Can you ruin gameness? (genetics)

[LEFTLANE]

All apart of the game

[FrostyPaws]

If gameness is determined genetically, (how) can it be ruined?

Case for example, let's say you would roll a dog who isn't fully matured/not ready. He scratches, but doesn't really start fighting/biting. Keeps crying when the other dog bites him. You still let it go for 4/5 minuts in the hope he would open up. When you want to let him go the 3th time he stays between your legs.

!!!!
If he or she IS fully matured, stopped the crying and he really starts biting. Would he more likely to stop because he was wasted earlier or was he a cur from the get go?
!!!!

This scenario doesn't describe a cur but an unstarted dog, or what I like to call, a dog merely going through the motions. If that dog stands on the 3rd scratch, so what. It's obvious the dog isn't ready in any serious manner, so I put the dog up until he is ready. The dog isn't ruined at that point. It was a case of immaturity on the dog's part and nothing more at that particular stage.

[Officially Retired]

It doesn't have to (be) Nature Vs. Nurture. A better solution would be Nature + Nurture for the better results.

That is pretty much all of it.

The truth is, while genetics are vital, ultimately a reasonably-good dogman is even more vital. To show the point in the extreme, if you have a great bulldog genetically, like Gr Ch Buck, but you give him to an absolute imbecile who feeds him shit food, never controls the parasites, rolls him young against 3-4 dogs, doesn't let him heal between rolls, etc., etc., the genetically-great Buck will never get the chance to show his greatness. Ultimately, enough ownership stupidity will destroy even the best genetic potential. Or, stated in the reverse, there is no dog genetically solid enough to overcome the most extreme of stupid owners. (Especially with little dogs being forced to spot weight.)

As you said, Nature + Nurture must be combined to consistently achieve the best results. After that, when you're dealing with two reasonably-good dogmen, then one dog's superior genetics will become the determining factor.

Jack

[evolutionkennels]

That is pretty much all of it.

The truth is, while genetics are vital, ultimately a reasonably-good dogman is even more vital. To show the point in the extreme, if you have a great bulldog genetically, like Gr Ch Buck, but you give him to an absolute imbecile who feeds him shit food, never controls the parasites, rolls him young against 3-4 dogs, doesn't let him heal between rolls, etc., etc., the genetically-great Buck will never get the chance to show his greatness. Ultimately, enough ownership stupidity will destroy even the best genetic potential. Or, stated in the reverse, there is no dog genetically solid enough to overcome the most extreme of stupid owners. (Especially with little dogs being forced to spot weight.)

As you said, Nature + Nurture must be combined to consistently achieve the best results. After that, when you're dealing with two reasonably-good dogmen, then one dog's superior genetics will become the determining factor.

Jack

I couldn't have said it better myself. The greatest obstacle most dogs have is thier owner.

[waccamaw]

I agree 100 %.i have said a many of time a great dog in the hands of an (IDIOT) is a doomed dog.

[EWO]

Without a doubt. Maybe it is a play on words or phrasing, but that is what I was saying by genetic potential. Buck would still be Buck no matter who owned him or how they owned him. But Buck needed his owners decision making to be Gr.Ch Buck. EWO

[Officially Retired]

Without a doubt. Maybe it is a play on words or phrasing, but that is what I was saying by genetic potential. Buck would still be Buck no matter who owned him or how they owned him. But Buck needed his owners decision making to be Gr.Ch Buck. EWO

Actually, your opening line was, "I doubt you can ruin gameness but you can get the dog to a point he never gets a chance to show it," and I totally disagree with that statement.

Absolutely *any* genetic potential can be ruined with enough repeated stupidity. This is why dogs that have shown exceptional gameness once, in good hands, can be ruined and not show anything like that again in the wrong hands.

For example, Einstein's genetic intelligence could have been ruined by blunt trauma or repeated exposure to the wrong drugs ... and in the same fashion Buck's genetic gameness could have been ruined by repeated owner stupidity, being forced to endure too much, too often, etc., etc., until it wore out.

Absolutely everything has its limits.
Absolutely NO creature is capable of duplicating its best performance, every day of its life, from birth till death. Everything fades with time.

The truth is, the absolute summit of athletic performance can only be achieved once, or possibly a handful of times during a brief performance window (if it is ever able to be achieved at all). That kind of performance window is not open forever ... it has a point where it doesn't exist yet ... it has a point where it does ... and it has a point where it is gone forever. And, you bet, it can be irreparably closed by mishandling the athlete badly enough.

