The guy who "goes through" a lot of dogs ... and only keeps "the best" ... or the guy who takes his time and brings out the best in each dog?
Curious where folks stand ...
Jack
Printable View
The guy who "goes through" a lot of dogs ... and only keeps "the best" ... or the guy who takes his time and brings out the best in each dog?
Curious where folks stand ...
Jack
Im fascinated by the story of a guy taking other peoples culls/curs and winning into good comp. Dont remember the name but to me that guy must be doing something really right.
if your just going thru the masses waiting for that ace or really good dog it just seems like youre relying on the dogs to do all the work.
this is coming from someone who hates culling so maybe my opinion is slanted.
the guys doing both, and I know theyre out there, are the dogfolks I wish I could, but will prolly never be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Ellis
Ricky Jones is the guy who took Crenshaw's culls and made more winners, Champions, and Grand Champions with Crenshaw's culls than what Crenshaw ever made with what he kept ...
Good point!
Jack
I always thought keeping the best dog and bringing the best out of him is the name of the game, I'm pretty sure most Dogmen aren't trying to bring the best out of a cur or any dog that's going to detrimental to his program.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Id like to be a combo. I'm always thinking of things that might be giving my dog an edge. Every dog in the yard has earned to be brought up to his full potential. There are other dogmen that would be able to get more out of the dogs, im sure. I'm not that high on myself. We can only do our absolute best for every dog every time. But if a dog doesn't work out. Get rid of it. Ending up with to many dogs will kill your progress.
Some folks do/give the very minimum to there dogs and expect greatness from it. Cheap feed, sub-par housing for the dogs, and just poorly kept overal, and some people still blame the dog or line they come from when that type of owner is the problem. Those that give their dogs 100%, and aim for top health and nutrition are the type of dogmen i like to associate with.
:idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by TopShelfKennels
Bingo. That's the way I see it. Only after the farmer lays the proper soil, care, and maintenance does he have the right to expect the most bountiful harvest.
The minimalist dogman who blames "his dogs" for not turning out, when he never did his complete job as a dogman, is as stupid as the minimalist farmer who blames "his crops" for not turning out, when he never did his complete job as a farmer.
Similarly, the crops that do turn out for the half-ass farmer will never be as healthy as they turn out for the farmer who does everything he can. In the same fashion, really smart dogs need more than just "minimal care" ... and those dogmen who provide minimal care, that I have seen, do not have very smart dogs at all.
JMHO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesaun
So do you think it works the same way with farming? You should only do your best "after" the crops grow ... or do you think that a farmer's best has to be sown every step of the way first if he expects to get the best overall yield?
Jack
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by TopShelfKennels
Ditto Top shelf kennels & CA Jack. Some advice I use to give to a upcoming young dog man. Was not to go looking for the top dog man to pull with in the beginning and learning stages. But to meet as many dog men and note the condition of their dog yards and over all health of their dogs.
See a un kept yard and dogs not up to par. Set up a dog pulling show with that person. If they have the pull weight you want to go with. Better to learn and practice on this type dog man than a seasoned dog man practicing on you. LOL If person is to lazy to take care of the dogs properly will be to lazy to work one right. But make sure to wash the dogs and have a fee that is forfeited for not being on time for weigh in. Or coming in over weight.
Something else to consider, whether a newbie or a seasoned dog man.. No matter how good of a look you took of your dog in the schooling phase. Best to do a cheap or reasonable dog pulling fee on the first event. No matter how good a dog pulls in the schooling. Under dog pulling show conditions on the first go. Anything might happen. Never pay a entry fee you cannot afford to lose. Cheers
I agree it is like farming, what you put in is what you get back, no matter if it's farming, breeding, raising a pup,ect but there are occasion when you don't get back what you expect so what do you do, you get rid of what's not needed so to get a higher % of greatness or the best you associate the best with the best, So IMO I don't think there anything wrong with wanting the best producer, the best athlete, the gamest, the best what ever it is that you look for in a dog in order to acquire the best...JMOQuote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Well lets turn it up a notch, WHAT IS THE BEST? Some look for the dog that can rack up the most wins, some are looking for that ROM, some just want the deepest game one they can find.....
