Gameness and Size ????

I was reading Mr. Fox' post about looking or a smaller dog. It comes up all the time, in my opinion, about both dogs and human combat athletes. The prominent attitude is that smaller dogs are gamer and smaller fighters are always "pound for pound" better fighters than larger, human fighters.

I don't know if I buy it or not. Are smaller dogs ABLE to be gamer b/c their bodies don't require as much caloric intake, oxygen intake and that, combined with the fact that their larger opponent "hits" so much harder and causes so much more damage, in comparison, is this why they are seemingly gamer?

Take a large fighter. His ability to do damage is greater. The UFC has never had a HW fighter get past 3 title defenses. Is it b/c the fighters in that division are less game, or is it b/c they face people who could end the fight in one strike, at any time?

Smaller fighters can go all day. Why? Some reason are obvious. Less oxygen required. The ability to stay "less hot" is greater b/c of physical factors. Their opponents cannot do the equivalent damage of larger fighters (we all know exceptions but that doesn't apply to the "rule")

I don't think in general, smaller fighters, canine or human, are any more game than larger fighters. It's just my opinion and I'm only throwing this out there for convo sake. So what are some of your thoughts?

Interesting argument.

I don't actually believe smaller fighters are GAMER than larger fighters ... but I do believe they're quicker, slicker, overall more athletic fighters, for all the physiological reasons you hinted upon.

One thing I disagree with, though, is POWER. Smaller fighters can be JUST as devastating (pound-for-pound) as bigger fighters.

In fact MANY of the greatest KO punchers of all time are lightweight and below.

Same thing as there are plenty of 30 lb dogs that DOA their opponents in :10-:20 min. Devastating!

A lightweight maybe couldn't knock out a heavyweight ... but neither could a heavyweight put a dent in a gorilla or a grizzly bear.

But in their own division, many lightweight fighters are truly devastating.

Jack

I agree with that Jack, and probably wasn't as clear as I needed to me, but more specifically, an "average" HW can still KO a guy in his division whereas an "average" LW probably will not simply b/c of the strength being enough, regardless of the power.

I believe many dogmen and fight fans both confuse "busy" or speed and action for gameness.

I don't see how that could be confused for gameness. A cur will stay busy at times but that is what the scratch line is for. Many times ppl dont want to know themselves. Smaller dogs may be more agile but a dog in good shape big or small should be able to stretch it out. Long as their hearts in it is the judgement of gameness. That's long as some human doesn't throw them in on a bum keep, sick, or some BS.

I agree 100% EGK. I was talking how it seems to me, and I could be wrong, that most people associate smaller dogs with more gameness than larger dogs. I agree with what you say.

I don't know if most people associate size with gameness. I can't say as I've ever heard that particular sentiment with any of the guys I knew/know. You may have a larger number strictly due to smaller dogs being the majority of dogs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

I agree with that Jack, and probably wasn't as clear as I needed to me, but more specifically, an "average" HW can still KO a guy in his division whereas an "average" LW probably will not simply b/c of the strength being enough, regardless of the power.

---

You said the same thing differently.

Lightweights have the same ratio or proportion of strength/power "to other lightweights" as heavyweights have "to other heavyweights."

On average lightweights punch other lightweights with at least as much power as heavyweights punch other heavyweights.

Just because most lightweights can't step up and hit a heavyweight with the same kind of authority, doesn't mean their punch isn't hard while punching other lightweights on down.

Again, Mike Tyson's strength/power as a heavyweight wouldn't help him much against a gorilla or a grizzly bear ... because, now, proportionally, Mike Tyson would be a harmless weakling compared to one of those :idea:
But against a human being his size Tyson was devastating. Well, the same thing is true with lightweights: they too can be devastating at their own weights.

Let me provide proof of what I am talking about:

Joe Louis had the highest KO % of any heavyweight Champion, and finished his heavyweight career with a 66-3 record (52 wins by KO) which is a 75% KO ratio as heavyweight Champion.

Roberto Duran had the highest KO % of any lightweight Champion, and left his career at lightweight with a 62-1 record (55 by KO), which is an 87% KO ratio as lightweight Champion.

What made Duran so remarkable is that he moved all the way up to Super Middleweight, 5 weight divisions over his best division and still hurt people.
Sure, Duran's knockout ability was diminished at the bigger weight, but AT LIGHTWEIGHT, in his prime, Roberto Duran was pure poison.

You are simply wrong and you simply don't understand the concept of PROPORTION.

Plainly said, lightweight fighters hit just as hard (if not harder) proportionally as any other fighters. Again, back to dogs, tiny 31 lb dogs (like BB Red) are killing dogs THEIR SIZE just as decisively (if not more decisively) as bigger dogs do against dogs their size. Just because BB Red couldn't go up in weight and kill a 50 lber like that, doesn't mean she couldn't do it to a 31 lber, because by golly she did!

I could roll out a list of lightweight boxers that trump heavyweight fighters in KOs and KO percentages.
Same as I can roll out a list of little dogs whose ability to overpower and kill dogs their size is every bit as awesome as any big dog.

And the the little dogs fight at a faster rate too.

Jack

I wasn't talking about proportions. I do understand it. It is simple math. Like a 100lb man squatting 300 is a stronger PROPORTIONAL athlete than a 200lb man squatting 400. I get all of that.

What I am saying is that a average puncher in the HW division CAN KO another HW fighter when he hits him on the button simply b/c he is a large, strong man hitting a Skull Structure that is limited in it's abilities to take a punch.

I think your Duran example is a great awesome. It shows he lost POWER as he gained weight. WHY? B/c it wasn't his optimal weight in his prime as an athlete. He could still get it done, but I believe he was at his best when he was at his lightest.

All I was saying, is that even I, at 6'1", 240.8 (this morning - I need to drop some weight), can KO another large guy simply b/c I'm big. Meaning, an average or BELOW average (like me) can do that b/c of size and strength. In layman terms, b/c I am big. An average or below average SMALL fighter typically cannot do this b/c of the lack of size and strength, even compared to others his size. I doubt you'll agree with me on this, but it is true. Not including exceptions, but the general rule of a population. There is only so much ability the average skull has in its abilities to be KO'd or thwart off the KO.

This dumbass subject I started has gotten way off course, but it's a good discussion anyways.

All have a great weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

I wasn't talking about proportions. I do understand it. It is simple math. Like a 100lb man squatting 300 is a stronger PROPORTIONAL athlete than a 200lb man squatting 400. I get all of that.

---

That is great. You do get it. Sort of.

That is pure strength you're talking, whereas hitting hard also has to do with speed, timing, and leverage ... and lightweights can have that as well (or better) than heavyweights :idea:

Unfortunately, you lose whatever grasp had as you keep going :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

What I am saying is that a average puncher in the HW division CAN KO another HW fighter when he hits him on the button simply b/c he is a large, strong man hitting a Skull Structure that is limited in it's abilities to take a punch.

---

What makes you think that "the average lightweight" can't KO another LW fighter?

Do you think there aren't KOs in the LW division? I don't understand why you keep talking as if you've not just read what I said above (or have never actually seen a fight).

Lighter weight fighters KO each other with impunity. All the time. But they also have moves, athleticism, etc.

Heavyweights are usually boring SLUGS to watch by comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

I think your Duran example is a great awesome. It shows he lost POWER as he gained weight. WHY? B/c it wasn't his optimal weight in his prime as an athlete. He could still get it done, but I believe he was at his best when he was at his lightest.

---

Of course he was at his best, at lightweight, because of the PROPORTION thing I was talking about. Having an extra 40 lb of FAT isn't the same thing as having an extra 40 lb of MAN.

Duran was an old, little guy trying to hit BIG guys, and only because he was so great at his proper division could he do so. At his proper division, he was simply poison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

All I was saying, is that even I, at 6'1", 240.8 (this morning - I need to drop some weight), can KO another large guy simply b/c I'm big. Meaning, an average or BELOW average (like me) can do that b/c of size and strength. In layman terms, b/c I am big.

---

I will say this, again, for the third time, so that maybe it will sink in :)

Yes, you are big and strong for a man ... but compared to a 350-lb SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THE CONGO JUNGLE you are a fragile weakling and couldn't put a dent in one: you'd be torn to pieces. Also, even when compared to THE BEST big men out there, you couldn't KO a single one of them. So, AGAIN, despite how big you THINK you are ... based on the same theory of PROPORTION ... your punch does not carry any more proportional power as anyone else's, of any size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

An average or below average SMALL fighter typically cannot do this b/c of the lack of size and strength, even compared to others his size. I doubt you'll agree with me on this, but it is true. Not including exceptions, but the general rule of a population. There is only so much ability the average skull has in its abilities to be KO'd or thwart off the KO.

---

I don't know what planet you're on, or what shortage is going on upstairs, but YOU ARE JUST WRONG ... "the average" small fighter can KO "the average" small fighter with the same kind (if not more) authority as the average big guy can KO the average big guy.

Here are the KO percentages of THE TOP 6 hardest-hitting heavyweights of all time:

George Foreman 76-5 (68 by KO) which is 84%
Mike Tyson: 50-6 (44 by KO) which is 79%
Ernie Shavers: 74-14 (68 by) which is 77%
Joe Louis: 66-3 record (52 by KO) which is 75%
Jack Dempsey: 55-6 (45 by KO) which is 74%
Sonny Liston: 50-4 (39 by KO) which is 72%

I was actually wrong before: FOREMAN had the greatest KO percentage of any Champion. (Shavers was devastating, but never Champion). Now then, AGAIN, these are the hardest-hitting men who have ever lived ... at the "biggest" division it is possible for a human being to hold. Are you with me? Now then, let's compare these men to the POWER of lighter-weight fighters (middleweight on down) :)

Carlos Zarate BW: 66-4 (63 by KO), which is 90%
Aaron Pryor JW: 39-1 (35 by KO) which is 87.5%
Roberto Duran LW: 62-1 (55 by KO), which is 87%
Thomas Hearns WW 32-1 (28 by KO) which is 85%
Julio Cesar Chavez JLW: 55-0 (45 by KO) which is 82%
John Mugabi MW: 42-7 record (39 by KO) which is 79%

Now then, ALL of these lighter fighters have a GREATER KO% than any heavyweight who has ever lived, except George Foreman ... and 3 of these men beat him too.

I cut Chavez' record off at Junior Lightweight, Duran's off at lightweight, and Hearns at Welterweight (before they stepped up in weight).

So, I am sorry bud, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. You keep picturing a light guy hitting a heavyweight. You keep NOT understanding that EVERYTHING (skull size, bone density, etc.) is proportionally smaller in lightweights too ... so they can KO each other with as much (arguably MORE) authority than the big guys. There are the stats right there for all to be seen.

There is absolutely nothing to debate about it. Denial isn't rebuttal, it is only denial :)

You can't show me ANY heavyweight with a greater KO% than the greatest of the lighter-weight fighters :idea:

The lighter-weight fighters BLOW AWAY the heavier-weight fighters, in just about every category, pound-for-pound. And they blow them away in speed, moves, and athleticism too (# of punches thrown, etc.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

This dumbass subject I started has gotten way off course, but it's a good discussion anyways.
All have a great weekend.

---

It is a good discussion, no doubt about it.

Cheers,

Jack

The bottom line, in as simple terms as one can get....it all boils down to ability.


Size can NOT determine ability, you either have it or you don't. And more often than not, when you get significant size, ability decreases.

That doesn't mean there isn't exceptions to the rule. I have seen very fast, very agile larger fighters with finish.

My personal preference would be right in the middle of small and large.

Great topic NQ, we do not all have to agree, how interesting would that be?

S_B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S_B

The bottom line, in as simple terms as one can get....it all boils down to ability.
Size can NOT determine ability, you either have it or you don't. And more often than not, when you get significant size, ability decreases.
That doesn't mean there isn't exceptions to the rule. I have seen very fast, very agile larger fighters with finish.
My personal preference would be right in the middle of small and large.
Great topic NQ, we do not all have to agree, how interesting would that be?
S_B

---

I agree, it all comes down to ability.

And, while I also agree size cannot "determine" ability, the FACT is a bigger fighter is less likely to have "high ability" than a smaller man.
More importantly, at the TOP of their game, a bigger fighter will NEVER have the same level of ability as the best smaller fighters :idea:

Further, even power-wise, it's the same thing, proportionally ... smaller fighters are better in this area also :idea:

FACT: Only 1 heavyweight Champion in the history of the game has been able to maintain a greater than 80% KO percentage;
By contrast, there are MULTIPLE other lighter weight Champions have maintain a greater than 80% KO percentage.

Every other GREAT heavyweight KO artist is in the 70th %, and even here there are only 5 who have done this;
Meanwhile I could roll out a mile-long list of lighter fighters who are in the 70th percentile KO % [Hagler, Ketchel, Foster, Julian Jackson (81%), McClellan (85%), etc.]

Again, there really is nothing to debate.

Heavyweight fighters really can't compare, in ANY stats, to the lighter weight fighters ... not # of punches thrown, not KO%, nothing.

Heavyweights are just big ... and a few of them are big and GOOD.
But as far as actual KO stats in relation to power goes ... they really pale in comparison, proportionally, to the most devastating smaller men.
Again, facts are facts, stats are stats.

As previously stated, denial isn't rebuttal; it is only denial.

Jack

Great Points Jack, and I think we can mostly agree.

On the other hand, in my opinion, we are comparing apples to oranges here. I don't think any human man can touch a dog in any way shape or form physically or pound for pound.

Furthermore if you look at, lets say the Wolf. Wolves can range in size from 50 to 110 lbs respectively. They can track prey for as far as 75 miles, and then have enough physical strength to take it down and eat it. Whether it be a deer, or with the help of the pack a bison.


No man is capable of that kind of endurance. And in the wild, as a wolf it is an advantage to have some size to you. You never see the small male leading the pack :exclamation:

So have we really tapped into what it really is to be a conditioned athlete as a dog? I don't think so...we have no idea how capable these little (no pun intended) bulldogs really are.

I wonder if it has more to do with the confinement of our little warriors that has all of their potential sort of pent up, or never truly utilized, especially when it comes to the larger (45+) dogs. :-?

S_B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S_B

Great Points Jack, and I think we can mostly agree.
On the other hand, in my opinion, we are comparing apples to oranges here. I don't think any human man can touch a dog in any way shape or form physically or pound for pound.
Furthermore if you look at, lets say the Wolf. Wolves can range in size from 50 to 110 lbs respectively. They can track prey for as far as 75 miles, and then have enough physical strength to take it down and eat it. Whether it be a deer, or with the help of the pack a bison.
No man is capable of that kind of endurance. And in the wild, as a wolf it is an advantage to have some size to you. You never see the small male leading the pack :exclamation:
So have we really tapped into what it really is to be a conditioned athlete as a dog? I don't think so...we have no idea how capable these little (no pun intended) bulldogs really are.
I wonder if it has more to do with the confinement of our little warriors that has all of their potential sort of pent up, or never truly utilized, especially when it comes to the larger (45+) dogs. :-?
S_B

---

I agree we mostly agree :lol:

But we're really not comparing "apples to oranges"; we're using the same principle of PROPORTION :idea:

We're not comparing men to dogs, ability-wise, with "each other" ... we're comparing men to dogs, each going against its own kind size-proportion-wise.

And, yes, the exact same principles apply: bigger dogs are slower, less athletic, have less moves, and are NOT as good (all-around-athletic-wise) as small-to-medium-sized dogs.

As with people, the small-to-medium-sized dogs are the most talented and produce the greatest amount of results (athletic records, etc.).

As with people, 90% of all the dogs that win 7, 8, 9x etc. ... that get all DOAs in under 1 hour, etc. ... will be less than 48 lb, and almost none more than 50 lb.

Baracuda would be like George Foreman ... way up there with 9 wins ... but NOT the most, by any means, and certainly he wasn't the most athletic Grand Champion ... when compared to other, smaller dogs.

Like George Foreman, Barracuda was just a great big, tough SLUG "with mouth" and "rugged durability" ... same as Big George was a great big SLUG "with punch" and "rugged durability" ... but in no way was either on a par athletically with other smaller, fighters. Nor did either have the all-time-greatest KO/finish percentages.

Jack

Jack, I knew you would have some stats, but I am not talking EXCEPTIONS. I have stated that a few times a believe. I was talking the WHOLE of the population.

I would love to see some stats on all the other fighters of these divisions without the top 10 or 20 BEST of that category.

HW fights typically end in KO - Why? B/c even those slow UNPOWER but strong fighters, can still drop a guy in his division. WHY? B/c he is strong.

In the lighter categories, I don't see this as much. Maybe I haven't seen enough fighters. But, the average of the Lighter Divisions is going to go the distance more often than the HW. Don't have facts for that, but it's an assumption on my part. Don't have the time to dig it up or I would. Now we can argue that there are less KO's in the Lighter Classes b/c there are more defensive skills and so on and I will agree, however, we have already classified a lot of HW fighters as slow and boring, so they aren't going to be as accurate either.

My bottom line is that the AVERAGE OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF LIGHTER FIGHTERS has less KO abilities than the AVERAGE OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF HW FIGHTERS. This is my argument, or what it's turned into after we stopped talking gameness....LOL!

I don't know this to be true, as it is based on my own viewing of fight sports and I have no evidence to back it. SO, if I'm wrong, I will live with that as I don't live in "D'Nile" valley.

Have a good one men.

Oh and Frosty, I see it like you do and my "crowd" doesn't either. Again, like this topic, I was talking in general terms. Like above here. There's a reason why the "Top 10 LB per LB" of any fight division includes mostly smaller guys. MOST, not all, nor good dogmen, associate small dogs with being more game. Again, my own experience. Not anything statistically proven or scientifically based. Just a discussion topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

Jack, I knew you would have some stats, but I am not talking EXCEPTIONS. I have stated that a few times a believe. I was talking the WHOLE of the population.

I would love to see some stats on all the other fighters of these divisions without the top 10 or 20 BEST of that category.

HW fights typically end in KO - Why? B/c even those slow UNPOWER but strong fighters, can still drop a guy in his division. WHY? B/c he is strong.

In the lighter categories, I don't see this as much. Maybe I haven't seen enough fighters. But, the average of the Lighter Divisions is going to go the distance more often than the HW. Don't have facts for that, but it's an assumption on my part. Don't have the time to dig it up or I would. Now we can argue that there are less KO's in the Lighter Classes b/c there are more defensive skills and so on and I will agree, however, we have already classified a lot of HW fighters as slow and boring, so they aren't going to be as accurate either.

My bottom line is that the AVERAGE OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF LIGHTER FIGHTERS has less KO abilities than the AVERAGE OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF HW FIGHTERS. This is my argument, or what it's turned into after we stopped talking gameness....LOL!

I don't know this to be true, as it is based on my own viewing of fight sports and I have no evidence to back it. SO, if I'm wrong, I will live with that as I don't live in "D'Nile" valley.

Have a good one men.

Oh and Frosty, I see it like you do and my "crowd" doesn't either. Again, like this topic, I was talking in general terms. Like above here. There's a reason why the "Top 10 LB per LB" of any fight division includes mostly smaller guys. MOST, not all, nor good dogmen, associate small dogs with being more game. Again, my own experience. Not anything statistically proven or scientifically based. Just a discussion topic.

---

TRANSLATION: "In spite of the fact I am wrong ... in spite of the fact I have NO statistics to back up my beliefs ... in spite of the fact ACTUAL STATISTICS prove lighter weight fighters have MORE KO's (and better percentages of KOs) than any of the heavyweights ... and in spite of the fact "the average" lighter weight fighters have perfectly good KO %s also ... I am going to keep believing what I believe."

That is basically what you just said.

In a nutshell, you just want to believe what you want to believe, in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

That's cool. It's your right to be wrong.

.

Jack, I had a lot typed here and man, I accidentally deleted it......DOH!
Even though you are one of the best written debate guys I've ever seen, ANYWHERE - I do love to discuss with you.

However, I'm not wrong on this one.

BIGGEST FLAW IN YOUR ARGUMENT: You apply statistics of ALL WEIGHT DIVISIONS OF FIGHTERS AGAINST the HW division only.

The problem with this is that it is a very limited and controlled population and I believe I've stated many times that I was speaking GENERALLY about the ENTIRE population. Never even broke it down into classes, but my general point of discussion has been that most folks, in my opinion, associate gameness more with lighter weight fighters than heavy wt fighters. I think they do this b/c lighter fighters have less KO finishes than heavier fighters therefore their fights/matches last longer therefore, most people associating time of fight with gameness generally assume these fighters are more game.

Since we are speaking in general terms of smaller is gamer and larger is not (not my opinion - just the topic), and this is a comparison of two extremes, then your statistics should be more specific to the lightest division and the heaviest divisions only. Not ALL divisions compared to only one. This is skewed no matter how you look at it. You can't have ALL divisions compared to ONE division. It won't work. Let's apply the same stats on a sliding scale and compare the 120-130lbrs to the 132-145lbrs and the 146-165'rs and so on and so forth. That would be much more accurate than applying all the data of all of those classes to ONLY one class or division. Wouldn't you agree?

For example - your own research of average fight time b/t dogs is awesome. I love it and it is awesome b/c it's a GENERAL application to an entire population. You didn't go out and do research on 42-44lb ONLY dogs who were proven to be ONLY game or ONLY devastating killers. You collected data on a large population. You did not collect and apply date to reasoning from ONLY the top 10 of the two previous categories I just stated either. You deducted reasoning from the data collected on the entire population. Now if we did that with the HW fighters - ALL OF THEM AND NOT JUST THE TOP 10 and compared that to the Lightest Weight Class of Fighters and ALL OF THEM NOT JUST THE TOP 10 or any other statistical category that supports what we want to prove, then you would find something altogether different.

I have been consistent in my stance that I have applied my thinking or opinion based on the TOTAL population of categories. Not CATEGORIES of a population.

Not here to prove anyone wrong or prove myself right, but I won't change what I believe when your facts don't apply to my argument. I'm sure you'll show me the err of my way and label me wrong.

It's all good!

I will tell you what good sir: YOU do the research.

I am not going to waste anymore time compiling statistics for you, since you discount FACTS and just "repeat what you said" previously.

YOU are the one who said "lighter weights" don't have the power ... and all of the people I listed were lighter weights.
Now you're wanting to be selective and only look at 1 division. Fine, we can do that too, except this time YOU do the work.

YOU get up off your own ass ... and YOU go to Boxing Records.com ... and YOU make a list of every Heavyweight Champion who has ever lived ... and YOU add up the statistics.

Then YOU add-up all the lightweights ... or Middleweights ... or Bantamweights (whatever) ... and YOU produce the stats that back up your own beliefs.

Or, when you find that the general results are THE SAME ... or, dare I say, MORE FAVORABLE to the lighter weight classes ... that THE CONCEPT OF PROPORTION **DOES EXIST** ... then you can sit down and admit you're wrong ;)

Jack

PS: But we both know you don't have it in you to actually do your own work, and your own research ... it's a lot easier just to "make claims" baselessly :lol:

Didn't mean any offense - was just shootin the bull so to speak.

Sorry

I am not offended, good sir, just frustrated is all.

I thought I had a slam-dunk case :lol:

I will actually do the research myself ... by the weekend ... but don't have time now :)

Jack

I think this debate has gone off topic. And to compare weight divisions of human boxers to that of animal athletes is really pointless.

The athletic ability between the two doesn't match up....not p4p and damn sure not in the gameness department.

Smaller dogs tend to be classified as more game, because #1, there are more that compete there, and #2 because like NQ stated, more go the distance.

I don't think size has anything to do with gameness. I think it does play a role in the ability department, and it does p4p as well, maybe not 100% of the time. There will always be the exception.

I'll give an example of Pit Bulls pulling weight. Many years ago I competed in weight pull. I had a 40 lb female and a 61 lb male. My female would pull 100x her body weight consistently everytime, and sometimes more. The male would average 84% most times, but occasionally he'd pull more.

She was game bred he wasn't, but I think that would be a good measure of these dogs p4p if things were equaled, such as dogs being used being game bred and the stats being drawn from the exact same track.

Jack, don't waste your time.
I don't think I ever said it, but I am not thinking proportionally in any way whatsoever. I don't think I ever suggested it, but if I did, I apologize b/c I was trying to compare gameness in percentages, in numbers and NOT proportionally in an equal sense, if that makes sense.

So to maybe clear some things up, I am with SB. I don't think either has a monopoly on gameness. Not animals or humans. I think there are equal numbers of game animal and athletes in each division (for lack of better compartmentalization).

My original question or post was simply to provoke thought as I see a tendency from most people I've been exposed to, that smaller is always associated with more gameness and I disagree. When the doctor wouldn't allow Frazier to come out of his corner at Ali in the 15th, I believe Joe displayed as much gameness as any human athlete by telling the doctor after they said he couldn't see, "I will feel him there" or something to that affect. Meanwhile, Dundee is in Ali's corner and quotes, "Ali is saying, I can't go back out". In a dog match, we all know who wins. BUT, it's not that kind of sport, so it doesn't matter.

Anyways. Sorry for bring something up that pissed some folks off. Crap, all I was doing was trying to kick up some convo. Jack, seriously, don't waste your time. You WILL PROVE YOUR POINT, but it's not a point I'm trying to win or learn. HOWEVER....LOL...this is the argumentative side of me. I do believe, there will be a higher percentage of KO's as the weight divisions climb upward as I also believe there will be a climb in rounds fought per victory as the weight classes get smaller.

Use to have these dicussions all the time in strength forums with some real deal gurus of strength. Glenn Pendlay, Mark Rippatoe, Louie Simmons and some of the Russians whose names I can't spell. The argument of power and strength. Power is limited by or dictated in capacity by how much strength one possesses. The "power formula" will point to smaller guys all the time that THEY are the more powerful and by formula, they are. However, which takes more power to Press overhead? A 500lb lift or a 300lb lift? Many would argue the smaller guys were more powerful, but there were more guys lifting 500lbs over their head than the smaller guys. SO, while the little guys are more powerful by formula and math, the larger guys are simply......more powerful. I love this stuff....sorry to bring it into a bulldog forum, but the twist myself or Jack has taken this thing is interesting to me nonetheless.

Take care men.

Quote:

---

The "power formula" will point to smaller guys all the time that THEY are the more powerful and by formula, they are. However, which takes more power to Press overhead? A 500lb lift or a 300lb lift? Many would argue the smaller guys were more powerful, but there were more guys lifting 500lbs over their head than the smaller guys. SO, while the little guys are more powerful by formula and math, the larger guys are simply......more powerful.

---

And to this I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S_B

I think this debate has gone off topic. And to compare weight divisions of human boxers to that of animal athletes is really pointless.

---

No it isn't. To ignore the similarities is simply clueless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S_B

The athletic ability between the two doesn't match up....not p4p and damn sure not in the gameness department.

---

That has already been addressed, in my previous post to you, so there seems to be an echo/density feature here whereby people can't comprehend what was previously said, ignore the progress, and go back to saying what they originally said.

NO ONE IS COMPARING ATHLETIC ABILITY ... SO GET THAT OUT OF YOUR HEAD.

What is being compared is the concept of PROPORTION, and if you can't comprehend the difference, between "ability" and "proportional strength," then there is nothing to discuss.

Also, there is 100% agreement that GAMENESS has nothing to do with size. It comes in all shapes, colors, and sizes ... in men and in dogs. So there is no need to re-hash this either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S_B

I don't think size has anything to do with gameness. I think it does play a role in the ability department, and it does p4p as well, maybe not 100% of the time. There will always be the exception.

---

We agree here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S_B

I'll give an example of Pit Bulls pulling weight. Many years ago I competed in weight pull. I had a 40 lb female and a 61 lb male. My female would pull 100x her body weight consistently everytime, and sometimes more. The male would average 84% most times, but occasionally he'd pull more.
She was game bred he wasn't, but I think that would be a good measure of these dogs p4p if things were equaled, such as dogs being used being game bred and the stats being drawn from the exact same track.

---

We agree here. Smaller dogs are stronger proportionally ... and they are also faster and better athletes.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

Jack, don't waste your time.
I don't think I ever said it, but I am not thinking proportionally in any way whatsoever. I don't think I ever suggested it, but if I did, I apologize b/c I was trying to compare gameness in percentages, in numbers and NOT proportionally in an equal sense, if that makes sense.

---

When dealing with a sport that has weight classes, and when talking about "power/ability," you have to speak in terms of proportion.

Everyone knows, in general, a 60-lb dog is stronger "overall" than a 33 lb dog.

But the 60-lb dog may be a piece of shit by comparison in each's respective weight class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

So to maybe clear some things up, I am with SB. I don't think either has a monopoly on gameness. Not animals or humans. I think there are equal numbers of game animal and athletes in each division (for lack of better compartmentalization).

---

Again, everyone agrees gameness has nothing to do with size.

But "ability" damned sure can ... as there are simply "certain things" that large dogs/men cannot do ... that the most-talented smaller dogs/men can do ... (e.g., gymnastics)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

My original question or post was simply to provoke thought as I see a tendency from most people I've been exposed to, that smaller is always associated with more gameness and I disagree. When the doctor wouldn't allow Frazier to come out of his corner at Ali in the 15th, I believe Joe displayed as much gameness as any human athlete by telling the doctor after they said he couldn't see, "I will feel him there" or something to that affect. Meanwhile, Dundee is in Ali's corner and quotes, "Ali is saying, I can't go back out". In a dog match, we all know who wins. BUT, it's not that kind of sport, so it doesn't matter.

---

I don't believe smaller dogs = gamer dogs (but they may have more energy/moves, and the ability to fight at a good rate for a longer time, which can appear to be "gameness" ...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

Anyways. Sorry for bring something up that pissed some folks off. Crap, all I was doing was trying to kick up some convo. Jack, seriously, don't waste your time. You WILL PROVE YOUR POINT, but it's not a point I'm trying to win or learn. HOWEVER....LOL...this is the argumentative side of me. I do believe, there will be a higher percentage of KO's as the weight divisions climb upward as I also believe there will be a climb in rounds fought per victory as the weight classes get smaller.

---

You are simply wrong here, and your "beliefs" are based on nothing but your baseless, over-active imagination ... and certainly NOT on actually crunching the numbers of fight records/KO percentages :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

Use to have these dicussions all the time in strength forums with some real deal gurus of strength. Glenn Pendlay, Mark Rippatoe, Louie Simmons and some of the Russians whose names I can't spell. The argument of power and strength. Power is limited by or dictated in capacity by how much strength one possesses. The "power formula" will point to smaller guys all the time that THEY are the more powerful and by formula, they are. However, which takes more power to Press overhead? A 500lb lift or a 300lb lift? Many would argue the smaller guys were more powerful, but there were more guys lifting 500lbs over their head than the smaller guys. SO, while the little guys are more powerful by formula and math, the larger guys are simply......more powerful. I love this stuff....sorry to bring it into a bulldog forum, but the twist myself or Jack has taken this thing is interesting to me nonetheless.
Take care men.

---

Well, sure. The ability to push 500 lb takes more power than pushing 300 lb. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

But the strongest smaller men are proportionally stronger than the strongest big men ... based on the simple math S_B laid out above, and the smaller athletes tend to have better KO %s also :)

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

Crap, all I was doing was trying to kick up some convo.

---

And you surely achieved your goal :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

And you surely achieved your goal :lol:

---

Haha yes, indeed he did.

I think NQ, you are speaking more in terms of power lifters. Your belief system is like Danny Burton's in that respect.

But when it comes to dogs, the big dogs generally fall short of impressive ability. They aren't power lifting.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, this is the vibe I get, feel free to corect me if I'm wrong.

I think the only way you could possibly correlate gameness and size is sheer numbers. There will always be more smaller dogs. As a person that has owned small dogs my entire life, I can say there are plenty of curs within that area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S_B

Haha yes, indeed he did.

I think NQ, you are speaking more in terms of power lifters. Your belief system is like Danny Burton's in that respect.

But when it comes to dogs, the big dogs generally fall short of impressive ability. They aren't power lifting.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, this is the vibe I get, feel free to corect me if I'm wrong.

---

SB - I was using lifting sports as an example, but I have a very strong understanding of strength sports and understand power. I was simply using that example to discuss power. There are some small lifters out there that blow my mind in what they can do. There are impressive things accomplished by larger lifters that floor me.

My belief system parallels DB's in many ways, but we don't see eye to eye that much on a lot of other things.

I wasn't comparing any of this to power in dogs, but rather in my discussion with Jack about boxers and power.

You aren't wrong, you are just talking.

You are simply wrong here, and your "beliefs" are based on nothing but your baseless, over-active imagination ... and certainly NOT on actually crunching the numbers of fight records/KO percentages

This is your response to my statement about heavier classes having more ko's and lighter classes having more rounds per victory.
You are right that it is baseless. I am completely assuming such and I honestly think this is an assumption 99% of most people would make. I don't know it however and if you say I'm wrong, I'm cool with that and will accept it. You have lot of history and research in boxing and I won't dispute that. Kinda floors me to be honest that it wouldn't be true, but I will take your word for it.

This is very true. I do not see any correlation between big dogs and little dogs and the percentages of their gameness. The first this thing that pops to mind is define a big dog. Since most of the dogs I have owned have been less than 45, I consider 46 and up is a 'big' dog. Guys that consistently run in the 46-50 group need to get to 52 and up to be a big dog. For me I am not so sure where the cut off is to define the two.

I like reading percentages of wins and bloodlines and all that but none of them are really accurate. For every ten dogs out of a line that are reported and we know about there are a hundred we don't know about that could put a positive or negative sway on the percentages (more than likely negative).

But, I enjoy the reads and the posts similar to this one, even the RBJ post that got too far off topic, but I am not sure if there is ever going to be an accurate answer. If it could get close that would be great but then we factor in personal subjectiveness or relative success and the numbers get whacky all over again.

With that said, if someone can figure out the correlation between big dogs and little dogs and gameness it would be great. Then we can move onto whether those black dogs quit more often than the red ones? And after that are the red nose dogs typically deeper game than their black nosed brothers/sisters?

EWO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrostyPaws

I think the only way you could possibly correlate gameness and size is sheer numbers. There will always be more smaller dogs. As a person that has owned small dogs my entire life, I can say there are plenty of curs within that area.

---

This is a bunch of over reaching and over thinking JMO. It really did get a convo started but had no validity to began with and the rest rest was just searching for some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EGK

This is a bunch of over reaching and over thinking JMO. It really did get a convo started but had no validity to began with and the rest rest was just searching for some.

---

Well you certainly cleared that up, and no one would accuse 'you' of over-thinking :lol:

There are actually quite a bit of meritorious thoughts in the original post.

There are also a bunch of misconceptions that many people have that "little dogs" are harmless, etc.

Genius, do you realize that all posts, on all forums, by their very existence, are a search for feedback ... wth do you think a forum is for? :lol:

Jack

Jack I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you. This is your board to state the obvious with regard. You broke the original post down fine as did others and IMO and that alone the rest was reaching to find a point. You all gave good info and examples. I said nothing more than you already eluded to. As a dog man we know size has no correlation with gameness. That doesn't take genius. Some things are what they are and others are merely a pondering. The poster said in the original post he didnt believe in general that smaller dogs were gamer than larger dogs. He was just throwing this out for convo sake. Well what is the convo about if you don't believe in general yourself. It seemed exertion, stress levels or energy use related to body composition, size and how this chemically effects a showing of gameness do to stress was the real subject. If a dog uses less energy in theory then it goes longer or is more active but this is not a show of gameness. The battle is the measure of gameness and perseverance of the individual. This in itself is to large of a variable to be measured. It is no more than an experience that varies case to case. You clearly said he said the same thing differently in his rebuttal and to me that was reaching. Then even more so the subject veered because it was over thought reaching. And, maybe I could have added this input before my prior statement of over thinking and reaching but I figured it was covered well by all and too obvious . If I offended you it wasn't my intent but so be it. I'll reserve my opinion any further from this post and move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EGK

Jack I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you. This is your board to state the obvious with regard. You broke the original post down fine as did others and IMO and that alone the rest was reaching to find a point. You all gave good info and examples. I said nothing more than you already eluded to. As a dog man we know size has no correlation with gameness. That doesn't take genius. Some things are what they are and others are merely a pondering. The poster said in the original post he didnt believe in general that smaller dogs were gamer than larger dogs. He was just throwing this out for convo sake. Well what is the convo about if you don't believe in general yourself. It seemed exertion, stress levels or energy use related to body composition, size and how this chemically effects a showing of gameness do to stress was the real subject. If a dog uses less energy in theory then it goes longer or is more active but this is not a show of gameness. The battle is the measure of gameness and perseverance of the individual. This in itself is to large of a variable to be measured. It is no more than an experience that varies case to case. You clearly said he said the same thing differently in his rebuttal and to me that was reaching. Then even more so the subject veered because it was over thought reaching. And, maybe I could have added this input before my prior statement of over thinking and reaching but I figured it was covered well by all and too obvious . If I offended you it wasn't my intent but so be it. I'll reserve my opinion any further from this post and move on.

---

EGK, you bet your ass you're about to go back and forth with me.

As long as you respond, and say stupid things, you will go back and forth with me.

You say, "this is my board to state the obvious with regard?" With regard? With regard to what? Do you even know how to communicate?

And speaking of stating the obvious, thank you for pointing out the fact it's my board ... it only has my name on every page :lol:

You're a real deep fellow, EGK, and so far you're a real star contributor here :rolleyes:

Now then, you said, As dogmen, WE KNOW?

What TF does that mean? Are you saying ALL dogmen have the same knowledge?

You mean, as dogmen "we know" which style is best?

As dogmen "we know" what is optimal to feed a dog?

As dogmen "we know" which conditioning regimens are best?

As dogmen "we know" how to breed the best dogs?

As dogmen "we know" ... what?

Hell, since we all know the same things, I guess I haven't really spent the better part of the last 18 years online, fielding thousands of questions, then, because (according to you) "all dogmen know" the same things :rolleyes:

And, guess what EGK, while you sit here and analyze how far "I reached," let me point out the fact that YOU are the one doing the reaching with your "as dogmen, we know" stance.

There is quite a bit that most dogmen DON'T know ... including you.

You said: The battle is the measure of gameness and perseverance of the individual.

Really? I have seen quite a few battles that weren't the measure of anything.

Buddy, while you accuse "me" of overthinking ... let me suggest that it is you who is underthinking.

Why don't you take a good look at yourself, and analyze the true worth of the next thing you write. You also sent me a private message saying that you would "reframe" from posting anymore, so let me give you a public boot-in-the-ass, and "point out the obvious" again, this time to you, because the word is refrain ... and, yes, it would be a great idea for you to get your own head together before you say anything further.

Jack

You took it as I was saying you reached but I was agreeing with you. Only saying you laid out perfectly good examples as others with good info. Oh well, I'm done and yes refrain. In no way was I saying you over thought or reached. That was in reference to you making good points and No Quarter saying the same thing different and then the topic veering. No big deal though. I just won't post anymore.

Dogs are bigger this day and time than years ago. I think the percentage of curdogs is much greater today. We had the Mayday dogs along with some other South American blood checked. We found Laborador retriever blood in them and I can prove this. Yet they are lots of good dogs in those bloodlines. It turned me off when we got the test results back. I had better luck using the small dogs years ago. Dogs are like power tools. Each person has their favorite. A person tends to use what works better for them. I had no way of testing them to see what all was in them back then. A lot of them might have had curr blood in them but they scratched good for me. I can tell by looking at the dogs pedigrees why there are so many currdogs today. Go on pedigrees online and look at the dogs pictures on each generation in every bloodline. They don't have a mark on them. They inbreed on a bloodline but skip generations of dogs with no scars. Simply breeding a bloodline may convince you they are good but I want each generation tested. Everyone seems to know everything about breeding and getting good dogs. I will tell you dogs will make a fool out of you if they are not tested. I don't know why I even said anything. I'm just a dumb old man who had a little luck back in the day. The thing that makes me dumb is fighting them to start with. The majority of people hate dogfighting. I never bragged on myself or my dogs back then. The people that saw them fight bragged on them. I never ran down any mans dogs back then either. To step on someone verbally doesn't move you up the ladder like some people think. I think everyone should have what they like and I like small dog. Randy Fox

There is no way in hell to respond to this last comment without accruing so many violations on so many different levels as per the Discussion Board Rules ( yes Jack , I read them ! ) lol ... So I'm just going to keep it moving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlbinoRhino

There is no way in hell to respond to this last comment without accruing so many violations on so many different levels as per the Discussion Board Rules ( yes Jack , I read them ! ) lol ... So I'm just going to keep it moving.

---

:lol::lol: