The Undesirables

[S_B]

Recently I was engaged in a conversation over a dog whom the other party emphatically claimed was a cur due to a couple undesirable moves in the show. In this particular instance the dog in question dominated most of the show with some brief swapping out sessions. The dog did growl a few times and at one point while being top dog, with the bottom layed out with a tight grip on a foot which had the top dog protesting a bit, the top dog while out of holds takes a look around and up at his handler. Then goes back to work eventually freeing the foot which had him frustrated.

Out of holds bottom dog scratches a hard stumbling scratch, then next handle top dogs goes fast then bottom dog picked up after second hard stumbling scratch. Is the top dog a cur because of the undesirable moves? This is not about gameness, but rather determining whether or not based on the information given if the top dog can be deemed a cur.

S_B

[EGK]

Not a cur until proven but more motivation to run him again to find out. Plenty just get away. It is questionable the moves he made.

[FrostyPaws]

I wouldn't consider that dog a cur, though I would consider those moves questionable. That being said, lots of dogs do questionable shit at times. Dogs, at times, look around. Some dogs walk off down dogs, etc. While the moves are questionable, and I personally WOULD question the dog's gameness, I wouldn't call it a cur with any actual belief. I've seen way too many dogs do questionable things throughout their career to just label a dog a cur, with some conviction, just because it does what you describe.

I can't say, for sure, if I'd show the dog again. I've had some instances where I did, and there were others where I didn't.

[ChinCheckKennels]

If i wasnt familiar with the hound or characteristics that particular line may be known for Id have to take all the conditions in to account. Personally a foot hold causing a hound to make a noise wouldnt bother me. Not working down hog wouldnt bother me. Taking pictures raises questions...but again it depends on what is going on. Not crossing the line or jumping out of race is the only thing that matters to me personally. If you know your particular hound or line of hounds then you should know whether or not to race again breed it or cull it. Not every hound is a killer and not every hound will always come. There is sooooo much inbetween that i believe it all falls in the eyes of the handler or owner. But if you arent gonna breed it or race why keep it around?

[S_B]

Great answers and perspective from all three of you all. I wouldn't call that dog a cur at simply for the fact he did not quit. Yes the moves were undesirable to me because I personally don't deal with that in my line, but like ChinCheck said if it were something I was accustomed to I wouldn't worry about it nor would I let anyone else fixated on it bother me.

I appreciate the discussion,
S_B

[loot]

I wouldn't call the dog a cur. It could be that thedog was not schooled properly. I've seen a few dogs get hit in spots where they look around like they don't know what to do. If the dog doesn't quit in my eyes it's not a cur.

[Officially Retired]

First of all, I don't subscribe to the "game or cur" theory, as if all dogs are either dead game or blatant curs.

I believe, in our time, it should be SO OBVIOUS that gameness comes in degrees ... that the either/or discussion shouldn't happen in intelligent circles anymore.

The simple fact is, the degree of gameness any dog has varies with AGE, HEALTH, EXPERIENCE, and QUALITY (style) OF OPPONENT, etc.

One dog may die dead game (if he's healthy and can get his mouth on his opponent) ... but that same dog may quit 3 months later, if he's got a low blood count and is running hot as hell against an ace ear dog.

Another dog may quit while young and inexperienced, and yet (after maturing-out and gaining experience) he may go to the bitter end against a world-beating Grand Champion.

All this shit happens all the time.

With that said, I would eliminate the primitive, outdated (and utterly ignorant) "game or cur" mindset from my head entirely.

With the chatter of this lunacy out of my head, I would rub my chin and realize that the degree of gameness any dog has can vary, with varying circumstances ... and it is those circumstances which I would acutely analyze.

Now, of course, some dogs really are on the low-end of the gameness scale, while other dogs are on the high-end of the gameness scale.
(Naturally, we want our dogs to give us the impression they are of the latter variety.)

If I believed this dog had the TALENT of high-end dogs, and the apparent GAMENESS of high-end dogs, I would then study the FACTORS that contribute / detract from the extreme degrees of possible gameness ... (age/experience/bizarre style of opponent) FIRST.

But the whole "game or cur" mentality makes me roll my eyes, quite frankly.

I would just try to manage all of the intangibles, over which I have control, in the dog's favor (health, condition, experience, etc.).

If, after I have stacked the intangibles in his favor, that dog still gives me a feeling of uncertainty, then either I am not confident in my own opinion, or I need to get a dog that never makes me feel "uncertain" as a mature, healthy, fully-schooled animal.

If, however, I realize that the dog was not in the best of health, had zero experience, didn't know where he was (was spooky, etc.), then I realize that I am not evaluating fairly.

Now then, while I do not subscribe to the "game or cur" mentality, I **do** subscribe to the theory that the GAMEST dogs you can find, when mature/experienced, socialized, and healthy, SHOULD make you feel GOOD AND CONFIDENT to watch them :idea:

In other words, I will give any dog a break, due to an age/experience/health issue (etc.) ... but if everything has been managed well for him/her ... then I want to feel in my bones that this dog is a BULLDOG (meaning, on the extreme high-end of the gameness continuum) ... and anything less will not suit me.

Jack

[Nut]

Iv seen more dogs like that showing "cur signs" but performing deep game scratches.




offtopic, but hardly no one ever questions the gameness of champions who were so slick, rough, lucky or for whatever reason never been put to the test themselves. So many are curs too, just because they never had it bad they r "legends". Funny thought.

Love what Joe Rogan had to say with regard to Thomas Almeida this weekend.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30sUx0HWQkM

[FrostyPaws]

I generally question the gameness of any dog that is super slick, lucky, rough, whatever. I questioned my own until I found what I was looking for one way or another. That's ok. You find it in varying ways I've found, but I've always found what I was looking for in the end.

That being said, I also tend to regard all dogs as curs, whatever, until proven otherwise to my satisfaction.

[S_B]

Jack I completely agree with the whole of what you are saying. I absolutely do not think this dog was a cur at all. He was conditioned perfectly in my opinion, he was healthy, he was calm cool and collected, not shy. The only thing negative I have to say about him is he was not schooled properly. At least that is why I contribute the couple goofy moves he made which did not hinder him in any way shape or form because he was mostly ahead and staying busy. He had the tools he needed and used them well. I thoroughly appreciate your contribution to this conversation.

S_B

[loot]

Glad to hear you agree with what I said to a point S_B

[S_B]

I generally question the gameness of any dog that is super slick, lucky, rough, whatever. I questioned my own until I found what I was looking for one way or another. That's ok. You find it in varying ways I've found, but I've always found what I was looking for in the end.

That being said, I also tend to regard all dogs as curs, whatever, until proven otherwise to my satisfaction.

I'm not into questioning myself or my dogs in this way any longer. I'm where you are in your second sentence. If you are familiar with your stock to me it's a constant repeat of what you've already seen. At least the way I've chosen to make my breeding decisions has laid a path of consistency. It really is like revisiting past dogs over and over, although there are those few that make you scratch your head, good or bad.


I've never been one to really brag on any dog I have or had, I think you know that Frosty. I'm super humble in that way, I tend to be hard on them in my opinions, especially if I ever label one as good. But I won't look at them personally as curs to prove me otherwise. That mentality will leave me falling short of many goals I'm afraid, especially because mentally I'm already in a battle with myself. If that makes sense.

S_B

[S_B]

Glad to hear you agree with what I said to a point S_B

Yes sir good post.

S_B

[Officially Retired]

That being said, I also tend to regard all dogs as curs, whatever, until proven otherwise to my satisfaction.

If we insist on using the non-thinking word "cur," and define it as "any dog that will quit," then all dogs are curs.

With the right helpings of poor health, human stupidity, odds stacked against it, etc. every dog will quit.

If we want to be the eternal skeptic, and question everything, then even dogs that have "never" quit and have shown extreme gameness under ONE set of circumstances, only didn't because they weren't exposed to the right circumstances.

Gameness is like ability ... it comes in varying degrees.

We want extremes in both; but no dog is perfect/flawless/infallible, etc.

Some dogs are blatantly flawed; some are above average; some are spectacular.

Still (and again) with the right helpings of poor health, human stupidity, odds stacked against it, etc. every dog can be induced to quit.

Jack

[EGK]

I don't see gameness in degrees. I do see everything listed as mismanagement or reasons one may quit. Still it takes away from a game dog to put it as degrees because of a situation or mismanagement. We do expect a lot of the dogs and experience shows us many mistakes but the classification is based on outcome. The choices, excuse, and opinion of what may have went wrong or caused a dog to quit is more subjective or plain we as humans blew it. In that case you have a choice to move forward with that individual in your program or not. We can't redefine gameness though our standards and decisions as humans will always vary IMO.

[S_B]

EGK,

I mean no disrespect in using this example, but I believe it to be a good one to insert here. We both know of a little black dog who went quite a distance before standing the line. He was in excellent shape and in good hands in my opinion. He protested quite a bit but did not come out of a hold for over 2 hours. He was on the defensive side of things nearly the entire time.

Do you think that dog displayed a varying degree of gameness? I do! I believe he was in there more for his handler than his heart but some dogs will do more for their handler because of their bond.

S_B

[No Quarter Kennel]

This dog is not a cur.
This dog was game enough to win.

[EGK]

S_B no disrespect taken and you actually have me thinking how to explain this lol, great example. I believe that little black dog had his fill that day. No matter how long he went he also left some things to be desired. I wouldn't say POS cur because he was shock blind at the point of truth telling. I just acknowledged he was stopped and was a good little game dog though not a proven game loss and I do believe the bond kept him going a good deal. He took more than most and I see his case as the difference between cur and stopped. He couldn't see the hand being waved a few inches in front his face, started out the corner off a clap stumbling to a neutral corner. You see what I'm saying it's more a reason and situation. It's not so much anybody would question the heart shown. I get the degrees deal completely but I don't think exceptions and reasons or situations dont need a label as its described. Minus the reasons and situations some just can take more than others. In most it'll create a stigma to question objective and have them looking for the reason each one quit.

[FrostyPaws]

If we insist on using the non-thinking word "cur," and define it as "any dog that will quit," then all dogs are curs.

Cur is just a word used to describe something. Dogs that quit in an hour are curs. Dogs that quit in 3 hours are curs. A dog in shock most of the time can't go when it gets so far, so I don't lump them into the discussion. Before I label a dog a cur, I would like to see what exactly happened. Did the dog just quit or was it stopped? Lord knows most folks simply can't tell the difference. So no, I don't think it's a non-thinking word. I think if I label a dog as such, I've given it a lot of thought as to what happened.




With the right helpings of poor health, human stupidity, odds stacked against it, etc. every dog will quit.

Don't believe that as I've seen those right helpings and the dog paid for it with it's life.



If we want to be the eternal skeptic, and question everything, then even dogs that have "never" quit and have shown extreme gameness under ONE set of circumstances, only didn't because they weren't exposed to the right circumstances.

Question everything? I can see a dog's ability, talent, it's strength, etc. There is nothing eternally skeptical in those thoughts. You may be right, AND you may be wrong about dogs that have never quit. At that point, it's simply supposition on our part as people. And that supposition holds a lot more weight coming from some people as opposed to others, and I'm ok with that.


Gameness is like ability ... it comes in varying degrees.

Gameness is not like ability IMO. I believe dogs are either game or they're not. Now, that doesn't take away from a dog that loses in 3 hours, gets drilled the entire time and stops. There is no shame in breeding to a dog such as that, but that being said, he wasn't a game dog. Maybe he was in the 2 or 3% of dogs on the planet at any given time that will take that much, but he still wasn't a proven game dog. Top shelf cur maybe?


We want extremes in both; but no dog is perfect/flawless/infallible, etc.

I don't want extremes in both; I only want extremes in one.

[FrostyPaws]

I'm not into questioning myself or my dogs in this way any longer. I'm where you are in your second sentence. If you are familiar with your stock to me it's a constant repeat of what you've already seen. At least the way I've chosen to make my breeding decisions has laid a path of consistency. It really is like revisiting past dogs over and over, although there are those few that make you scratch your head, good or bad.


I've never been one to really brag on any dog I have or had, I think you know that Frosty. I'm super humble in that way, I tend to be hard on them in my opinions, especially if I ever label one as good. But I won't look at them personally as curs to prove me otherwise. That mentality will leave me falling short of many goals I'm afraid, especially because mentally I'm already in a battle with myself. If that makes sense.

S_B

I won't actively search out those type of things anymore, but there was a time when I did, and I'm ok with that. Experience has taught me a great many things in regards to dogs. That usually means it will come out in the wash sooner or later, and it usually does. The only goal I ever seriously had was to make sure the dogs I bred represented my ideals of what game dogs should be. Anything more than that was just icing on the proverbial cake.

[FrostyPaws]

S_B no disrespect taken and you actually have me thinking how to explain this lol, great example. I believe that little black dog had his fill that day. No matter how long he went he also left some things to be desired. I wouldn't say POS cur because he was shock blind at the point of truth telling. I just acknowledged he was stopped and was a good little game dog though not a proven game loss and I do believe the bond kept him going a good deal. He took more than most and I see his case as the difference between cur and stopped. He couldn't see the hand being waved a few inches in front his face, started out the corner off a clap stumbling to a neutral corner. You see what I'm saying it's more a reason and situation. It's not so much anybody would question the heart shown. I get the degrees deal completely but I don't think exceptions and reasons or situations need a label as its described. Minus the reasons and situations some just can take more than others. In most it'll create a stigma to question objective and have them looking for the reason each one quit.


