The Undesirables

[Officially Retired]

I get what your saying.

I don't think you do.

I'm just not willing and I do say not willing to put opinion over my objective. That in itself is just a perspective thing.

You speak too simplistically to demonstrate understanding.

The truth is, the display of gameness/curness can be both objective and subjective.

The fact a dog stood is a fact.

WHY he stood can be a matter of opinion.

The fact a dog belly-crawled to a beat-down is NOT an opinion, it's a fact: there he was, he crawled. FACT.

"If" he would have quit :20 later is an opinion.

A person's ability/intelligence to sift fact from opinion is a key aptitude.

The ability to form correct opinions, based on the facts, is another key aptitude.

I'd be retarded or half slow not understanding lol.

[Officially Retired]

Jack I completely agree with the whole of what you are saying. I absolutely do not think this dog was a cur at all. He was conditioned perfectly in my opinion, he was healthy, he was calm cool and collected, not shy. The only thing negative I have to say about him is he was not schooled properly. At least that is why I contribute the couple goofy moves he made which did not hinder him in any way shape or form because he was mostly ahead and staying busy. He had the tools he needed and used them well. I thoroughly appreciate your contribution to this conversation.
S_B

Again, I don't subscribe to the "game or cur" theory.

I agree and think the dog sounds like a green prospect with some talent.

The foot has a ton of nerve endings on it, and a green tired dog is a green tired dog.

Whether he would take his death, or not, is of no importance.

Whether he has the ability to win, and runs his scratches good, is all that matters.

Hesitating on a scratch bothers me more than a confused, dominant, young dog on top.

Is the dog an ace? Hardly.
IMO, I want to see my dog with DOG in his mouth ... or trying to GET dog in his mouth.
When I see any dog just sitting there, not trying to get dog in his mouth, I am looking at a replaceable animal IMO.

Dogs that lay out of holds, when ahead, or who stay on top (like king of the mountain) are only peripheral-quality dogs to me, regardless of other talents.

It is a form of "lack of focus" to me, which can easily be translated into lack of gameness.

That said, if the dog is young, I wouldn't be judging him yet.

But if it was an experienced dog, I certainly wouldn't build a bloodline on him.

What is the age and # of rolls under its belt?

Jack

[S_B]

I do not know the age or amount of schooling on the dog. I do know he's not too young, he's at least over 2, maybe over 3?

[EGK]

[S_B]

Again, I don't subscribe to the "game or cur" theory.

I agree and think the dog sounds like a green prospect with some talent.

I do subscribe to both labels, but I certainly think each have levels to them. I agree he was green.

The foot has a ton of nerve endings on it, and a green tired dog is a green tired dog.

Whether he would take his death, or not, is of no importance.

Yep, seen good dogs get upset with a foot hold! Right, what is important in the aspect we are speaking is can he win? And yes he did.

Whether he has the ability to win, and runs his scratches good, is all that matters.

That's right!

Hesitating on a scratch bothers me more than a confused, dominant, young dog on top.

Is the dog an ace? Hardly.

Agree

IMO, I want to see my dog with DOG in his mouth ... or trying to GET dog in his mouth.
When I see any dog just sitting there, not trying to get dog in his mouth, I am looking at a replaceable animal IMO.

Dogs that lay out of holds, when ahead, or who stay on top (like king of the mountain) are only peripheral-quality dogs to me, regardless of other talents.

I agree, not the case with this particular dog at all. He just had a few very brief moments of collecting his thoughts. At least how I look at it as the rest of the entire time he was busy. You call it "dog in mouth" I call it "busy", same thing.

It is a form of "lack of focus" to me, which can easily be translated into lack of gameness.

This is golden...no focus no will. The will to continue is the defining term in a game display.

That said, if the dog is young, I wouldn't be judging him yet.

Agreed

But if it was an experienced dog, I certainly wouldn't build a bloodline on him.
Jack

I don't think the dog was schooled enough, to me the moves looked to be frustration out of never being in a defensive position. He's a pretty good little dog who I bet will look the part next time.

S_B

[Officially Retired]

I don't think the dog was schooled enough, to me the moves looked to be frustration out of never being in a defensive position. He's a pretty good little dog who I bet will look the part next time.
S_B

There is nothing wrong with a pretty good little dog.

I remember Jack Kelley saying he watched Tudor's Ch Spike walk away from downed, beaten opponents ... and lots of observers has lots of "opinions" to give about that ... but, when asked to scratch, Spike would fly across and resume the demolition.

Not every dog needs to be "perfect" in every way (almost zero are, quite frankly).

If he's talented enough to dominate, and as long as he's "flying over there" when separated and given the chance to go back, that is all he has to do.

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

But what you don't seem to realize (and haven't ever seemed to realize, in the 20-something years we've debated this topic online, lol) is that this is also an illustration of degrees of gameness

I realize all too well that we don't agree on this subject, and that's fine. I don't see a dog that quits in 3 hours after being ahead for 2:55 as having any degree of gameness. Scenarios matter. Blanket statements do not, and I'm guilty of making plenty of blanket statements over the years.

Saying the word "cur" can very well be a non-thinking statement.

To lump a 3-hour dog (that finally hung it up after losing half its blood supply and scratching on 2 broken legs) in the same "cur bag" with a dog that sailed over the wall after getting its toe pinched harder than expected, IS a non-thinking, idiot thing to do. It most definitely is.

Sure, which is why I don't do that, and nowhere in this post did I lump that type of dog in with such a dog as you described. Nor would I, which is also why I said what I did previously about thinking about such things before using such a word.

Which is precisely WHY it is more intelligent to speak in (and have a concept of) DEGREES of gameness.

The same can be said for believing in degrees of dogs being curs, whatever. Top shelf curs, run of the mill curs, rank curs, etc.

The term "pit game" is an understanding of a certain degree of gameness (enough to win, if ahead), but it doesn't command the same respect as deep game dog (who will continue to try, even if never ahead).

Pit game is not a term I would even utter from my mouth. Pit game = front running cur until it can't front run any longer. It's just a nice way of saying of it.

That is your opinion of yourself. Others may not share your opinion.

They may not share my opinion, and that's ok. My opinions are formed due to my own experience. Someone else may have completely different experiences which form their own opinion. That's fine.

Clearly they weren't "the right helpings," then, were they?

Or the right opponent, etc.

I think if a dog has taken it's death in the box, it clearly IS "the right helpings" and/or opponent.

You can give your opinions on these things, nothing more.

True. Same goes for everyone else.

But history is FILLED with dogs that some of the greatest dogmen EVER said, "He can not be beat," or, "He would never quit," etc., etc. ... which dogs went right out to lose/quit the next time.

History is also filled with those same men saying those exact same things, and the dogs they were talking about went right out to win/die trying the next time.

Precisely because, as I said, talent and gameness CAN VARY, both across individuals, as well as within individuals.

Or they were simply wrong and there wasn't really any variation except a better dog. There could have just as easily been zero variance, and the dog was simply a cur from the very beginning.

The dog that belly-crawled to a killing last year ... may hang it up to an ace ear dog this year ... because his TRAITS can change ...

Maybe so. Maybe not. Traits also may not change. The dog that takes the killing may simply sustain the killing without any issues, but gets frustrated on an ace ear dog. Does that necessarily mean his gameness changed? Not necessarily. Frustration was his achilles heel, and it took the ear dog to find exactly that. The same can be said for dogs that have taken a killing damage wise, but quit as soon as they get hot in the summer. Did the traits change? We don't know. No one knows if they actually changed or not or if that was simply the weak spot in the dog's armor.

Again, you are simply wrong.

There is no way that you will find an argument that Frosty was "a dog" ... but people could debate you as to whether he was a dead game dog or not.

And just because he belly-crawled today, against "that" opponent ... doesn't mean he'd crawl tomorrow, against "this other" opponent.

Frosty's traits can vary; his abilities can be enhanced (or diminished); yet he remains A DOG, regardless.

Again, there's this nasty word again: Opinion. Your opinion is I'm wrong based on your perspective of dogs. Based on mine, I'm right. Who exactly is wrong when ideas are based on opinions and experiences. I would never tell anyone Frosty was deadgame as he never died in the box. So, that's simply a one sided debate folks can have with their own inner voice.

And just because he did belly crawl once doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again, or the next 10 days. Or maybe he would simply take his death in the box, and nothing ever changed for him. The only way to know would be to take a dog out there and do it to see if his traits changed.

Once again, you misuse (and misunderstand) the word, "game."

I don't misunderstand the word game. I simply have a different out look on it than you do. Your ideas are not mine.

There are simply DEGREES of gameness, same as there are degrees of strength.

Degrees of curs

You get what you breed for. The funny thing is, in saying you breed for "extremes" in gameness, you're admitting there are degrees of gameness, by default

LOL. Not hardly. What I breed for pushes dogs into a grey area of possibly living or dying, maybe even being stopped. When I see what I want, I'm satisfied. I also know that since my dog isn't dead, he could still possibly quit, and yet, he may not either hence Top Shelf Cur. Maybe the dog is in the top 5 or 10% of dogs alive at that time, maybe not. I'm quite happy to admit that most all dogs alive are curs, and that's pretty normal within this breed. What I won't do is use a label reserved for the epitome of this breed simply because it fits neatly and is a wanted definition by most.

Again, curs, gameness, whatever you want to use.

[Officially Retired]

So much possibility for discussion here

Unfortunately, I am packing for a 3-day weekend in Utah at the moment.

Rest assured, a voluminous response will be forthcoming next week ...

[S_B]

Maybe so. Maybe not. Traits also may not change. The dog that takes the killing may simply sustain the killing without any issues, but gets frustrated on an ace ear dog. Does that necessarily mean his gameness changed? Not necessarily. Frustration was his achilles heel, and it took the ear dog to find exactly that. The same can be said for dogs that have taken a killing damage wise, but quit as soon as they get hot in the summer. Did the traits change? We don't know. No one knows if they actually changed or not or if that was simply the weak spot in the dog's armor.

This is simply breaking it down, anything else is our own individual interpretation or emotions.


I can subscribe to levels of curness or gameness, I'm ok with it. But I see where you are coming from Frosty. In a climate where those labels are tossed about freely by those who don't have a clue it gets nauseating.

S_B

[Pit Bull Committed]

You simply lack vision then, or comprehension.


If you have ever said, "Dog A is gamer than Dog B," then by default you DO believe in degrees of gameness.

You may not "see" (or comprehend) that this is what you believe, but the fact remains that is essentially what you're saying.





If a dog simply **IS** game, if this fact is an unchangeable truth about the dog, then there is nothing that will change this fact.

However, if gameness comes in degrees, and can vary, ONLY THEN can "mismanagement" (age/health/condition, etc.) affect the dog's will to win.

For example, it is an unchangeable truth that an animal is either A DOG (or it's not).

No amount of "management/mismanagement" is going to affect the FACT that a particular animal is either Canis familiaris or it's not.

The trait of gameness is nothing like this.

As I clearly stated (but which you still lack the comprehension to grasp), gameness DOES come in degrees, and it CAN vary across individuals, as well as within a given individual, which is WHY management/owner competence matter.

Same thing as strength/mouth, etc. come in degrees.

Yes, certain dogs are going to simply have MORE mouth/strength than other dogs, but (depending on the circumstances) these traits can likewise be enhanced, or diminished, based on owner competence.

Similarly, some dogs are simply going to be GAMER than other dogs, and this desire to win can also be enhanced (or detracted) by health/condition also, within whatever genetic aptitudes the individual has.

If you "don't see" gameness in degrees, this is a statement about either your vision or comprehension, not with the pretty obvious fact that this trait (like every other sliding-scale trait) varies.

Jack

I agree. Jack you should create a "like" feature. :-)