No was my vote and a separate award for GDOY is an awesome title! :-bd
Printable View
No was my vote and a separate award for GDOY is an awesome title! :-bd
Mouth, ability, structure, and wind can be added, the only thing that can't be added is gameness. When building a yard that should be priority 1 then concentrate on everything else. I think there should be DOY and GDOY also....
Yep.
All the hardware in the world isn't worth much if there's no will to use it.
I understand the premise of elite dogs sometimes never being tested ... and how DOY is more about the "most decorated" dog versus the gamest.
Still what turns a fighter from "front runner" to "legend" is having to display depth of heart in the trenches.
We all knew Ali was great, talent-wise, but it was only through his life & death wars with Frazier/Foreman, etc. that Ali earned his immortality.
If you watch the Ali/Frazier wars, and compare them to today's heavyweights, makes you want to shut your tv off to today's fighters ... after you've seen that level of heavyweight matchup.
Buck had his legendary war ... Jeep had his legendary war ... and the camp with Titere has gone to war ... but it seems like Titere is just too good for what's out there for there to be the same kind of war.
Not trying to take away from Titere at all (far from it, he has my vote) ... but (conceptually) I am raising the question of shouldn't a fighter have to overcome extreme adversity ... in a legendary fight at some point ... to become a legend ... or are some dogs just so good that no one can truly check their oil?
Jack
Damn it's neck-and-neck ...
32 Yes
34 No
This is the closest Poll I have ever run ...
Jack
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Check that Thrilla In Manila my friend Ali quit on his stool. Eddie Futch picked Frazier up being Frazier good eye was closed which rendered him blind. All Frazier had to do was answer the bell which he wanted too... Sorry for getting off topic lol.
Hey Jack I believe some are just that good where they never get tested. Here's one for ya, would CH Bad Rosemary would've gotten challenged if Ablizin didn't bring her out in horrible shape? I think not nd feel the same bout titere to find out if he's game he'd have to be handicapped which nobody in their right mind would do...
Sorry to continue the digression ... thought Ali wanted to quit against Henry Cooper, for shit being in his eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by MISTER
Do not remember Ali quitting on the Thrilla ...
EDIT: You were right ... Dundee had to "bump him with his leg" :lol:
Ali wasn't game like smoking joe, he was ready to quit. And would have quit that fight had Joes corner not threw in the towel. However it was one hell've battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
GLOBAL
Wasn't twisting anything, you said if you had ONLY all game plugs then you didn't have much. I agree. I also know what you MEANT. Just pointed out that you did say that and I agree. I also agree with what you say here. Gameness is #1, but it won't stand alone these days. Nothing will. You have to have a total package.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macker
It makes me question some of these breedings off of frozen semen that are throw backs from 20+ years back. In 20 years, these dogs have evolved drastically in ability. There are a lot of dogs that would destroy some of the legends of yesterday. Why would anyone really want to breed to that older stuff? I know there are exceptions and I would do it myself to the right stud or straw, but it's just something to consider and think about.
And by the way, I don't agree you don't "Have Much" if all you have is game. Said that wrong. I just mean, you can't consistently win with gameness alone.
For the record, my vote was no
I must admit I really enjoy these threads. Folks can disagree without it becoming a pissing war, I'VE FOUND MY NEW HOME LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by MWA
It would be hard for any fighter to be gamer than Frazier.
He basically committed suicide when he faced Foremen the first time, and put that kind of relentless pressure on a devastating puncher like that ... although it looked like he almost turned and tried to jump for a split second there after like his 5th knockdown (was hard to tell if he had his faculties or not).
On the second fight, Frazier tried to be cute (turned boxer) ... he had enough of pressure-fighting Foremen ... and, though he gave a good effort and made it to Round 5, when he got floored again and Foreman started finding him, he sure wasn't protesting that stoppage ;)
Jack
:pirate:Quote:
Originally Posted by MISTER
That's when fighters were fighters, To be the best you had to beat the best. Frazier didn't have to fight Ali the first time as Ali was still exiled from boxing. Frazier helped Ali get his license back to fight him to prove he deserved the crown. It's not like that anymore in boxing or dogs, folks skirt around quality opposition to maintain their status that's why the dogs on the PBB DOY list are so respected along with their camps, they go after the best to prove they're the best. Even the camps and dogs who came up short have the upmost respect for giving it an honest goQuote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Very well said. These guys truly were fighters.
Was watching both Frazier/Foreman fights again, and the way they were seriously trying to KO each other (not "last the round" and "win on points") made me miss those days of boxing.
Boxing has no sense of history anymore. It's no longer about boxers fighting for the prestigious 8 titles ... it's 60 different titles, 5 different divisions, with every boxer thinking "he" is the big deal rather than the title.
Scroll back and watch Sugar Ray Robinson, the work ethic and level of comp, and boxing has lost anything close to that now.
They fought for a living ... multiple times every year ... they didn't only fight once/twice per year ...
Jack
It has to be performance, in which gameness is its most unique and defining component.
And there are a lot of the legends of yesterday that would destroy some of the dogs of today.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Don't kid yourself: good dogs are where you find em. When you find em's got nothin to do w/it.
I agree. Dogs are dogs.
The dogs of today are no better than the dogs of yesterday.
Jack
The desire to see deep Gameness in this Honorary DOY Title is now taking the lead ...
Yes: 35
No: 34
Again, this is the closest Poll ever run here in the 3+ years we've been online ...
Jack
I too agree with this, dogs are dogs however the knowledge of how to feed, maintain, and put a dog thru a keep using vitamins, supplements etc. are far greater then the methods of the past. I wonder how much better the dogs of the past would've performed if their owners had access to the information we do todayQuote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
I AGREEQuote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
I disagree here...a lot of those truly greats would still be at the top of the food chain. Imagine the same men with the access to nutrition and aftercare because that is what has evolved!Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Quote:
Originally Posted by STA8541
:-bdQuote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MISTER
Jack I think this totally contradicts what seems to be your breeding practices and by no means do I assume to know what you believe, but one would think, according to all you have written and posted, that you would get better dogs over time from selective breeding that what you started with.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
If this is halfway accurate, then over the course of 100 years of competition and breeding (selectively) then the breed would improve.
Mouth alone is something that has improved. The dogs with the ability to end a fight in one bite are many more now than they use to be. If this is true, and it is, then other abilities have improved as well.
I will respectfully disagree yourself and Sta8541. I believe the top tier of bulldogs today are better than the top tier of times long gone. More importantly, I believe the average bulldog today is in a faster lane than the average dogs of long ago.
JMO - great topic and quality discussion.
I'm not kidding anyone, much less myself. You are right about "legends" of yesterday destroying "some dogs of today". However, there are just "some dogs" that could beat "legends" of yesterday. I know good ones are where you find them. Learned that in my first Stratton book years ago. However, there are better today than yesterday. My opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by STA8541
You know, Jessie Owens is a legend of yesterday.He ran in the 10.3's.
I routinely see High School Kids of today run in the sub 10.5's EVERY year and about every other year, I see multiple 10.3's at the State Meet. Multiple High School BOYS that would routinely beat a WORLD CLASS LEGEND. The examples and proof is everywhere.
Hey No Quarter, I can see why you'd say that, so let me clarify what I mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
My linebreeding practices aren't making "better dogs today" than what I had yesterday ... what they're doing is creating what I like in a dog to be able to replicate itself reliably and consistently.
All of this work I have done hasn't created "way better dogs" than the best dogs I had, what isolating my gene pool has done is ensure my ability to get that kind of ability, again and again.
Freak ability is something that comes and goes.
There has never been an ace that only produces aces.
There has never been a "consistently ace" bloodline.
There are aces that come out of nowhere (shit) on a RARE occasion ... and there are aces that come out of "general excellence" on a more frequent (but still not every) occasion.
My linebreeding efforts have not created "otherworldy" dogs that are better than yesterday's dogs ... my efforts have simply created reliable and consistent excellence, that will be more dependable than from a hodgepodge of unrelated shit.
Hope this clarifies :)
Jack
These kids also start younger, have better training, better nutrition, better shoes, better track, etc. ... (e.g., I believe Jesse Owens ran his time on cinders ...)Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
:-bdQuote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
I love these arguments where kids try to "prove" that today's athletes (2 footed or 4 footed) are "better" than the legends of yesteryear. Such a thing can never, ever be truly proven to a certainty. All that has improved, as has been stated, is nutrition, training methods, etc. But the basic genetic material? No. So of course it begs the question what would Jesse Owens or whoever do w/today's technology? Again, impossible to state, but if you're a betting man (& I am)...
Damn sure I bet Jesse Owens would smoke those "routine High School kids" all day every day till he got bored of doing it.
You said that. And I said that there are just some "legends" of yesterday that could beat "some dogs" of today. There are better yesterday than today too. You're entitled to your opinion. I am also entitled to mine. Aces are aces, period. Era doesn't matter a whit.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
And if I gave Jesse Owens the exact same shoes, track surfaces, nutrition, coaching, & training methods, then turned him loose on your high schoolers, he would leave them a shambles in his wake. You are giving all those edges to the youngsters, none of which have a whit to do w/ability. Cite whatever examples & alleged "proof" you like & the response is always & forever the same. Legends are legends & can beat anything at any time; that's why they're legends. You shouldn't punish an athlete for the era he/she played or fought in. Your opinion is your own; mine is mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Are we doing a separate poll for kennels of the year? We get a few nominations goin.
Jack, point noted. And for the record, I do agree with that. Great clarification.
To clarify my point, to a further extent, I believe there is more ability in dogs of today than yesterday. Specifically mouth. There are dogs out there taking the entire face off of hogs and it is a more frequent occurrence than it ever was before. Dogs taking the entire front legs off of hogs. This happens frequently while I don't hear too much about that kind of thing going on in the past. To be consistent, I believe there are more curs now than ever before as well due to specificity to breeding to ability too much (mouth specifically).
But your point, noted, appreciated and I agree.
Cite whatever examples & alleged "proof" you like & the response is always & forever the same. Legends are legends & can beat anything at any time; that's why they're legends. You shouldn't punish an athlete for the era he/she played or fought in. Your opinion is your own; mine is mine.
Look at what you said above Sta8. You said that "legends can beat anything at any time; that's why they're legends" and then you go on to state "you shouldn't punish an athlete for the era he/she played or fought in"
Which is it? Can they beat anyone any time or just the ones they competed against in their era? Personally, I get your "legend" qualification. I get that they are a legend b/c of what they did in the time they did it in. However, that does not guarantee they would make the starting line up TODAY or in another era. I won't hold their era against them but I won't say they could have done the same in a different era. If we can all agree a dog could not or would not make the same strides in different hands, keep, a different weight, etc. then how in the world do we qualify that animal as making the grade in a completely different day and age?
Legends truly are legends b/c of what they did, against who they did it against and how and when they did it. However, as magnificent as they are/were in their era, nothing guarantees they would do the same against a different opponent in a different day and age.
Honestly, I think we are all on about 9 out of 10 the same pages, but just a few critical differences. Oh yeah, I ain't no fucking kid either pops! ;)
I think every dogman thrives for gameness in their bulldogs genes. also to base DOY on just performance would be quite unfair due to the fact that some of the gamest bulldogs get over looked on a regular basis.
Legends can beat anyone at any time (note: this is NOT the same thing as saying they will win...but they surely can, no matter the era the dog they are facing hails from) I don't know why you are having trouble w/this concept. There is NO guarantee that any dog from this era (I don't care how great he is) could beat one from days gone by, surely not one of the old aces. It's just that simple. It's why they call it gambling, son.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Nothing guarantees any starting lineup (whatever that is) to any dog from any era. Just b/c a dog is a modern day legend does not guarantee they would make the "starting lineup" IN ANOTHER ERA. To put it another way: whoever your personal choice of "ace of aces" is this year is NOT guaranteed to beat any one of the old timey aces. He might win, sure...but then again, he might not. You pays your $ & you takes your chances. There is no "proof" of anything you have alleged about "new being better than old." Good ones & bad ones are where you find em. In any year.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
And I won't hold today's dogs era against them, but I won't say they could have done the same in days gone by. We are even there.
The only guy who is trying to "qualify that animal as making the grade in a completely different day & age" here is you. My point was that you have no idea about whether or not a dog of today could whip a dog of yesterday. You'd need to level the weights, erase the years, put em in a keep, then set em down (for $$$). And since no one can do that, all you are doing is speculating. I'll say it again: aces are aces.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Today's great dogs are great b/c of what they did against who they did it against & how & when they did it. However, as magnificent as they are in their day (today), nothing guarantees they would do the same against a different opponent in a different day & age. Again, we are even here.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Anybody who makes an inane argument like "an athlete of today is, by that very reason of "today," superior to LEGENDS of days gone by" hasn't demonstrated the maturity not to be called a kid! ;) Every time I've heard the argument made (on behalf of various 4 footed & 2 footed athletes) it has been by a guy who is just a kid, & doesn't know enough to know when he's said something factually untenable.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Look dude, first of all, you really need to drop all the "son" and "kid" bullshit. The only time I see a guy contradict himself within two sentences, it's usually a moron but you don't see me calling you a moron b/c I can't understand your point
Second and most important, you take a good long time getting around to a point. You first said, if you look up and have a yard full of game plugs, you essentially don't have anything and yet you want to argue gameness is paramount. That is without a question, a contradiction.
Third, you are now saying "an ace is an ace". This I agree with. It doesn't qualify him to be anything other than what he is, when he was, against who he did it and how he did it. You are the one speculating b/c you say they can beat anyone, anywhere, anytime, etc.
Lastly, I never said aces then are not on the same level as aces. This has been you point of emphasis b/c it is easier to prove your point. I simply said that dogs, as whole, are better today than yesterday. That's my opinion and it won't change.
I'm done arguing with you b/c this is exactly how a great thread like this gets all screwed up. You know, a guy calling names and talking in circles. So, I will NOT respond to you about this any further.
Have a great day sir!
It's a tough argument. I think the difference is the feed, nutrition, supplementation, that has changed. Merely opinion, but I do not think they have evolved enough, even through selective breeding, to say they (as a whole) are biting any harder than they did 10-20-30-40-50 years ago.
I think what it is now is thru better feed, better nutrition/supplementation and readily available bloodwork to make changes, the dog bites the same as he did many moons ago. Todays dog may be able to stay in hold longer with a more violent shake.
EWO
Let's be cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by STA8541
I actually agree with you that today's dogs are no better than yesterday's dogs ... but NQK is not a kid ... and he is entitled to have his own opinion on a subject.
I believe that today's dogs simply have better nutrition/conditioning knowledge behind them but are ultimately are no different/better than yesterday's dogs, in general.
Jack
I see the yes vote is slightly pulling ahead, does that mean there won't be a desperate category for gamest dog of the year?
So I'm not getting off track, I do want to clarify, I would be all for Game Dog of Year, but not that Gameness be a requirement any higher than any other in terms of DOY.
Now, back to arguing. If we can selectively breed for better air and to an extent, style, then why could the ability to bite harder not be enhanced through selective breeding? Furthermore, if it can, has there not been a heavier emphasis on breeding for mouth in the past 30 years compared to the previous 50 before that?
I may need to start a new poll. I feel like I'm in the minority here, but where I come from, this is pretty common thinking. Who knows?
Cheerios
The yes vote is pulling ahead slightly and re-reading the poll questions I can see why folks would cast that yes vote. To me the options are a bit tricky. Sure anyone attracted to these dogs wants gameness to be a prerequisite for any award given. But an award that is going out to a single individual in an entire calendar year should be based on more than just an extremely game bulldog.
Take for instance DBL GR CH Tornado...I've only had the pleasure of viewing some of her contests via recordings. There have been discussions among friends questioning her gameness. Here's what I have to say about that. Judging by what I have seen Tornado was an Ace, she may not have looked to some as being a brutal dog. But she would adapt to any style and bite you down. She did this all while making it look easy and did not take much damage getting there.
Was Tornado game? I say she absolutely was. Any dog that takes 10 keeps and faces 10 opponents is nothing less than game IMO. Now I don't know for sure if DBL GR CH TORNADO received DOY, I'd imagine she did...but I guarantee her gameness isn't what qualified her for that :idea:
The point I'm making using Tornado as an example is...maybe to some she wasn't game. But there is no denying that was one truly bad ass bitch who faced all comers and whipped them in convincing fashion! That is what set her apart from all others. That is what an award like DOY of the year means to me. :)
S_B
(Voted No)
Look dude, I never contradicted myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
This is most important, b/c I never said a word about game plugs. You got your signals crossed.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
No: you are the one who said today's dogs are better than those of yesterday. I never said it. All I did was show your statement was factually inaccurate & unprovable.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Dogs, as a whole, are no better today than yesterday. The genes are exactly the same. That's my opinion & it won't change.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
I'm glad you're done; I am too. I never called you any names; you started w/the profanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel
Take care, sir.
Never wasn't cool, Jack. He was the guy who started using profanity. I was simply defending a position. From a fellow that made it clear he had his opinion...so I simply stated mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
And thank you for agreeing w/me, I appreciate that.
I apologize for any consternation or trouble I may have caused. Not my intent. Only wanted to get my point across, & it seems I have.
S'a nice thread too, by the by.
Here's my thing on the gameness of any match dog. Before he or she has been hooked he or she went thru schooling right? Now that final test is called what?" A GAME TEST" now with that only beinging 30 plus mins ( a rule edge in stone by yester year) then every dog match has show to be GAME! The level of ones gameness is whats to be displayed on party night if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by S_B
Using the thread " picking up game in 10-20 mins" if what most have said, showing the willingness to keep pressing, is showing that you have some level of gameness,Maybe just lacked in abilty that night.
And anyone that has a fighting backround should have the up most respect for a DEEP GAME DOG as we know no matter how much you condition yourself 5-12 three min rounds is LOOONG and if your heart is not in it its night,night! Lol
If you think about it some dogs are game and never have to show how DEEP GAME they are because they have so much ability example GRCH shady Lady five shows with a total time of 37 plus mins she had to have had more time on her in schooling! Now was she a game dog in my mind yes. She past her 30 min game test. Now how deep was her LEVEL of gameness who can ever say unless they seen her pushed to the max.
Now some my disagree with this but if we have a super ability dog who never get put on his back or put behind in schooling with dogs his size then we get something a lilttle bit bigger and super ruff on him or her. Reason being is I want to see his or hers LEVEL of gameness once they are not in control! Im not going to leave them down till they lose a limb as i plan on matching him or her but I wanna see if your a TRUE GAME DOG one that thinks they can win even tho they are getting put behind. Then your corner, if the more he or she gets put behind by this bigger class mate and we get u back to said corner and the all thing they want to do is go back to work because in his or her mind they are going to win!!! Now that there put chills up and down my spain!