I don't mean any disrespect toward the dog either. Yes, the little black dog had his fill that day, but that was more due to his style than anything else. With a different style, that dog would've went home a winner and be alive. What kept him going, IMO, was his ability to negate any serious damage after about the first hour. We all saw what dog was in better shape that day, and I think that's where the style comes into play. A little different style, and the black dog comes to the top and it's for his taking. Instead, he did what he'd done the entire time, and that was just hold without advancing into any type of serious offense. I personally don't think he took more than most. He succumbed to a battle of attrition, not outright brutality coupled with everything else that goes along with that. Either way, I was extremely proud of the black dog and his owner. I just wish the dog would've been a little more. His owner had done his job as he needed to do.

[EGK]

I can agree with that and those things mentioned were what was to be desired. Salute

[S_B]

I don't mean any disrespect toward the dog either. Yes, the little black dog had his fill that day, but that was more due to his style than anything else. With a different style, that dog would've went home a winner and be alive. What kept him going, IMO, was his ability to negate any serious damage after about the first hour. We all saw what dog was in better shape that day, and I think that's where the style comes into play. A little different style, and the black dog comes to the top and it's for his taking. Instead, he did what he'd done the entire time, and that was just hold without advancing into any type of serious offense. I personally don't think he took more than most. He succumbed to a battle of attrition, not outright brutality coupled with everything else that goes along with that. Either way, I was extremely proud of the black dog and his owner. I just wish the dog would've been a little more. His owner had done his job as he needed to do.


Fuck yes!!!! I agree with you wholeheartedly on this, he did not want the fight so he was smart enough to hold out his opponent for 2:17, that's nothing to scoff at. But a truly game dog he was not, he could have gone, he simply had enough of playing keep away. I don't think he was in shock nor blind, he was just flat our worn out and done. But a pretty damn smart fella he was to avoid what he did, no shame in that.

S_B

[S_B]

I won't actively search out those type of things anymore, but there was a time when I did, and I'm ok with that. Experience has taught me a great many things in regards to dogs. That usually means it will come out in the wash sooner or later, and it usually does. The only goal I ever seriously had was to make sure the dogs I bred represented my ideals of what game dogs should be. Anything more than that was just icing on the proverbial cake.

Absolutely my friend!

S_B

[EGK]

Fuck yes!!!! I agree with you wholeheartedly on this, he did not want the fight so he was smart enough to hold out his opponent for 2:17, that's nothing to scoff at. But a truly game dog he was not, he could have gone, he simply had enough of playing keep away. I don't think he was in shock nor blind, he was just flat our worn out and done. But a pretty damn smart fella he was to avoid what he did, no shame in that.

S_B

See in either manner or opinion it's not a degree of gameness to it. He simply checked out and left more to be desired. That's not something I'd want to have at question in my program or feel really needs a label of concern. It's just one you move forward from and say good show. Not game is simply not game. If his owner had blown the keep its simply a blown keep and a decision to make is more my view of it in line with the topic. I wouldn't put a degree of gameness on it though. It is just and opinion at the end of the day and with different experience and the amount that opinion may vary in my humble opinion.

[Officially Retired]

I don't see gameness in degrees.

You simply lack vision then, or comprehension.

If you have ever said, "Dog A is gamer than Dog B," then by default you DO believe in degrees of gameness.

You may not "see" (or comprehend) that this is what you believe, but the fact remains that is essentially what you're saying.




I do see everything listed as mismanagement or reasons one may quit. Still it takes away from a game dog to put it as degrees because of a situation or mismanagement. We do expect a lot of the dogs and experience shows us many mistakes but the classification is based on outcome. The choices, excuse, and opinion of what may have went wrong or caused a dog to quit is more subjective or plain we as humans blew it. In that case you have a choice to move forward with that individual in your program or not. We can't redefine gameness though our standards and decisions as humans will always vary IMO.

If a dog simply **IS** game, if this fact is an unchangeable truth about the dog, then there is nothing that will change this fact.

However, if gameness comes in degrees, and can vary, ONLY THEN can "mismanagement" (age/health/condition, etc.) affect the dog's will to win.

For example, it is an unchangeable truth that an animal is either A DOG (or it's not).

No amount of "management/mismanagement" is going to affect the FACT that a particular animal is either Canis familiaris or it's not.

The trait of gameness is nothing like this.

As I clearly stated (but which you still lack the comprehension to grasp), gameness DOES come in degrees, and it CAN vary across individuals, as well as within a given individual, which is WHY management/owner competence matter.

Same thing as strength/mouth, etc. come in degrees.

Yes, certain dogs are going to simply have MORE mouth/strength than other dogs, but (depending on the circumstances) these traits can likewise be enhanced, or diminished, based on owner competence.

Similarly, some dogs are simply going to be GAMER than other dogs, and this desire to win can also be enhanced (or detracted) by health/condition also, within whatever genetic aptitudes the individual has.

If you "don't see" gameness in degrees, this is a statement about either your vision or comprehension, not with the pretty obvious fact that this trait (like every other sliding-scale trait) varies.

Jack

[S_B]

See in either manner or opinion it's not a degree of gameness to it. He simply checked out and left more to be desired. That's not something I'd want to have at question in my program or feel really needs a label of concern. It's just one you move forward from and say good show. Not game is simply not game. If his owner had blown the keep its simply a blown keep and a decision to make is more my view of it in line with the topic. I wouldn't put a degree of gameness on it though. It is just and opinion at the end of the day and with different experience and the amount that opinion may vary in my humble opinion.

EGK,

That dog was a pretty "pit" game dog, game enough to hang in there longer than a lot would and take what he did. This is what makes these dogs special...the different perspectives. Would I call him a game dog, no, but he sure as hell wasn't a rank cur.

S_B

[Officially Retired]

Cur is just a word used to describe something.

Yes, used to describe "a dog that will quit."




Dogs that quit in an hour are curs. Dogs that quit in 3 hours are curs.

That would be an illustration, yes again.

But what you don't seem to realize (and haven't ever seemed to realize, in the 20-something years we've debated this topic online, lol) is that this is also an illustration of degrees of gameness :idea: :-?




A dog in shock most of the time can't go when it gets so far, so I don't lump them into the discussion. Before I label a dog a cur, I would like to see what exactly happened. Did the dog just quit or was it stopped? Lord knows most folks simply can't tell the difference.

We agree here, and these are ponderings we all have, the more intelligent of us anyway.




