1xL or D: ch or gr ch?

[Officially Retired]

This is true what you're saying
But I guess you can say when you bring a 9 year old animal to match another gr ch in his prime, you dont even care about a title. The dog deserves it more then any other but goes hand in hand with its owner. A dog who retires after winning 5 could be the less dog but thats how it works in the world. Same with money. Some take it and leave it, some lose all trying to double up. I want to say i respect the people who continue, take challenges and end up losing in the end much more. They have the courage and knowledge to go in many matches with 1 dog and will always be the ones with more credibility no matter what title they been given. Think this can be an endless discussion. There will always be "average"(relatively) dogs with a title and good dogs without unless you judge them individual.

I agree there is a certain sense of the arbitrary when bestowing titles. Why 3 wins, why not 4, to make Champion? Why 5 wins, why not 6, to make Grand Champion?, etc.

Yet, even if we concede the sense of the arbitrary here, there at least should be some order and consistency to it all.

With that said, you still haven't explained the lack of logic here.

If the 3xW keeps his title if he loses, why does the 5xW lose his? Logically-speaking, either both lose their title or neither does.

Logically-speaking, if a 3xW = Champion, and if a 5xW = Grand Champion, then the dogs still remain 3- and 5xWs even if they lose later. The fact that they attained the required number of wins do not change through subsequent loss.

In the end, there simply is no logic in stripping a 5xW for his title, if his owner decides to keep going with him and loses, while you let the 3xW Champion keep his title if he does the same and loses.

Jack

[R2L]

Dont know why you are asking me. i dont think its logic.

[Officially Retired]

Dont know why you are asking me. i dont think its logic.

You don't?

I suppose I am asking you because you made this thread, after snickering at a loss on the previous thread, all because you think a Gr Ch should lose his title if he ever loses, but yet you don't think a Champion should.

So I am asking you to explain where is the logical consistency, or to admit there isn't any

Jack

[R2L]

I didnt put the word champion anywere.. wasnt snickering at a loss either. Don't make that up. I think its funny when people put times/opponents/matchreports on pedigrees online/ boards w/e and write its fiction, had to make a little joke. Just robbed a bank in fiction. 1xL is not considered a gr ch, i cant help that.

But since you ask me. Logic is when you get 2 pieces after slicing a pizza in half. I think its fair for a champion to lose his title too, yes. Letting hem both keep it and put higher standards like you mentioned, maybe not a bad idea at all.

[Officially Retired]

I didnt put the word champion anywere.. wasnt snickering at a loss either. Don't make that up. I think its funny when people put times/opponents/matchreports on pedigrees online/ boards w/e and write its fiction, had to make a little joke. Just robbed a bank in fiction. 1xL is not considered a gr ch, i cant help that.
But since you ask me. Logic is when you get 2 pieces after slicing a pizza in half. I think its fair for a champion to lose his title too, yes. Letting hem both keep it and put higher standards like you mentioned, maybe not a bad idea at all.

LOL, how do two pieces of pizza fit into here?

And what is a "higher standard?"

Winning 6x against a mediocre lot of 1-2x winners, and maybe beating 1 obligatory Champion?

Or winning 9x over the best in the world, defeating two Grand Champions and two 4xWs (going for their Gr Ch-ship) along the way, plus a bunch of other highly-regarded 1-2xWs, finally losing at 9 years of age to yet another Champion?

Who, really, is the "Grand" dog in this equation?

Jack

[R2L]

Maybe you shouldn't look for logic. Cause even if they keep it there can two dogs with the same title while one would beat the shit out the other.

Why 3 wins, why not 4, to make Champion? Why 5 wins, why not 6, to make Grand Champion?, etc.

Maybe the harder to make a champion or grand champion the more people would agree they deserve to keep the title? You cannot judge any dog's wins individual so it has to be by numbers. Might encourage people to continue too if they were to keep the title.

