Can you ruin gameness? (genetics)

If gameness is determined genetically, (how) can it be ruined?

Case for example, let's say you would roll a dog who isn't fully matured/not ready. He scratches, but doesn't really start fighting/biting. Keeps crying when the other dog bites him. You still let it go for 4/5 minuts in the hope he would open up. When you want to let him go the 3th time he stays between your legs.

!!!!
If he or she IS fully matured, stopped the crying and he really starts biting. Would he more likely to stop because he was wasted earlier or was he a cur from the get go?
!!!!

This is a great question, but I don't have the time right now to answer it fully.

Gameness, like any other genetic trait, is merely POTENTIAL.

For example, a man may have the genetic potential to be a great runner, but that doesn't mean he will realize his potential for running :idea:

That man can either maximize his potential, or minimize his potential, by the choices he makes (how he eats, the environment he keeps around him, the shape he keeps himself in, etc.) So, just because he has the potential to run with the best in the world does NOT mean he is going to grow up to be a great runner ... only HIS CHOICES IN LIFE will determine that.

The same is true for a man's genetic ability to fight, his genetic intelligence, etc. The genetically intelligent man, for example, may do drugs and ruin his mind, he may not care enough to apply himself, etc. Or he may surround himself with bright minds, actively push himself, and achieve great scholastic recognition, etc.

The same with whole teams of people (football, baseball, basketball, etc.). This is where GREAT COACHING can make the difference between whether that team gets itself together and realizes its potential ... or not ... by great coaching (or lousy coaching).

And these same principles apply to these dogs ... but f***ing idiot owners cannot understand this. Idiot-dogmen always want to put everything on their dogs. If the dog isn't good, despite all the stupid things the idiot-owner has done NOT to help his dog be its best, the idiot-owner will blame the dog and say "only genetics" matter ... because the idiot-owner is too effin stupid to realize that genetic ability is ONLY POTENTIAL. And it is really frustrating to try to make stupid people realize how stupid they are.

The truth is whether or not that any dog's genetic potential is ever realized is ENTIRELY dependent on the choices the owner makes with his dog ... and good dogmen realize this fact and make it their business to make wise choices ... while the people who can't see the reality of this are always the stupidest of dogmen who make incredibly stupid decisions with their dogs :idea:

Jack

That's right Jack. I question myself whether i made a mistake before judging the dog. You must, unless u like wasting precious time and potential precious dogs by making the same mistakes over and over. To each its own though, some are just very hard in selecting.

I can see what you're saying but it still makes me wonder.
You can make all the wrong choices but the capability to run fast or sing good will still be there. It was not ruined but hidden.
Now if a dog stopped while he was not ready for a roll, you obviously ruined the potential to show gameness in that particular roll. But when that same dog has become fully ready, and he carries the trait; could it be you ruined more then just his potential in his first roll? He chose the easy way out once.
If you'd compare it with the running again, and one with the potential to be a champion has not qualified for the olympics because of the wrong choises he made. Then the answer would be no, he wasnt ruined. He could still achieve it when his potential is maximized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2L

That's right Jack. I always question myself whether i did made a mistake before i judge the dog. You must, unless u like wasting precious time and potential precious dogs by making the same mistakes over and over.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2L

I can see what you're saying but it still makes me wonder.
You can make all the wrong choices but the capability to run fast or sing good will still be there. It was not ruined but hidden.

---

Just because a person can still "sing good," does not mean s/he can sing among the best singers in the world.

In the same way, compared to shit-dogs, even a ruined pit bull can still "fight good" ... but not against the best pit dogs in the world.

Same thing with "run good," compared to what?

The fatass in front of the couch, who had "genetic potential," may still be able to beat his neighbors ... but he will never be able to compete with world class runners ... who had the same potential ... but who realized and maximized that potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2L

Now if a dog stopped while he was not ready for a roll, you obviously ruined the potential to show gameness in that particular roll. But when that same dog has become fully ready, and he carries the trait; could it be you ruined more then just his potential in the first roll? He chose the easy way out once.
If you'd compare it with the running again, and one has not qualified for the olympics because of the wrong choises he made. Then the answer would be no, he wasnt ruined. He could still achieve it when his potential is maximized.

---

Again, it depends on the dog, and HOW BADLY it was ruined.

I have had plenty of dogs that "cried at first" ... but that I didn't ruin ... who (later) got their shit together and proved to be incredibly game and talented dogs. Just because a man gets a little fat doesn't mean he can never be a runner again, all he has to do is slim down and start training.

However, if he totally destroys his body through repeated abuse, he will literally ruin his potential.

Jack

I doubt you can ruin gameness but you can get the dog to a point he never gets a chance to show it. Like a chain accident early on or being left down to long they never get a chance to enjoy what they are doing so they never will show you how far they will go. If that makes sense. Game is such an elusive term and has so many definitions depending on who is doing the defining. A game dog can be physically stopped and some will say cur others can see deeper into the subject. A winning dog can be a cur but never ran across anything to show him his character flaw.
I do not think one can ruin the genetic pre-disposition to be game but I think one could ruin a dog before game becomes a question, or better said, one can ruin a dog before gameness should be in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EWO

I doubt you can ruin gameness but you can get the dog to a point he never gets a chance to show it. Like a chain accident early on or being left down to long they never get a chance to enjoy what they are doing so they never will show you how far they will go. If that makes sense. Game is such an elusive term and has so many definitions depending on who is doing the defining. A game dog can be physically stopped and some will say cur others can see deeper into the subject. A winning dog can be a cur but never ran across anything to show him his character flaw.
I do not think one can ruin the genetic pre-disposition to be game but I think one could ruin a dog before game becomes a question, or better said, one can ruin a dog before gameness should be in question.

---

Actually, any "genetic potential" can be ruined at any point in life.
Also, I think your post reflects the common confusion between DEAD gameness and mere gameness.

Gameness is merely "the will to win."
DEAD gameness is "the will to win that exceeds the will to survive" (the maximum amount of gameness possible).

• Most bulldogs are fairly game when compared to other breeds;
• Some bulldogs are so game they will outlast most other bulldogs;
• A few bulldogs are so deeply game they will die before they stop.

The assumption of most people is that gameness = DEAD gameness, but this is untrue. Gameness is merely an adjective like the word "fast." The word "fast" may seem informative, but upon closer inspection needs more qualifying words to modify it, in order to make sense. (E.g., not-so-fast, fairly fast, extremely fast, the fastEST, etc.) Ultimately, the word "fast" by iteself means nothing. To drive home the point, the sentence, "He is fast," is relatively meaningless. Fast compared to what? Another fat man? A triathelete? A cheetah? What? Furthermore, not only is the word fast by itself relatively meaningless, but a man's speed can vary from day to day, based on circumstances, as well as throughout his lifetime. What if he breaks his leg? What if he's 77 years old? In the end, no runner is able to maintain his very best speed, all day everyday, throughout his lifetime. His "genetic speed" WILL vary at different points within his lifetime.

By the same token, the word "game" by itself means nothing. Game compared to a beagle? Game compared to a so-so bulldog? Game enough to scratch on a broken leg, that may hurt, but the dog is still fresh? Game enough to scratch after being behind for 2 hours in a state of shock, with half his blood supply gone, for the last :30? 100% dead game, died in holds??? How game are we talking about? The idea that a dog is either "dead game or a cur" is preposterous to anyone with a brain, because there are degrees of gameness. That is like saying a person is either as fast as lightning or is "slow"; it is preposterous because there are degrees of speed. Furthermore, even when speaking of the gamest of dogs, said dog was NOT "that game" his whole life. He may not have hit a lick till he was 3 years old ... and he may not be "that game" when he is 11 years, dying of lymphatic cancer, with his whole body falling apart either. His gameness too WILL vary throughout his lifetime ... and yet, despite this reality, the common dogman expects a bulldog to be able to maintain absolute 100% dead gameness from birth till death, or "he is a cur," which is ridiculous.

Thus, in the end, only simple-minded people say, "game or cur." Such people will never really understand the nuances that prove (once again) there will never be "one answer" to any complicated question. As usual, each case is unique, and therefore each set of circumstances must be looked at by a truly educated, knowledgeable dogman. Because, you bet, gameness CAN be modified by the circumstances of life ... including age, health, physical condition, style of opponent, experiences in school, parasite load, etc.

Jack

I think I said the same thing in one paragraph. A game dog can be physically stopped and some will say cur and some will see deeper into the subject. Granted I did not go into great detail or give analogies of fast runners but it pretty much says the same time. "Some will see deeper". EWO

Sometimes it may look almost instinctive. I've seen'em come from beyond life it's self and display this willingness to go on. Eveyone at the hog pen knew the catahoula was gone. The hndler picked him up smacked him on his ribcage and he took a big gasp of air and was screaming to get to the Russian boar. It was the most incredible and gmest catahoula I ever seen with these two eyes. This was back in the day.

A dog has a psyche just like a person and it is everything. You can look at any sport today and see someone who was at the pinnacle of their career and they lost it. Not because of anything physically but because of everything mentally. For example, Miguel Cotto losing his psyche Vs. Margarito previously being an undefeated fighter, he was never the same after that night. I doubt Justin Verlander will ever be the same after game 1 of this past world series. It is all in the mind. IMO this can be a determining factor between a good dog and bad dog. You have a model line bred litter, the pups probably will be very genetically similar. Its not like there is one gene for gameness and some of the pups got it and some don't. Its more than likely the combination of many genes that help mold and develop the animals mind. It doesn't have to people Nature Vs. Nurture. A better solution would be Nature + Nurture for the better results.

Degrees of gameness don't really matter. The question was merely, if gameness ( any degree) is genetic, can mishandling of a dog decrease the full potential a dog was born with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EWO

I doubt you can ruin gameness but you can get the dog to a point he never gets a chance to show it. Like a chain accident early on or being left down to long they never get a chance to enjoy what they are doing so they never will show you how far they will go.

I do not think one can ruin the genetic pre-disposition to be game but I think one could ruin a dog before game becomes a question, or better said, one can ruin a dog before gameness should be in question.

---

That counts for dogs who not start or enjoy (again) after they were "ruined" for sure. But what if they do and their gameness will come into question?

What i hear allot is: "The dog chose the easy way out once, next time he'll do it again"

I hear the description of a cur dog while its the owner who put a dog in the ring who was not ready to be in it.

All apart of the game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2L

If gameness is determined genetically, (how) can it be ruined?

Case for example, let's say you would roll a dog who isn't fully matured/not ready. He scratches, but doesn't really start fighting/biting. Keeps crying when the other dog bites him. You still let it go for 4/5 minuts in the hope he would open up. When you want to let him go the 3th time he stays between your legs.

!!!!
If he or she IS fully matured, stopped the crying and he really starts biting. Would he more likely to stop because he was wasted earlier or was he a cur from the get go?
!!!!

---

This scenario doesn't describe a cur but an unstarted dog, or what I like to call, a dog merely going through the motions. If that dog stands on the 3rd scratch, so what. It's obvious the dog isn't ready in any serious manner, so I put the dog up until he is ready. The dog isn't ruined at that point. It was a case of immaturity on the dog's part and nothing more at that particular stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Hand

It doesn't have to (be) Nature Vs. Nurture. A better solution would be Nature + Nurture for the better results.

---

That is pretty much all of it.

The truth is, while genetics are vital, ultimately a reasonably-good dogman is even more vital. To show the point in the extreme, if you have a great bulldog genetically, like Gr Ch Buck, but you give him to an absolute imbecile who feeds him shit food, never controls the parasites, rolls him young against 3-4 dogs, doesn't let him heal between rolls, etc., etc., the genetically-great Buck will never get the chance to show his greatness. Ultimately, enough ownership stupidity will destroy even the best genetic potential. Or, stated in the reverse, there is no dog genetically solid enough to overcome the most extreme of stupid owners. (Especially with little dogs being forced to spot weight.)

As you said, Nature + Nurture must be combined to consistently achieve the best results. After that, when you're dealing with two reasonably-good dogmen, then one dog's superior genetics will become the determining factor.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

That is pretty much all of it.

The truth is, while genetics are vital, ultimately a reasonably-good dogman is even more vital. To show the point in the extreme, if you have a great bulldog genetically, like Gr Ch Buck, but you give him to an absolute imbecile who feeds him shit food, never controls the parasites, rolls him young against 3-4 dogs, doesn't let him heal between rolls, etc., etc., the genetically-great Buck will never get the chance to show his greatness. Ultimately, enough ownership stupidity will destroy even the best genetic potential. Or, stated in the reverse, there is no dog genetically solid enough to overcome the most extreme of stupid owners. (Especially with little dogs being forced to spot weight.)

As you said, Nature + Nurture must be combined to consistently achieve the best results. After that, when you're dealing with two reasonably-good dogmen, then one dog's superior genetics will become the determining factor.

Jack

---

I couldn't have said it better myself. The greatest obstacle most dogs have is thier owner.

I agree 100 %.i have said a many of time a great dog in the hands of an (IDIOT) is a doomed dog.

Without a doubt. Maybe it is a play on words or phrasing, but that is what I was saying by genetic potential. Buck would still be Buck no matter who owned him or how they owned him. But Buck needed his owners decision making to be Gr.Ch Buck. EWO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EWO

Without a doubt. Maybe it is a play on words or phrasing, but that is what I was saying by genetic potential. Buck would still be Buck no matter who owned him or how they owned him. But Buck needed his owners decision making to be Gr.Ch Buck. EWO

---

Actually, your opening line was, "I doubt you can ruin gameness but you can get the dog to a point he never gets a chance to show it," and I totally disagree with that statement.

Absolutely *any* genetic potential can be ruined with enough repeated stupidity. This is why dogs that have shown exceptional gameness once, in good hands, can be ruined and not show anything like that again in the wrong hands.

For example, Einstein's genetic intelligence could have been ruined by blunt trauma or repeated exposure to the wrong drugs ... and in the same fashion Buck's genetic gameness could have been ruined by repeated owner stupidity, being forced to endure too much, too often, etc., etc., until it wore out.

Absolutely everything has its limits.
Absolutely NO creature is capable of duplicating its best performance, every day of its life, from birth till death. Everything fades with time.

The truth is, the absolute summit of athletic performance can only be achieved once, or possibly a handful of times during a brief performance window (if it is ever able to be achieved at all). That kind of performance window is not open forever ... it has a point where it doesn't exist yet ... it has a point where it does ... and it has a point where it is gone forever. And, you bet, it can be irreparably closed by mishandling the athlete badly enough.

Jack

We will have to disagree. I agree with the 'window' analogy. No doubts there. I do not believe you can ruin potential because potential is something that can't be physically touched, nor mentally. Buck was pre-dispositioned to be Buck no matter who owned him or how they owned. Nothing can change what he was meant to be. Is it up to the owner to make the decisions to get him to where his potential was destined? Absolutely. I also believe there are tons of dogs that would have been good dogs, possibly great dogs, if they had ended up in different hands. But those dogs had to have the potential to be good 1st and foremost, then bad decisions prevent that potential from being realized. Nothing changed the potential.
Maybe I should have used the phrase 'original potential'. Michael Jordan had the potential to be the greatest ever, and for a while he was, but then the birthday disease slipped up on him. But getting old never changed what he was meant to be. Was there another kid out there along the same time that could have taken his lunch money on the court? Possibly. Did that kid get cut down in a gang shooting? Did he get involved in drugs? Car accident? None of these things changed his potential just altered his path, like good owners and bad owners alter the paths of dogs. EWO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

Actually, your opening line was, "I doubt you can ruin gameness but you can get the dog to a point he never gets a chance to show it," and I totally disagree with that statement.

Absolutely *any* genetic potential can be ruined with enough repeated stupidity. This is why dogs that have shown exceptional gameness once, in good hands, can be ruined and not show anything like that again in the wrong hands.

For example, Einstein's genetic intelligence could have been ruined by blunt trauma or repeated exposure to the wrong drugs ... and in the same fashion Buck's genetic gameness could have been ruined by repeated owner stupidity, being forced to endure too much, too often, etc., etc., until it wore out.

Absolutely everything has its limits.
Absolutely NO creature is capable of duplicating its best performance, every day of its life, from birth till death. Everything fades with time.

The truth is, the absolute summit of athletic performance can only be achieved once, or possibly a handful of times during a brief performance window (if it is ever able to be achieved at all). That kind of performance window is not open forever ... it has a point where it doesn't exist yet ... it has a point where it does ... and it has a point where it is gone forever. And, you bet, it can be irreparably closed by mishandling the athlete badly enough.

Jack

---

If potential is just the promise of development, what happens when the development is stopped or wrecked(by you).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EWO

We will have to disagree.

---

That's okay, disagreements in ideology are what create interesting discussions :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EWO

I agree with the 'window' analogy. No doubts there. I do not believe you can ruin potential because potential is something that can't be physically touched, nor mentally. Buck was pre-dispositioned to be Buck no matter who owned him or how they owned. Nothing can change what he was meant to be.

---

Boy, we sure do disagree here. Potential can't be physically touched? So, if you have an IQ of 160, and great mathematical aptitude, you're saying I "can't touch this"??? What about with blunt trauma force to the head? That would be a pretty heavy "touch" that would ruin your intellectual potential ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EWO

Buck was pre-dispositioned to be Buck no matter who owned him or how they owned. Nothing can change what he was meant to be. Is it up to the owner to make the decisions to get him to where his potential was destined? Absolutely. I also believe there are tons of dogs that would have been good dogs, possibly great dogs, if they had ended up in different hands. But those dogs had to have the potential to be good 1st and foremost, then bad decisions prevent that potential from being realized. Nothing changed the potential.

---

You are confusing several things. First of all, genetically being pre-disposed to "being Buck" is a whole different ballgame than having his genetic potential ruined. I agree with the fact that, genetically, Buck = Buck, and nothing will change this. But the issue we're talking about goes much deeper than that :idea:

Furthermore, there is a difference between Buck simply "not realizing" his genetic potential and someone ruining it. For example, if STP decided not to match Buck, the dog would have therefore "not realized" his potential, but that potential would still be intact. However, if STP decided to 4-dog Buck every weekend ... over and over again ... breaking his teeth off ... breaking his bones ... and (ultimately) breaking Buck's spirit in the process ... then STP would have actually ruined Buck's genetic potential. In other words, Buck would still be Buck ... genetically ... however, potential-wise, physically/mentally Buck be incapable of achieving his potential for greatness anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EWO

Maybe I should have used the phrase 'original potential'. Michael Jordan had the potential to be the greatest ever, and for a while he was, but then the birthday disease slipped up on him. But getting old never changed what he was meant to be. Was there another kid out there along the same time that could have taken his lunch money on the court? Possibly. Did that kid get cut down in a gang shooting? Did he get involved in drugs? Car accident? None of these things changed his potential just altered his path, like good owners and bad owners alter the paths of dogs. EWO

---

Again, we totally disagree. Michael Jordan not only had genetic potential, he fully realized it. His older birthdays marked the passing of his window. Had Michale Jordan got shot, or crippled, then YES his genetic potential would have been ruined. That doesn't mean his "genetics" would be altered; it means his POTENTIAL to achieve greatness would have been permanently destroyed. Not realizing potential, and destroying potential, are two different animals ... totally separate from original genetic code.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

That's okay, disagreements in ideology are what create interesting discussions :)





Boy, we sure do disagree here. Potential can't be physically touched? So, if you have an IQ of 160, and great mathematical aptitude, you're saying I "can't touch this"??? What about with blunt trauma force to the head? That would be a pretty heavy "touch" that would ruin your intellectual potential ...





You are confusing several things. First of all, genetically being pre-disposed to "being Buck" is a whole different ballgame than having his genetic potential ruined. I agree with the fact that, genetically, Buck = Buck, and nothing will change this. But the issue we're talking about goes much deeper than that :idea:

Furthermore, there is a difference between Buck simply "not realizing" his genetic potential and someone ruining it. For example, if STP decided not to match Buck, the dog would have therefore "not realized" his potential, but that potential would still be intact. However, if STP decided to 4-dog Buck every weekend ... over and over again ... breaking his teeth off ... breaking his bones ... and (ultimately) breaking Buck's spirit in the process ... then STP would have actually ruined Buck's genetic potential. In other words, Buck would still be Buck ... genetically ... however, potential-wise, physically/mentally Buck be incapable of achieving his potential for greatness anymore.





Again, we totally disagree. Michael Jordan not only had genetic potential, he fully realized it. His older birthdays marked the passing of his window. Had Michale Jordan got shot, or crippled, then YES his genetic potential would have been ruined. That doesn't mean his "genetics" would be altered; it means his POTENTIAL to achieve greatness would have been permanently destroyed. Not realizing potential, and destroying potential, are two different animals ... totally separate from original genetic code.

Jack

---

love reading EWO and Jack disputes, I tend to side with both of them great posts guys. Don't kill me but potential and reality is two different things. Example between 300BC-300AD Egyptians built pyramids were their genetic makeup different from you or I. The answer is no but they reached their full potential of craftsmanship, can any archaeologist of today explain how they achieved such great craftsmanship with the resources that were available. No, there are hundreds of hypothesis on how ( reason being they didn't have to because their minds are not program to think like they did) but could have they if put into that position maybe. My point is Gr Ch buck genetically is no different from Poncho what makes him different is his DNA. Buck DNA will always be the same but his potential would have been shattered if put into incompetent hands. The reality of the old warrior is that he reached his full abilities because he was nurtured to do so.

That makes a lot of sense to me

Well put

Tyson was and could have stayed the greatest with cuts, but became a bum with don king and his staff...

Any game dog can turn into a cur under the right citation.there has been many that has hunted for 2 or 3 hrs and showed deep gameness ,but their next hunt stop in 30 min on a lesser hunt.

Gotta agree with Waccamaw

Well said. Great analogy. EWO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CRISIS

Tyson was and could have stayed the greatest with cuts, but became a bum with don king and his staff...

---

No doubts here. EWO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waccamaw

Any game dog can turn into a cur under the right citation.there has been many that has hunted for 2 or 3 hrs and showed deep gameness ,but their next hunt stop in 30 min on a lesser hunt.

---

I don't agree with Waccamaw. Many a dog has done the exact thing he said and didn't cur out the next time. Maybe they took their death the next time. Sometimes, that particular dog is used up, went to the well one too many times, whatever phrase people want to use. That's usually the case, and it's usually poor dog management by the owner in not seeing what was going on there.

Case in point was a dog named Ch. Lil Dick, off Ch.Butkus/Chavis Sexy. He'd won 4 or 5 shows, and at the end of his career, he was set to go for another. Having seen the dog on different occassions, and it not even being MY dog, before his last show, you could LOOK at the dog and tell he'd given all he had to give. He was on point, looked in shape, but the way the dog carried himself just screamed, "Sigh. I'm tired of this shit." His owners never saw it. Most people didn't see it. I told my friend what I saw, he came over, looked at the dog and agreed. He quit later on that night. Does that make him a cur? I guess by most definitions, yes. To me, he was just a used up dog, past his prime, and should've been put up for what he was, a 5xw that had went to the well (or whatever) and was done.

I agree with Frosty as well. I do not know of the Lil Dick dog but would have to think there are lots out there like him and owners as well. One of the theories is the gas tank, they all get one, and some have better gas mileage than others. Some are sent to the well one too many times. Lil Dick was born to be CH. Lil Dick and for a time he was everything Ch. lil Dick was suppose to be, but in the end he was asked for more than he could deliver. If I had seen Lil Dick go, knew several of his littermates, parents, aunts and uncles go as well, and happy with what I saw, I would be the guy that bred to the "cur" Lil Dick.
There are so many variables in these dogs coupled with so many opinions on what defines a good dog that it is nearly impossible to all agree on any certain aspect within the dogs. I saw a dog go for his CH several years ago. He won. At the end it was not impressive to me at all. I was not a fan of the newly crowned CH. Then they told me he was 7, had been sold to them as a 2XW, no teeth, performance career over with, stud dog. They 'had' to check him out at 6 and they liked him enough to think 'CH' added to his value. To see what he did at 7, knowing the details, I was impressed with him as a dog, but his skills were eroded. At 8 he quit to a much younger dog. Poor decisions led to his demise. What he was never changed, but he was not allowed to become an old stud dog like he should have. EWO

I also see the Waccamaw side. We had a male once that destroyed everything in his path. A Redboy dog. Went thru class with honors. Picked up his first one in about 40 minutes and his second in just under an hour. Top notch. In the third he destroyed the other, made two rocket like scratches, was minutes from receiving his crown, and stood the line. He was on all fours, not hurt, not breathing, just hung it up. It was so surprising it brought silence over the barn as one side was counting their money to pay up and the other side could not believe they were not going to collect. So one of the old sayings is they are not machines, they can't be turned on or turned off on our whim. Some things just go unexplained. This dog had just kicked all the ass he was intended to kick and he was done. EWO

Anyone can have too much of a good thing.

Example: you may love ice cream, but if you're forced to eat a gallon of it every night, over and over again, there will quickly come a time where you won't want to look at another jug of ice cream again ...

That is called getting burned out!

There is an old saying that holds true ,never bet the farm on any of them .

Agreed. That is where opinions and definitions and variables make things difficult. As a young 23 year old that dog straight up quit. It was all on him. 30 years later I am thinking the cur tag was forced upon him by 'burning' him out. We space out the matches, maybe give him an easy bump here and there to allow him to enjoy it and maybe he does not cur on that particular night. Maybe it would have been number four, or maybe never at all. Who knows? EWO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waccamaw

That is called getting burned out!

---

I think some dogs are just "front-running curs" ... they look great when things are easy but don't really want to go through a struggle.

On the other hand, I think some dogs really do get their dicks knocked in the dirt, and they really do have to go through HELL to pull off a win. A dog can only go through pure, physical hell so many times before he can no longer physically (or mentally) take that kind of stress anymore. And an owner has to have the sense to recognize this fact.

A dog that wins three blowouts in :28-:40 min has no business quitting on #4. A dog that always has to get the living shit knocked out of him for an hour, then mount a comeback from hell, to pull out a herculean effort and run staggering scratches way deep into the time-zone to pull out his victory, has no business being matched again.

And somewhere between these two extremes we as dogmen have to be able to read the dogs ... and correctly-assess what we're looking at ... so we can understand when to blame the dog for being a POS ... and when to blame ourselves for taking a proven warrior to the well once too many times ...

Jack

Very well said. This is a 'cut-n-paster' for later threads. EWO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

I think some dogs are just "front-running curs" ... they look great when things are easy but don't really want to go through a struggle.

On the other hand, I think some dogs really do get their dicks knocked in the dirt, and they really do have to go through HELL to pull off a win. A dog can only go through pure, physical hell so many times before he can no longer physically (or mentally) take that kind of stress anymore. And an owner has to have the sense to recognize this fact.

A dog that wins three blowouts in :28-:40 min has no business quitting on #4. A dog that always has to get the living shit knocked out of him for an hour, then mount a comeback from hell, to pull out a herculean effort and run staggering scratches way deep into the time-zone to pull out his victory, has no business being matched again.

And somewhere between these two extremes we as dogmen have to be able to read the dogs ... and correctly-assess what we're looking at ... so we can understand when to blame the dog for being a POS ... and when to blame ourselves for taking a proven warrior to the well once too many times ...

Jack

---

Very nice topic and great input from all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

I think some dogs are just "front-running curs" ... they look great when things are easy but don't really want to go through a struggle.

On the other hand, I think some dogs really do get their dicks knocked in the dirt, and they really do have to go through HELL to pull off a win. A dog can only go through pure, physical hell so many times before he can no longer physically (or mentally) take that kind of stress anymore. And an owner has to have the sense to recognize this fact.

A dog that wins three blowouts in :28-:40 min has no business quitting on #4. A dog that always has to get the living shit knocked out of him for an hour, then mount a comeback from hell, to pull out a herculean effort and run staggering scratches way deep into the time-zone to pull out his victory, has no business being matched again.

And somewhere between these two extremes we as dogmen have to be able to read the dogs ... and correctly-assess what we're looking at ... so we can understand when to blame the dog for being a POS ... and when to blame ourselves for taking a proven warrior to the well once too many times ...

Jack

---

that ca.jack is a very well put together post, also some very interesting replies from dog men.

Thanks & good to see you here, Old Timer :)