Size matters
This is an interesting topic in it self. Dogs that are either big or small for their size. I would very much prefer to have the bigger dog at set weight. But then again it's often a matter of knowing their true weight. What are your thoughts? Do you prefer having a smaller/bigger dog depending on it's style? In my experience bigger dogs usually have a BIG advantage, no matter style. Perhaps a high driving chest dog could have some advantages being lower?Originally Posted by CA Jack
Interesting topic indeed, i'd like to read some opinions based on experience. I certainly think style of the dog plays an important role
I have a female who looks like she's around 18 kg's but weights 20,4 on her proper weight. She was raised in the house and walked for like 1,5 hour every single day. I think a dog who's raised like this compared to a dog who's been on a chain for all his life always weights more because of muscle mass. Dont know whether i should see it as a good or a bad thing. At least they're strong on the legs. Would like to see opinions on this too!
I must disagree with the muscle mass thing R2L. Your dog is not on her feet more than a dog on it's chain spot. Or am i misreading ?
Ah-hah, you already anticipated my rebuttal
I agree with you that generally a dog who is bigger at the weight is going to have the advantage. In some case, it can be an almost ridiculous advantage. The old man who rented me a property in TN for a few years, acquired some stock that was unbelievably-huge for their weight ... and they were naturally long-winded ... and he won a lot of deals with those dogs! It was almost unfair they were so huge for the weight!
However, that said, my dogs often run a little small for their weight, and yet they win a high-percentage of their matches too, because they have the intelligence to use their size effectively. For example, my Mystery bitch was a muscular, squarely-built 38 otc and she faced Buttercup who was a tall, rangy 38 and huge for her weight. The larger bitch was battlecross that had some serious mouth, but she was also slow and stupid and not quite as physically-strong as Mystery. Now Mystery didn't really have much mouth at all, but she was strong as a bull, very fast, and most importantly she was a highly-intelligent, pit-wise animal. Both bitches had good air.
The result? That bitch only bit Mystery one time, right across the muzzle at the start, and she did some heavy damage (punctured the bone). But after Mystery got herself out of that bad spot, that bitch never touched her again, even though she was "bigger" for the weight. Mystery got up under the other bitch, deep into chin/bottom jaw, and stayed there the entire time. Mystery was actually up under the bitch (both facing the same direction), with Buttercup literally straddling her back, with Mystery just up under the jaw ... out of harm's way ... and dismantling the bitch's weapons from "a safe hiding spot." Mystery had a lot of experience, and Buttercup was green, so they picked up Buttercup after she started to show she wasn't too happy with what was going on.
The Moral of the Story?: it depends on the style/intelligence of the animals involved. Like a good reach in boxing, that "size advantage" is only good if the shorter boxer stays on the outside and agrees to eat jabs all day. A longer reach can become a disadvantage in a phonebooth-war kind of fight
So too, having a size advantage can be a great asset to a dog, who uses it effectively, while being smaller for the weight can be a death sentence to an average dog who doesn't have the brains/heart to use what he has in the most effective manner. These roles, however, can quickly be reversed if one style is smart enough, and committed enough, to use the tools that he has to his best advantage ... which is why intelligence is such a great trait to have married to gameness
Jack
its just my guess, but standing on the feet is something different then handwalking, free running and playing around. doesnt give the dog full hard muscles.
was talking to some credible man from southern europe a few weeks ago and he said, dogs of my yard are always heavyer raised up there as "house dogs" then the littermates i keep on a chain here. funny thing is they would prefer "house raised" dogs if they could.
Good post. Pit smartness is something a lot of breeders seems to rank very low in their program. In fact some even rank gameness pretty low. Mouth seems to be the most popular trait these days. Don't get me wrong. I love a dog that can bite. But I've seen many hard biters biting nothing but air, when facing a smarter "soft" mouthed dog. And their owners starts making excuses like "Must've been the keep. Brought in on the wrong weight. My dog would've won any other day" And so on. When in fact they are to stupid to see quality as it's presented right in front of them.Ah-hah, you already anticipated my rebuttal
I agree with you that generally a dog who is bigger at the weight is going to have the advantage. In some case, it can be an almost ridiculous advantage. The old man who rented me a property in TN for a few years, acquired some stock that was unbelievably-huge for their weight ... and they were naturally long-winded ... and he won a lot of deals with those dogs! It was almost unfair they were so huge for the weight!
However, that said, my dogs often run a little small for their weight, and yet they win a high-percentage of their matches too, because they have the intelligence to use their size effectively. For example, my Mystery bitch was a muscular, squarely-built 38 otc and she faced Buttercup who was a tall, rangy 38 and huge for her weight. The larger bitch was battlecross that had some serious mouth, but she was also slow and stupid and not quite as physically-strong as Mystery. Now Mystery didn't really have much mouth at all, but she was strong as a bull, very fast, and most importantly she was a highly-intelligent, pit-wise animal. Both bitches had good air.
The result? That bitch only bit Mystery one time, right across the muzzle at the start, and she did some heavy damage (punctured the bone). But after Mystery got herself out of that bad spot, that bitch never touched her again, even though she was "bigger" for the weight. Mystery got up under the other bitch, deep into chin/bottom jaw, and stayed there the entire time. Mystery was actually up under the bitch (both facing the same direction), with Buttercup literally straddling her back, with Mystery just up under the jaw ... out of harm's way ... and dismantling the bitch's weapons from "a safe hiding spot." Mystery had a lot of experience, and Buttercup was green, so they picked up Buttercup after she started to show she wasn't too happy with what was going on.
The Moral of the Story?: it depends on the style/intelligence of the animals involved. Like a good reach in boxing, that "size advantage" is only good if the shorter boxer stays on the outside and agrees to eat jabs all day. A longer reach can become a disadvantage in a phonebooth-war kind of fight
So too, having a size advantage can be a great asset to a dog, who uses it effectively, while being smaller for the weight can be a death sentence to an average dog who doesn't have the brains/heart to use what he has in the most effective manner. These roles, however, can quickly be reversed if one style is smart enough, and committed enough, to use the tools that he has to his best advantage ... which is why intelligence is such a great trait to have married to gameness
Jack
Thanks, and yep, a lot of people (who aren't too smart themselves) seem to like dogs who aren't too smart either
Fact of Life: Evolution favors the intelligent and those who never stop trying
This is true even in fighting. Muhammad Ali wasn't the heaviest puncher in heavyweight history, but he was the smartest, the most athletic, and believed in himself more than any boxer in history ... which combination of traits enabled Ali to beat all of the biggest punchers in heavyweight history (Liston, Shavers, Foreman, Lyle, Frazier, etc.).
As do I, so long as they have the gameness, athleticism, and intelligence to use that bite effectively.
If not, I will watch that hardmouth dullard quit to one of my dogs damned near every time.
Exactly right, yet again Skipper.
This is why one of my other handles was "SmileWiper" ... it sure hurts a lot of feelings when folks watch their big, bad, hard-mouthed monster stand there, sucking air, because they got out-hustled, out-muscled, out-maneuvered, and beaten to the punch every time ... with that kind of pressure and pace just never letting up
Just ask all those heavy punchers who lost/quit to Ali
Ali's Own Words: "I never worry about hitting power because I always fix it so they got nothing to hit."
Jack
Been there, done that. Smart people learn and adapt, while idiots do the same mistakes over and over again, not having a clue what went wrong. Once had a monster that would kill you in one bite. He was truly a freak. To bad he was just as stupid as he bit hard. Went as a freight train, met a dog that was smarter and quit on all four. Mouth can fool you, and will cost you bad LOL.
Yes I do!Fact of Life: Evolution favors the intelligent and those who never stop trying
Jack
Good one Evo !
Also mouth is easier to breed into dogs than the other traits. (or so i have heard)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
