE! This man basically told you that whatever crops happened to live through his “tough standards” were therefore “the best,” and these were going to be the ones eaten and taken to market.

In fact, by God, when whatever crops that happened to live through his refusal to care for them began to bear fruit for this man ... and when those first-forming fruits began to take on their gradual appearance as fruits ... why at that very moment this man was going to immediately pluck them off the vine ... and he was going to eat them right then and there ... “to see how they tasted.”

Fuck allowing his young fruits to RIPEN, this man said if what he planted were “real crops,” then they’d taste good and be ready to harvest immediately when they first began to take shape. And if the fruits of his “efforts” didn’t taste good immediately, right after they first began forming, then those crops and the seeds that they came from “just weren’t worth a fuck.” (I mean, hey man, allowing fruits to fully-age and ripen before expecting them to taste good “is for pussies,” right?)

What would you think of this man?
Would you be impressed by hiss “tough standards” ... or would you think this man was an absolute idiot?
You might even consider this man to be basically insane ... with no concept of Natural Processes or, really, the world around him?
Seriously, would any of you think this individual was an intelligent man ... or a “real farmer” ... of the “toughest and manliest kind?”

I think we all know what the answer to this is. I would be surprised if anybody reading this can’t clearly see that this man would be a fukking imbecile, who had no concept of anything associated with successful agricultural & farming principles ... or even of Nature and Life itself?

Well, folks, that is what every so-called “Hardcore Dogman” is, he’s a fukking imbecile. The same principles that apply to the Natural Order of Things in farming crops *also* apply to the Natural Order of Things in farming dogs. Because that is all we are, is dog farmers: we “sow the seeds” in our breedings, we “nurture the shoots” in our developing pups, we must “control the bugs” by various measures during all life stages, and finally, we must “allow our crops to fully-RIPEN” before we attempt to harvest (test) them by letting our animals mature fully.

And yet we see dullards every single day in these dogs, violating many of the same basic principles ... sometimes every single principle ... of this “farming process.” Most of these fools are simply angry, stupid young men, with something to “prove,” and these angry, young idiots forever wonder WHY most of their dogs never “taste good” and perform well for them ... while they blithely do every single thing wrong in raising these dogs as owners. Really, it is beyond stupid, it is insane.

Folks, The Process of Nature cannot be “sped-up” by some magic pill, or by some “tough standard,” and The Natural Processes cannot be ignored either. You must simply bow your head and develop the wisdom to accept these processes for what they are: THE WAY LIFE IS. These processes must plainly and simply be understood, and they must plainly and simply be allowed-for and followed, if you expect to be successful consistently.

If you young dogmen start looking at your role as a dogman ... as really being “a farmer” of a different kind of “crop” that you are trying to harvest ... then you will at that moment begin to see your job as caregiver in its proper perspective.

You will begin to realize that being “hardcore” with your developing “crops” is absolutely stupid ... but that being an attentive, caring, and nurturing caregiver to your pups and dogs during their developmental stages is absolutely critical, in order for your to succeed and get the best results on a consistent basis :-?

Furthermore, when it comes time to “harvest” your dogs, by finding out what they’re made of, you will also realize that “testing them young” is the committing the same stupidity as trying to harvest too early before your fruits are fully ripened. Testing young dogs is every bit as stupid as expecting unripened fruit to taste good. It is every bit that stupid. Just because a young dog “looks like” an adult doesn’t mean he IS ONE YET! Just because he “acts good” for five minutes in a bump doesn’t mean he’s ready for the whole deal yet. Similarly, just because an apple takes shape in the form of an apple, doesn’t mean it is quite ready to be *eaten* yet. IT MUST BE ALLOWED TO FULLY-RIPEN.

The problem is, it is easy for even an imbecile to tell when a piece of fruit is “ripe,” but it is much harder for the average person to tell when a complex animal is fully-mature. This is why there is so much disparity in practice with these dogs as opposed to farming crops: any idiot can see when a piece of fruit is ripe, but not any idiot can tell when a young dog is ready.

