Can it be molded and nurtured to an advantage in any way?
Just a thought.
Can it be molded and nurtured to an advantage in any way?
Just a thought.
Ability can improve threw school.
Any asset an animal has can be enhanced, or diminished, by the human element.
This is what separates good dogmen from lousy dogmen ... namely, the ability to bring out the best in a dog, versus the worst in a dog.
Jack
I completely agree with this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
To me, enhanced, is the key word here. I don't think you can ADD anything, such as wind or ability. The ability to enhance some things is there, no doubt. For example, you're not going to take a dog with zilch for natural air and have it breath like a smooth running machine. You're still going to have dog with zilch for natural air, it just may be a step or two above the bottom rung of the Zilch ladder.
Exactly.
You can enhance, or diminish, any natural ability an animal has ... up to the point of its genetic limitation.
Can a great dogman make a dead game dog out of a poodle? No.
But a great dogman can make an average dog stronger, give it better air, and make it want it more and work harder ... while a lousy dogman will minimize any or all of these things.
Jack
Agree. Tons of dogs have won based on who brought them vs. what they would have been with the next guy.
Many angles here. Some condition better than others. Some school better than others. Some handle better than others. The dogs benefit from being with these types of dog men. EWO
I disagree. I dont think that all assets can be enhanced. If a dog isnt a natural finisher i dont think the human element can make him such. As well as with ability, if the dog has low ability and cant wrestle i dont think the human element can change this. I believe it can be changed through schooling but i consider that the opponent teaching the prospect. Jmo. I would like to hear some ways that a human can enhance a dogs ability though.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
I would take it one step further. A majority of shows are won by the better conditioner/handler.
It is a human that chooses when where and with whom it is schooled with so it is definitely influenced by man. That's like saying, I didn't wreck my dog... his much bigger stronger and more experienced opponent wrecked him!Quote:
Originally Posted by gotap_d
A dog in poor shape wont be able to use his ability to the fullest, not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by gotap_d
How honest a dog is IMO, is a constant. In other words a dogs gameness is absolute. It must manifest though and of course the handler plays a roll in that. Different variables and intensity of those variables will show you the cur. Some folks are better at avoiding or nullifying those variables.
As for the physical attributes. Everything can be refined but the more you refine something the increments become exponentially smaller. Like previously mentioned, some folks whet the blade better than others.
Something must be seen in order for it to manifest. At the same time other things need to stay unseen. It's always interesting to see one mans dogs in another good mans hands. Everyone has a different gauntlet with different variables and intensities.
I agree with you on the part that the human selects the type of dog they would like to teach their dog something in a schooling session. The place i dont agree is that the humans hand in it stops there. For example if your dog was rolled 3 times with all 3 opponents were front end dogs and all your hound ever learned in those 3 rolls was how to tuck his front legs. You decide for his next roll you want him to face a backend ace. What you are doing is trying to expose your dog to a different style(school him). Lets say when you release your dog the backend ace runs his scrarch and for the first time in his life he immediately tries to take a shoulder hold and never gets to touch anything for the duration. Your dog has still only experienced front end dogs. Yes the human can choose the opponent but the human cant make the opponent fight a certain way. Thats why i say its the opponet teaches the prospect. He gets exposed to a senario and its up to him whether he learns/adapts to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Hand
Im only talking about ability. Conditioning to me is an entire different category.Quote:
Originally Posted by skipper
I would agree that finish is a trait that cannot be added or enhanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by gotap_d
Totally disagree with you and believe your opinion to be the great blunder in thinking of most dogmen: the game/cur mentality (as if there aren't degrees of gameness).Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelyDan
Gameness = the will to win. And the will to win does vary within the individual and *is* influenced by many factors (age, condition, health, level/style of opponent, etc.).
Anyone who thinks that a dog is either "dead game" or "a rank cur" ... and that there aren't an infinite degrees of gameness (desires to win) inbetween these two extremes ... again suffers from the greatest mental block and lack of understanding in these dogs.
Jack
"can" improve after every new contact. some dogs seem to keep learningQuote:
Originally Posted by LEFTLANE
As you said, through schooling. If a person chose all stifle dogs to school his charge and then on show night he experiences his first head dog he will be in trouble. He will not have the ability and/or knowledge to figure things out. Some dogs have natural ability and talent and figure things out quickly but it is the owners responsibility to provide him with as much experience in all areas to enhance that ability. In some cases ability and experience go hand in hand and are one in the same.
If a dog lacks ability and can't wrestle he should be exposed to another who will help him get there. After that exposure even if the ability is not where one would hope for it will still be better (enhanced) than it was in the beginning. Easier said, ability is enhanced through experience and for the dogs that experience is through schooling. Of the things that one can enhance ability is the easiest. EWO
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotap_d
The only place we agree is that the human can select the opponent. I dont think you understood what i was trying to say. Here it is again. If all my dog was schooled with is front end dogs the right thing for me to do would be to expose him to a different style lets say i choose a face dog for his next schooling(this is something a human can control). Now when the time comes and the face dog is released and goes to the front end for the duration of the roll your dog still has only experienced defending himself against front end opponents. You can set up a schooling for your dog hoping to see one thing and when you get there the other dog does something like change his style or not be as rough as he always was. Thats why i say its the opposing dog/experience that teaches your dog and not the human.Quote:
Originally Posted by EWO
I agree with you on this here Jack 100% like most things. Me and a group of friends have this argument about every 2 weeks over a beer, because they believe it to be absolute but at the same time will say "this dog is gamer than this one." How when you say either he game or isn't we all agree that its levels to gameness.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
There is no true definition of "gameness" Like in basketball, to be considered a great Free Throw shooter you have to avg over 90% of made attempts. We dont have a universal, "yup that's gameness right there." Because I've seen many times a dog go well over 2 hours and folks hoot and holler how deeply game he is and I'm thinking, he is game to a degree for having the will to go, definitely has some pit game because he went that long, but one thing I've always was taught and seen with my own experiences, is that a dog will show you gameness quicker from being tired then he will in pain. The dog that went 2 hours dont mean he is deep deep game and will take his death bed.
For instance last one i seen go 1:47, they said that dog about deep game as a live dog can be. I said not really, he went 50 mins before he took his first breath and with his condition was able to control and lay the whammy on his opponent that was trying to keep pace and defend himself. With doing so shot his load and took his first breath around 20 and was trying to catch his pace for the next 30 while getting the whammy. By time the winner took his breath at 50, he took so much out of his opponent that even though he was taking a breather and trying to get past the wall, the other didnt have nothing to hurt him with. So that's why after taking a breather and bottom for about 4 mins he came right back up top with his 2nd win and was able to dominate.. Not that he wasn't deep game or that he wont prove someday that he will take his bed on his belly trying, but it sure dont mean because he passed 1 hour he is absolutely some dog that will belly whop all the way across dying while giving his effort.
Great post CrazyRed.
Jack the blunder here is you thinking a dog knows what winning and losing is. That's you pushing your ideas and vocabulary onto the dog. There are no degrees of gameness. Anything short of the final degree is left unknown. That's why originally said how honest a dog is. You can say hey that dog took a beatin and kept coming he's pretty honest, so long as he is alive he can live to quit another day. So long as a dogs living there has got to be a shadow of a doubt that there is cur in its ass. To assume anything less, would be another blunder. Degrees of gameness can just as easily be called degrees of cur using your line of thinking. Any degree short of death is that much more degree of cur to be questioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotap_d
If a dog isn't a natural finisher, then to my thinking, it's obviously not a trait. I don't think the OP was asking can we make a dog something he's not. I think the spirit of the question is can we enhance something that's there already. Since we're talking about traits that can be enhanced, that would leave a trait a dog doesn't have out of the discussion. In my own experience, a dog is either a finishing type dog or not. If he's not, then obviously you can't enhance something that's not there. If the dog IS a finisher, of course you can enhance and make him that much more eager to finish when he gets his spot.
A majority of shows are won long before conditioning or handling play any significant part. Most shows are won by the better dog. It's only when you run into 2 dogs of equal caliber that conditioning and handling may play a part.Quote:
Originally Posted by skipper
A dog does not have a human definition of winning, true, but he damned sure knows (in his own terms) that he wants to vanquish his foe or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelyDan
What you're doing is quibbling over 'human definitions' as a mask for actually discussing the issue, because (for that matter) a dog doesn't know what gameness is either.
You are confusing DEAD gameness with the mere presence of gameness. Dead gameness is what you're talking about, which means that the dog has so much gameness it will run out of its own life before it runs out of the will to keep fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelyDan
I find it laughable that you just substituted the word "honest" for gameness here. Again, a dog doesn't know what "honest" means either (:lol:), so it serves no purpose for you to change terminology to say the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelyDan
Re-naming a proven degree of gameness as "honest" (to try to confuse things) is no way to form an argument, because I am still calling what you describe a certain amount of proven gameness. I can just as easily say, "This dog has shown to be pretty game," as you say 'honest' and we're both saying the same thing--and the dog can still quit another day.
Here comes the "macho talk" that is always joined with this kind of unaware extremism :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelyDan
The correct view is that, so long as a dog is alive, he hasn't shown DEAD gameness ... true (and DUH!) ... but if he came from way back, after getting nearly killed in a 2-hour blood bath, I will happily call that dog, "Very game," or "Game as a live one can be," or some such, and be correct in my terminology.
Wrong. Confusing DEAD gameness with mere 'gameness' is your blunder :idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelyDan
This is factually inaccurate, and yet another blunder on your part :idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelyDan
Take the existence of HEAT and the concept of TEMPERATURE for example. What we commonly call "hot" and "cold" are actually degrees of HEAT (molecular motion) only ... there IS NO SUCH THING as "degrees of cold" ... and, quite similarly, we also speak of degrees here :idea:
Scientifically-speaking, there ARE NO "degrees of cold" there are ONLY degrees of heat (molecular motion) :idea:
Therefore, what we call "hot" is something with a high degree of molecular motion, and what we call "cold" is something with a low degree of molecular motion, and it is all based on HOW MUCH HEAT (motion) is going on in the object.
Now then, if we take this same analogy to the dogs, and if gameness is the desire to fight/win, then "how game" a dog is can be viewed in the same fashion as "how hot" an object is, which likewise comes in an infinite variety of degrees ;)
There is never "the presence of cold" in an object; there is only the presence (or absence) of HEAT (molecular motion) :idea:
There is never "the presence of cur" in a dog, either; there is only the presence (or absence) of GAMENESS (the will to fight/win) :idea:
So, again, you have your entire understanding of everything bass-ackwards ...
Wrong and again exactly backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelyDan
Any kind of will to fight at all is SOME degree of GAMENESS ... short of a dog that won't hit a lick or take one hold ... which is why we call these dogs COLD ... which would be the same as "Absolute Zero" in terms of temperature (no gameness at all / no motion at all) :idea:
Be enlightened now :mrgreen:
Jack
I see what you are saying with the finishing trait. It cant be enhanced if it isnt there. But my main focus was on wrestling ability. How is it the human enhancing it and not the other dog?Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
If were coaching baseball and I knew the opposing pitcher threw low and forced a lot of grounders, well, that is how I would prepare my infield. Should they be ready for the pop-up? Absolutely, but by selecting the means of practice I will be enhancing their ability in that area of the game. Now did I enhance it or did the ball coming at them at a high rate of speed enhance their ability? Either way, the ability improved with the choice of experiences.
Same with the dogs. I am not saying a dog with absolutely no ability can be transformed into an elite wrestling machine. But anything one does in that area to help teach and prepare the dog is 'enhancing' whatever little ability the dog had from the start. Same with conditioning. A dog on the chain that can give his all for 30 minutes (just a number) and then is properly fed and properly worked should be able to go 45 minutes or an hour, (again just a number). Thus his conditioning was enhanced.
I answered the post based on the word enhanced not substituting that word with creation. Two different things. S
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotap_d
I also believe that a dogs abilities can be enhanced, if the traits are present. Definitely cant add something that wasnt there to begin with. Any ability weather it be wrestling, air, speed.... can be enhanced to the individual dogs physical limit thru proper training, but if the dog doesnt have a specific attribute, the owner isnt going to make it appear. Some dogs are so one dimensional they will never learn no matter how much experience they have, so in my opinion, only smart dogs can learn from each exposure and show you better results each time. With that said, i feel that smarts is the main trait needed to enhance any ability in any dog, one can not increase a dogs ability to learn or adjust his tactics no matter what the dog is exposed too.
I think the baseball example is a great example so i will go with that it may help get what i am saying across a little better. For example your baseball team will be going against a pitcher that always throws low and away so to prepare your team you PLAN on using a pitching machine to throw low and away to your batters. When you set your pitching machine up it malfunctions the entire practice and pitches in the center of the strike zone(the area where your batters are already very profecient at batting). At the end of that practice did you enhance your players ability to bat against the low and away pitcher? No you did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by EWO
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotap_d
You're arguing nonsense, nothing more.
Yes, any idiot can see that if you "try" to school a dog one way, but it doesn't work out, that the dog wasn't schooled the way you hoped. But that's not what we're talking about.
The whole point is when it DOES go the way you want it to, so to argue some freak exception where "the pitching machine doens't work" is just wasting time talking nonsense.
When I set the pitching machine up to pitch low and away, and it works the way it's supposed to, then I am schooling my batters.
Now if you want to then argue that the "pitching machine" and not me (the coach) is schooling the batters ... well, then here again you are just babbling nonsense, to make noise I guess, but you are missing the entire point of the dialogue.
Jack
Yes i give the credit to the roll dog/schooling opponent. Dogs are not as easily controlled as a sparring partner in boxing. You cant say dog 1 attack this weakness and dog 2 work on defending this weakness. Its more hoping it goes according to plan. Its not babbling nonsense that has nothing to do with the dialouge. The point was i dont believe it has as much to do with human enhancement as it does with the dog doing the teaching and the other doing the learning.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotap_d
I might not fully understand your point due my english but the owner picks his roll opponents right? That´s the human part. Its not about coaching or teaching your dog to attack weaknesses, that's crazy. If you as a owner choose to school your dogs with different type of style animals, you simply give your dog "a chance" to improve its ability.
I think he just says that while you can controle hummans' training 100% as a coach, with animals you can never be 100% sure what will happen during schooling, you can only hope that a certain style will keep appearing from the chosed oponent while the animal in train will react the way you hope to. Basically, since you can never absolutely control animals' actions and reactions, your part as a human lowers in significance while the animals' influence on the training increases. In humans you can ask someone to attack a certain way and the other one to defend in a certain style, with animals you can only hope that a trend will keep appearing.
This is the way I get it.
I think it doesn't really make sense to search for comparisons with humans. I can name a thousand. End of the day, schooling your dog to different style animals is the way to get the best out your dog. You can either try to give it the best possible preparation or hope he won't be needing it.
The comparison to humans (baseball) is a stretch because we have the ability to reason and then (somewhat) follow directions. So I can stand at the plate and hit grounders to be more in control of my practice. I agree that just because I pick a head dog to school another does not 100% mean he will be a head dog on that particular occasion. They are animals.
If that dog has very little wrestling ability but in turn is bred to a family member with the majority of the family members being exceptional wrestlers it becomes the same question if the puppies end up with wrestling ability. Did I enhance the next generation's wrestling ability? or was it genetics?
All I was saying is that anything can be enhanced if it is something there in the beginning and it is properly worked/trained/fed/raised. Even the dumbest of dogs will learn something. EWO
@R2L and @tasoschatz you are correct that is all i was saying. Its the humans job to try to pick shooling dogs that you feel will teach your dog what you feel he should be learning. Once the dog is selected its in the hands of the dogs its on one to teach the lesson and hopefully the other learns from the lesson.
The coach gets the credit for the training not the sparring partners or the fighter being trained.Quote:
Originally Posted by gotap_d
You have a serious thinking disorder. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's still nonsense to say "the jenny" conditions the dog, rather than the conditioner who places the dog on the jenny.Quote:
Originally Posted by gotap_d
The dog and the jenny would never get together in the first place, without the placement in that situation by the conditioner, and the same is true with the dog and its roll opponent.
Jack
If the dog is placed on the jenny and refuses to budge how effective is the jenny. There's no need to continue the back and forth. You have stated your opinion and i have stated mine. In regards to the jenny/keep and schooling aspects you choose to give the credit to the human. I choose to give more credit to the dog. I give the credit to the human in terms of selecting the rightdog to put in keep in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
In that situation, what is ineffective is the dog.Quote:
Originally Posted by gotap_d
Exactly, so why do you continue to banter the same nonsense?Quote:
Originally Posted by gotap_d
Yes, this has all been identified and re-hashed several times now ... almost to the point of qualifying for a Monty Python skit ... so thank you for yet another walk down this absolutely useless sidetrack.Quote:
Originally Posted by gotap_d
At what point can we cease this stupid digression into the absurd and continue on with the point of the thread? http://johnkoerner.org/emoticons/jackoff.gif
Jack
PS: You do remember the point of the thread, don't you? I think it had something to do with whether a dog's abilities/gameness, etc. can be enhanced or not, through training/schooling/experience/a bond with the owner, etc.?
When did i ever get off the topic of the thread. My opinion has been the same from the beginning. I gave my thoughts, yours are different which dosent bother me. This hasnt ceased yet because you want to force feed me your opinion on the subject like its a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack