The guy who coldly goes through em and only wants the best?
The guy who really tries to bring out the best in each dog?
"Does not matter if you are talking dogs, business, marriage or raising children, you name it. The man who does the most with what he has is the better dogman, businessman, husbandMAN.....MAN PERIOD!" - Amen, in my country a true MAN is a very rare commodity.
That is every country now days.Originally Posted by Pedhelper
The question is subjective.
Who is the better dogman? That could be any number of individuals on both sides of that fence.
Who would you rather associate with? That could be any number of individuals on both sides of the fence also.
I've personally learned a shit ton from both types of individuals, and I have both types of individuals within my mindset. I apply what I learn, from both types of individuals, to what I do. I don't normally start dogs until 2. I refuse to show any dog until right at 3. That being said, I don't have any issue sending a dog down it's way that doesn't fit what I like to see in my dogs. Have I gone through a bunch of dogs? Yes, and if you're in dogs for any length of time, you will for various reasons and not just quitting.
Factor in what it is that you're exactly breeding for. The well rounded individual, the ace head dog, the superb body dog, or just an honest dog. Where does your bar for all of those things start and stop. If your bar is the same at beginning as it is 10, 15, or 20 years down the road, then I'd say you've not seen much or know much of anything.
Your bar should be rising throughout your time. You should be striving to improve what you have the entire time. I was really lucky in starting off in dogs that I didn't toil for years with shitty dogs. I saw at the beginning what it meant to be around serious men and their dogs. That being said, my bar has constantly risen over the years. I've always attempted to better my yard, and I've been a lot more successful now since I adopted a mixture of the two mindsets instead of being just one or the other.
Disagree. There are factual results that obtain that can be measured, quantified, and data drawn.
Same as we could measure the farming details, or overall crop yield, between two farmers and come out with objective facts that prove one methodology is superior to another.
Disagree again. That some dogmen can compete and win with "what's left" of their yard, and maintain respectable percentages with that, still doesn't change the fact that their overall percentages suck. In the same fashion, if a lousy farmer is able to sell a couple of fruits or vegetable at the market, it still doesn't change the fact he lost most of his crop that never made it to market.
And, since we're dealing with living animals that deserve a fighting chance and to be given all the tools they need, I would much rather associate with the kind of dogmen that give their dogs that chance and meet all of those needs.
Once a person has done all he can, and the dog still doesn't live up to the standards, then he has the right to judge the dog. I personally don't like to cull dogs through killing, and have been able to maintain an awfully high % win record not doing so, while at the same time being very exacting in what I want in a dog, both athletically and gameness-wise. I like dogs. I like them for more than just their ability to fight, or to be game, I just like being around dogs. Yet I also know what it takes to win, and that in order to win against the best you can't breed based on whether you like an animal or not, but by whether (objectively) it has the skills, drive, tenacity to win. And I can breed to dogs like this, while not killing dogs that aren't like this.
Agree.
I agree, a person's bar should rise as his knowledge and experience rises ... and yet so, too, should his willingness to relax and be patient. Green dogmen have no idea what a good dog is (generally), and yet they're impatient and "want the world" while they themselves don't have the tools to provide it. They rush dogs, and are in a big hurry to "test" dogs, and don't seem to want to put in the time required to properly school a dog.
As we get experienced, we're supposed to have a better idea of what a "good dog" is ... and yet we're also supposed to have the patience to allow these dogs to get up there in age, and to school them out properly and with purpose, before we go ahead and judge them.
Myself, I have always liked dogs, and while I have gained experience over the years, I personally have never found the need to be brutal or reckless in my culling of dogs. I have always given them time to grow up before I judge them. Knowledge-wise, the less I listened to the standard dullard in dogs (who focuses on "how much abuse" a dog could take "and still scratch") ... and the more I concentrated on what it takes to win (how smart & athletic they were, and how much they can control the situation, while pacing themselves), the more I have seen my win record grow. And I do have the factual statistics that show my win/loss record as a breeder continuously improved from 1997 (57%) to 1999 (75%) until it plateaued at ~87% from 2002 on out, where it's stayed. (This is across the board, in various states/countries, in various hands & levels of competence. I am absolutely the number would be higher if they were always, 100% in top hands.)
So I very much do believe that there are objective, factual statistics that prove one method is superior to another.
Jack
There is no factual data that can be used across the board to prove one way is better than another. Unless you have factual data from everyone that's ever owned dogs on how they do dogs, you will have nothing more than a small sample that can be swayed one way or another.
What's left from a man's yard is usually dictated on how they look at their yard. Percentages pertaining to what? Dogs making it to the box? Dogs actually winning? Dogs being game? Overall percentages can be construed in numerous ways. I know someone that said they've not had a dog quit in 6 years. While that's true, they leave out the fact of picking up dogs at the first sign of trouble. They leave out the fact of picking up dogs, during shows, when they're looking like they're going to pack it in. Maybe the most time they see out of a potential brood dog is 20-30 minutes, and they breed it. Once everything is factored into these individuals and how they do things, the “percentages” are shown in an entirely different light.
I would rather associate with men that could show me something I've missed over time, and I've learned things from both of those individuals. A lot of the men I know that were hard on their dogs gave their dogs all the chances they were willing to give their dogs. Not all dogs, given every chance in the world, are going to amount to anything that we define as a sport. If you do everything you can for a D class dog, it's still a D class dog, and most people don't want D class dogs for any particular reason.
I guess we think about different things when we think of men who only want the best. The men I knew that did that didn't just cull dogs because they didn't start at 16 months old. They weren't idiots. A couple of them usually gave their dogs until the age of 3 to get with the program. It didn't always pan out for them. Some only gave them until the age of 2 to start. Those men knew their dogs. If the dogs didn't meet what it was they wanted, they did what they thought was best for their yard.
You're right about green dogmen. I guess I just don't think about greenhorns much as I generally don't deal with them. I know I've slowed down a lot on my rush to judgement over the years as I think most people do that are successful within dogs. Greenhorns will make every mistake in the book usually unless they have someone that is actually looking out for their best interest and their dog's best interest.
Agree
The thing about trying to factor in how dogs win is actually seeing what they win over. This is just how I see it. I've seen many dogs win over 3 subpar and average dogs in my day, but those dogs are still Champions. It's not the dog's fault his opponent wasn't up to snuff. He did his job as he was supposed to do. There are ton of people who show a ton of dogs because they simply want to show dogs. That's what they want. And if the dog looks good in a few rolls against some dogs, then they take their chances and hope for the best. A lot of times, they're simply showing average dogs. That is how a lot of shows are done, won, and lost. The percentages are high for these kennels until they meet someone who actually brings a match quality dog to a match and not just some dog they want to show. All competition is not created equally, and to me, that's the crux of the entire percentage aspect.
If every dog that was shown would meet an equal opponent, then I guess percentages would mean more to me than they do. While it's nice to hear that a dog, or dogs, that you bred won, it simply doesn't mean that much to me unless the man that won REALLY knows what a quality dog is, and that man feels like he beat a quality dog and not just some average dog someone wanted to show.
Strictly-speaking, you're right.
However, when you hear people talk about their low numbers, that usually is the result of either a person's poor knowledge of genetics and/or their poor practices.
This is as simple as I can put "the way things work," and I don't see how any knowledgeable dogman could disagree with the following:
Good genetics + good practices = higher percentage success.
Bad genetics + bad practices = lower percentage success.
It's pretty much that simple (plus any combinations thereof).
Well, the only percentages that can actually be measured is win/loss; the rest is speculation and/or opinion.
I understand what you're saying, but a lot of what you call "factors" are merely opinions. If a dog gets matched and wins, it wins. Whether it made a bad sign or not isn't a "factor," it's an opinion. If the dog loses, it loses, and if it scratches after it is picked up, then it scratches, and any "opinions" as to what may or may not have happened "after that" mean nothing. Now, if the owner fails to courtesy scratch, then I agree the owner is hiding something. But if he courtesies, and the dog scratches, that is all the dog can do.
Furthermore, "how hard" a dog is looked at in school means nothing either as to a win/loss record. I sold a dog to a good dogman in Canada. He matched the dog from me into a son of a well-known Champion, and the camp who brought the opponent claimed have "high standards," declaring they had two-dogged their charge for :50 ... and they said their dog would "never quit" ... but yet their dog quit to my dog in :53. The dogmen who lost could not believe their dog quit to the one dog from me where he did not quit to 2 dogs before. Why is that?
Different opponents yield different levels of control, therefore different results.
Different days yield different results.
Different states of condition/health yield different results.
Finally, there are also a lot of people who have good records, yet they really haven't matched into a top-caliber animal, nor produced a top-caliber animal. They win/lose against done-nothing dogs, or (maybe) a 1xW, into local boys. They have never faced a highly-regarded dogman, or a highly-regarded dog (nor have they produced one). In other words, the dogs they 'win' with are always against mediocre competition, so they might have been losers against elite competition, etc.
I agree.
I don't know what you think about when you think about the best, but what I think about is producing the kind of dog that will whip and stop anything it faces its weight ... no matter whose hands they're in ... because, genetically, that dog has the athleticism, intelligence, drive, and mettle to do so. I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said.
And that is exactly why I made this post, because there are a lot of people still rushing their dogs and doing stupid shit with them. Not everyone has the same level of experience you do, but "even you" can (and eventually did) benefit by not being in such a hurry to make a decision on a dog, but instead to put more time into the dog and let it mature and get schooled before doing so.
In my case (and I know you have heard this story before, but it bears repetition here), my Diamond Girl bitch quit in :05 on her first roll. She half-heartedly defended herself, scratched once, and then refused to go. All the "tough, hardcore" dogmen there told me to put the bitch down, but I ignored their stupid advice because she was just a 16 month old puppy, and I could just see she wasn't ready yet. Diamond Girl was never fully "on" until she was 3+ years old ... but when she did turn on, she proved to be as game as any dog I have ever bred. She produced an extremely-high percentage of game dogs, put Ch Nico Jr. on the ROM list when she produced Ch Buster (4xW), who was put down in a raid in-keep for #5. Diamond Girl is behind multiple Champions, 2 Grand Champions, one of which was the Philippine Dog of the Year for 2006.
The moral of the story is patience is a virtue, and giving dogs time to mature pays off, which is why the best dogmen are patient, which is the subject of this thread.
This is true, and that is essentially what I said a couple paragraphs above.
I know my dogs have faced the very best in the world, beaten Champions owned by some of the most competitive kennels in the world, done so without getting touched in some case, gone 2-3 hours into the best in the world, crawled 100% DG into the best in the world ... "as well as" won over no-name competition.
I don't know all the specifics of what you've done, but I know I can say that about my dogs ... which have done so for 2 decades ... that they have competed with and BEAT the very best in the world ... and that they have also lost 100% DG to the very best in the world ... taking multi-winning dogs longer than all their previous opponents put together. I don't know how many people can honestly make the same statement. Beating "a dog" in a known dogman's hands isn't the same as beating his best Champion in that same man's hands.
I don't think any dogman has always put his dogs into the very best, every time, and that includes you.
Again, beating "a" dog in a known dogman's hands isn't the same as beating his finest Champion, etc. Therefore, unless you are always facing Champions, Grand Champions, DOYs, etc., you too are competing against "lesser dogs" yourself to some degree. Everyone is. Therefore, all things are relative, and therefore all wins mean something ... precisely because the dog that was put in there won, which becomes a statistical fact, and which win increases the factual record of the dogman.
Of course, I agree that quality of competition (in both dogs and men) alters "our perception" as to the worth of that win, but it doesn't alter the fact that both dogs won. For example, when Prime Ape recently won in 1:43 over a local dogman, it did not mean quite as much to me as when Ch Vengence destroyed GDI's Ch Soldier in :43, killed him without getting a hole in his skin, made the cover of Scratchback Magazine, and was featured in an article Rudy wrote, "The Best Dogs I have Ever Seen," etc.
Yet THE FACT IS Prime Ape still won, my percentages remain where they are, and I am still proud of that dog for his win. And another fact is, which again relates to the subject of this thread, Ch Vengence (like Diamond Girl) also quit when he was 16 months old ... in like :08 ... and yet, as a fully-mature dog, he whipped some of the best dogmen of his time, using the best dogs they owned, including killing a Champion his weight without getting bit back, as well as spotting weight and coming from way behind to win over Openhouse. So not only did Vengence win his last in 1:20, coming from behind, but he was also pushing 2 lb of weight.
Which, again, proves the point of this post ... allowing a dog to mature, and being patient, pays off
Jack
You're right in the only percentages that can be factually measured are win/loss ratio.
There are plenty of reasons why a dog that was supposedly 2 dogged would quit. The 2 dogs were smaller dogs that he handled easily. Both dogs were subpar dogs, etc etc. Maybe the style of the dog you sent there frustrated him. The list can continue on and on. There is nothing wrong with holding your dogs to a higher standard than others if you actually have the ability to understand what that means.
You're right, but winning is winning. It all counts toward a percentage, so whether the dog is top caliber or not doesn't matter. What matters is the dog won. Winning percentages aren't really about producing top caliber animals for someone only interested in showing dogs. I can see how that's important to breeders such as yourself. You're right about those dogs and mediocre competition, but that's all just opinion as they just as easily may have won against elite competition, etc.
I haven't bred a line of dogs for 20+ years, so I don't have dogs all over the world. I can't compare what my dogs have done to anyone when it comes to a breeding program. I've only bred my dogs for myself to keep what I like going in a direction I want. I'm not interested in being that person that created a line over the world. Beating “a dog” in a known dogman's hands could, at times, mean beating his best dog whether he has champions or not.
Of course I haven't as I have no control over that thing, but, as I stated, that is when percentages would matter to me as something to pay attention to IF people were able to do that.
No one is always facing the competition of dogs you mention on a regular basis. We all face “lesser dogs”. We're all glad to win, but the sense of accomplishment isn't the same as beating a quality dog. Sometimes there is no sense of accomplishment. If I were to win all shows in 40 minutes or less, my sense of accomplishment would be near the bottom rung of the ladder, if there at all. You're not getting any type of indicator of beating lesser dogs as that's something we all feel like we should do. A win only means something if the competitor that won attaches some worth to it. If there's no worth attached to it, it means nothing. At that point, it is simply a matter of fact, as you said.
Agreed here, and perception is what a lot of decisions are made on and simply not simply a win. Above post
Patience is something we should all have with dogs. At times, patience pays off. At other times, it makes zero difference.Which, again, proves the point of this post ... allowing a dog to mature, and being patient, pays off
Jack
Agreed.
Agreed. And I do. And I am sure you do too
What you said is true, except that 1) winning percentages are important to everyone, breeders and competitors alike, and 2) winning percentages are about producing top-caliber animals.
An individual win may not necessarily prove anything, one way or another, but the greater the number of random matches become the more accurate the statistics become. That is how intelligent people in sports rate EVERYTHING (from horseraces to batting averages) is based on percentages. And, in the sport of dogs, no one is going to build a FAR greater-than-average family record, consistently, by repeatedly sending out mediocre dogs into a random sampling of hands worldwide. No way in hell can that happen. The only way a consistently mediocre group of dogs can build a FAR better-than-mediocre record is by spot-picking, if sub-par dogs are always selectively placed in truly superior human hands who then set out to face average (or lesser) competition. Because even a great dogman given a mediocre dog will still lose to another great dogman, who's bringing a truly superior dog.
In point of fact, my dogs generally get dealt the opposite hand, and yet they still almost always prevail
My dogs don't always go to good or experienced hands; the fact is many times they're put in relatively green hands, and yet they almost invariably win or show game regardless, even when totally outclassed in levels of experience on "the human" end. Take Ch Vengence, for example. He was owned by Minute Man when he beat Ch Soldier. Minute Man faced Gamedog Inc., a highly experienced dogman, who had Captain America in his corner as the conditioner, who's as "fastlane" as it gets. These veterans had a pretty famous guy named STP on their side basically saying Ch Soldier was a "shoe-in" to make Grand Champion. Minute Man was a rank newbie by comparison, and so the disparity of "level of human competition" was literally night-and-day in that fight. And, just to put a punctuation mark on it, Vengence came in there light. Yet none of those "perceived intangibles" mattered, as Ch Vengeance outclassed the shit out of Ch Soldier, and pitched a shutout, precisely because he was a truly superior athlete.
The same thing happened when the relative beginner Griddog beat Harry Hargrove so bad with Ch Mr. Serious that Hargrove walked passed his own yard of dogs three times to go breed to Mr. Serious. No way is a man like Hargrove going to breed to some beginner's dog who beat him, unless he thought that beginner had a truly special animal. Time and again, my dogs get sent to relative novices, who take their dogs out and whip some of the biggest names in the history of dogs, and there is no way this can happen without my consistently sending people far greater-than-average dogs.
Any statistician will agree that the larger the sampling, the most accurate the statistics are, and my dogs have been put out there long enough, often enough, and with the same % results worldwide, regardless, that I am as positive as I can be that my dogs a far better than average and far more likely to win than lose, regardless of who or what they face.
I understand what you're saying, and there is nothing wrong with what you're doing. In fact, it is arguably the best way for the dogs. To be honest, I often wish I had done things your way, and really mastered my own conditioning program, so that all my dogs got the same fair shake.
And yet, had I gone this route, I would never have gotten to breed as deep into my own line as I have. I would never have gotten to get the same feedback, worldwide, nor would my dogs have faced the wide variety of opponents that they have, and so I wouldn't have gotten to know how reliable and consistent they really are. Because the flipside is, dogs that are always in top hands are in some ways "sheltered." Even though your standards may be high, the conditions you keep your dogs in are optimal. Your experience is there.
Imagine sending your own dogs to a random sampling of people, from all over the world, to see how they do ... when things are NOT optimal for them. When they're done at a young age, or spotting 2-4 lb of weight, or put in keep 1 month after they just won a brutal war in over an hour (being put on a mill while still sore and limping) ... and yet they still keep winning in the same percentages. Some people who think they have good dogs, might find their percentages drop quite a bit when they get placed in less-than-optimal hands/conditions. So, despite how infuriating situations like this can be, because I have seen this happen to my dogs time and again, the flipside is I know they can stand up to just about anything out there, under just about any circumstance, and still prevail or die trying.
There was a time when I paid attention to everything, and kept meticulous records, but I stopped doing this in about 2007. My dogs have both beaten and lost to the best, and sometimes they quit too, but the losses and quits are SO few and far between, compared to the wins, that they are nothing but a minor surprise to me that quickly gets forgotten when the next string of wins comes in.
I understand what you're saying. All wins my dogs gain bring me a sense of accomplishment, because they did their job ... yet how much sense of accomplishment is, as you say, relative to the perceived worth of the opponent.
Yet even a dog like Prime Ape, who just beat a local dogman (unknown to most) still gave me a tremendous sense of accomplishment, preceisely because of the odds he overcame. He was the smaller dog, and these local boys who had his opponent have beat some good dogmen in that area. They knew they were facing a stone killer dog in Prime Ape, and they brought what they thought was a truly badass dog, and he was. Wildchild said the dog's strength and mouth were incredible, as was his condition. Dogs don't know who their owners are, and even dogmen the level of Hardcore Kennels can still lose to relative beginners, as for instance when Ram's Flash beat HCK's SDJ Cover Dog, Ch Doogie. The fact is, relative beginners can and do get their hands on some truly awesome dogs. So, even though "public perception" of a relatively unknown dogman might not be much, that has nothing to do with the fact that many are as hard to beat as kennels get.
And, BTW, it's a good thing most of my dogs win after the :40 mark, LOL, because that is generally what separates "the fastlane shit" from truly game bulldogs
Agree and disagree.Agreed here, and perception is what a lot of decisions are made on and simply not simply a win. Above post
My perception means everything to me ... whereas "the perception of others" never has. If I see a dog go with my own eyes, on my own yard, then I will make my decisions and be confident that they're better decisions than most. If I hear of my dogs performing in a way that "makes sense" based on how they're bred, then I will be proud of that dog. And if I hear that a dog didn't live up to the way I had hoped, and he's been done right, then I will be disappointed. I don't like being disappointed, so fortunately this doesn't happen very often
True enough. Sometimes patience makes no difference ... except in one very important detail ... we know in our bones that we did our job and the best we could for that dog, and its failure was therefore its own.
These dogs have a tough row to hoe, and things are hard enough for them even in a perfect world, so there is no sense making it harder than it has to be. Ultimately, if we want the best results, it is our job to clear the way for them, manage the intangibles favorably, and do the best we can for them, first, before we expect the best out of them in return. That is only fair.
I would rather waste my time being patient on 3 dogs that ultimately disappointed me, than to lose and unfairly waste 1 good dog that just needed a little more time and patience. For example, I took Bolo back because the customer I sold him to said he was cold and sucked. You know the story on his parents, Pup Pup and Super Red, who were absolutely as game as live ones could be. And these dogs were CHALK FULL of some of the gamest, baddest, and best-producing dogs a man could ask for. So I was 100% confident Bolo would "turn on" and live up to his incredible pedigree. But the fucker never did. He was absolutely mortified by fighting contact, and sailed over the wall every time he got touched. It was freaking embarrassing
So I made an experimental "double Pup Pup" breeding with him, just to see if I could "shake the genetic jar" and get game dogs back out of him. Most of those pups did turn out pretty good, but "pretty good" is not what I am after. I believe one male was cold also, and "coldness" is neither something I am used to, nor desire, so I just got rid of it all.
So, as you said, in that particular case my being patient didn't mean a damned thing. Still, I would rather waste my time with a dog like Bolo, and be disappointed on occasion, than EVER miss the opportunity to own a Diamond Girl or a Ch Vengence, who did turn out to be truly game, valuable animals thanks to a little patience. In other words, just because we might get disappointed by trying our best, is no reason to stop doing so. Truly good dogmen should never forgo the quality work of being patient and doing their job.
Jack
Thanks for the good discussion!
Great exchanges and good series of posts. EWO
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