To help you, as a general rule a dog doesn’t become fully-mature and in his prime until he is 2½ to 3 years old. And yet most people are putting their dogs through pretty tough ordeals by 12-16 months. I am sorry, but there is just no way in hell that some 16-month-old pup is going to be able to beat his mirror-opposite who is 3 years old. There’s just no way in hell. In the same fashion, there is no 17 year old boy who is going to be the same man as he himself will be when he is 25 to 30 years old. There’s just no way in hell.

I am not going to get into the subjects of schooling and testing, except to say that you just begin to *school* your young dogs at 18-24 months of age, but you never should get to the point of *testing* them until they are at least 2½ to 3 years of age and fully-mature (or “ripe”). What I am telling you is simply a Biological Fact of when a dog generally reaches full social (not sexual, but SOCIAL) maturity.

And it is precisely because of the extended maturity rate, and the more complex involvement in raising animals over crops, that makes “dog farming” more complicated than “plant farming.” Plant crops don’t take as long to develop as dogs do, nor do plants require as many different levels of nurturing as dogs do, and plants are also easier to identify as being “ripe” than dogs are. But that does not mean the same Principles of Nature don’t apply to farming dogs as they do to farming crops. The same principles *do* still apply to dogs, but it just takes a more insightful “farmer” to notice and to pay attention to these processes.

Unfortunately, because of the complexity involved in the developmental processes of dogs, there are legions and legions of so-called dogmen who stupidly violate every one of these “farming principles” as a matter of daily practice, simply because they are not subtle or bright enough to see these principles for what they are. But make no mistake about it: these same basic Laws of Nature are involved ... and they apply to our dogs every bit as much as they apply to farming crops. And while every so-called “hardcore dogman” will puff-out his chest and brag about how “hardcore” he is, the fact of the matter is every single one of them is nothing but an imbecile who has no concept of The Natural Order of Things in Life.

Therefore, I hope this article here has gotten some of you more intelligent young dogmen to re-evaluate what you’re doing ... and to make these Natural Laws work for your dogs, by providing the best care that you possibly can, and you will have a HUGE advantage over all the rest of the idiots out there who FAIL to do so.

If this means you have to read this article a hundred times, in order for it to sink-in to the point where you change your stupid practices into smart practices, then you’d better start reading :idea:

Jack

[Osagedogman2015]

I've heard it said/read that most of what you describe above is the difference between breeders and "action" men. I agree with that to some degree. Most things are not absolute. I know men that are both of those things. True, honest dogmen that I am proud to have known.

Breeders are more interested in preserving and perpetuating the breed and are genuinely concerned about the well-being and care given to the dog to make it all come together. They are the ones who painstakingly plan breedings and search out the traits that they feel will give the produced results the best chance to shine. They love the dogs, first and foremost, and take pride in them. It is very hard to part with any of them.

It is hard to part with them for many reasons. For the most part it is because of people like you describe above. Fuckin' imbeciles that waste dogs. Imbeciles that do not love the dogs or care for them in any way other than to gain some kind of quasi-pride or ego trip. Retards that cannot understand or recognize a good dog even when the evidence is glaringly obvious. I cannot stand them or being around them, and it makes me into a bulldog recluse..lol...

I do not breed dogs very much any more because I simply don't know enough good dogmen to place them where they need to go. I cannot trust people to do right by them and it really matters to me. I've had too many bad experiences and seen too much. It really is a sad commentary on my part and I hope it is just me and my experiences.....but I don't think it is.

[Officially Retired]

I've heard it said/read that most of what you describe above is the difference between breeders and "action" men. I agree with that to some degree. Most things are not absolute. I know men that are both of those things. True, honest dogmen that I am proud to have known.

I think "action men" also can very easily subscribe to what I have written.

