Should Showing EXTREME GAMENESS be Part of DOY Candidacy?

[STA8541]

Sta8, ou said that "legends can beat anything at any time; that's why they're legends" and then you go on to state "you shouldn't punish an athlete for the era he/she played or fought in"

Which is it? Can they beat anyone any time or just the ones they competed against in their era?

Legends can beat anyone at any time (note: this is NOT the same thing as saying they will win...but they surely can, no matter the era the dog they are facing hails from) I don't know why you are having trouble w/this concept. There is NO guarantee that any dog from this era (I don't care how great he is) could beat one from days gone by, surely not one of the old aces. It's just that simple. It's why they call it gambling, son.

I get that they are a legend b/c of what they did in the time they did it in. However, that does not guarantee they would make the starting line up TODAY or in another era. I won't hold their era against them but I won't say they could have done the same in a different era.

Nothing guarantees any starting lineup (whatever that is) to any dog from any era. Just b/c a dog is a modern day legend does not guarantee they would make the "starting lineup" IN ANOTHER ERA. To put it another way: whoever your personal choice of "ace of aces" is this year is NOT guaranteed to beat any one of the old timey aces. He might win, sure...but then again, he might not. You pays your $ & you takes your chances. There is no "proof" of anything you have alleged about "new being better than old." Good ones & bad ones are where you find em. In any year.

And I won't hold today's dogs era against them, but I won't say they could have done the same in days gone by. We are even there.

If we can all agree a dog could not or would not make the same strides in different hands, keep, a different weight, etc. then how in the world do we qualify that animal as making the grade in a completely different day and age?

The only guy who is trying to "qualify that animal as making the grade in a completely different day & age" here is you. My point was that you have no idea about whether or not a dog of today could whip a dog of yesterday. You'd need to level the weights, erase the years, put em in a keep, then set em down (for $$$). And since no one can do that, all you are doing is speculating. I'll say it again: aces are aces.

Legends truly are legends b/c of what they did, against who they did it against and how and when they did it. However, as magnificent as they are/were in their era, nothing guarantees they would do the same against a different opponent in a different day and age.

Today's great dogs are great b/c of what they did against who they did it against & how & when they did it. However, as magnificent as they are in their day (today), nothing guarantees they would do the same against a different opponent in a different day & age. Again, we are even here.

Oh yeah, I ain't no fucking kid either pops!

Anybody who makes an inane argument like "an athlete of today is, by that very reason of "today," superior to LEGENDS of days gone by" hasn't demonstrated the maturity not to be called a kid! Every time I've heard the argument made (on behalf of various 4 footed & 2 footed athletes) it has been by a guy who is just a kid, & doesn't know enough to know when he's said something factually untenable.

[No Quarter Kennel]

Look dude, first of all, you really need to drop all the "son" and "kid" bullshit. The only time I see a guy contradict himself within two sentences, it's usually a moron but you don't see me calling you a moron b/c I can't understand your point

Second and most important, you take a good long time getting around to a point. You first said, if you look up and have a yard full of game plugs, you essentially don't have anything and yet you want to argue gameness is paramount. That is without a question, a contradiction.

Third, you are now saying "an ace is an ace". This I agree with. It doesn't qualify him to be anything other than what he is, when he was, against who he did it and how he did it. You are the one speculating b/c you say they can beat anyone, anywhere, anytime, etc.

Lastly, I never said aces then are not on the same level as aces. This has been you point of emphasis b/c it is easier to prove your point. I simply said that dogs, as whole, are better today than yesterday. That's my opinion and it won't change.

I'm done arguing with you b/c this is exactly how a great thread like this gets all screwed up. You know, a guy calling names and talking in circles. So, I will NOT respond to you about this any further.

Have a great day sir!

[EWO]

It's a tough argument. I think the difference is the feed, nutrition, supplementation, that has changed. Merely opinion, but I do not think they have evolved enough, even through selective breeding, to say they (as a whole) are biting any harder than they did 10-20-30-40-50 years ago.

I think what it is now is thru better feed, better nutrition/supplementation and readily available bloodwork to make changes, the dog bites the same as he did many moons ago. Todays dog may be able to stay in hold longer with a more violent shake.

EWO

[Officially Retired]

Anybody who makes an inane argument like "an athlete of today is, by that very reason of "today," superior to LEGENDS of days gone by" hasn't demonstrated the maturity not to be called a kid! Every time I've heard the argument made (on behalf of various 4 footed & 2 footed athletes) it has been by a guy who is just a kid, & doesn't know enough to know when he's said something factually untenable.

Let's be cool.

I actually agree with you that today's dogs are no better than yesterday's dogs ... but NQK is not a kid ... and he is entitled to have his own opinion on a subject.

I believe that today's dogs simply have better nutrition/conditioning knowledge behind them but are ultimately are no different/better than yesterday's dogs, in general.

Jack

[Macker]

I see the yes vote is slightly pulling ahead, does that mean there won't be a desperate category for gamest dog of the year?

[No Quarter Kennel]

So I'm not getting off track, I do want to clarify, I would be all for Game Dog of Year, but not that Gameness be a requirement any higher than any other in terms of DOY.

Now, back to arguing. If we can selectively breed for better air and to an extent, style, then why could the ability to bite harder not be enhanced through selective breeding? Furthermore, if it can, has there not been a heavier emphasis on breeding for mouth in the past 30 years compared to the previous 50 before that?

I may need to start a new poll. I feel like I'm in the minority here, but where I come from, this is pretty common thinking. Who knows?

Cheerios

[S_B]

The yes vote is pulling ahead slightly and re-reading the poll questions I can see why folks would cast that yes vote. To me the options are a bit tricky. Sure anyone attracted to these dogs wants gameness to be a prerequisite for any award given. But an award that is going out to a single individual in an entire calendar year should be based on more than just an extremely game bulldog.

Take for instance DBL GR CH Tornado...I've only had the pleasure of viewing some of her contests via recordings. There have been discussions among friends questioning her gameness. Here's what I have to say about that. Judging by what I have seen Tornado was an Ace, she may not have looked to some as being a brutal dog. But she would adapt to any style and bite you down. She did this all while making it look easy and did not take much damage getting there.

Was Tornado game? I say she absolutely was. Any dog that takes 10 keeps and faces 10 opponents is nothing less than game IMO. Now I don't know for sure if DBL GR CH TORNADO received DOY, I'd imagine she did...but I guarantee her gameness isn't what qualified her for that

The point I'm making using Tornado as an example is...maybe to some she wasn't game. But there is no denying that was one truly bad ass bitch who faced all comers and whipped them in convincing fashion! That is what set her apart from all others. That is what an award like DOY of the year means to me.

S_B
(Voted No)

[STA8541]

Look dude, first of all, you really need to drop all the "son" and "kid" bullshit. The only time I see a guy contradict himself within two sentences, it's usually a moron but you don't see me calling you a moron b/c I can't understand your point

Look dude, I never contradicted myself.

Second and most important, you take a good long time getting around to a point. You first said, if you look up and have a yard full of game plugs, you essentially don't have anything and yet you want to argue gameness is paramount. That is without a question, a contradiction.

This is most important, b/c I never said a word about game plugs. You got your signals crossed.

Third, you are now saying "an ace is an ace". This I agree with. It doesn't qualify him to be anything other than what he is, when he was, against who he did it and how he did it. You are the one speculating b/c you say they can beat anyone, anywhere, anytime, etc.

No: you are the one who said today's dogs are better than those of yesterday. I never said it. All I did was show your statement was factually inaccurate & unprovable.

Lastly, I never said aces then are not on the same level as aces. This has been you point of emphasis b/c it is easier to prove your point. I simply said that dogs, as whole, are better today than yesterday. That's my opinion and it won't change.