Jack

[EWO]

We will have to disagree. I agree with the 'window' analogy. No doubts there. I do not believe you can ruin potential because potential is something that can't be physically touched, nor mentally. Buck was pre-dispositioned to be Buck no matter who owned him or how they owned. Nothing can change what he was meant to be. Is it up to the owner to make the decisions to get him to where his potential was destined? Absolutely. I also believe there are tons of dogs that would have been good dogs, possibly great dogs, if they had ended up in different hands. But those dogs had to have the potential to be good 1st and foremost, then bad decisions prevent that potential from being realized. Nothing changed the potential.
Maybe I should have used the phrase 'original potential'. Michael Jordan had the potential to be the greatest ever, and for a while he was, but then the birthday disease slipped up on him. But getting old never changed what he was meant to be. Was there another kid out there along the same time that could have taken his lunch money on the court? Possibly. Did that kid get cut down in a gang shooting? Did he get involved in drugs? Car accident? None of these things changed his potential just altered his path, like good owners and bad owners alter the paths of dogs. EWO

Actually, your opening line was, "I doubt you can ruin gameness but you can get the dog to a point he never gets a chance to show it," and I totally disagree with that statement.

Absolutely *any* genetic potential can be ruined with enough repeated stupidity. This is why dogs that have shown exceptional gameness once, in good hands, can be ruined and not show anything like that again in the wrong hands.

For example, Einstein's genetic intelligence could have been ruined by blunt trauma or repeated exposure to the wrong drugs ... and in the same fashion Buck's genetic gameness could have been ruined by repeated owner stupidity, being forced to endure too much, too often, etc., etc., until it wore out.

Absolutely everything has its limits.
Absolutely NO creature is capable of duplicating its best performance, every day of its life, from birth till death. Everything fades with time.

The truth is, the absolute summit of athletic performance can only be achieved once, or possibly a handful of times during a brief performance window (if it is ever able to be achieved at all). That kind of performance window is not open forever ... it has a point where it doesn't exist yet ... it has a point where it does ... and it has a point where it is gone forever. And, you bet, it can be irreparably closed by mishandling the athlete badly enough.

Jack

[Black Hand]

If potential is just the promise of development, what happens when the development is stopped or wrecked(by you).

[Officially Retired]

We will have to disagree.

That's okay, disagreements in ideology are what create interesting discussions

I agree with the 'window' analogy. No doubts there. I do not believe you can ruin potential because potential is something that can't be physically touched, nor mentally. Buck was pre-dispositioned to be Buck no matter who owned him or how they owned. Nothing can change what he was meant to be.

Boy, we sure do disagree here. Potential can't be physically touched? So, if you have an IQ of 160, and great mathematical aptitude, you're saying I "can't touch this"??? What about with blunt trauma force to the head? That would be a pretty heavy "touch" that would ruin your intellectual potential ...

Buck was pre-dispositioned to be Buck no matter who owned him or how they owned. Nothing can change what he was meant to be. Is it up to the owner to make the decisions to get him to where his potential was destined? Absolutely. I also believe there are tons of dogs that would have been good dogs, possibly great dogs, if they had ended up in different hands. But those dogs had to have the potential to be good 1st and foremost, then bad decisions prevent that potential from being realized. Nothing changed the potential.

You are confusing several things. First of all, genetically being pre-disposed to "being Buck" is a whole different ballgame than having his genetic potential ruined. I agree with the fact that, genetically, Buck = Buck, and nothing will change this. But the issue we're talking about goes much deeper than that

Furthermore, there is a difference between Buck simply "not realizing" his genetic potential and someone ruining it. For example, if STP decided not to match Buck, the dog would have therefore "not realized" his potential, but that potential would still be intact. However, if STP decided to 4-dog Buck every weekend ... over and over again ... breaking his teeth off ... breaking his bones ... and (ultimately) breaking Buck's spirit in the process ... then STP would have actually ruined Buck's genetic potential. In other words, Buck would still be Buck ... genetically ... however, potential-wise, physically/mentally Buck be incapable of achieving his potential for greatness anymore.

Maybe I should have used the phrase 'original potential'. Michael Jordan had the potential to be the greatest ever, and for a while he was, but then the birthday disease slipped up on him. But getting old never changed what he was meant to be. Was there another kid out there along the same time that could have taken his lunch money on the court? Possibly. Did that kid get cut down in a gang shooting? Did he get involved in drugs? Car accident? None of these things changed his potential just altered his path, like good owners and bad owners alter the paths of dogs. EWO

Again, we totally disagree. Michael Jordan not only had genetic potential, he fully realized it. His older birthdays marked the passing of his window. Had Michale Jordan got shot, or crippled, then YES his genetic potential would have been ruined. That doesn't mean his "genetics" would be altered; it means his POTENTIAL to achieve greatness would have been permanently destroyed. Not realizing potential, and destroying potential, are two different animals ... totally separate from original genetic code.

Jack