Gameness is either there or not, you can add wind....how about ability?

[SteelyDan]

Totally disagree with you and believe your opinion to be the great blunder in thinking of most dogmen: the game/cur mentality (as if there aren't degrees of gameness).

Gameness = the will to win. And the will to win does vary within the individual and *is* influenced by many factors (age, condition, health, level/style of opponent, etc.).

Anyone who thinks that a dog is either "dead game" or "a rank cur" ... and that there aren't an infinite degrees of gameness (desires to win) inbetween these two extremes ... again suffers from the greatest mental block and lack of understanding in these dogs.

Jack

Jack the blunder here is you thinking a dog knows what winning and losing is. That's you pushing your ideas and vocabulary onto the dog. There are no degrees of gameness. Anything short of the final degree is left unknown. That's why originally said how honest a dog is. You can say hey that dog took a beatin and kept coming he's pretty honest, so long as he is alive he can live to quit another day. So long as a dogs living there has got to be a shadow of a doubt that there is cur in its ass. To assume anything less, would be another blunder. Degrees of gameness can just as easily be called degrees of cur using your line of thinking. Any degree short of death is that much more degree of cur to be questioned.

[FrostyPaws]

I disagree. I dont think that all assets can be enhanced. If a dog isnt a natural finisher i dont think the human element can make him such.

If a dog isn't a natural finisher, then to my thinking, it's obviously not a trait. I don't think the OP was asking can we make a dog something he's not. I think the spirit of the question is can we enhance something that's there already. Since we're talking about traits that can be enhanced, that would leave a trait a dog doesn't have out of the discussion. In my own experience, a dog is either a finishing type dog or not. If he's not, then obviously you can't enhance something that's not there. If the dog IS a finisher, of course you can enhance and make him that much more eager to finish when he gets his spot.

[FrostyPaws]

I would take it one step further. A majority of shows are won by the better conditioner/handler.

A majority of shows are won long before conditioning or handling play any significant part. Most shows are won by the better dog. It's only when you run into 2 dogs of equal caliber that conditioning and handling may play a part.

[Officially Retired]

Jack the blunder here is you thinking a dog knows what winning and losing is. That's you pushing your ideas and vocabulary onto the dog.

A dog does not have a human definition of winning, true, but he damned sure knows (in his own terms) that he wants to vanquish his foe or not.

What you're doing is quibbling over 'human definitions' as a mask for actually discussing the issue, because (for that matter) a dog doesn't know what gameness is either.

There are no degrees of gameness. Anything short of the final degree is left unknown.

You are confusing DEAD gameness with the mere presence of gameness. Dead gameness is what you're talking about, which means that the dog has so much gameness it will run out of its own life before it runs out of the will to keep fighting.

That's why originally said how honest a dog is. You can say hey that dog took a beatin and kept coming he's pretty honest, so long as he is alive he can live to quit another day.

I find it laughable that you just substituted the word "honest" for gameness here. Again, a dog doesn't know what "honest" means either (), so it serves no purpose for you to change terminology to say the same thing.

Re-naming a proven degree of gameness as "honest" (to try to confuse things) is no way to form an argument, because I am still calling what you describe a certain amount of proven gameness. I can just as easily say, "This dog has shown to be pretty game," as you say 'honest' and we're both saying the same thing--and the dog can still quit another day.

So long as a dogs living there has got to be a shadow of a doubt that there is cur in its ass.

Here comes the "macho talk" that is always joined with this kind of unaware extremism

The correct view is that, so long as a dog is alive, he hasn't shown DEAD gameness ... true (and DUH!) ... but if he came from way back, after getting nearly killed in a 2-hour blood bath, I will happily call that dog, "Very game," or "Game as a live one can be," or some such, and be correct in my terminology.

To assume anything less, would be another blunder.

Wrong. Confusing DEAD gameness with mere 'gameness' is your blunder

Degrees of gameness can just as easily be called degrees of cur using your line of thinking.

This is factually inaccurate, and yet another blunder on your part

Take the existence of HEAT and the concept of TEMPERATURE for example. What we commonly call "hot" and "cold" are actually degrees of HEAT (molecular motion) only ... there IS NO SUCH THING as "degrees of cold" ... and, quite similarly, we also speak of degrees here

Scientifically-speaking, there ARE NO "degrees of cold" there are ONLY degrees of heat (molecular motion)

Therefore, what we call "hot" is something with a high degree of molecular motion, and what we call "cold" is something with a low degree of molecular motion, and it is all based on HOW MUCH HEAT (motion) is going on in the object.

Now then, if we take this same analogy to the dogs, and if gameness is the desire to fight/win, then "how game" a dog is can be viewed in the same fashion as "how hot" an object is, which likewise comes in an infinite variety of degrees

There is never "the presence of cold" in an object; there is only the presence (or absence) of HEAT (molecular motion)
There is never "the presence of cur" in a dog, either; there is only the presence (or absence) of GAMENESS (the will to fight/win)

So, again, you have your entire understanding of everything bass-ackwards ...

Any degree short of death is that much more degree of cur to be questioned.

Wrong and again exactly backwards.

Any kind of will to fight at all is SOME degree of GAMENESS ... short of a dog that won't hit a lick or take one hold ... which is why we call these dogs COLD ... which would be the same as "Absolute Zero" in terms of temperature (no gameness at all / no motion at all)

Be enlightened now

Jack

[gotap_d]

If a dog isn't a natural finisher, then to my thinking, it's obviously not a trait. I don't think the OP was asking can we make a dog something he's not. I think the spirit of the question is can we enhance something that's there already. Since we're talking about traits that can be enhanced, that would leave a trait a dog doesn't have out of the discussion. In my own experience, a dog is either a finishing type dog or not. If he's not, then obviously you can't enhance something that's not there. If the dog IS a finisher, of course you can enhance and make him that much more eager to finish when he gets his spot.

I see what you are saying with the finishing trait. It cant be enhanced if it isnt there. But my main focus was on wrestling ability. How is it the human enhancing it and not the other dog?

[EWO]

If were coaching baseball and I knew the opposing pitcher threw low and forced a lot of grounders, well, that is how I would prepare my infield. Should they be ready for the pop-up? Absolutely, but by selecting the means of practice I will be enhancing their ability in that area of the game. Now did I enhance it or did the ball coming at them at a high rate of speed enhance their ability? Either way, the ability improved with the choice of experiences.

Same with the dogs. I am not saying a dog with absolutely no ability can be transformed into an elite wrestling machine. But anything one does in that area to help teach and prepare the dog is 'enhancing' whatever little ability the dog had from the start. Same with conditioning. A dog on the chain that can give his all for 30 minutes (just a number) and then is properly fed and properly worked should be able to go 45 minutes or an hour, (again just a number). Thus his conditioning was enhanced.

I answered the post based on the word enhanced not substituting that word with creation. Two different things. S

I see what you are saying with the finishing trait. It cant be enhanced if it isnt there. But my main focus was on wrestling ability. How is it the human enhancing it and not the other dog?

[TopShelfKennels]

I also believe that a dogs abilities can be enhanced, if the traits are present. Definitely cant add something that wasnt there to begin with. Any ability weather it be wrestling, air, speed.... can be enhanced to the individual dogs physical limit thru proper training, but if the dog doesnt have a specific attribute, the owner isnt going to make it appear. Some dogs are so one dimensional they will never learn no matter how much experience they have, so in my opinion, only smart dogs can learn from each exposure and show you better results each time. With that said, i feel that smarts is the main trait needed to enhance any ability in any dog, one can not increase a dogs ability to learn or adjust his tactics no matter what the dog is exposed too.

[gotap_d]

If were coaching baseball and I knew the opposing pitcher threw low and forced a lot of grounders, well, that is how I would prepare my infield. Should they be ready for the pop-up? Absolutely, but by selecting the means of practice I will be enhancing their ability in that area of the game. Now did I enhance it or did the ball coming at them at a high rate of speed enhance their ability? Either way, the ability improved with the choice of experiences.

Same with the dogs. I am not saying a dog with absolutely no ability can be transformed into an elite wrestling machine. But anything one does in that area to help teach and prepare the dog is 'enhancing' whatever little ability the dog had from the start. Same with conditioning. A dog on the chain that can give his all for 30 minutes (just a number) and then is properly fed and properly worked should be able to go 45 minutes or an hour, (again just a number). Thus his conditioning was enhanced.

I answered the post based on the word enhanced not substituting that word with creation. Two different things. S

I think the baseball example is a great example so i will go with that it may help get what i am saying across a little better. For example your baseball team will be going against a pitcher that always throws low and away so to prepare your team you PLAN on using a pitching machine to throw low and away to your batters. When you set your pitching machine up it malfunctions the entire practice and pitches in the center of the strike zone(the area where your batters are already very profecient at batting). At the end of that practice did you enhance your players ability to bat against the low and away pitcher? No you did not.

[Officially Retired]

I think the baseball example is a great example so i will go with that it may help get what i am saying across a little better. For example your baseball team will be going against a pitcher that always throws low and away so to prepare your team you PLAN on using a pitching machine to throw low and away to your batters. When you set your pitching machine up it malfunctions the entire practice and pitches in the center of the strike zone(the area where your batters are already very profecient at batting). At the end of that practice did you enhance your players ability to bat against the low and away pitcher? No you did not.

You're arguing nonsense, nothing more.

Yes, any idiot can see that if you "try" to school a dog one way, but it doesn't work out, that the dog wasn't schooled the way you hoped. But that's not what we're talking about.

The whole point is when it DOES go the way you want it to, so to argue some freak exception where "the pitching machine doens't work" is just wasting time talking nonsense.

When I set the pitching machine up to pitch low and away, and it works the way it's supposed to, then I am schooling my batters.

Now if you want to then argue that the "pitching machine" and not me (the coach) is schooling the batters ... well, then here again you are just babbling nonsense, to make noise I guess, but you are missing the entire point of the dialogue.

Jack

[gotap_d]

You're arguing nonsense, nothing more.

Yes, any idiot can see that if you "try" to school a dog one way, but it doesn't work out, that the dog wasn't schooled the way you hoped. But that's not what we're talking about.

The whole point is when it DOES go the way you want it to, so to argue some freak exception where "the pitching machine doens't work" is just wasting time talking nonsense.

When I set the pitching machine up to pitch low and away, and it works the way it's supposed to, then I am schooling my batters.

Now if you want to then argue that the "pitching machine" and not me (the coach) is schooling the batters ... well, then here again you are just babbling nonsense, to make noise I guess, but you are missing the entire point of the dialogue.

Jack

Yes i give the credit to the roll dog/schooling opponent. Dogs are not as easily controlled as a sparring partner in boxing. You cant say dog 1 attack this weakness and dog 2 work on defending this weakness. Its more hoping it goes according to plan. Its not babbling nonsense that has nothing to do with the dialouge. The point was i dont believe it has as much to do with human enhancement as it does with the dog doing the teaching and the other doing the learning.