What It Takes To Make Grand Champion

[Officially Retired]

There was a post on PedsOnline that showed a pervasive ignorance about what it takes to make Champion versus Grand Champion. In short:

• A dog needs to win 3 matches (losses don't matter) to become a Champion;[/*:m:2zhuvw56]
• A dog has to have 5 matches "without a loss" to be considered a Grand Champion.[/*:m:2zhuvw56]

While losses do not matter for making Champion, for whatever inconsistent reason, a dog who loses cannot ever make Grand Champion, which IMO is as ridiculous as it is inconsistent.

If anyone wants my opinion on the subject, the truth is these are just Jack Kelly's arbitrary rules ... and his Sporting Dog Journal no longer exists. Furthermore, if my understanding of history is correct, Gr Ch Going Light Barney was the first "official Grand Champion" ... and yet he was 8-1. That means he lost (and in fact he quit), yet Kelly still called him a Grand Champion. It was only later that Kelly made the "and no losses" provision for Grand Champions ... which, again, I think is not only ridiculous but is inconsistent with the provisions for Champion.

IMHO, dogs like Gr Ch Sandman (5xW, 1xL to Gr Ch Buck), Gr Ch Melonhead (17xW, 1xL), Gr Ch Texas (6xW, 1xL), and Gr Ch Robert T (9xW, 1xL) should still be called Grand Champions ... because their records as pit dogs are FAR better than 99% of the "unbeaten" Grand Champions out there.

Grand Champion essentially means "all time great Champion," so stripping a dog of this title would be like saying Sugar Ray Robinson should be stripped of his "all time great" title for losing at some point in his career ... which IMO is simply preposterous.

Remember, these so-called "rules" are what JACK KELLY said in his now defunct Journal. That doesn't mean every lemming and follower still has to believe/follow this nonsense until the end of time. It only means that Jack Kelly made these (inconsistent) requirements for his magazine, which again is no longer in print.

The truth is, nowadays there is no actual sanctioning/ranking body in these dogs anymore, but (thanks to Kelly's influence) this thinking still remains the "general consensus" among dogmen.

Jack


.

[MinuteMan]

I have always believed that it should go something like this:

You have to win 5, with no loses to BECOME Grand Champion, yet once you obtain the title, it should be yours to keep. I think it would encourage more, GrCh x GrCh shows.

[Officially Retired]

I have always believed that it should go something like this:
You have to win 5, with no loses to BECOME Grand Champion, yet once you obtain the title, it should be yours to keep. I think it would encourage more, GrCh x GrCh shows.

That is a good compromise.

To that I would add 5 shows without a loss, at least 3 of which being into known, winning dogs ... otherwise you could beat 5 first-time out dogs and be a "grand champion"

Nothing wrong with the first or second match being against first-timers, but after that you need to go into other winning dogs.

Jack

.

[Icedogger]

A Champ is a 3x winner for sure if it gets a loss it's a ex Champ but was still one (these are just my opinions and how I view things) Just like if Sugar Ray lost his champion ship he would have been no doubt a Champion but no longer the Champion same goes with the Gr. Ch status. Now this is just how I see things, John you could do the same thing (Not saying you will, just saying anybody could) make your own registry, put in place rules, if you want this title this is how it's done, Jack K. did it, it can be done. So circles are doing it like this. I also think if you want champion status it should be
1xer into 1xer or higher
2xer into 2xer or higher
Champ into Champ or higher
And so on and so fourth weed out all the bullshit champs out there, it's always good to no your gonna win but is it a competition if you no your gonna win?
Now again this is just my opinions and how I view some things

[Officially Retired]

A Champ is a 3x winner for sure if it gets a loss it's a ex Champ but was still one (these are just my opinions and how I view things) Just like if Sugar Ray lost his champion ship he would have been no doubt a Champion but no longer the Champion same goes with the Gr. Ch status.

Regarding Champions losing their titles, if they eventually lose, I understand your thinking, but you're confusing boxing Championships with dog titles ... they're not the same thing. Dogs earn titles for breeding purposes; human fighters "become Champion of the world" according to SANCTIONING BODIES (like the WBC), who preside over everything, and we have no such sanctioning bodies in our sport.

The title "champion" in dogs is for proof of worth ... it is NOT designed to be "held onto and defended" over years.

Now this is just how I see things, John you could do the same thing (Not saying you will, just saying anybody could) make your own registry, put in place rules, if you want this title this is how it's done, Jack K. did it, it can be done. So circles are doing it like this.

Although, technically, I am a "Jack K" too ( ), and could create some unity in the sport, the trouble with creating a sanctioning body and "giving out titles" is that some lawmakers might call that "organizing and promoting" an illegal activity ...

I also think if you want champion status it should be
1xer into 1xer or higher
2xer into 2xer or higher
Champ into Champ or higher
And so on and so fourth weed out all the bullshit champs out there, it's always good to no your gonna win but is it a competition if you no your gonna win?
Now again this is just my opinions and how I view some things

That is not logical. If you say a dog "must" fight at least a 1xW, then how does ANY dog get to start its career, if a match against him "doesn't count?"

If two first-timers start out, and one of them wins, he is a 1xW ... or are you saying that his win over another first-timer "shouldn't count?" If that is what you're saying, it is preposterous and would never fly.

Now, I agree that a Championship should be earned by beating at least a 1xW, a 2xW, or (ideally) another Champion ... but a taking your first-timer (or 1xW) and beating a first-timer shown by a good dogman is a legitimate win, again for a fellow first-timer or a 1xW.

Jack

.

[Crofab]

I think the first magazine to come up with the Grand Champion moniker was Pit Dog Report. I'd have to actually go through what I have and look, but I'm about positive that's the truth.

I think in the overall view of things, the label of Grand Champion or Champion is just that: a label. Dogs like the ones Jack mentioned are all time great dogs, even if they're not called Grand Champion. A dog that wins 9 matches like Robert T, 17 like Melonhead, etc rise above simple labels as Champion or Grand Champion. They are top of the food chain dogs that will forever go down in the lore of bulldogs as something truly special.

In regards of the ideas of what it takes to become champion or grand champion, it's not a bad idea. It certainly won't clean up any of the fake winners out there, and you won't get everyone to participate in such an endeavor. I think there are enough people out there still that want to be known, that they're looking for some kind of system to latch onto so they can attempt to verify some things and be known by others. I think the truth is that if anyone actually competes with other individuals that are good competitors, it's not easy to win three shows much less five.

[Icedogger]

O after you broke it down like that ( dang John your good) I guess I can see you not understanding, I don't have the silver tongue or the hours of typing and education that you have and I see where what I wrote can be confusing to you. I do no dogs and boxing are not the same I was using it as how do the educated men say it a comparison. Dumb country folk like me don't always no how to talk lol.
The title "champion" in dogs is for proof of worth ... it is NOT designed to be "held onto and defended" over years.
My reply to this statement is right and wrong,( yes there worth, money wise ,if thats all its about to who ever) But half the champs out there are FAKE you no it and I no it. But there worth can come from other places besides the title, you can better a breed without holding such title, correct.Ok now to the held on to and defend part. I agree and disagree it's to be held on to and defended tell the dog retires once retired he stays a champion. If he defends it and loses it he should lose it IN MY OPINION. Not saying that the dogs wasn't a good dog or his worth is less then the next so called Champion
Ok on to the next since it was hard to understand what I wrote
So Basically I'm saying a dog should never compete into a dog with less wins I can see where the 1xer into a 1xer is hard for you to see, but in short one should never go into one with less wins IN MY OPINION.
Also I'm not saying start a registry or anything else I was just stating, it's possible. Everybody wants to be the next great thing and complain about the past not everybody's perfect I no some think they are but none of us are and remember somebody paved the way for us if it was right or wrong at-least they tried

[M.T]

I'v never been sure on this, but did Jack Kelly recognise a dog as Gr Ch if he/she had a draw on their record ? Say they drew their first time out and then went on to win 5.

Some good points raised in this thread, maybe the person giving out the dog of the year title could raise this point in their magazine ?

[Strip]

I think 1 timer and 2 timer should be able to go into first time out dogs, but when that dogs make champion he has to go into other champions. Then that will make a grand champion title be more,sinifficant(spelling) he has to win against to champion to get this title. When he make grand champion he keep his title even with a lost. If he won't to keep continuing after grand champion he goes into other grand champion. Best vs the Best!

[Officially Retired]

I think the first magazine to come up with the Grand Champion moniker was Pit Dog Report. I'd have to actually go through what I have and look, but I'm about positive that's the truth.
I think in the overall view of things, the label of Grand Champion or Champion is just that: a label. Dogs like the ones Jack mentioned are all time great dogs, even if they're not called Grand Champion. A dog that wins 9 matches like Robert T, 17 like Melonhead, etc rise above simple labels as Champion or Grand Champion. They are top of the food chain dogs that will forever go down in the lore of bulldogs as something truly special.
In regards of the ideas of what it takes to become champion or grand champion, it's not a bad idea. It certainly won't clean up any of the fake winners out there, and you won't get everyone to participate in such an endeavor. I think there are enough people out there still that want to be known, that they're looking for some kind of system to latch onto so they can attempt to verify some things and be known by others. I think the truth is that if anyone actually competes with other individuals that are good competitors, it's not easy to win three shows much less five.

Well said. Agree 100%.