Earl Tudor, for example, made the statement, "I am not betting on his being game, I am betting on his winning."

You don't have to think a dog is dead game to believe he has a shot at winning.

A dog also doesn't have to be dead game to be a great producer either.

Hell, for that matter, what I said applies to EVERY trait a dog can have (mouth/air or any other trait).

NO trait has to be 100% for the dog to be a valuable animal, either as a producer or a performer :idea:




Breeders are more interested in preserving and perpetuating the breed and are genuinely concerned about the well-being and care given to the dog to make it all come together. They are the ones who painstakingly plan breedings and search out the traits that they feel will give the produced results the best chance to shine. They love the dogs, first and foremost, and take pride in them. It is very hard to part with any of them.

Again, I believe providing optimal care benefits both breeders and competitors.




It is hard to part with them for many reasons. For the most part it is because of people like you describe above. Fuckin' imbeciles that waste dogs. Imbeciles that do not love the dogs or care for them in any way other than to gain some kind of quasi-pride or ego trip. Retards that cannot understand or recognize a good dog even when the evidence is glaringly obvious. I cannot stand them or being around them, and it makes me into a bulldog recluse..lol...

We are definitely on the same page here 8)




I do not breed dogs very much any more because I simply don't know enough good dogmen to place them where they need to go. I cannot trust people to do right by them and it really matters to me. I've had too many bad experiences and seen too much. It really is a sad commentary on my part and I hope it is just me and my experiences.....but I don't think it is.

No, it is not just you, by any stretch.

This is exactly why I will never put myself in a position to be dependent on dog sales for income again ... it is too easy "to talk yourself into" a sale, and regret it afterward :angry:

If I get back in, I will have my income generated from other ventures, and be as selective with who gets my dogs as I am with which dogs I breed together.

Thanks for your input!

Jack

[Osagedogman2015]

I forgot to add in my post that I really liked your analogy comparing farming and raising dogs. I hope everyone will read it, comprehend it, and benefit from it. Hell, maybe we can drop some flyers out of some drones and hope something hits/affects the masses...

Good breeders need good competitors and vice-verse to achieve what most of us want.

[FrostyPaws]

I would probably say I'm a type of hardcore farmer. I don't ruin young dogs. There's simply no point. That's wasteful in the worst possible way.

I will, and do, look at dogs pretty hard I think, but my hard consists of finding like quality dogs to look at mine with. Seeing a dog of mine whip a lower quality dog in schooling is ok at the beginning. It's not ok when I'm deciding to put my money on said animal.

And the dogs that aren't competitive? Well, they get the gameness treatment, and that's where whatever adjective you want to insert cones into play.

[EWO]

This is a great topic. One of "those" topics for me concerning the dogs. My first experiences in the dogs was with a guy who basically only matched dogs. He maybe bred three times in 10 or so years. He kept 10-12 dogs and at least 8 or so would be open to the world and the other 4 or so would be ones that look like they might earn a chain spot.

He fell into the hard core farmer category and in turn I did so too. It was never about preserving or perpetuating, or even checking or testing, it was all about winning. He had a couple of quotes similar to the Tudor quote above. "I'm not sure if my dog is game but on Saturday night you better be sure your is". Actually a ton of those lines. " I can't tell you what he will do next time only what he did do last time".

He culled hard. Harder than most and a lot of those dogs could have maybe went on to produce. Removing a cur was never considered culling, it was just understood. His "culled hard" because a lot of game dogs didn't have the tools to win, and that is a hard decision to make. Thus he 'culled hard'. Most of his dogs came from the same breeder. I 'learned' from him early on it was easier to buy a young dog than to deal with the whole puppy picture. I have had a number of dogs I should have bred, or bred more. Like most men, in every facet of life, he has a disease called " wishedihadof ". "I wished I had of" did this and that. His was to breed more of the dogs that performed. Me too.