So no, I don't think it's a non-thinking word.

Saying the word "cur" can very well be a non-thinking statement.

To lump a 3-hour dog (that finally hung it up after losing half its blood supply and scratching on 2 broken legs) in the same "cur bag" with a dog that sailed over the wall after getting its toe pinched harder than expected, IS a non-thinking, idiot thing to do. It most definitely is.

Which is precisely WHY it is more intelligent to speak in (and have a concept of) DEGREES of gameness.

The term "pit game" is an understanding of a certain degree of gameness (enough to win, if ahead), but it doesn't command the same respect as deep game dog (who will continue to try, even if never ahead).

To fail to recognize the difference is yet another form of Proof of Stupidity (imo).




I think if I label a dog as such, I've given it a lot of thought as to what happened.

That is your opinion of yourself. Others may not share your opinion.

Unchanging facts are inarguable, while the presence (or abscence) traits is arguable, ad nauseum.

For example, you will never get a serious argument that your Frosty was "a dog," but you can get arguments, forever, as to his "ability" or "gameness" ...

That is the difference between an unchanging, inexorable truth (that he's a dog) versus a forever-changing, inexact characteristic (that he is "good" or "game").





Don't believe that as I've seen those right helpings and the dog paid for it with it's life.

Clearly they weren't "the right helpings," then, were they?

Or the right opponent, etc.




Question everything? I can see a dog's ability, talent, it's strength, etc. There is nothing eternally skeptical in those thoughts.

You can give your opinions on these things, nothing more.

But history is FILLED with dogs that some of the greatest dogmen EVER said, "He can not be beat," or, "He would never quit," etc., etc. ... which dogs went right out to lose/quit the next time.

WHY???

Precisely because, as I said, talent and gameness CAN VARY, both across individuals, as well as within individuals.

As Heraclitus said, "It is impossible to step twice into the same river," which is possibly the single greatest quote to reflect the CHANGEABILITY of life itself.

I am not the same man I was 25 years ago. I have lost certain physical blessings, I have gained some perspective, etc.

But I am still a human being.
My TRAITS have changed; the inexorable truth about my species has not. :idea:
Gameness is simply not an inexorable truth--it is only A TRAIT that comes in degrees and can vary based on circumstance :idea:

The dog that belly-crawled to a killing last year ... may hang it up to an ace ear dog this year ... because his TRAITS can change ... yet the fact he is still A DOG will not.

This is WHY we question traits, like gameness and ability, while no one EVER asks themselves, "Is rover going to be 'a dog' tomorrow?"

We know he is going to be A DOG tomorrow ... but we don't know if he is going to be a BULLdog tomorrow ;) :idea:




Gameness is not like ability IMO. I believe dogs are either game or they're not.

Again, you are simply wrong.

There is no way that you will find an argument that Frosty was "a dog" ... but people could debate you as to whether he was a dead game dog or not.

And just because he belly-crawled today, against "that" opponent ... doesn't mean he'd crawl tomorrow, against "this other" opponent.

Frosty's traits can vary; his abilities can be enhanced (or diminished); yet he remains A DOG, regardless.




Now, that doesn't take away from a dog that loses in 3 hours, gets drilled the entire time and stops. There is no shame in breeding to a dog such as that, but that being said, he wasn't a game dog. Maybe he was in the 2 or 3% of dogs on the planet at any given time that will take that much, but he still wasn't a proven game dog. Top shelf cur maybe?

Once again, you misuse (and misunderstand) the word, "game."

Consider the word "strength" for comparison.

We don't say dogs are "strong" or "weak" ... AS IF a dog is either 100% strong or 100% weak.
Anyone who would think like this is a hopeless idiot.
Most people realize that a dog's strength comes IN DEGREES ... they have genetic aptitudes/weaknesses ... and everyone on earth realizes that these aptitudes can be enhanced or diminished (to within whatever genetic limitations the animal has). The strongest dog in the world, on his worst day, will still be a better animal than the weakest dog in the world on his best day.

For clarity, we can all easily see that a dog who can pull 500 lb is "stronger" than a dog that can only pull 45 lb.

Yet for some reason, hundreds (thousands?) of dogmen-morons cannot accept this same blatant truth about gameness.

While we can easily see that a dog which can pull 500 lb is strongER than a dog that can only pull 100 lb ... some people really can't seem to say that a dog that belly crawls after 3 hrs of abuse is gamER than a dog that sailed over the wall after getting its lip cut.

There is no other way to categorize this kind of blindness other than OBTUSE STUPIDITY (lack of comprehension, whatever).

There are simply DEGREES of gameness, same as there are degrees of strength.

And, just because a dog achieved its highest mark of strength "yesterday," doesn't mean he can do it again "today" ...
He may always have the strength to achieve a "high mark" ... but he canNOT always achieve his BEST mark, every day.

That is why gameness is nebulous.
A dog with a truly high degree of gameness may ALWAYS give an impressive showing, compared to a German shepherd, but that does not mean the dog is 100% dead game, every day of his life, regardless of age, health, etc.

It is just ridiculous to think so.




I don't want extremes in both; I only want extremes in one.

You get what you breed for. The funny thing is, in saying you breed for "extremes" in gameness, you're admitting there are degrees of gameness, by default ;)

I have always bred for extreme levels of gameness, speed, intelligence, and stamina ... and I have repeatedly and consistently gotten these things.

I have never bred for mouth, so this trait has been more of a hit-and-miss with me, but I can reliably and consistently get dogs that can go 1-3 hours and win.

Whether they will "take their death" (on every day they breathe the air) is irrelevant.

What they will do is be gamer than MOST, when the money's on the line.

Many have taken their death, a few have not, but this is irrelevant to MY objective that they have the right combination of gameness/traits to win 9x out of 10, wherever they get off the plane, regardless of what they face.

Jack

[bamaman]

Perhaps the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder ?

[EGK]

You simply lack vision then, or comprehension.

If you have ever said, "Dog A is gamer than Dog B," then by default you DO believe in degrees of gameness.

You may not "see" (or comprehend) that this is what you believe, but the fact remains that is essentially what you're saying.





If a dog simply **IS** game, if this fact is an unchangeable truth about the dog, then there is nothing that will change this fact.

However, if gameness comes in degrees, and can vary, ONLY THEN can "mismanagement" (age/health/condition, etc.) affect the dog's will to win.

For example, it is an unchangeable truth that an animal is either A DOG (or it's not).

No amount of "management/mismanagement" is going to affect the FACT that a particular animal is either Canis familiaris or it's not.

The trait of gameness is nothing like this.

As I clearly stated (but which you still lack the comprehension to grasp), gameness DOES come in degrees, and it CAN vary across individuals, as well as within a given individual, which is WHY management/owner competence matter.

Same thing as strength/mouth, etc. come in degrees.

Yes, certain dogs are going to simply have MORE mouth/strength than other dogs, but (depending on the circumstances) these traits can likewise be enhanced, or diminished, based on owner competence.

Similarly, some dogs are simply going to be GAMER than other dogs, and this desire to win can also be enhanced (or detracted) by health/condition also, within whatever genetic aptitudes the individual has.

If you "don't see" gameness in degrees, this is a statement about either your vision or comprehension, not with the pretty obvious fact that this trait (like every other sliding-scale trait) varies.

Jack

I get what your saying. I'm just not willing and I do say not willing to put opinion over my objective. That in itself is just a perspective thing. I'd be retarded or half slow not understanding lol.

[Officially Retired]

I get what your saying.

I don't think you do.




I'm just not willing and I do say not willing to put opinion over my objective. That in itself is just a perspective thing.

You speak too simplistically to demonstrate understanding.

The truth is, the display of gameness/curness can be both objective and subjective.

The fact a dog stood is a fact.

WHY he stood can be a matter of opinion.

The fact a dog belly-crawled to a beat-down is NOT an opinion, it's a fact: there he was, he crawled. FACT.

"If" he would have quit :20 later is an opinion.

A person's ability/intelligence to sift fact from opinion is a key aptitude.

The ability to form correct opinions, based on the facts, is another key aptitude.




I'd be retarded or half slow not understanding lol.

:-O

[Officially Retired]

Jack I completely agree with the whole of what you are saying. I absolutely do not think this dog was a cur at all. He was conditioned perfectly in my opinion, he was healthy, he was calm cool and collected, not shy. The only thing negative I have to say about him is he was not schooled properly. At least that is why I contribute the couple goofy moves he made which did not hinder him in any way shape or form because he was mostly ahead and staying busy. He had the tools he needed and used them well. I thoroughly appreciate your contribution to this conversation.
S_B

Again, I don't subscribe to the "game or cur" theory.

I agree and think the dog sounds like a green prospect with some talent.

The foot has a ton of nerve endings on it, and a green tired dog is a green tired dog.

Whether he would take his death, or not, is of no importance.

Whether he has the ability to win, and runs his scratches good, is all that matters.

Hesitating on a scratch bothers me more than a confused, dominant, young dog on top.

Is the dog an ace? Hardly.
IMO, I want to see my dog with DOG in his mouth ... or trying to GET dog in his mouth.
When I see any dog just sitting there, not trying to get dog in his mouth, I am looking at a replaceable animal IMO.

Dogs that lay out of holds, when ahead, or who stay on top (like king of the mountain) are only peripheral-quality dogs to me, regardless of other talents.

It is a form of "lack of focus" to me, which can easily be translated into lack of gameness.

That said, if the dog is young, I wouldn't be judging him yet.

But if it was an experienced dog, I certainly wouldn't build a bloodline on him.

What is the age and # of rolls under its belt?

Jack

[S_B]

I do not know the age or amount of schooling on the dog. I do know he's not too young, he's at least over 2, maybe over 3?

[EGK]

:-bd

[S_B]

Again, I don't subscribe to the "game or cur" theory.

I agree and think the dog sounds like a green prospect with some talent.

I do subscribe to both labels, but I certainly think each have levels to them. I agree he was green.


The foot has a ton of nerve endings on it, and a green tired dog is a green tired dog.

Whether he would take his death, or not, is of no importance.

Yep, seen good dogs get upset with a foot hold! Right, what is important in the aspect we are speaking is can he win? And yes he did.


Whether he has the ability to win, and runs his scratches good, is all that matters.

That's right!

Hesitating on a scratch bothers me more than a confused, dominant, young dog on top.

Is the dog an ace? Hardly.

Agree


IMO, I want to see my dog with DOG in his mouth ... or trying to GET dog in his mouth.
When I see any dog just sitting there, not trying to get dog in his mouth, I am looking at a replaceable animal IMO.

Dogs that lay out of holds, when ahead, or who stay on top (like king of the mountain) are only peripheral-quality dogs to me, regardless of other talents.

I agree, not the case with this particular dog at all. He just had a few very brief moments of collecting his thoughts. At least how I look at it as the rest of the entire time he was busy. You call it "dog in mouth" I call it "busy", same thing. :)


It is a form of "lack of focus" to me, which can easily be translated into lack of gameness.

This is golden...no focus no will. The will to continue is the defining term in a game display.

That said, if the dog is young, I wouldn't be judging him yet.

Agreed


But if it was an experienced dog, I certainly wouldn't build a bloodline on him.
Jack

I don't think the dog was schooled enough, to me the moves looked to be frustration out of never being in a defensive position. He's a pretty good little dog who I bet will look the part next time.

S_B

[Officially Retired]

I don't think the dog was schooled enough, to me the moves looked to be frustration out of never being in a defensive position. He's a pretty good little dog who I bet will look the part next time.
S_B

There is nothing wrong with a pretty good little dog.

I remember Jack Kelley saying he watched Tudor's Ch Spike walk away from downed, beaten opponents ... and lots of observers has lots of "opinions" to give about that ... but, when asked to scratch, Spike would fly across and resume the demolition.

Not every dog needs to be "perfect" in every way (almost zero are, quite frankly).

If he's talented enough to dominate, and as long as he's "flying over there" when separated and given the chance to go back, that is all he has to do.

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

But what you don't seem to realize (and haven't ever seemed to realize, in the 20-something years we've debated this topic online, lol) is that this is also an illustration of degrees of gameness :idea: :-?

I realize all too well that we don't agree on this subject, and that's fine. I don't see a dog that quits in 3 hours after being ahead for 2:55 as having any degree of gameness. Scenarios matter. Blanket statements do not, and I'm guilty of making plenty of blanket statements over the years.


Saying the word "cur" can very well be a non-thinking statement.

To lump a 3-hour dog (that finally hung it up after losing half its blood supply and scratching on 2 broken legs) in the same "cur bag" with a dog that sailed over the wall after getting its toe pinched harder than expected, IS a non-thinking, idiot thing to do. It most definitely is.

Sure, which is why I don't do that, and nowhere in this post did I lump that type of dog in with such a dog as you described. Nor would I, which is also why I said what I did previously about thinking about such things before using such a word.



Which is precisely WHY it is more intelligent to speak in (and have a concept of) DEGREES of gameness.

The same can be said for believing in degrees of dogs being curs, whatever. Top shelf curs, run of the mill curs, rank curs, etc.



The term "pit game" is an understanding of a certain degree of gameness (enough to win, if ahead), but it doesn't command the same respect as deep game dog (who will continue to try, even if never ahead).

Pit game is not a term I would even utter from my mouth. Pit game = front running cur until it can't front run any longer. It's just a nice way of saying of it.



That is your opinion of yourself. Others may not share your opinion.

They may not share my opinion, and that's ok. My opinions are formed due to my own experience. Someone else may have completely different experiences which form their own opinion. That's fine.



Clearly they weren't "the right helpings," then, were they?

Or the right opponent, etc.

I think if a dog has taken it's death in the box, it clearly IS "the right helpings" and/or opponent.




You can give your opinions on these things, nothing more.

True. Same goes for everyone else.



But history is FILLED with dogs that some of the greatest dogmen EVER said, "He can not be beat," or, "He would never quit," etc., etc. ... which dogs went right out to lose/quit the next time.

History is also filled with those same men saying those exact same things, and the dogs they were talking about went right out to win/die trying the next time.




Precisely because, as I said, talent and gameness CAN VARY, both across individuals, as well as within individuals.

Or they were simply wrong and there wasn't really any variation except a better dog. There could have just as easily been zero variance, and the dog was simply a cur from the very beginning.




The dog that belly-crawled to a killing last year ... may hang it up to an ace ear dog this year ... because his TRAITS can change ...

Maybe so. Maybe not. Traits also may not change. The dog that takes the killing may simply sustain the killing without any issues, but gets frustrated on an ace ear dog. Does that necessarily mean his gameness changed? Not necessarily. Frustration was his achilles heel, and it took the ear dog to find exactly that. The same can be said for dogs that have taken a killing damage wise, but quit as soon as they get hot in the summer. Did the traits change? We don't know. No one knows if they actually changed or not or if that was simply the weak spot in the dog's armor.




Again, you are simply wrong.

There is no way that you will find an argument that Frosty was "a dog" ... but people could debate you as to whether he was a dead game dog or not.

And just because he belly-crawled today, against "that" opponent ... doesn't mean he'd crawl tomorrow, against "this other" opponent.

Frosty's traits can vary; his abilities can be enhanced (or diminished); yet he remains A DOG, regardless.

Again, there's this nasty word again: Opinion. Your opinion is I'm wrong based on your perspective of dogs. Based on mine, I'm right. Who exactly is wrong when ideas are based on opinions and experiences. I would never tell anyone Frosty was deadgame as he never died in the box. So, that's simply a one sided debate folks can have with their own inner voice.

And just because he did belly crawl once doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again, or the next 10 days. Or maybe he would simply take his death in the box, and nothing ever changed for him. The only way to know would be to take a dog out there and do it to see if his traits changed.




Once again, you misuse (and misunderstand) the word, "game."

I don't misunderstand the word game. I simply have a different out look on it than you do. Your ideas are not mine.



There are simply DEGREES of gameness, same as there are degrees of strength.

Degrees of curs



You get what you breed for. The funny thing is, in saying you breed for "extremes" in gameness, you're admitting there are degrees of gameness, by default ;)

LOL. Not hardly. What I breed for pushes dogs into a grey area of possibly living or dying, maybe even being stopped. When I see what I want, I'm satisfied. I also know that since my dog isn't dead, he could still possibly quit, and yet, he may not either hence Top Shelf Cur. Maybe the dog is in the top 5 or 10% of dogs alive at that time, maybe not. I'm quite happy to admit that most all dogs alive are curs, and that's pretty normal within this breed. What I won't do is use a label reserved for the epitome of this breed simply because it fits neatly and is a wanted definition by most.

Again, curs, gameness, whatever you want to use.

[Officially Retired]

So much possibility for discussion here :-?

Unfortunately, I am packing for a 3-day weekend in Utah at the moment.

Rest assured, a voluminous response will be forthcoming next week ...

[S_B]

Maybe so. Maybe not. Traits also may not change. The dog that takes the killing may simply sustain the killing without any issues, but gets frustrated on an ace ear dog. Does that necessarily mean his gameness changed? Not necessarily. Frustration was his achilles heel, and it took the ear dog to find exactly that. The same can be said for dogs that have taken a killing damage wise, but quit as soon as they get hot in the summer. Did the traits change? We don't know. No one knows if they actually changed or not or if that was simply the weak spot in the dog's armor.

This is simply breaking it down, anything else is our own individual interpretation or emotions.


I can subscribe to levels of curness or gameness, I'm ok with it. But I see where you are coming from Frosty. In a climate where those labels are tossed about freely by those who don't have a clue it gets nauseating.

S_B

[Pit Bull Committed]

You simply lack vision then, or comprehension.


If you have ever said, "Dog A is gamer than Dog B," then by default you DO believe in degrees of gameness.

You may not "see" (or comprehend) that this is what you believe, but the fact remains that is essentially what you're saying.





If a dog simply **IS** game, if this fact is an unchangeable truth about the dog, then there is nothing that will change this fact.

However, if gameness comes in degrees, and can vary, ONLY THEN can "mismanagement" (age/health/condition, etc.) affect the dog's will to win.

For example, it is an unchangeable truth that an animal is either A DOG (or it's not).

No amount of "management/mismanagement" is going to affect the FACT that a particular animal is either Canis familiaris or it's not.

The trait of gameness is nothing like this.

As I clearly stated (but which you still lack the comprehension to grasp), gameness DOES come in degrees, and it CAN vary across individuals, as well as within a given individual, which is WHY management/owner competence matter.

Same thing as strength/mouth, etc. come in degrees.

Yes, certain dogs are going to simply have MORE mouth/strength than other dogs, but (depending on the circumstances) these traits can likewise be enhanced, or diminished, based on owner competence.

Similarly, some dogs are simply going to be GAMER than other dogs, and this desire to win can also be enhanced (or detracted) by health/condition also, within whatever genetic aptitudes the individual has.

If you "don't see" gameness in degrees, this is a statement about either your vision or comprehension, not with the pretty obvious fact that this trait (like every other sliding-scale trait) varies.

Jack

I agree. Jack you should create a "like" feature. :-)

[S_B]

I agree. Jack you should create a "like" feature. :-)


Haha YES!

[EGK]

All of this stuff is opinions. If everything is ever changing, whatever degree you put on a dog may be different the next time. When it's nut cutting time it's decisions to be made and yall seriously think that decision should be based on a variable. The very thing that can make experiments, results, and research rendered invalid or inconclusive. It's a lot of serious dogmen laughing at this degree post because its simply each persons prespective and opinion. This is about terms or labels for dogs that got away with a win or hung on just long enough to look decent. The dog that won at the beginning of this post is one some may feel got away showing undesirable traits at points. Either way he won. What his owner does with him from there on or believes of him is his choice. I don't get why it's such a strong argument for variables and opinions. Everything said can go both ways. That is dwelling in simplicity at its finest. No matter the simplistic rebuttal, vernacular, or vocabulary prowess of any ones response to the topic, it's still opinion. Put a "does it matter button" and "dislike" there too. As we can see this post is limited in participants.

[Officially Retired]

I agree. Jack you should create a "like" feature. :-)

Well, get ready for my next response then ... just got back from my trip to Utah, Zion National Park (https://www.google.com/search?q=zion+national+park&tbm=isch&imgil=cso8OTYh8wyK3M%253A%253BGfakFCzykg0CHM%253Bh ttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.zionnationalpark.com%2 5252Fexplore%25252Fthings-to-do%25252Fhike%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=cso8OTYh8wyK3M%253A%252CGfakFCzykg0CHM%252C_&biw=1920&bih=1065&usg=__iRb3GttMDALsB6T0sfHzZ0gnZRE%3D&ved=0CEIQyjdqFQoTCIitrp2MlMkCFcskJgodH9oAhA&ei=I1pJVsiPLMvJmAGftIOgCA#imgrc=cso8OTYh8wyK3M%3A&usg=__iRb3GttMDALsB6T0sfHzZ0gnZRE%3D) 8)

[SZ82]

There are rarely any absolutes in life, let alone these dogs. Why is it so hard to conceive that there are levels pf gameness, and levels of cur. Back in the day, cur simply meant non pit dog. Now, it means any dog that quits. So, if they will all quit, and they all are curs, the point of the whole game has changed from seeing which dog has more gameness, to just which one will win. If that is now the case, why use this breed, since all dogs will go, and the only separating factor is this breed's level(s) of gameness.

[Officially Retired]

I have such a huge article to write on this topic, but unfortunately I just don't have the time to get into it. It is a great topic, and I want to do it justice, but will have to be in a week or two.

[S_B]

There are rarely any absolutes in life, let alone these dogs. Why is it so hard to conceive that there are levels pf gameness, and levels of cur. Back in the day, cur simply meant non pit dog. Now, it means any dog that quits. So, if they will all quit, and they all are curs, the point of the whole game has changed from seeing which dog has more gameness, to just which one will win. If that is now the case, why use this breed, since all dogs will go, and the only separating factor is this breed's level(s) of gameness.

Good points SZ82, and well said.

S_B

[SZ82]

Thanks, S_B, I did hope that made some kind of sense.

[Officially Retired]

I realize all too well that we don't agree on this subject, and that's fine.

Yes it is.

However, make no mistake: one of us is right, and one of us is wrong.




I don't see a dog that quits in 3 hours after being ahead for 2:55 as having any degree of gameness.

First, we have to define what gameness **IS** in order to have an intelligent discussion about the subject :idea:

If we can agree that Gameness = The Will to Keep Trying to Win, then the described dog had "a will to win" ... so long as he was ahead ... however, if challenged or put behind, the will to win disappears.

If you personally define gameness as something other than "the will to keep trying to win," then you need to define what you're talking about so that we can have a common frame of reference for discussion :idea:

My own personal view is you are calling DEAD gameness "gameness," which is the source of your 20+ year blunder and MIS-understanding of the concept IMO.

Gameness simply = the will to win.

Dead Gameness means "a will to win that is GREATER THAN the will to survive" ... and so a DG dog will keep on trying to win, even in the face of death.

Moreover, my own view is that even a dog that displays "dead gameness" to ONE opponent (set of circumstances) may not necessarily display the same level of gameness to another opponent (set of circumstances).

Your belief appears to be that, if any dog shows dead game, then (by default) you assume said dog will be dead game to any opponent, under any circumstance, which I happen to view as naive and too simplistic to be valid. History has shown many dogs that proved to be ALMOST dead game in one match/set of circumstances, but who hung it up on another match/set of circumstances. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that this could happen to a "proven DG dog," if it was able to be resurrected and put in another position, against a different level opponent, in different condition, in different health, etc.




Scenarios matter. Blanket statements do not, and I'm guilty of making plenty of blanket statements over the years.

I agree scenarios matter, which is precisely why I reject your simplistic view that "a dead game dog is a dead game dog," regardless of opponent/circumstance.

You just said scenarios matter, and therefore circumstances matter. AND YET you fail to take in these very things when analyzing gamenees.

I believe you are not yet intellectually-aware that your statement "a game dog is always a game dog" is one of very those BLANKET STATEMENTS that can therefore NEVER be true, again precisely because of the infinity of variables out there.

There is a certain density to your view of gameness IMO ...




Sure, which is why I don't do that, and nowhere in this post did I lump that type of dog in with such a dog as you described. Nor would I, which is also why I said what I did previously about thinking about such things before using such a word.

The word "cur" is simply a disparaging remark.

If cur = a dog that "quit," it is still a worthless word until we analyze those very CIRCUMSTANCES you mentioned earlier (scenarios, etc.).

Again, a dog that quit after going 2:55, on the bottom, brutalized, in-shock, etc., can not in any way be put in the same "cur bag" as a dog that pissed itself and sailed over the wall when his lip got pinched in the first :05.

Anyone who tries to equate these dogs is simply a fucking idiot.

There will always be the begging question TO WHAT :idea: :idea:

Game TO WHAT?

Cur TO WHAT?

A dog that goes 2:55, ahead, and untouched, may not be as game as a dog that belly-crawled 3x, with its guts hanging out, but finally collapsed, and failed to go at the :40 mark.

People who don't understand this are idiots IMO ... they fail to take in the various "scenarios" you mentioned.

Each case is unique; each case requires scrutiny.




The same can be said for believing in degrees of dogs being curs, whatever. Top shelf curs, run of the mill curs, rank curs, etc.

IMO, if Gameness = the will to win and go forward, then Curness = the will to stop and run away.

The term Cold = the desire to do neither; the dog will not run, but the dog will not fight, either.

If we can accept these terms (that Gamness = the desire to continue forward; Curness = the desire to run away/give ground; while Cold = no desire at all), then we take a GIANT step in understanding WTH we're talking about.

If we cannot agree to these terms, then we need to hash-out some definitions before we argue this topic any further.




Pit game is not a term I would even utter from my mouth. Pit game = front running cur until it can't front run any longer. It's just a nice way of saying of it.

Front-running cur is just your typical non-nice way of saying it :lol:

Both say the same thing: a dog that WILL fight, so long as he's ahead and doesn't get put too far behind ...




They may not share my opinion, and that's ok. My opinions are formed due to my own experience. Someone else may have completely different experiences which form their own opinion. That's fine.

I don't think your opinions are formed from "experiences," but rather from personal bias combined with close personal association with some of the densest, dog-wastingest individuals in the sport.




I think if a dog has taken it's death in the box, it clearly IS "the right helpings" and/or opponent.