I find it funny how some of the people on here are so quick to give advice on here that they don't follow themselves! Does it make you a better dog man or woman just because you have new dog houses and you feed a thousand dollars feed? And yet this same person can roll a puppy at 11 or 12 months old and cull it when this puppy never made a bad move but their still a better dog person because they feed a more expensive feed or cause their dog house's are insulated? As said before You Reap wat you Sow! A good dogman or woman isione who's always trying to learn something not some one who you can't have a conversation with because they know everything! Had someone try and tell me everything this other camp is doing wrong when he has no record of comparison! Now don't get me wrong if you know your shit by all means share it but if you're not living by the standards of which you speak stop throwing rocks and hiding your hands!
Who are you talking to exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by ragedog10
I would say, "the best" would be all of these things :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise
But even a deep game dog with no other trick has value ...
Very well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesaun
AFTER you've done your best, if the individual doesn't make it, then it sure isn't because of you.
We've all been disappointed by certain individuals, and we have all failed on our end with other individuals, but that doesn't mean new individuals still don't deserve our best.
I agree, there is nothing wrong with wanting your dogs to be the best, but there IS something wrong with this if the owner isn't willing to do his best first :idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by Acesaun
Jack
The guy that is looking to get the best out of each dog is usually the guy who is doing the most with each dog, or the most that he can. The two dog men that turned me onto dogs were hard cullers. Dogs didn't get a lot of chances. They pretty much had to hit the ground running. They both looked at the failures as available chain spaces. Maybe the silver lining approach. I started off the same way.
I would roll on a guys dog and pretty much decide I would put him down. Some guy would keep that dog, breed that dog and two years later kick the shit out of me with the offspring. I am no brain surgeon but after awhile I started to see the value of dogs that were not necessarily match dogs. I am not saying making dogs out of curs but just because a dog is not a top quality match dog he/she can still have value, and in certain aspects even more valuable. One match dog that wins three or one brood dog that produces three dogs that wins three matches.
That in turns goes to the 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Some guys cull harder than others. Some guys cull dogs that are not match dogs but would be good brood dogs for a breeder but they themselves do not care about breeding/puppies. Some guys will not cull in the hopes of making chicken salad out of chicken shit. Takes all kinds.
One of the early lessons I learned was that the keep does not last eight weeks it starts at nine weeks before they are born. (The forethought/insight into the actual breeding). Any and everything from conception to show night matters. EWO
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWO
Another fabulous post :appl:
The guy who takes his time and spends time with the dogs , I got a dog for free because he "wouldn't " start .. He was two yrs old . I kept him as a pet for another 8 months he became a 2xw , I had a daughter of dead lift same deal , she was my daughters dog she had no mouth she won 1 and showed extreme game ness . I always kept less dogs than I had space they all got house and family time and I think they performed better for me than the prior owner because of it ... Made ch. show time a ch she had no ability , made ch . Morena a ch. she had no mouth etc etc our kennel motto is we do more with less ...
This is so so true, and while we all would like to think we ourselves "hit the ground running" truth is we have ALL fell, got up and dusted ourselves off a time or two. We have also made culling decisions we later looked back on and not regretted so much, but would have done things differently now that hindsight is 20/20.Quote:
Originally Posted by EWO
Great posts above as well...
More excellent posts fellas, well said on both counts.
A number of years ago I saw a dog make several deeply game scratches back to a dog that clearly outclassed him. There were only two souls in that building that thought he still had a chance. The dog just knew he would win on the next trip over. And the other was an older gentleman who saw something down the road. I made the comment to get him up but I did not have the gumption to buy him mid-stream and force the pick up. That dog was brought back out and won two. I saw him on the second one and he was ten times the dog the second time I seen him. The differences were one he was done two pounds heavier and with a different owner. I believe he would have avenged his earlier loss if given the chance. With that said,
for the most part a dog is the product of his environment, sometimes that is a positive but sometimes he is a victim of his circumstance...to no fault of his own. One of the things I believe firmly is that if every dog, an absolute 100%, was held til they were 28-30 months old before even their first bump the percentages across the board would increase, regardless of line, regardless of owner. These dogs are amazing. They overcome so much and if they were allowed to fully mature they would overcome so much more (owners shortcomings).
The wisdom/willingness to wait on a dog is I think what separates the two in the original poll. The hard culler is not going to wait. The man that wants the best will wait. EWO
Quote:
Originally Posted by EWO
Another outstanding post. This is exactly what I prescribe in my chapters on Schooling and Game-Testing. I may well post these articles tomorrow, but you said exactly the gist of them: maturity and patience are everything.
