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

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.

[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]

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