[Officially Retired]

Maybe you shouldn't look for logic. Cause even if they keep it there can two dogs with the same title while one would beat the shit out the other.

There has to be logic in the way things are done, otherwise there (literally) is no rhyme or reason to what is being done.

Maybe the harder to make a champion or grand champion the more people would agree they deserve to keep the title?

It already is hard to earn these titles.
The error in thinking is to assume that because a given dog "lost" that this automatically means he is inferior to a dog that did not lose.

You cannot judge any dog's wins individual so it has to be by numbers.

This is true, there are so many variables that it is impossible to stack wins against the other.
However, if it has to do with numbers, then two things are true: 1) the dog who beats titled opponents with more wins has to be a higher-ranked dog than the one who beats 0-1x winners, and 2) the dog who fights 8x and beats 7 opponents, while losing once, still beat more dogs than a 5xW with no losses ... and, as such, is more of a "Grand Champion" than a 5xW who safely retired.

Might encourage people to continue too if they were to keep the title.

I agree, definitely.

Jack

[R2L]

It already is hard to earn these titles.

I absolutely believe that, no doubt about it. But obviously not hard enough for majority of people to say a dog should keep his gr ch title with 5 w 1l. Even most of the votes for 1 draw went to no. I just like the idea of a dog having to be flawless to earn and keep his title, this also takes a very good estimation from its owner. But i must say I also respect the idea that a reward in form of a title given to a dog for its performance, should be honored forever. Ah well, its just 2 letters, once a good dog loses its title it doesnt lose its credibility

The error in thinking is to assume that because a given dog "lost" that this automatically means he is inferior to a dog that did not lose.

100 % true

[FrostyPaws]

Sampson never lost. I believe you're referring to Sandman.

I also think we should keep in mind that it simply isn't easy to win 5 legitimate matches into legitimate competition. I personally don't care if the dog is a 6xw, 1xL. You can call him a grand champion if you like. It is, afterall, your dog. If a top flight dog wins 6 and loses 1, it is still a top flight dog, and it is still better than most dogs kicking up dust. Is it simply more glorious sounding to say your dog is a grand champion as opposed to saying your dog is a 6x winner?

Dogs that win against all comers never to lose deserve to be recognized as an animal that's a cut above the norm. If you have a dog that wins 9 and loses at the age of 9, can that really be the fault of the dog? That is where decision making by the person comes into play, and usually not for the betterment of the dog but for the betterment of their own name with no regards for the dog.

The ability to know when to stop is just as important as the ability to know when to go.

[Officially Retired]

I absolutely believe that, no doubt about it. But obviously not hard enough for majority of people to say a dog should keep his gr ch title with 5 w 1l.

You contradict yourself.
If you "absolutely" believe that, you cannot then follow this absolute statement with a "but not hard enough" statement, as this is a logical contradiction.

Further, the "majority" of people's opinion has already been discussed. In point of fact, the majority of people actually have no "opinion" of their own, they are just following convention like mindless lemmings.

Even most of the votes for 1 draw went to no. Even most of the votes for 1 draw went to no.

Excuse me, but as right now, a 3-1 landslide majority is in favor of keeping the title based on the votes here ... and it would have been over there too, had I been making arguments over there

I just like the idea of a dog having to be flawless to earn and keep his title, this also takes a very good estimation from its owner.

Well, I can't argue your "likes" with you, they're yours, but I don't understand what you mean in your last sentence.

The dog that retires after 5 had an owner who retired his dog, while the dog whose owner went for 8 had an owner who took his dog out much more times. Surely this has to be held in higher estimation, especially if it was into other Champions and Gr Champions, not just "dogs."

But i must say I also respect the idea that a reward in form of a title given to a dog for its performance, should be honored forever. Ah well, its just 2 letters, once a good dog loses its title it doesnt lose its credibility
100 % true

Why should a dog lose his title, when he went out there harder and longer than another dog, just because he finally lost?

Why should a dog who never took the same risks be favored?

Jack