As far as care, his was impeccable. His dogs were in perfect health, clean living quarters, the whole nine. He nurtured young dogs, and each had his own time to turn on. Once he felt they were on, they faced the trials and tribulations of being a game dog on the yard of a dog man who matched dogs. There were a lot of game dogs that did not have the tools to win and they did not maintain a chain spot. Some went back to the breeder as a brood dog, some simply did not maintain a chain spot. On more than one occasion I have seen him give a winning dog back because the next dog coming at that weight was better. The breeder was the only one who could get him/her back. If the breeder could not make room or have space or have time the dog simply lost his chain spot. He sold two dogs in a 10-15 year span.

For him, it was never about the money. It was never about the preserving or perpetuating a family of game dogs. It was never about "gameness". It was only, and I mean only about winning. Since I was new, I learned what he taught and I just assumed it was like that everywhere. In time I figured some things out and changed direction, slightly, but changed direction nonetheless.

Looking back I missed out on a ton of opportunity, and my mentor even more. But as I have said before, it takes all kinds to make the dog game go around. In a lot of respects he was the hardcore farmer, and I guess by default I have been as well. It has a lot to do with being mission orientated and maintain the same 'mission statement' throughout.

Great topic. Should be a good thread. EWO

[Officially Retired]

Hell, maybe we can drop some flyers out of some drones and hope something hits/affects the masses...

:lol:

[Officially Retired]

I would probably say I'm a type of hardcore farmer. I don't ruin young dogs. There's simply no point. That's wasteful in the worst possible way.


Agreed.

However, judging/culling young dogs is just as wasteful.

Judging/culling young dogs is like trying to judge the tastiness of fruit before you've let the fruit ripen.

Not too bright IMO.




I will, and do, look at dogs pretty hard I think, but my hard consists of finding like quality dogs to look at mine with. Seeing a dog of mine whip a lower quality dog in schooling is ok at the beginning. It's not ok when I'm deciding to put my money on said animal.

I look at dogs to see if they have ANY distinguishably-excellent characteristics, and if so, how many distinguishably-excellent characteristics.

My preference is speed, style, air, intensity, and intelligence. If I can get a fast, slick, longwinded, smart dog ... that puts out that pressure ... and has good air ... then I am going to beat my opponent 9x out of 10, by beating him to the punch, getting what I want, while preventing him from doing what he wants ... and I can outlast him if I have to also.

As far as gameness goes, I am softer on a dog than most, and yet harder on a dog than most :idea:

By that I mean, I stopped seriously game-testing my dogs a long time ago, which means I do NOT beat my dogs down anymore, and call that "a test." To me, a serious game test is stupid, and takes too much out of them. I NEVER make a smaller dog get beat down by a bigger dog. NEVER. However, what I will do is simply watch how a fully-schooled dog performs against another quality dog, for as long as it takes that dog to get pretty tired, especially if he's slightly behind. If I see ANY sign that they're not 100% into what they're doing, I just don't want that dog anymore. I don't need to see it go another 30 min, until it finally does quit; nor beat the dog down till he "can't move"; I just don't want any dog the moment I see something I don't like in the animal.

I have rolled dogs 15 min and not liked the way they fought.
I have rolled (short-winded) dogs for :25-:30 and felt they were extremely game because of how absolutely tired they were ... and yet never once stopped giving it everything they had ... always trying to finish ... even though they were practically suffocating to the heat/exhaustion.
I have rolled truly-talented, pacing dogs for 1:30, off the chain/unworked, and never seen a bad move ... and not really been able to see a whole lot, gameness-wise, because I knew I'd have to watch them for another hour before they became truly exhausted. But I felt they were so good, and so long-winded, that 99% of what's out there would quit to these dogs, because they were so talented/longwinded.

I have no set time for what I do, all I know is I rate ALL a dog's characteristics, and if I see something I don't like, gameness-wise, I don't want the dog anymore.

I will add that I have also rolled young dogs, seen them quit in :05, but KNEW it was because they weren't fully-started ... sat on them ... and have them prove very game later when they were fully mature.

I have also seen young dogs stop ... and never make it, given every reasonable chance.

But I WILL give young dogs the benefit of the doubt ...

However, once they're fully-mature (3+), and once I see they're truly, fully-on, then they need to have 100% commitment in their eyes and never make a bad move again.




And the dogs that aren't competitive? Well, they get the gameness treatment, and that's where whatever adjective you want to insert cones into play.

Dogs that aren't competitive, athletically, need to have extreme gameness. Most people agree on that.

If they also have extreme air + rugged durability, then they can actually defeat so-called "high ability" match dogs, in the end.

Again, for ANY dog to be truly useful, it has to have SOME kind of excellence ... and the more categories a dog rates "excellent" in, the better.

The less competitive characteristics a dog has, the more useless that animal is (unless it is highly-inbred on a truly great dog, and is able to throw those "skipped" great characteristics in its offspring).

Too many people forget that last part and waste (what could have been) an awesome producer: ability can skip a generation, just like a red nose can.

Jack

[Osagedogman2015]

I would probably say I'm a type of hardcore farmer. I don't ruin young dogs. There's simply no point. That's wasteful in the worst possible way.

I will, and do, look at dogs pretty hard I think, but my hard consists of finding like quality dogs to look at mine with. Seeing a dog of mine whip a lower quality dog in schooling is ok at the beginning. It's not ok when I'm deciding to put my money on said animal.

And the dogs that aren't competitive? Well, they get the gameness treatment, and that's where whatever adjective you want to insert cones into play.

I think what you described yourself as is quite different than what Jack was describing as "Hardcore". Even a type of "Hardcore". At least the way I interpreted it anyway.

What you described sounds like a dogman that knows exactly what he is looking for and someone that has a good grasp on what to expect. There is nothing wrong with testing your dogs the proper way when they are ready and "ripe" and have been given the attention that is needed. At least I don't think there is. That is where experience and wisdom comes in to play.

These dogs didn't evolve from good dogmen pussyfooting around and making excuses for dogs that don't measure up. They were molded in the fire of physical and mental struggle, wrought with pain and adversity, for untold years upon years. It needs to be done intelligently and purposefully though, without the ignorance that Jack was describing as "Hardcore".

[FrostyPaws]

Sure Osage, which is why I stated up front I don't ruin young dogs.

That being said though, I personally don't think a serious game test is stupid. Have I done it with every dog? No, but I've done it with plenty. A serious game test is tantamount to a serious match. That's how I look at it.

I never make dogs push weight in any kind of gameness check, but I do believe, and always have, that gameness should be the backbone of a program.

[Osagedogman2015]

Sure Osage, which is why I stated up front I don't ruin young dogs.

That being said though, I personally don't think a serious game test is stupid. Have I done it with every dog? No, but I've done it with plenty. A serious game test is tantamount to a serious match. That's how I look at it.

I never make dogs push weight in any kind of gameness check, but I do believe, and always have, that gameness should be the backbone of a program.

I can agree with all of that. Each and every dogman have their own threshold that they cross when it comes to testing their dogs. It can vary in many ways and we don't have to agree on how to do it either. I tend to fall somewhere in the middle between you and Jack when checking one out. It's never cut and dry.

I've been around some that like to test their dogs when they are out of shape and overweight. I've seen some that like to test their dogs when it is super hot. Some put them both together (overweight and hot) at the same time. I disagree with all of that and would never do it that way. It is my opinion that it is the lazy way and doesn't really give a good insight to true gameness and many times falls into the "Hardcore" mentallity. I like to see them make their decision for other reasons.

I've been around people that really never found what they were looking for too. They go through dog after dog and never seem to ever have anything to show for it.

[Officially Retired]

This is a great topic. One of "those" topics for me concerning the dogs. My first experiences in the dogs was with a guy who basically only matched dogs. He maybe bred three times in 10 or so years. He kept 10-12 dogs and at least 8 or so would be open to the world and the other 4 or so would be ones that look like they might earn a chain spot.

Nothing wrong with that.




He fell into the hard core farmer category and in turn I did so too. It was never about preserving or perpetuating, or even checking or testing, it was all about winning. He had a couple of quotes similar to the Tudor quote above. "I'm not sure if my dog is game but on Saturday night you better be sure your is". Actually a ton of those lines. " I can't tell you what he will do next time only what he did do last time".

Nothing wrong with that either.




He culled hard. Harder than most and a lot of those dogs could have maybe went on to produce. Removing a cur was never considered culling, it was just understood. His "culled hard" because a lot of game dogs didn't have the tools to win, and that is a hard decision to make. Thus he 'culled hard'. Most of his dogs came from the same breeder. I 'learned' from him early on it was easier to buy a young dog than to deal with the whole puppy picture. I have had a number of dogs I should have bred, or bred more. Like most men, in every facet of life, he has a disease called " wishedihadof ". "I wished I had of" did this and that. His was to breed more of the dogs that performed. Me too.

I totally understand getting rid of a cur (a short-winded idiot who can't win, whatever).

I believe a person can be as severe as they want, standards-wise, I just don't see the justification for killing perfectly healthy, happy dogs.

Never have, never will.

It has always been a form evil to me.

I totally "get" the desire to fight. I totally "get" the desire to watch a fight.

If I raised my son to be a fighter, and he didn't cut it, I can see being disappointed ... but I can't see killing him.

I can see killing a dog that tries to attack me ... for real ... but I can't see killing a dog that is my friend, happy and playful, just because he doesn't suit me.

I can see clearing out his chain spot, and making room for a better animal, but I have always been the type to try to place the dog in a good home.

However, if a dog is dangerous (most of mine make great pets), then I'd kill it if it didn't work out.




As far as care, his was impeccable. His dogs were in perfect health, clean living quarters, the whole nine. He nurtured young dogs, and each had his own time to turn on. Once he felt they were on, they faced the trials and tribulations of being a game dog on the yard of a dog man who matched dogs. There were a lot of game dogs that did not have the tools to win and they did not maintain a chain spot. Some went back to the breeder as a brood dog, some simply did not maintain a chain spot. On more than one occasion I have seen him give a winning dog back because the next dog coming at that weight was better. The breeder was the only one who could get him/her back. If the breeder could not make room or have space or have time the dog simply lost his chain spot. He sold two dogs in a 10-15 year span.

Then IMO, he was not a "hardcore farmer," because he provided excellent care and allowed them to mature.

What I would say is he only wanted the very best dogs to put his money on, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Again, there is nothing wrong with being selective with chain spots. There is nothing wrong with wanting the best.

But I believe the owner (as with the farmer) has to do his best first before he can expect the best back.

A true "hardcore farmer" doesn't bother doing his best at anything. He does everything wrong, and violates basic principles, in the insane belief that "only the strong survive" a total LACK of care. And here is the parallel:

The best farmers are NOT the ones who get rid of, kill, waste, or destroy the most crops ... nope.

Invariably, the best farmers are the ones who understand farming principles the most, work the hardest to ensure all of the favorable conditions to the crop's growth have been met, that the parasites have been managed well, and that they have done their job on every level first, and that (finally) they have allowed for enough time for the crops to ripen "before" trying to harvest :idea:

And so it is with these dogs ...




For him, it was never about the money. It was never about the preserving or perpetuating a family of game dogs. It was never about "gameness". It was only, and I mean only about winning. Since I was new, I learned what he taught and I just assumed it was like that everywhere. In time I figured some things out and changed direction, slightly, but changed direction nonetheless.

It truly is all about winning, whether you're a competitor or a serious breeder.

I may not have matched a dog in 20 years, but the entire thrust of my breeding program is to isolate, harness, and perpetuate winning traits in my dogs, so that they can win or produce winners wherever they get off the plane ... which they have done, BTW ;)




Looking back I missed out on a ton of opportunity, and my mentor even more. But as I have said before, it takes all kinds to make the dog game go around. In a lot of respects he was the hardcore farmer, and I guess by default I have been as well. It has a lot to do with being mission orientated and maintain the same 'mission statement' throughout.

It sounds like you're a hardcore culler, not a hardcore farmer, so long as you're doing everything you can to ensure a "successful harvest" of dogs.




Great topic. Should be a good thread. EWO

Indeed :mrgreen:

Jack

[Officially Retired]

I think what you described yourself as is quite different than what Jack was describing as "Hardcore". Even a type of "Hardcore". At least the way I interpreted it anyway.

What you described sounds like a dogman that knows exactly what he is looking for and someone that has a good grasp on what to expect. There is nothing wrong with testing your dogs the proper way when they are ready and "ripe" and have been given the attention that is needed. At least I don't think there is. That is where experience and wisdom comes in to play.

These dogs didn't evolve from good dogmen pussyfooting around and making excuses for dogs that don't measure up. They were molded in the fire of physical and mental struggle, wrought with pain and adversity, for untold years upon years. It needs to be done intelligently and purposefully though, without the ignorance that Jack was describing as "Hardcore".

Bullseye, my friend 8)

[Officially Retired]

Sure Osage, which is why I stated up front I don't ruin young dogs.

I don't think young dogs should be judged yet, either.

Only schooled and developed.




That being said though, I personally don't think a serious game test is stupid.

I guess we would have to come to terms with what "a serious gametest" means, exactly.




Have I done it with every dog? No, but I've done it with plenty.

I will never purposely game test any dog with extreme talent.

If a dog its own size can't "test him," then that is all he needs to prove: that he is a badass dog capable of beating the piss out of any dog its weight.




A serious game test is tantamount to a serious match. That's how I look at it.

In this, we agree.

I have "rolled out" uncountable dogs, which is tantamount to an unconditioned match.

Dogs like Sun Demon (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_dogs_profile.php?dog_id=1970) were rolled-out 3x, always being on bottom, always getting the worst of it, and always coming back to stop the dog in the end. I didn't roll Sun Demon much, because of his low ability, and he always had to give up so much blood to finally "win" ...

On the other hand, nothing Silverback (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_dogs_profile.php?dog_id=152)'s weight could stay with him: not Jeep/Redboy dogs, not Eli/Redboy dogs, not heavy Boomerang dogs, not the Old Man's Robert T-bred dogs, and not my own dogs his weight. He fucking decimated them all. He had faults, but his strength (literally), speed, and his innate knowledge of how to finish, simply were too much for the dogs he faced, 9x in a row. I rolled him so much because it was always over with so fast.





I never make dogs push weight in any kind of gameness check,

I had to make Silverback push weight to game-check him, 4-lb to be exact, and only then was his shortwindedness exploited by the TANK of a dog in Sun Demon. Still, Silverback never went down in ANY roll he ever had, and was driving Sun Demon all over the pit. Sun Demon had a telephone pole for a neck, and I knew The Gorilla wouldn't be able to finish him, and so I got to see him tired (it was a very hot day and The Gorilla fought at 100 mph), and he was heat-stroke-tired by only :29. That was the longest he ever went, but his drive and total intent NOT to be dominated and to TRY to kill Sun Demon were unmistakable.

If they were the same weight, it would have been a :05 fight (like 4 of Silverback's were, including 2 into the Old Man's stock, where they were down and dying in short order, one with Silverback pushing 2 lb). That wasn't going to happen with Sun Demon.

Anyway, I can't say Silverback is "dead game" over that, but I think he would push it as hard as he could ... and NO DOG HAS LOST off of any Silverback dog that's been matched, one winning in 2:38.

My point is, I won't make any bum push weight (they're already bums and so can't whip something their own size).

But if you have a truly talented dog, then you need to push some weight to even things out a bit to see some bottom.

I would never make it so the smaller dog could be truly hurt, but only to even the odds.




but I do believe, and always have, that gameness should be the backbone of a program.

It has always been the backbone of mine, and they win long-distance wars of attrition FAR more than they lose them.

Jack

[Officially Retired]

I can agree with all of that. Each and every dogman have their own threshold that they cross when it comes to testing their dogs. It can vary in many ways and we don't have to agree on how to do it either. I tend to fall somewhere in the middle between you and Jack when checking one out. It's never cut and dry.

Winning a lot more than you lose is the "proof" of method.

Those who aren't doing this, need to re-evaluate.




I've been around some that like to test their dogs when they are out of shape and overweight. I've seen some that like to test their dogs when it is super hot. Some put them both together (overweight and hot) at the same time. I disagree with all of that and would never do it that way. It is my opinion that it is the lazy way and doesn't really give a good insight to true gameness and many times falls into the "Hardcore" mentallity. I like to see them make their decision for other reasons.

Rolling dogs in the heat is a good way to check gameness, IMO, so long as it's not dangerously-hot.

They get tired faster, and thereby take less damage.

You get to see their willpower under stress a lot quicker ... but you have to have the sense to pick up before they're gasping for breath.




I've been around people that really never found what they were looking for too. They go through dog after dog and never seem to ever have anything to show for it.

And those are invariably "the hardcore farmers" ...

Jack

[EWO]

Enjoying the topic. If we had a young dog that was outclassing his pals at his weight he may not get the 'proverbial' check. If I felt really good about the dogs he was whipping and he was handling his business I felt like he could do it elsewhere. So when those dogs came around we let the first one be the game check, making it count. I have always been a gas tank guy, and I just feel like that hard game test may take a match away from him.

http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_dogs_profile.php?dog_id=42272

This dog won his first at nearly 3. He was nearly murdered in a chain accident. He made one of the gamest scratches I have ever seen, basically stupid game. I sat on him for nearly two years until I started schooling, fully expecting the chain accident was going to be his demise. At his next opportunity he was a little slow to get going but after 10 minutes of soul searching he showed all the tools, and showed extreme finish. Rolled him again and he went across like a rocket, ruined a pretty good dog and seemed piss they picked up. Next roll he punished a dog who went on to win a pound heavier. After the chain accident, after maybe 30-40 minutes of box time I rolled the dice. First show he finished a really good dog and second show the same. I can't say he was purposely checked but I did not see the need. EWO

[EWO]

I need to make a pedigree for US1's Abu 1XW. He was a GrCh virgil/GrCh Mayday bred male. In a roll at 18 months his owner did not like him. I thought he showed promise. I swapped out a puppy for him. We sat on him for a few months then rolled him. He was no world beater but looked better than the last time. We schooled him a couple-three more times. He got better and better. I had no experience with either of the lines much less the cross. I liked what I had seen but wanted a little more of the warm fuzzies about his gameness. For his 'game check' I ran the shit out of him on a carpet mill, got him really tired and worn down and then put him in the box. I felt like he showed gameness as far as being tired and being enthusiastic about performing and after a couple long counts he went across with ill intent. Without taking a long drawn out beating. Again, I rolled the dice.

He made all his scratches. He was a game dog. Won in 1:55. EWO

[brokeback]

Spending some time reading some of these older posts, some older than others. There are some good info and perspectives throughout.

EWO- I really enjoy reading your stories. Thanks for sharing.

[flashsbulldogs]

Jack I must say I have always admired how well written and intelligent you come off by reading your posts on the internet over the years, did you go to school for writing? just curious good post by the way thanks.

[Frank43]

Bump