A dogman expecting all his dogs to be 100% dead game before they're fully-mature is as clueless as a farmer expecting his crops to "taste their best" before they're fully-ripened. The time it takes to fully-mature must simply be understood and allowed-for.
What 90% of most dogmen don't realize is, dogs may achieve "sexual" maturity at 12-16 months ... but they do not achieve full, social maturity until they're 2.5 - 4 years old. That is a biological fact that will not be ignored by the intelligent dogman. This kind of deep understanding of dogs is what allowed dogs like Dibo and Chinaman to shine in their later years ... when they would have been culled by most of today's idiot-dogmen ... who would never realize what they lost due to impatience. The number of potentially-good dogs wasted due to not being allowed to mature is inconceivable.
Jack
I'm not calling anyone out! Just stating Wat I have seen with more then one person on your board! if you think that you have learned everything in these hounds then Wats the since ? I wanna ask you this if you have your own breedings off your stock are you harder on them or would you be harder on a prospect that someone farmed out to you to see how it turns out? If you are a good dog man or woman then should you not know Wat a good one looks like when to and when not to cull and or breed! as someone has already stated if your not trying to better the breed of any hound then it's not right in my eye's as you have said your self jack if you don't have Some reads then your not being the best that you can be! Just knowing when to pick up and put your pride to the side could make all the difference! this is by far one of the best post on this site! You putting this site together with the amount information on here let us know you have a real love for not just bulldogs but for the k9 species overall!Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
1000% with that deep understanding!Most people of these days think a fast lane is one that start acting hot at a young age! Learned that the hard way! A hot acting pup is just that! And after that life lesson Nothing is pushed to do it cause of how hot they act but are allowed to fully mature! world of difference! End up with more good ones just by give them that time to grow into dogs!Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Okay, cool, thanks for clarifying.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragedog10
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragedog10
I put this post up because too many people act like owing dogs is a tough man contest ... whoever can be the coldest, cull the most dogs, and brag about "how hard it is to make it" on their yard means they're some sort of elite dogman. But the exact opposite is true.
That is like some farmer claiming that the fewer crops that make it to ripening, and to market, means he's the "best farmer." In point of fact, anyone with results like this is the WORST farmer.
The best farmers = those who have the HIGHEST yearly crop yields, not the lowest :idea:
The best farmers = those who do EVERYTHING they can to produce the most, and the best, quality crops every year :idea:
And farmers with success like this can only do so by doing everything they can first, before they ever see a ripened piece of fruit or vegetable.
But so many people in these dogs cannot see that all we are is "dog farmers" ... and we have to follow the same principles.
Our dogs need the most optimal genetics, the best fuels, consistent parasite control, and part of what they need is also care and attention to reach their uttermost potential.
So I am glad a lot of experienced people came here to share their stories in this regard, because there is no big "rush" to see what these dogs can do. I have a 2 year old right now, and my (now considerable) experience shows me that she is just a puppy. I can see it in her stance, the way she carries herself, her "view of the world," etc. She is starting to perk-up toward other critters now ... and would probably fire-up if I bumped her ... but she is still a puppy. She is still transforming into a fully-mature animal, socially (and even physically). I can just see that. I couldn't imagine doing anything really rough on her yet, even though she might stand up to it. To me, if I were still active, I would just barely be starting her school now.
Sure, I have started dogs off a lot younger, and each dog is an individual, and some dogs start earlier than others. But it still is best practice to wait before doing anything serious with them. Too many people expect the world out of puppies, and young dogs, while not expecting a thing out of themselves first.
It is refreshing to read the stories and accounts of those who do pay attention :)
Jack
.
Nice posts.
I also think culling dogs on a young age doesn't mean you'll keep the better dogs. (plenty people cull even before 1 year old) All you did was "separating" the early starters from the rest.
Im still regretting 1 i culled a year ago because i didn't allow him to fully mature. What if.
Though besides patience, space plays a big roll as well. I don't think i have to explain.
So my biggest respect would go out to someone with a really small yard, who would get the best out of each dog from pup to grown up.
PS: the stupidest thing i ever heard is something called "natural culling" I don't think i have to explain that either.
Does not matter if you are talking dogs, business, marriage or raising children, you name it. The man who does the most with what he has is the better dogman, businessman, husbandMAN.....MAN PERIOD!Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
That about sums it up, NQ, well said.
"Does not matter if you are talking dogs, business, marriage or raising children, you name it. The man who does the most with what he has is the better dogman, businessman, husbandMAN.....MAN PERIOD!" - Amen, in my country a true MAN is a very rare commodity.