Dogs, as a whole, are no better today than yesterday. The genes are exactly the same. That's my opinion & it won't change.

I'm done arguing with you b/c this is exactly how a great thread like this gets all screwed up. You know, a guy calling names and talking in circles. So, I will NOT respond to you about this any further.

Have a great day sir!

I'm glad you're done; I am too. I never called you any names; you started w/the profanity.

Take care, sir.

[STA8541]

Let's be cool.

I actually agree with you that today's dogs are no better than yesterday's dogs ... but NQK is not a kid ... and he is entitled to have his own opinion on a subject.

I believe that today's dogs simply have better nutrition/conditioning knowledge behind them but are ultimately are no different/better than yesterday's dogs, in general.

Jack

Never wasn't cool, Jack. He was the guy who started using profanity. I was simply defending a position. From a fellow that made it clear he had his opinion...so I simply stated mine.

And thank you for agreeing w/me, I appreciate that.

I apologize for any consternation or trouble I may have caused. Not my intent. Only wanted to get my point across, & it seems I have.

S'a nice thread too, by the by.

[ragedog10]

The yes vote is pulling ahead slightly and re-reading the poll questions I can see why folks would cast that yes vote. To me the options are a bit tricky. Sure anyone attracted to these dogs wants gameness to be a prerequisite for any award given. But an award that is going out to a single individual in an entire calendar year should be based on more than just an extremely game bulldog.

Take for instance DBL GR CH Tornado...I've only had the pleasure of viewing some of her contests via recordings. There have been discussions among friends questioning her gameness. Here's what I have to say about that. Judging by what I have seen Tornado was an Ace, she may not have looked to some as being a brutal dog. But she would adapt to any style and bite you down. She did this all while making it look easy and did not take much damage getting there.

Was Tornado game? I say she absolutely was. Any dog that takes 10 keeps and faces 10 opponents is nothing less than game IMO. Now I don't know for sure if DBL GR CH TORNADO received DOY, I'd imagine she did...but I guarantee her gameness isn't what qualified her for that

The point I'm making using Tornado as an example is...maybe to some she wasn't game. But there is no denying that was one truly bad ass bitch who faced all comers and whipped them in convincing fashion! That is what set her apart from all others. That is what an award like DOY of the year means to me.

S_B
(Voted No)

Here's my thing on the gameness of any match dog. Before he or she has been hooked he or she went thru schooling right? Now that final test is called what?" A GAME TEST" now with that only beinging 30 plus mins ( a rule edge in stone by yester year) then every dog match has show to be GAME! The level of ones gameness is whats to be displayed on party night if you ask me.
Using the thread " picking up game in 10-20 mins" if what most have said, showing the willingness to keep pressing, is showing that you have some level of gameness,Maybe just lacked in abilty that night.

And anyone that has a fighting backround should have the up most respect for a DEEP GAME DOG as we know no matter how much you condition yourself 5-12 three min rounds is LOOONG and if your heart is not in it its night,night! Lol

If you think about it some dogs are game and never have to show how DEEP GAME they are because they have so much ability example GRCH shady Lady five shows with a total time of 37 plus mins she had to have had more time on her in schooling! Now was she a game dog in my mind yes. She past her 30 min game test. Now how deep was her LEVEL of gameness who can ever say unless they seen her pushed to the max.

Now some my disagree with this but if we have a super ability dog who never get put on his back or put behind in schooling with dogs his size then we get something a lilttle bit bigger and super ruff on him or her. Reason being is I want to see his or hers LEVEL of gameness once they are not in control! Im not going to leave them down till they lose a limb as i plan on matching him or her but I wanna see if your a TRUE GAME DOG one that thinks they can win even tho they are getting put behind. Then your corner, if the more he or she gets put behind by this bigger class mate and we get u back to said corner and the all thing they want to do is go back to work because in his or her mind they are going to win!!! Now that there put chills up and down my spain!