I was trying to help Punishem601 to understand what every one saying in a easy way so he could understand, but Now I see I was to late. Looks like he has a BOOT print on his ASS now.
I was trying to help Punishem601 to understand what every one saying in a easy way so he could understand, but Now I see I was to late. Looks like he has a BOOT print on his ASS now.
I don't agree.Originally Posted by loot
Would you like to add why
Because with a bad bleeder, there is a loss of blood. And if I go strictly by what you wrote, it is simply a quick loss of blood that you're worried with, and that doesn't entail gameness in my thought process. That tells me an artery was hit, which is pretty common, and you did the thing you thought best, but it doesn't make me think the dog showed what I consider to be game.
We agree, except that there is a difference between "what you" consider to be (I assume, proven-) game ... and a dog merely being picked up "game" (as in "still willing" at the point of pick up).
Ultimately, the term "proven game" is a subjective assessment on any dog that is picked up.
Ultimately, there is room for error in trying to make any kind of "permanent" assessment of a living animal
Too many future variables are possible, and so to try to make any kind of extreme permanent assessment, based on a past performance, is ultimately absurd.
Therefore, we can only speak with authority on the past performance, and we can only do so based on facts.
A dog "having run a scratch," and making contact after pick-up, is an objective fact that the dog was still willing to scratch at the point of pick-up, on that contest.
It doesn't mean the dog is "permanently game" ... there simply is no way to determine such a thing, based on a past performance, regardless of what time or what was done
It only means the dog didn't just stand there, he went over, and in doing so expressed willingness to continue at the point of pickup.
Jack
> EDITED
When I use the word “game” I'm not using the literal meaning of the word. If that's the case, then picking a dog up in 10 minutes without anything wrong with it physically is picked up game. And that would be simply because it scratched over.We agree, except that there is a difference between "what you" consider to be (I assume, proven-) game ... and a dog merely being picked up "game" (as in "still willing" at the point of pick up).
Ultimately, the term "proven game" is a subjective assessment on any dog that is picked up.
Ultimately, there is room for error in trying to make any kind of "permanent" assessment of a living animal
Too many future variables are possible, and so to try to make any kind of extreme permanent assessment, based on a past performance, is ultimately absurd.
Therefore, we can only speak with authority on the past performance, and we can only do so based on facts.
A dog "having run a scratch," and making contact after pick-up, is an objective fact that the dog was still willing to scratch at the point of pick-up, on that contest.
It doesn't mean the dog is "permanently game" ... there simply is no way to determine such a thing, based on a past performance, regardless of what time or what was done
It only means the dog didn't just stand there, he went over, and in doing so expressed willingness to continue at the point of pickup.
Jack
> EDITED
If I'm to look at it that way, then every dog I've ever picked up during schooling, that didn't quit, was picked up game. No. Not at my house, literal meaning or not. Being game means more, TO ME, than the simply willingness to continue at any juncture.
Again, I believe two things are being confused: 1) the mindset of the dog "at the time he was picked up," versus 2) the permanent state of the dog "being game," for sure.
You are trying to attribute #2 in the place of #1.
The statement "a dog was picked up game" is not #2; it relates to #1.
He was picked up and was still willing to go at that time ... it does not mean (and never was intended to mean) "the dog is a for-sure-game animal, under any circumstance."
It was merely picked up at X time, still wanting to go, in this contest.
Jack
And that is about how I would look at it, and word it, right there. I wouldn't stick the word "game" in there as I simply save that for dogs that fit what I define as game for my own yard. I don't have a separation of the two.
Well, in contests, it is often asked, "Was he willing to continue?"
And you must answer yes or no.
The no answer means the dog quit.
The yes answer means the dog lost, but was still game (willing to continue) at the time of stoppage.
Neither one is a permanent statement.
A dog can quit in one contest ... and then win 8x more and never show a sign of quitting (like Crenshaw's Ch Rascal) ...
And a dog can show game in one contest (be willing after some severe trauma) ... but then quit his next time out.
In the end ... you just never know what's going to happen on "the next one" ... and NO man's "assessment" is ever 100%
I think most of us, with some time under our belts, can analyze the surrounding factors and decide if there was enough adversity to take our hat off to the dog ... or not put too much stock in what happened.
Jack
Friend once old me its all about quality not quantity. Minutes are not as important as the quality of the roll. Gameness is all about that one persons opinion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote