New GRAND CHAMPION – F2F and Solo’s El Titere 5XW – Son of CH Panthro 4XW

[AmberLamps]

I was laughing at the way in which R2L worded his reply, it was the fiction part that tickled me. But like it or not Jack (and I don't btw) it's commonly accepted by everyone in dogs, that a dog who loses a match either can't go for his Gr Ch title or would lose it if he's already attained it.

Your example of Robert T losing his Gr Ch title was a good one and it's equally preposterous of a dog not being given the opportunity to attain his Gr Ch title if he/she happened to lose one early in their career. An example would be Ch Silver, he waxed a gr ch, lost his second while sick, then went on to wax another 2 grand champions and a champion. But he could never go for a Gr Ch title, or ever be recognised as a Gr Ch because he had a loss on his record.

Anyone who stops to actually think about it for a second, can see it's absurd, but like i'v already said, it's become so commonly accepted and ingrained amongst dogmen, most wont even give it a second thought. It's simply just accepted as the way it is.

I don't subscribe to it but i understand the online sdj has alot of people reading it, so it potentially could have a big influence in the way dogmen think if an article was written regarding this outdated rule. Someone with your writing skills could change the way alot of people think if you ever chose to do an article on this.

[Officially Retired]

I was laughing at the way in which R2L worded his reply, it was the fiction part that tickled me. But like it or not Jack (and I don't btw) it's commonly accepted by everyone in dogs, that a dog who loses a match either can't go for his Gr Ch title or would lose it if he's already attained it.

I am well-aware that the notion is commonly-accepted, and it was the sarcasm that I was referring to when I made my post. That is why I made it.

The mentality to trivialize a dog's accomplishments, and to reject the idea that a great dog can lose, is precisely why I made my post.

Your example of Robert T losing his Gr Ch title was a good one and it's equally preposterous of a dog not being given the opportunity to attain his Gr Ch title if he/she happened to lose one early in their career. An example would be Ch Silver, he waxed a gr ch, lost his second while sick, then went on to wax another 2 grand champions and a champion. But he could never go for a Gr Ch title, or ever be recognised as a Gr Ch because he had a loss on his record.

There are many examples of great dogs that have lost (as well as great human boxers who have lost), which is why discounting a dog's greatness (or all-time title) is preposterous. Jack Kelly is the one who originated the "rule" that any dog that loses cannot be a Grand Champion, and (as I said) the majority of bulldoggers follow this credo like lemmings, even though Jack Kelly and his mag are gone. It is an ignorant way to think IMO, and unfair to many great dogs. IMO, any dog that wins 5+ times in top competition is a "Grand" Champion, way beyond the normal competitor.

Anyone who stops to actually think about it for a second, can see it's absurd, but like i'v already said, it's become so commonly accepted and ingrained amongst dogmen, most wont even give it a second thought. It's simply just accepted as the way it is.

Well, that is exactly what I intended to do, and in fact did do, and that is de-rail the common mentality here, wipe the snicker off of some faces, and give a reality check

I don't subscribe to it but i understand the online sdj has alot of people reading it, so it potentially could have a big influence in the way dogmen think if an article was written regarding this outdated rule. Someone with your writing skills could change the way alot of people think if you ever chose to do an article on this.

That is a good idea, and the owner has asked me to write some articles for his mag, I just haven't gotten around to doing so yet. But that would be a great place to start.

Jack

[sinister]

i understand what you mean jack, but what criteria do we go by then?

[Officially Retired]

i understand what you mean jack, but what criteria do we go by then?

Easy. Same thing as what we do with a Champion.

For example, if your Champion wins 3 and loses his 4th, he is still called a "Champion," is he not, and he still deserves to be called as such. He does not get his title stripped!

IMO, the same logic should apply to Grand Champion. A dog that wins 5 contracted matches is still a "Grand" Champion, he just finally lost, same as the 3xW Champion is still a Ch who finally lost.

In human fighting, Sugar Ray Robinson finally lost too ... so did Ali ... so did Jack Dempsey, Marvin Hagler, Michael Spinks, etc. Yet they are all HOF all-time-great Champions.

Jack

[R2L]

cant follow the whole discussion but

like it or not Jack, it's commonly accepted by everyone in dogs, that a dog who loses a match either can't go for his Gr Ch title or would lose it if he's already attained it.

this, no disrespect. to much "rules" not everyone agrees with made up some time but seemingly no one can change them. im searching for a poll about this matter which was done a while ago... can't find it.

[skipper]

IMO the ones that are eager to discredit dogs and/or dogmen are the ones that aren't good enough to succeed themselves. Any dog that wins 5 is worth the GRCH title. People don't realize how hard it is to campaign a dog. And how much of a dog it takes to actually go through 5 keeps, 5 shows and 5 aftercares. To have somebody who most often don't even match dogs or have produced winning dogs themselves trying to discredit is the most disrespectful thing there is. I know of a guy who claimed that the dog he saw was THE worst dog he ever saw. Later for some lame reason he decided match into that dog. One can only guess he thought it would be an easy win. Anyway he lost to the dog that they earlier had discredit to the point where he was THE worst dog he ever saw. With a dog that supposedly was an ace caliber dog. This is a perfect example of a guy that has no respect or knowledge in dogs.

[Officially Retired]

Good post!

[skipper]

Thank you. It's basically common sense. But how often do so called doggers lack that attribute?=)

[Officially Retired]

Doggers commonly lack common sense

[skipper]

LOL