A dog that takes its death in the box has shown DEAD gameness against ONE opponent, under ONE set of circumstances, nothing more, nothing less.

The fact that it has done so has absolutely ZERO bearing on what that dog might do against ANOTHER opponent, in DIFFERENT shape, in a DIFFERENT state of health, under ANOTHER set of circumstances, etc. None at all.




True. Same goes for everyone else.

The simple truth is, some people's opinions are in alignment with reality, and some people's are not :idea:

One of the greatest fallacies in life is to believe that "all" opinions are correct ...




History is also filled with those same men saying those exact same things, and the dogs they were talking about went right out to win/die trying the next time.

True.




Or they were simply wrong and there wasn't really any variation except a better dog. There could have just as easily been zero variance, and the dog was simply a cur from the very beginning.

No, these men were right, based on the information available to them (how the dogs handled themselves, against their previous opponents and under the previous sets of circumstances).

Sometimes dogs will perform the same way, against the next dogs, and against the next set of circumstances ... HOWEVER ... sometimes a whole new dog, and a whole new set of circumstances will CHANGE EVERYTHING ... and in your bones you know this is true ...




Maybe so. Maybe not. Traits also may not change. The dog that takes the killing may simply sustain the killing without any issues, but gets frustrated on an ace ear dog. Does that necessarily mean his gameness changed? Not necessarily. Frustration was his achilles heel, and it took the ear dog to find exactly that. The same can be said for dogs that have taken a killing damage wise, but quit as soon as they get hot in the summer. Did the traits change? We don't know. No one knows if they actually changed or not or if that was simply the weak spot in the dog's armor.

You're simply refusing to acknowledge the obvious, due to that "density" I mentioned earlier.

If a dog shows extreme gameness under one set of circumstances, but shows "weakness in the armor" under another set of circumstances, then all this means is the dog's gameness is AFFECTED by opponents and circumstances ... ALL DOGS ARE! Here are some of the MANY "circumstances" that can affect gameness:


Age
Health
Experience
Condition
Quality of Opposition
Hormones/Heat Cycles
Pregnancy
Drugs/Poison, etc.

If anyone doesn't believe these things can and do affect gameness, then they are not very intelligent IMO.

However, I am pretty sure even you will concede that these things can and do affect gameness, and if you do acknowledge that these things can affect gameness, then you are (by default) admitting that GAMENESS CAN BE AFFECTED.

Once you admit that gameness can be affected, then you admit that gameness is NOT absolute, that is comes in DEGREES, and that those very "scenarios" you mentioned up-top DO MATTER in the assessment of each individual case you're looking at.




Again, there's this nasty word again: Opinion. Your opinion is I'm wrong based on your perspective of dogs. Based on mine, I'm right. Who exactly is wrong when ideas are based on opinions and experiences. I would never tell anyone Frosty was deadgame as he never died in the box. So, that's simply a one sided debate folks can have with their own inner voice.

My opinion is based on my INTERPRETATION of my experiences; your opinion is likewise based on your INTERPRETATION of your experiences.

Facts are facts. It is all in how we INTERPRET the facts that we see, which allows us to form CORRECT (or INCORRECT) opinions ...




And just because he did belly crawl once doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again, or the next 10 days. Or maybe he would simply take his death in the box, and nothing ever changed for him. The only way to know would be to take a dog out there and do it to see if his traits changed.

We agree.




I don't misunderstand the word game. I simply have a different out look on it than you do. Your ideas are not mine.

You have to first DEFINE the word "Game" in order to discuss this term intelligently :idea:

I have placed my definition, which is the standard definition (one which Greenwood postulated before either one of us was in dogs).

I am asking you to CLEARLY DEFINE your understanding of the word GAME ... so that we can see if we're even talking about the same thing.




Degrees of curs

Your old compatriot, and mentor, Pinky & The Brain, used this argument on me almost 2 decades ago :-?

He likened the gameness/curness debate to the debate of HOT versus COLD :idea:

Pinky very intelligently, and astutely, pointed out that (when discussing the presence of "hot" versus "cold"), the scientific reality was THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS COLD :-t

In other words, what we "call" COLD is merely the absence of heat.
The biological reality is there is ONLY "heat" (the vibration of atoms/molecules).
What we call "cold" is simply the lessening of these vibrations; what we call "heat" is simply the amplifying of these vibrations :idea:

Pinky, like you, therefore, only thought there was "degrees of cur."

And, like you, I destroyed this premise by focusing on THE POSITIVE (whereas you two characteristically focus on the negative).

In the hot/cold debate, the TRUE existence is the existence of THE POSITIVE (VIBRATION ---- HEAT) ... and, in the same sense, gameness is also a POSITIVE existence, namely, the existence of the POSITIVE will to GO FORWARD and TRY TO WIN :idea:

Therefore, if we use the hot/cold analogy, and admit that scientifically there IS NO "presence of cold" (there is only the ABSENCE of heat) ... then there IS NO "presence of cur" either (there is only the ABSENCE of gameness) :mrgreen:


A dog that has "Absolute Zero" degrees of gameness = a cold dog.

A dog that fights for :05 has almost no gameness.

A dog that fights for :30 has an average amount of gameness.

A dog that fights until the last breath of life in him is a dead game dog.

On and on and on it goes ...




LOL. Not hardly. What I breed for pushes dogs into a grey area of possibly living or dying, maybe even being stopped. When I see what I want, I'm satisfied. I also know that since my dog isn't dead, he could still possibly quit, and yet, he may not either hence Top Shelf Cur. Maybe the dog is in the top 5 or 10% of dogs alive at that time, maybe not. I'm quite happy to admit that most all dogs alive are curs, and that's pretty normal within this breed. What I won't do is use a label reserved for the epitome of this breed simply because it fits neatly and is a wanted definition by most.

In closing, I don't actually think the Hot/Cold model fits the Gameness/Curness scenario with exactness.

The reason is, there can also be the presence or RANK COWARDICE (the will to run away).

If gameness = the volitional will to go FORWARD and TRY TO WIN ... and if "coldness" = NO volitional will to do anything, to just stand there and not fight ... then (in reality) CURness = cowardice THE COWARDLY WILL TO RETREAT/RUN AWAY.

Therefore, while the Hot/Cold comparison makes an interesting analogy, there is a difference, which I tried to illustrate via the attached bell-shaped curve below:

MOST dogs are neither total rank curs nor 100% dead game.

Therefore MOST dogs fall in the middle somewhere ... and we pit bull breeders try to "breed to the right-side" of this bell-shaped curve :lol:




Again, curs, gameness, whatever you want to use.

Using the terms we have available to us loosely is not the same as using them correctly :idea:

Jack