That is every country now days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedhelper
The question is subjective.
Who is the better dogman? That could be any number of individuals on both sides of that fence.
Who would you rather associate with? That could be any number of individuals on both sides of the fence also.
I've personally learned a shit ton from both types of individuals, and I have both types of individuals within my mindset. I apply what I learn, from both types of individuals, to what I do. I don't normally start dogs until 2. I refuse to show any dog until right at 3. That being said, I don't have any issue sending a dog down it's way that doesn't fit what I like to see in my dogs. Have I gone through a bunch of dogs? Yes, and if you're in dogs for any length of time, you will for various reasons and not just quitting.
Factor in what it is that you're exactly breeding for. The well rounded individual, the ace head dog, the superb body dog, or just an honest dog. Where does your bar for all of those things start and stop. If your bar is the same at beginning as it is 10, 15, or 20 years down the road, then I'd say you've not seen much or know much of anything.
Your bar should be rising throughout your time. You should be striving to improve what you have the entire time. I was really lucky in starting off in dogs that I didn't toil for years with shitty dogs. I saw at the beginning what it meant to be around serious men and their dogs. That being said, my bar has constantly risen over the years. I've always attempted to better my yard, and I've been a lot more successful now since I adopted a mixture of the two mindsets instead of being just one or the other.
Disagree. There are factual results that obtain that can be measured, quantified, and data drawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
Same as we could measure the farming details, or overall crop yield, between two farmers and come out with objective facts that prove one methodology is superior to another.
Disagree again. That some dogmen can compete and win with "what's left" of their yard, and maintain respectable percentages with that, still doesn't change the fact that their overall percentages suck. In the same fashion, if a lousy farmer is able to sell a couple of fruits or vegetable at the market, it still doesn't change the fact he lost most of his crop that never made it to market.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
And, since we're dealing with living animals that deserve a fighting chance and to be given all the tools they need, I would much rather associate with the kind of dogmen that give their dogs that chance and meet all of those needs.
Once a person has done all he can, and the dog still doesn't live up to the standards, then he has the right to judge the dog. I personally don't like to cull dogs through killing, and have been able to maintain an awfully high % win record not doing so, while at the same time being very exacting in what I want in a dog, both athletically and gameness-wise. I like dogs. I like them for more than just their ability to fight, or to be game, I just like being around dogs. Yet I also know what it takes to win, and that in order to win against the best you can't breed based on whether you like an animal or not, but by whether (objectively) it has the skills, drive, tenacity to win. And I can breed to dogs like this, while not killing dogs that aren't like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
I agree, a person's bar should rise as his knowledge and experience rises ... and yet so, too, should his willingness to relax and be patient. Green dogmen have no idea what a good dog is (generally), and yet they're impatient and "want the world" while they themselves don't have the tools to provide it. They rush dogs, and are in a big hurry to "test" dogs, and don't seem to want to put in the time required to properly school a dog.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
As we get experienced, we're supposed to have a better idea of what a "good dog" is ... and yet we're also supposed to have the patience to allow these dogs to get up there in age, and to school them out properly and with purpose, before we go ahead and judge them.
Myself, I have always liked dogs, and while I have gained experience over the years, I personally have never found the need to be brutal or reckless in my culling of dogs. I have always given them time to grow up before I judge them. Knowledge-wise, the less I listened to the standard dullard in dogs (who focuses on "how much abuse" a dog could take "and still scratch") ... and the more I concentrated on what it takes to win (how smart & athletic they were, and how much they can control the situation, while pacing themselves), the more I have seen my win record grow. And I do have the factual statistics that show my win/loss record as a breeder continuously improved from 1997 (57%) to 1999 (75%) until it plateaued at ~87% from 2002 on out, where it's stayed. (This is across the board, in various states/countries, in various hands & levels of competence. I am absolutely the number would be higher if they were always, 100% in top hands.)
So I very much do believe that there are objective, factual statistics that prove one method is superior to another.
Jack
There is no factual data that can be used across the board to prove one way is better than another. Unless you have factual data from everyone that's ever owned dogs on how they do dogs, you will have nothing more than a small sample that can be swayed one way or another.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
What's left from a man's yard is usually dictated on how they look at their yard. Percentages pertaining to what? Dogs making it to the box? Dogs actually winning? Dogs being game? Overall percentages can be construed in numerous ways. I know someone that said they've not had a dog quit in 6 years. While that's true, they leave out the fact of picking up dogs at the first sign of trouble. They leave out the fact of picking up dogs, during shows, when they're looking like they're going to pack it in. Maybe the most time they see out of a potential brood dog is 20-30 minutes, and they breed it. Once everything is factored into these individuals and how they do things, the “percentages” are shown in an entirely different light.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
I would rather associate with men that could show me something I've missed over time, and I've learned things from both of those individuals. A lot of the men I know that were hard on their dogs gave their dogs all the chances they were willing to give their dogs. Not all dogs, given every chance in the world, are going to amount to anything that we define as a sport. If you do everything you can for a D class dog, it's still a D class dog, and most people don't want D class dogs for any particular reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
I guess we think about different things when we think of men who only want the best. The men I knew that did that didn't just cull dogs because they didn't start at 16 months old. They weren't idiots. A couple of them usually gave their dogs until the age of 3 to get with the program. It didn't always pan out for them. Some only gave them until the age of 2 to start. Those men knew their dogs. If the dogs didn't meet what it was they wanted, they did what they thought was best for their yard.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
You're right about green dogmen. I guess I just don't think about greenhorns much as I generally don't deal with them. I know I've slowed down a lot on my rush to judgement over the years as I think most people do that are successful within dogs. Greenhorns will make every mistake in the book usually unless they have someone that is actually looking out for their best interest and their dog's best interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
AgreeQuote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
The thing about trying to factor in how dogs win is actually seeing what they win over. This is just how I see it. I've seen many dogs win over 3 subpar and average dogs in my day, but those dogs are still Champions. It's not the dog's fault his opponent wasn't up to snuff. He did his job as he was supposed to do. There are ton of people who show a ton of dogs because they simply want to show dogs. That's what they want. And if the dog looks good in a few rolls against some dogs, then they take their chances and hope for the best. A lot of times, they're simply showing average dogs. That is how a lot of shows are done, won, and lost. The percentages are high for these kennels until they meet someone who actually brings a match quality dog to a match and not just some dog they want to show. All competition is not created equally, and to me, that's the crux of the entire percentage aspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
If every dog that was shown would meet an equal opponent, then I guess percentages would mean more to me than they do. While it's nice to hear that a dog, or dogs, that you bred won, it simply doesn't mean that much to me unless the man that won REALLY knows what a quality dog is, and that man feels like he beat a quality dog and not just some average dog someone wanted to show.
Strictly-speaking, you're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
However, when you hear people talk about their low numbers, that usually is the result of either a person's poor knowledge of genetics and/or their poor practices.
This is as simple as I can put "the way things work," and I don't see how any knowledgeable dogman could disagree with the following:
Good genetics + good practices = higher percentage success.
Bad genetics + bad practices = lower percentage success.
It's pretty much that simple (plus any combinations thereof).
Well, the only percentages that can actually be measured is win/loss; the rest is speculation and/or opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
I understand what you're saying, but a lot of what you call "factors" are merely opinions. If a dog gets matched and wins, it wins. Whether it made a bad sign or not isn't a "factor," it's an opinion. If the dog loses, it loses, and if it scratches after it is picked up, then it scratches, and any "opinions" as to what may or may not have happened "after that" mean nothing. Now, if the owner fails to courtesy scratch, then I agree the owner is hiding something. But if he courtesies, and the dog scratches, that is all the dog can do.
Furthermore, "how hard" a dog is looked at in school means nothing either as to a win/loss record. I sold a dog to a good dogman in Canada. He matched the dog from me into a son of a well-known Champion, and the camp who brought the opponent claimed have "high standards," declaring they had two-dogged their charge for :50 ... and they said their dog would "never quit" ... but yet their dog quit to my dog in :53. The dogmen who lost could not believe their dog quit to the one dog from me where he did not quit to 2 dogs before. Why is that?
Different opponents yield different levels of control, therefore different results.
Different days yield different results.
Different states of condition/health yield different results.
Finally, there are also a lot of people who have good records, yet they really haven't matched into a top-caliber animal, nor produced a top-caliber animal. They win/lose against done-nothing dogs, or (maybe) a 1xW, into local boys. They have never faced a highly-regarded dogman, or a highly-regarded dog (nor have they produced one). In other words, the dogs they 'win' with are always against mediocre competition, so they might have been losers against elite competition, etc.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
I don't know what you think about when you think about the best, but what I think about is producing the kind of dog that will whip and stop anything it faces its weight ... no matter whose hands they're in ... because, genetically, that dog has the athleticism, intelligence, drive, and mettle to do so. I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
And that is exactly why I made this post, because there are a lot of people still rushing their dogs and doing stupid shit with them. Not everyone has the same level of experience you do, but "even you" can (and eventually did) benefit by not being in such a hurry to make a decision on a dog, but instead to put more time into the dog and let it mature and get schooled before doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
In my case (and I know you have heard this story before, but it bears repetition here), my Diamond Girl bitch quit in :05 on her first roll. She half-heartedly defended herself, scratched once, and then refused to go. All the "tough, hardcore" dogmen there told me to put the bitch down, but I ignored their stupid advice because she was just a 16 month old puppy, and I could just see she wasn't ready yet. Diamond Girl was never fully "on" until she was 3+ years old ... but when she did turn on, she proved to be as game as any dog I have ever bred. She produced an extremely-high percentage of game dogs, put Ch Nico Jr. on the ROM list when she produced Ch Buster (4xW), who was put down in a raid in-keep for #5. Diamond Girl is behind multiple Champions, 2 Grand Champions, one of which was the Philippine Dog of the Year for 2006.
The moral of the story is patience is a virtue, and giving dogs time to mature pays off, which is why the best dogmen are patient, which is the subject of this thread.
This is true, and that is essentially what I said a couple paragraphs above.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
I know my dogs have faced the very best in the world, beaten Champions owned by some of the most competitive kennels in the world, done so without getting touched in some case, gone 2-3 hours into the best in the world, crawled 100% DG into the best in the world ... "as well as" won over no-name competition.
I don't know all the specifics of what you've done, but I know I can say that about my dogs ... which have done so for 2 decades ... that they have competed with and BEAT the very best in the world ... and that they have also lost 100% DG to the very best in the world ... taking multi-winning dogs longer than all their previous opponents put together. I don't know how many people can honestly make the same statement. Beating "a dog" in a known dogman's hands isn't the same as beating his best Champion in that same man's hands.
I don't think any dogman has always put his dogs into the very best, every time, and that includes you.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
Again, beating "a" dog in a known dogman's hands isn't the same as beating his finest Champion, etc. Therefore, unless you are always facing Champions, Grand Champions, DOYs, etc., you too are competing against "lesser dogs" yourself to some degree. Everyone is. Therefore, all things are relative, and therefore all wins mean something ... precisely because the dog that was put in there won, which becomes a statistical fact, and which win increases the factual record of the dogman.
Of course, I agree that quality of competition (in both dogs and men) alters "our perception" as to the worth of that win, but it doesn't alter the fact that both dogs won. For example, when Prime Ape recently won in 1:43 over a local dogman, it did not mean quite as much to me as when Ch Vengence destroyed GDI's Ch Soldier in :43, killed him without getting a hole in his skin, made the cover of Scratchback Magazine, and was featured in an article Rudy wrote, "The Best Dogs I have Ever Seen," etc.
Yet THE FACT IS Prime Ape still won, my percentages remain where they are, and I am still proud of that dog for his win. And another fact is, which again relates to the subject of this thread, Ch Vengence (like Diamond Girl) also quit when he was 16 months old ... in like :08 ... and yet, as a fully-mature dog, he whipped some of the best dogmen of his time, using the best dogs they owned, including killing a Champion his weight without getting bit back, as well as spotting weight and coming from way behind to win over Openhouse. So not only did Vengence win his last in 1:20, coming from behind, but he was also pushing 2 lb of weight.
Which, again, proves the point of this post ... allowing a dog to mature, and being patient, pays off :)
Jack
You're right in the only percentages that can be factually measured are win/loss ratio.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
There are plenty of reasons why a dog that was supposedly 2 dogged would quit. The 2 dogs were smaller dogs that he handled easily. Both dogs were subpar dogs, etc etc. Maybe the style of the dog you sent there frustrated him. The list can continue on and on. There is nothing wrong with holding your dogs to a higher standard than others if you actually have the ability to understand what that means.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
You're right, but winning is winning. It all counts toward a percentage, so whether the dog is top caliber or not doesn't matter. What matters is the dog won. Winning percentages aren't really about producing top caliber animals for someone only interested in showing dogs. I can see how that's important to breeders such as yourself. You're right about those dogs and mediocre competition, but that's all just opinion as they just as easily may have won against elite competition, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
I haven't bred a line of dogs for 20+ years, so I don't have dogs all over the world. I can't compare what my dogs have done to anyone when it comes to a breeding program. I've only bred my dogs for myself to keep what I like going in a direction I want. I'm not interested in being that person that created a line over the world. Beating “a dog” in a known dogman's hands could, at times, mean beating his best dog whether he has champions or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Of course I haven't as I have no control over that thing, but, as I stated, that is when percentages would matter to me as something to pay attention to IF people were able to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
No one is always facing the competition of dogs you mention on a regular basis. We all face “lesser dogs”. We're all glad to win, but the sense of accomplishment isn't the same as beating a quality dog. Sometimes there is no sense of accomplishment. If I were to win all shows in 40 minutes or less, my sense of accomplishment would be near the bottom rung of the ladder, if there at all. You're not getting any type of indicator of beating lesser dogs as that's something we all feel like we should do. A win only means something if the competitor that won attaches some worth to it. If there's no worth attached to it, it means nothing. At that point, it is simply a matter of fact, as you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Agreed here, and perception is what a lot of decisions are made on and simply not simply a win. Above post :)Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Patience is something we should all have with dogs. At times, patience pays off. At other times, it makes zero difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
Agreed. And I do. And I am sure you do too :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
What you said is true, except that 1) winning percentages are important to everyone, breeders and competitors alike, and 2) winning percentages are about producing top-caliber animals.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
An individual win may not necessarily prove anything, one way or another, but the greater the number of random matches become the more accurate the statistics become. That is how intelligent people in sports rate EVERYTHING (from horseraces to batting averages) is based on percentages. And, in the sport of dogs, no one is going to build a FAR greater-than-average family record, consistently, by repeatedly sending out mediocre dogs into a random sampling of hands worldwide. No way in hell can that happen. The only way a consistently mediocre group of dogs can build a FAR better-than-mediocre record is by spot-picking, if sub-par dogs are always selectively placed in truly superior human hands who then set out to face average (or lesser) competition. Because even a great dogman given a mediocre dog will still lose to another great dogman, who's bringing a truly superior dog.
In point of fact, my dogs generally get dealt the opposite hand, and yet they still almost always prevail :idea:
My dogs don't always go to good or experienced hands; the fact is many times they're put in relatively green hands, and yet they almost invariably win or show game regardless, even when totally outclassed in levels of experience on "the human" end. Take Ch Vengence, for example. He was owned by Minute Man when he beat Ch Soldier. Minute Man faced Gamedog Inc., a highly experienced dogman, who had Captain America in his corner as the conditioner, who's as "fastlane" as it gets. These veterans had a pretty famous guy named STP on their side basically saying Ch Soldier was a "shoe-in" to make Grand Champion. Minute Man was a rank newbie by comparison, and so the disparity of "level of human competition" was literally night-and-day in that fight. And, just to put a punctuation mark on it, Vengence came in there light. Yet none of those "perceived intangibles" mattered, as Ch Vengeance outclassed the shit out of Ch Soldier, and pitched a shutout, precisely because he was a truly superior athlete.
The same thing happened when the relative beginner Griddog beat Harry Hargrove so bad with Ch Mr. Serious that Hargrove walked passed his own yard of dogs three times to go breed to Mr. Serious. No way is a man like Hargrove going to breed to some beginner's dog who beat him, unless he thought that beginner had a truly special animal. Time and again, my dogs get sent to relative novices, who take their dogs out and whip some of the biggest names in the history of dogs, and there is no way this can happen without my consistently sending people far greater-than-average dogs.
Any statistician will agree that the larger the sampling, the most accurate the statistics are, and my dogs have been put out there long enough, often enough, and with the same % results worldwide, regardless, that I am as positive as I can be that my dogs a far better than average and far more likely to win than lose, regardless of who or what they face.
I understand what you're saying, and there is nothing wrong with what you're doing. In fact, it is arguably the best way for the dogs. To be honest, I often wish I had done things your way, and really mastered my own conditioning program, so that all my dogs got the same fair shake.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
And yet, had I gone this route, I would never have gotten to breed as deep into my own line as I have. I would never have gotten to get the same feedback, worldwide, nor would my dogs have faced the wide variety of opponents that they have, and so I wouldn't have gotten to know how reliable and consistent they really are. Because the flipside is, dogs that are always in top hands are in some ways "sheltered." Even though your standards may be high, the conditions you keep your dogs in are optimal. Your experience is there.
