Early Starter v Slow Starters

[CrazyRed]

I think this term has been changed or used for more than the intended purpose it was originally used for. Was talking to my great uncle last night about our old trips down SC n NC years ago and other places. He says, "I always liked them slow starters because they finished strong." A buddy says," I like mines to start up early." They were speaking about 2 different things using same lingo. My buddy meant he likes his dog to appear turned on by 14-16 months. My uncle was talking about performance, start off slow, conserve energy, be smart while opponent running himself tired then the onslaught. See we have since changed that terminology to mean when a dog is on. He said we don't send boys to do men work. I don't care how you act at 6, 12 or 15 months. You still a boy, I only care that show me you're interested when your 22-24 months. Then I hope when it's time you start slow, don't let that adrenaline burn you out, slowly work your way in, be smart and methodical and when your opponent down, do work.

[Officially Retired]

Honestly, IMO, they're still boys at 22-24 months (comparable to 15-19 year old humans).

I don't consider a dog to be a "man" until after 3 years of age ...

Jack

[Milehighmisfit]

I recently recall something that Coy Dickenson wrote regarding this. A lot of the dogs that passed through his hands were based off Carver blood and he said Mr. Carver said most of his dogs were slow starters or late starters, something like that. Coy believed Mr. Carver meant that they were slow to start working real hard in a show, and not that they turned on late. I have heard that many Aligator/Rufus dogs are slow to get going and that blood is, in-part, in-bred off Satin Lady which was supposedly Carvers Ironhead x Carvers Black Beauty.

[Milehighmisfit]

Jack,
I have heard a few old timers say the same thing and some even said if they were good at 3yrs old, they would be even better at 4. Has it been more common place over the last few decades for people to show and roll dogs around 2yrs old? I am assuming this happens mostly due to just a lack of patience. Also from your experience Jack, do you believe most or all lines are better at 3 or so years old or is it dependent on the "blood". Thanks for your time. I know you are a busy dude.

[CrazyRed]

Honestly, IMO, they're still boys at 22-24 months (comparable to 15-19 year old humans).

I don't consider a dog to be a "man" until after 3 years of age ...

Jack

I agree, my uncle is a real stickler when it comes to age. He said if you going to take a peak at them, least wait until they are 2 years old to see if they are interested. If so take a look and see what you have but never give a pup a grown dogs test. If you want him to show the ultimate signs of maturity, then allow him to mature. He knows it may be a few exceptions but most dogs in his opinion shouldn't see a test until they are 3.

[Officially Retired]

Jack,
I have heard a few old timers say the same thing and some even said if they were good at 3yrs old, they would be even better at 4. Has it been more common place over the last few decades for people to show and roll dogs around 2yrs old? I am assuming this happens mostly due to just a lack of patience. Also from your experience Jack, do you believe most or all lines are better at 3 or so years old or is it dependent on the "blood". Thanks for your time. I know you are a busy dude.

Anyone with experience, and/or intelligence, will say the same thing.

Anyone who is trying to "test" dogs younger than 2.5 - 3 is a moron.

You can "start" dogs whenever they seem ready, and "bump" them in short practice runs, but you do not test dogs until they are fully-mature.

Same thing as you can lace a pair of gloves on a 12 year old kid, and let him have some short 2-3 round amateur bouts, but you are NOT going to put a 12 year old in a 15 round world title fight to the finish (even with another kid).

There is also a difference between "sexual" maturity and full-fledged social maturity.

A human kid can reproduce at 12-14 years of age, but that doesn't mean he's a MAN yet

He is not a leader, is not prepared to support himself (let alone a family), make important decisions, or command respect, anywhere.

He is still a BOY with a BOY'S MIND.

By the same token, so it is with dogs

A young male may hike his leg at 12 months, and be able to sire a litter, but that doesn't mean he's an "adult" yet either.

It is a biological fact that wolves don't reach SOCIAL maturity until 3-4 years of age. Meaning, they may be sexually-mature at 1, but they haven't become full, socially-mature males (ready to challenge the leader) until they're 3-4 years old.

Too many toothless, inbred idiot-dogmen understand nothing about dogs (or anything else for that matter), and roll/test PUPPIES ... and kill them before 1-2 years of age ... when these dogs aren't even anywhere near ready

Just because a pup fires-up at 14 months, for a min or two, doesn't mean he's ready for a full-blown game test next month.

You're just supposed to SCHOOL THEM, with a short bump every couple months, AND ALLOW THEM TO MATURE for another year or two. Same as you let a young kid develop his boxing skills, in short, amateur fights for a few years, before he is ready to turn pro.

There are basic concepts staring people in the face everywhere ... but some people are just too blind to see them.

So think "idiot" every time you hear someone talk about testing any dog that isn't at least 2.5 - 3 years old.

Some dogs, like Chinaman and Dibo, were not ready till 4 or 5 years of age.

A dog's quality is based on LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE (not "how quick they start"), and it is a fact that some of the better-performing dogs took awhile before they were fully-ready.

Jack

[Frankie]

Anyone with experience, and/or intelligence, will say the same thing.

Anyone who is trying to "test" dogs younger than 2.5 - 3 is a moron.

You can "start" dogs whenever they seem ready, and "bump" them in short practice runs, but you do not test dogs until they are fully-mature.

Same thing as you can lace a pair of gloves on a 12 year old kid, and let him have some short 2-3 round amateur bouts, but you are NOT going to put a 12 year old in a 15 round world title fight to the finish (even with another kid).

There is also a difference between "sexual" maturity and full-fledged social maturity.

A human kid can reproduce at 12-14 years of age, but that doesn't mean he's a MAN yet

He is not a leader, is not prepared to support himself (let alone a family), make important decisions, or command respect, anywhere.

He is still a BOY with a BOY'S MIND.

By the same token, so it is with dogs

A young male may hike his leg at 12 months, and be able to sire a litter, but that doesn't mean he's an "adult" yet either.

It is a biological fact that wolves don't reach SOCIAL maturity until 3-4 years of age. Meaning, they may be sexually-mature at 1, but they haven't become full, socially-mature males (ready to challenge the leader) until they're 3-4 years old.

Too many toothless, inbred idiot-dogmen understand nothing about dogs (or anything else for that matter), and roll/test PUPPIES ... and kill them before 1-2 years of age ... when these dogs aren't even anywhere near ready

Just because a pup fires-up at 14 months, for a min or two, doesn't mean he's ready for a full-blown game test next month.

You're just supposed to SCHOOL THEM, with a short bump every couple months, AND ALLOW THEM TO MATURE for another year or two. Same as you let a young kid develop his boxing skills, in short, amateur fights for a few years, before he is ready to turn pro.

There are basic concepts staring people in the face everywhere ... but some people are just too blind to see them.

So think "idiot" every time you hear someone talk about testing any dog that isn't at least 2.5 - 3 years old.

Some dogs, like Chinaman and Dibo, were not ready till 4 or 5 years of age.

A dog's quality is based on PERFORMANCE (not "how quick they start"), and it is a fact that some of the better-performing dogs took awhile before they were fully-ready.

Jack

100% excellent post.....imagine all the potential great ones we have possibly lost due to impatience and poor judgement

[EWO]

This is one of "those" topics for me. On this board, on any board or a bunch of guys standing around will agree with this 100%. They will always tell you about the "guy over there" that ruined a bunch of young dogs by force starting them early or dumping a huge load on them before they were ready to carry it. And as soon as that conversation breaks up it becomes if he is "willing to get the chain tight at another dog he is ready".

Some dogs are ready to be bumped a lot earlier than others. There are dogs that are ready to start their bumps earlier in all lines/families and some that need more time. There are some dogs who win matches as 'boys and girls'. I am closer to a "3years" guy but I know plenty that think 24 months is 'middle-aged' and then on the downward slide after that. Simply not true but what a person believes is hard to persuade. If a guy goes out and wins with a 2 year old odds are that becomes his benchmark age and all other will have to conform.

I am a percentages guy, my work is graded on percentages, my pay check is based off those percentages so when information or facts are presented to me in the percentage form I understand it better than just about any other form of information. I tend to use percentages both factually accurate and assumptions in most everything I do.

I am willing to say at least 85% (if not more) of people who actually do dogs start them earlier than the dog needs and tests them way earlier than they should be tested. I have always thought every family of dogs would have higher success percentages if the dog had no tooth in him until he was 24-26 months, ready or not, perceived to be ready or not. Basically start the bumps at 2, the schooling rolls after that and a year or so later the match would be around 3 to 3.5.

And like always I have no problem putting my shortcomings out there. No secrets here. I love the Mims Red Boy dogs. The best ones I have seen are the ones who don't show interest until later in life. The best ones I have seen were with people with the patience to wait. The problem is that most of the Mims Red Boy dogs "ACT" and I repeat "ACT" like grown dogs at 8-9-10 months old. They appear to be ready in every sense of the word. The patient guy (smart guy) has sense enough to ignore the act and wait. A number of years ago I saw that ten month old puppy "ACTING" and it was all I could do to wait til he was 14-15-16 months old. Most did very well. I even matched and seen them matched at 22-26 months with good success.

Back to percentages, looking back I believe of the ones that did not work out at by 24 months would have had a much higher success rates if allowed to grow up.

Good topic. One that most need but will mostly be ignored. EWO

[EWO]

It also the old bull and young bull standing on top of the hill story. The young bull says, "Hey, Pops, let's run down this hill and F*&K a couple of those heifers". The old bull replies, "Son, let's walk down there and F&^K them all".

Dogs no different, maturity is a must. EWO

[Officially Retired]

All good posts.

I agree, people will "read a post" and "nod their head" ... or even write GOOD POST ... and then go right back home and violate the very principles to which they nodded their head in assent.

EWO, I say the same thing to dogmen in regards to meds: many people will "agree" that they should have Berenil, Imizol, Albon, and all kinds of other drugs onhand, in preparation for an emergency ... and yet, after "agreeing with this online," they do NOT bother to actually order these drugs, to actually BE prepared, in real life.

And so it is with allowing dogs to mature.

People will "say" you should do these things, if asked the question, and they will "agree with a post" they see online, but yet they will cull their 18 month old dog for standing the line on his first bump.

Everyone is wanting to be some big, famous dogman with every dog on their yard being an ace.
Everyone wants to be "judge and jury" of their dogs but yet they can't be bothered with being TEACHER AND DEVELOPER of their dogs, FIRST, when they're young.

Every boxing trainer, worth his salt, is also A MENTOR to their fighters as they develop
And every dogman, worth his salt, should also be A MENTOR to his dogs, communicating in other ways than verbal, by tone of voice, inflection, example, and by coming up with creative ways to encourage dogs that are a little slower to get started than others.

Unfortunately, everyone just wants to watch all their young dogs like a hawk, for the first "bad sign" they can spot, so they can off the dog ... and yet they don't realize that THEY (as owners) are exhibiting the worst signs of all: LACK OF PATIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING.

I remember when my Diamond Girl bitch stood the line, on her very first bump, on her very first scratch. We just tried to start her, you could see she wasn't really into it, and when given the chance to stop, she did.

All these "experts" told me, "I'd shoot that bitch if I were you," wanting to sound tough and like 'real dogmen,' but I have never followed the crowd and I never held too many people's opinions as worth much. I knew DG's age, I could already see she wasn't ready, and I wasn't STUPID ENOUGH to confuse "not started yet" with "cur."

It took Diamond Girl about 3 years to be fully-started, to where she had hate in her eyes, and truly wanted to go over there and OWN THAT GROUND. And boy was it worth the wait

Diamond Girl proved to be an EXCEPTIONALLY-game bitch, whelped Champions, is behind 2 Grand Champions (and 1 DOY), put Nico Jr. on the ROM list with Ch Buster, is behind all of Jaime Anderson's best dogs, and (when people look in any pedigree and see Diamond Girl's name there) it is synonymous with GAMENESS ... that would have never happened ... had I been the typical fucktard dogman and "culled her" before she ever even started ... all because of my "delicate ego" when she stood the line on her first bump.

There are so many "delicate dogmen" out there, whose egos can't take it if their young dog doesn't do well, that they kill the young dog (so "they" will look tough), when IN FACT all they're doing is proving how WEAK (not to mention clueless) they really are

I know enough about dogs to make my own GD decisions, and I am confident enough to stand by my own judgments and don't need anyone else's "approval" of my decisions.

Too many dogmen are not like that. They understand nothing, and they make decisions to kill dogs way before they ever gave the thing a fair chance, all so that "their peers" will approve.

If more people bothered to actually understand the biological realities of dogs, how they think, when they mature, and really did pay attention to "THE SIGNS" (not just bad moves, but whether the dog is even MATURE yet or not), they would go a lot further in the game, and their percentages would improve.

My bitch Amazon is 3.5 right now, and is only now becoming "an adult."
She has had the body of an adult for awhile now.
I am sure I could have "started her" at about a year to a year an a half.

However, only recently is she walking and conducting herself like an "alpha female."
I can see the change in her. I can sense the difference.
It is hard to explain to the blind, things that they do not have the perception (or experience) to see.
But that ability to see and sense the difference is the difference between a dog man and a dog owner.

Jack