Imagine sending your own dogs to a random sampling of people, from all over the world, to see how they do ... when things are NOT optimal for them. When they're done at a young age, or spotting 2-4 lb of weight, or put in keep 1 month after they just won a brutal war in over an hour (being put on a mill while still sore and limping) ... and yet they still keep winning in the same percentages. Some people who think they have good dogs, might find their percentages drop quite a bit when they get placed in less-than-optimal hands/conditions. So, despite how infuriating situations like this can be, because I have seen this happen to my dogs time and again, the flipside is I know they can stand up to just about anything out there, under just about any circumstance, and still prevail or die trying.
There was a time when I paid attention to everything, and kept meticulous records, but I stopped doing this in about 2007. My dogs have both beaten and lost to the best, and sometimes they quit too, but the losses and quits are SO few and far between, compared to the wins, that they are nothing but a minor surprise to me that quickly gets forgotten when the next string of wins comes in.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
I understand what you're saying. All wins my dogs gain bring me a sense of accomplishment, because they did their job ... yet how much sense of accomplishment is, as you say, relative to the perceived worth of the opponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
Yet even a dog like Prime Ape, who just beat a local dogman (unknown to most) still gave me a tremendous sense of accomplishment, preceisely because of the odds he overcame. He was the smaller dog, and these local boys who had his opponent have beat some good dogmen in that area. They knew they were facing a stone killer dog in Prime Ape, and they brought what they thought was a truly badass dog, and he was. Wildchild said the dog's strength and mouth were incredible, as was his condition. Dogs don't know who their owners are, and even dogmen the level of Hardcore Kennels can still lose to relative beginners, as for instance when Ram's Flash beat HCK's SDJ Cover Dog, Ch Doogie. The fact is, relative beginners can and do get their hands on some truly awesome dogs. So, even though "public perception" of a relatively unknown dogman might not be much, that has nothing to do with the fact that many are as hard to beat as kennels get.
And, BTW, it's a good thing most of my dogs win after the :40 mark, LOL, because that is generally what separates "the fastlane shit" from truly game bulldogs 8)
Agree and disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
My perception means everything to me ... whereas "the perception of others" never has. If I see a dog go with my own eyes, on my own yard, then I will make my decisions and be confident that they're better decisions than most. If I hear of my dogs performing in a way that "makes sense" based on how they're bred, then I will be proud of that dog. And if I hear that a dog didn't live up to the way I had hoped, and he's been done right, then I will be disappointed. I don't like being disappointed, so fortunately this doesn't happen very often :lol:
True enough. Sometimes patience makes no difference ... except in one very important detail ... we know in our bones that we did our job and the best we could for that dog, and its failure was therefore its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
These dogs have a tough row to hoe, and things are hard enough for them even in a perfect world, so there is no sense making it harder than it has to be. Ultimately, if we want the best results, it is our job to clear the way for them, manage the intangibles favorably, and do the best we can for them, first, before we expect the best out of them in return. That is only fair.
I would rather waste my time being patient on 3 dogs that ultimately disappointed me, than to lose and unfairly waste 1 good dog that just needed a little more time and patience. For example, I took Bolo back because the customer I sold him to said he was cold and sucked. You know the story on his parents, Pup Pup and Super Red, who were absolutely as game as live ones could be. And these dogs were CHALK FULL of some of the gamest, baddest, and best-producing dogs a man could ask for. So I was 100% confident Bolo would "turn on" and live up to his incredible pedigree. But the fucker never did. He was absolutely mortified by fighting contact, and sailed over the wall every time he got touched. It was freaking embarrassing :lol:
So I made an experimental "double Pup Pup" breeding with him, just to see if I could "shake the genetic jar" and get game dogs back out of him. Most of those pups did turn out pretty good, but "pretty good" is not what I am after. I believe one male was cold also, and "coldness" is neither something I am used to, nor desire, so I just got rid of it all.
So, as you said, in that particular case my being patient didn't mean a damned thing. Still, I would rather waste my time with a dog like Bolo, and be disappointed on occasion, than EVER miss the opportunity to own a Diamond Girl or a Ch Vengence, who did turn out to be truly game, valuable animals thanks to a little patience. In other words, just because we might get disappointed by trying our best, is no reason to stop doing so. Truly good dogmen should never forgo the quality work of being patient and doing their job.
Jack
Thanks for the good discussion! :)
Great exchanges and good series of posts. EWO