Early Starter v Slow Starters

I think this term has been changed or used for more than the intended purpose it was originally used for. Was talking to my great uncle last night about our old trips down SC n NC years ago and other places. He says, "I always liked them slow starters because they finished strong." A buddy says," I like mines to start up early." They were speaking about 2 different things using same lingo. My buddy meant he likes his dog to appear turned on by 14-16 months. My uncle was talking about performance, start off slow, conserve energy, be smart while opponent running himself tired then the onslaught. See we have since changed that terminology to mean when a dog is on. He said we don't send boys to do men work. I don't care how you act at 6, 12 or 15 months. You still a boy, I only care that show me you're interested when your 22-24 months. Then I hope when it's time you start slow, don't let that adrenaline burn you out, slowly work your way in, be smart and methodical and when your opponent down, do work.

Honestly, IMO, they're still boys at 22-24 months (comparable to 15-19 year old humans).

I don't consider a dog to be a "man" until after 3 years of age ...

Jack

I recently recall something that Coy Dickenson wrote regarding this. A lot of the dogs that passed through his hands were based off Carver blood and he said Mr. Carver said most of his dogs were slow starters or late starters, something like that. Coy believed Mr. Carver meant that they were slow to start working real hard in a show, and not that they turned on late. I have heard that many Aligator/Rufus dogs are slow to get going and that blood is, in-part, in-bred off Satin Lady which was supposedly Carvers Ironhead x Carvers Black Beauty.

Jack,
I have heard a few old timers say the same thing and some even said if they were good at 3yrs old, they would be even better at 4. Has it been more common place over the last few decades for people to show and roll dogs around 2yrs old? I am assuming this happens mostly due to just a lack of patience. Also from your experience Jack, do you believe most or all lines are better at 3 or so years old or is it dependent on the "blood". Thanks for your time. I know you are a busy dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

Honestly, IMO, they're still boys at 22-24 months (comparable to 15-19 year old humans).

I don't consider a dog to be a "man" until after 3 years of age ...

Jack

---

I agree, my uncle is a real stickler when it comes to age. He said if you going to take a peak at them, least wait until they are 2 years old to see if they are interested. If so take a look and see what you have but never give a pup a grown dogs test. If you want him to show the ultimate signs of maturity, then allow him to mature. He knows it may be a few exceptions but most dogs in his opinion shouldn't see a test until they are 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milehighmisfit

Jack,
I have heard a few old timers say the same thing and some even said if they were good at 3yrs old, they would be even better at 4. Has it been more common place over the last few decades for people to show and roll dogs around 2yrs old? I am assuming this happens mostly due to just a lack of patience. Also from your experience Jack, do you believe most or all lines are better at 3 or so years old or is it dependent on the "blood". Thanks for your time. I know you are a busy dude.

---

Anyone with experience, and/or intelligence, will say the same thing.

Anyone who is trying to "test" dogs younger than 2.5 - 3 is a moron.

You can "start" dogs whenever they seem ready, and "bump" them in short practice runs, but you do not test dogs until they are fully-mature.

Same thing as you can lace a pair of gloves on a 12 year old kid, and let him have some short 2-3 round amateur bouts, but you are NOT going to put a 12 year old in a 15 round world title fight to the finish (even with another kid).

There is also a difference between "sexual" maturity and full-fledged social maturity.

A human kid can reproduce at 12-14 years of age, but that doesn't mean he's a MAN yet :idea:

He is not a leader, is not prepared to support himself (let alone a family), make important decisions, or command respect, anywhere.

He is still a BOY with a BOY'S MIND.

By the same token, so it is with dogs :idea:

A young male may hike his leg at 12 months, and be able to sire a litter, but that doesn't mean he's an "adult" yet either.

It is a biological fact that wolves don't reach SOCIAL maturity until 3-4 years of age. Meaning, they may be sexually-mature at 1, but they haven't become full, socially-mature males (ready to challenge the leader) until they're 3-4 years old.

Too many toothless, inbred idiot-dogmen understand nothing about dogs (or anything else for that matter), and roll/test PUPPIES ... and kill them before 1-2 years of age ... when these dogs aren't even anywhere near ready :angry:

Just because a pup fires-up at 14 months, for a min or two, doesn't mean he's ready for a full-blown game test next month.

You're just supposed to SCHOOL THEM, with a short bump every couple months, AND ALLOW THEM TO MATURE for another year or two. Same as you let a young kid develop his boxing skills, in short, amateur fights for a few years, before he is ready to turn pro.

There are basic concepts staring people in the face everywhere ... but some people are just too blind to see them.

So think "idiot" every time you hear someone talk about testing any dog that isn't at least 2.5 - 3 years old.

Some dogs, like Chinaman and Dibo, were not ready till 4 or 5 years of age.

A dog's quality is based on LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE (not "how quick they start"), and it is a fact that some of the better-performing dogs took awhile before they were fully-ready.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

Anyone with experience, and/or intelligence, will say the same thing.

Anyone who is trying to "test" dogs younger than 2.5 - 3 is a moron.

You can "start" dogs whenever they seem ready, and "bump" them in short practice runs, but you do not test dogs until they are fully-mature.

Same thing as you can lace a pair of gloves on a 12 year old kid, and let him have some short 2-3 round amateur bouts, but you are NOT going to put a 12 year old in a 15 round world title fight to the finish (even with another kid).

There is also a difference between "sexual" maturity and full-fledged social maturity.

A human kid can reproduce at 12-14 years of age, but that doesn't mean he's a MAN yet :idea:

He is not a leader, is not prepared to support himself (let alone a family), make important decisions, or command respect, anywhere.

He is still a BOY with a BOY'S MIND.

By the same token, so it is with dogs :idea:

A young male may hike his leg at 12 months, and be able to sire a litter, but that doesn't mean he's an "adult" yet either.

It is a biological fact that wolves don't reach SOCIAL maturity until 3-4 years of age. Meaning, they may be sexually-mature at 1, but they haven't become full, socially-mature males (ready to challenge the leader) until they're 3-4 years old.

Too many toothless, inbred idiot-dogmen understand nothing about dogs (or anything else for that matter), and roll/test PUPPIES ... and kill them before 1-2 years of age ... when these dogs aren't even anywhere near ready :angry:

Just because a pup fires-up at 14 months, for a min or two, doesn't mean he's ready for a full-blown game test next month.

You're just supposed to SCHOOL THEM, with a short bump every couple months, AND ALLOW THEM TO MATURE for another year or two. Same as you let a young kid develop his boxing skills, in short, amateur fights for a few years, before he is ready to turn pro.

There are basic concepts staring people in the face everywhere ... but some people are just too blind to see them.

So think "idiot" every time you hear someone talk about testing any dog that isn't at least 2.5 - 3 years old.

Some dogs, like Chinaman and Dibo, were not ready till 4 or 5 years of age.

A dog's quality is based on PERFORMANCE (not "how quick they start"), and it is a fact that some of the better-performing dogs took awhile before they were fully-ready.

Jack

---

100% excellent post.....imagine all the potential great ones we have possibly lost due to impatience and poor judgement

This is one of "those" topics for me. On this board, on any board or a bunch of guys standing around will agree with this 100%. They will always tell you about the "guy over there" that ruined a bunch of young dogs by force starting them early or dumping a huge load on them before they were ready to carry it. And as soon as that conversation breaks up it becomes if he is "willing to get the chain tight at another dog he is ready".

Some dogs are ready to be bumped a lot earlier than others. There are dogs that are ready to start their bumps earlier in all lines/families and some that need more time. There are some dogs who win matches as 'boys and girls'. I am closer to a "3years" guy but I know plenty that think 24 months is 'middle-aged' and then on the downward slide after that. Simply not true but what a person believes is hard to persuade. If a guy goes out and wins with a 2 year old odds are that becomes his benchmark age and all other will have to conform.

I am a percentages guy, my work is graded on percentages, my pay check is based off those percentages so when information or facts are presented to me in the percentage form I understand it better than just about any other form of information. I tend to use percentages both factually accurate and assumptions in most everything I do.

I am willing to say at least 85% (if not more) of people who actually do dogs start them earlier than the dog needs and tests them way earlier than they should be tested. I have always thought every family of dogs would have higher success percentages if the dog had no tooth in him until he was 24-26 months, ready or not, perceived to be ready or not. Basically start the bumps at 2, the schooling rolls after that and a year or so later the match would be around 3 to 3.5.

And like always I have no problem putting my shortcomings out there. No secrets here. I love the Mims Red Boy dogs. The best ones I have seen are the ones who don't show interest until later in life. The best ones I have seen were with people with the patience to wait. The problem is that most of the Mims Red Boy dogs "ACT" and I repeat "ACT" like grown dogs at 8-9-10 months old. They appear to be ready in every sense of the word. The patient guy (smart guy) has sense enough to ignore the act and wait. A number of years ago I saw that ten month old puppy "ACTING" and it was all I could do to wait til he was 14-15-16 months old. Most did very well. I even matched and seen them matched at 22-26 months with good success.

Back to percentages, looking back I believe of the ones that did not work out at by 24 months would have had a much higher success rates if allowed to grow up.

Good topic. One that most need but will mostly be ignored. EWO

It also the old bull and young bull standing on top of the hill story. The young bull says, "Hey, Pops, let's run down this hill and F*&K a couple of those heifers". The old bull replies, "Son, let's walk down there and F&^K them all".

Dogs no different, maturity is a must. EWO

All good posts.

I agree, people will "read a post" and "nod their head" ... or even write GOOD POST ... and then go right back home and violate the very principles to which they nodded their head in assent.

EWO, I say the same thing to dogmen in regards to meds: many people will "agree" that they should have Berenil, Imizol, Albon, and all kinds of other drugs onhand, in preparation for an emergency ... and yet, after "agreeing with this online," they do NOT bother to actually order these drugs, to actually BE prepared, in real life.

And so it is with allowing dogs to mature.

People will "say" you should do these things, if asked the question, and they will "agree with a post" they see online, but yet they will cull their 18 month old dog for standing the line on his first bump.

Everyone is wanting to be some big, famous dogman with every dog on their yard being an ace.
Everyone wants to be "judge and jury" of their dogs but yet they can't be bothered with being TEACHER AND DEVELOPER of their dogs, FIRST, when they're young.

Every boxing trainer, worth his salt, is also A MENTOR to their fighters as they develop :idea:
And every dogman, worth his salt, should also be A MENTOR to his dogs, communicating in other ways than verbal, by tone of voice, inflection, example, and by coming up with creative ways to encourage dogs that are a little slower to get started than others.

Unfortunately, everyone just wants to watch all their young dogs like a hawk, for the first "bad sign" they can spot, so they can off the dog ... and yet they don't realize that THEY (as owners) are exhibiting the worst signs of all: LACK OF PATIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING.

I remember when my Diamond Girl bitch stood the line, on her very first bump, on her very first scratch. We just tried to start her, you could see she wasn't really into it, and when given the chance to stop, she did.

All these "experts" told me, "I'd shoot that bitch if I were you," wanting to sound tough and like 'real dogmen,' but I have never followed the crowd and I never held too many people's opinions as worth much. I knew DG's age, I could already see she wasn't ready, and I wasn't STUPID ENOUGH to confuse "not started yet" with "cur."

It took Diamond Girl about 3 years to be fully-started, to where she had hate in her eyes, and truly wanted to go over there and OWN THAT GROUND. And boy was it worth the wait :mrgreen:

Diamond Girl proved to be an EXCEPTIONALLY-game bitch, whelped Champions, is behind 2 Grand Champions (and 1 DOY), put Nico Jr. on the ROM list with Ch Buster, is behind all of Jaime Anderson's best dogs, and (when people look in any pedigree and see Diamond Girl's name there) it is synonymous with GAMENESS ... that would have never happened ... had I been the typical fucktard dogman and "culled her" before she ever even started ... all because of my "delicate ego" when she stood the line on her first bump.

There are so many "delicate dogmen" out there, whose egos can't take it if their young dog doesn't do well, that they kill the young dog (so "they" will look tough), when IN FACT all they're doing is proving how WEAK (not to mention clueless) they really are :idea:

I know enough about dogs to make my own GD decisions, and I am confident enough to stand by my own judgments and don't need anyone else's "approval" of my decisions.

Too many dogmen are not like that. They understand nothing, and they make decisions to kill dogs way before they ever gave the thing a fair chance, all so that "their peers" will approve.

If more people bothered to actually understand the biological realities of dogs, how they think, when they mature, and really did pay attention to "THE SIGNS" (not just bad moves, but whether the dog is even MATURE yet or not), they would go a lot further in the game, and their percentages would improve.

My bitch Amazon is 3.5 right now, and is only now becoming "an adult."
She has had the body of an adult for awhile now.
I am sure I could have "started her" at about a year to a year an a half.

However, only recently is she walking and conducting herself like an "alpha female."
I can see the change in her. I can sense the difference.
It is hard to explain to the blind, things that they do not have the perception (or experience) to see.
But that ability to see and sense the difference is the difference between a dog man and a dog owner.

Jack

I agree Jack with everything you said here, great post. I'm not just a "nodder" either.

The one thing you said that is the most glaring fact in dogmen is that ability to "SEE" and or feel what you have in a bulldog. I've learned bad signs are our emotions tied to a macho stigma placed on these dogs by ignorant dogmen. A truly bad sign is when you've done everything correctly and your dog isn't a bulldog.

I've never understood why dogmen brag about how many they've culled, there can only be two reasons for all the culling.
#1. They have no idea what they are looking at.
#2. They have really shitty dogs.

I'll add another, there are those who are looking to stop one instead of looking to manage one correctly.

S_B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S_B

I agree Jack with everything you said here, great post. I'm not just a "nodder" either.
The one thing you said that is the most glaring fact in dogmen is that ability to "SEE" and or feel what you have in a bulldog. I've learned bad signs are our emotions tied to a macho stigma placed on these dogs by ignorant dogmen. A truly bad sign is when you've done everything correctly and your dog isn't a bulldog.

---

Good point.

Only after you've done everything on your part, as the owner, do you have the right then to judge your dog.

Then you know that the dog is not up to standard as a bulldog ... rather than you not being up to standard as an owner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S_B

I've never understood why dogmen brag about how many they've culled, there can only be two reasons for all the culling.
#1. They have no idea what they are looking at.
#2. They have really shitty dogs.

---

True again. Or both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S_B

I'll add another, there are those who are looking to stop one instead of looking to manage one correctly.
S_B

---

Yep. People who are TRYING to stop their dogs are basically malicious assholes ... with huge egos, but tiny brains, and no heart.

The best teachers are those who try (and are able) to bring out THE BEST in their students.

What you describe would be like a high school teacher TRYING to make all his students FAIL ... he is no "educator" he is just an asshole.

I think the most glaring example of what you mention I can remember was almost 20 years ago, when Pinky and the Brain *bragged* about killing a dog who didn't crawl, for the second time, when he placed a bale of hay between the dog and its foe. He rolled two dogs out to the end, and made one crawl to the other dog (which it did) ... and then this lifetime idiot, Pinky, placed a bale of hay between the dog and its opponent ... and the dog stopped crawling ... and Pinky killed the dog, because he wasn't "game enough."

If ever there were the embodiment of everything that is wrong with a dog-wasting, wanna-be dogman, Pinky and the Brain would be first in line for this award. Suffering from "short man's complex" his entire life, he abused dogs, he did not "test" them properly. And, true to form, as with all "ruthless" types, his ACTUAL RECORD was mediocre at best.

He killed a shitload of dogs that could have done well in other hands, dogs with awesome talents, but who didn't pass his "ruthless tests." Funny thing is, those dogs that did somehow pass his "tests" were never very remarkable, maybe 1- 2xWs.

Which brings up another point: THE best dogs are always highly-intelligent ... they are NOT just "dead game plugs" ... and so IF you create a set of standards that is so fucking insurmountable that ONLY a DG, fucking retarded dog will pass ... then the best you will ever hope to have are a bunch of rock-headed, STUPID, DG dogs ... who will NEVER reach an elite level.

The BEST dogs have THE BRAINS to know what's up, too. They're not just stupid-game.

Wanting a high-percentage of gameness is good, so long as a person is REALISTIC :idea:

However, the worst thing that ever could happen to a dog is to be owned by someone with UNrealistic beliefs as to gameness (and a total unwillingness to allow a dog to mature).

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EWO

It also the old bull and young bull standing on top of the hill story. The young bull says, "Hey, Pops, let's run down this hill and F*&K a couple of those heifers". The old bull replies, "Son, let's walk down there and F&^K them all".

Dogs no different, maturity is a must. EWO

---

That is hilarious, well put. I have a good amount of experience with human combatants but no so much with the dogs but the similarities are striking in regards to letting one mature to their full potential. I once trained at a gym that had a similar approach to Pinky and the Brain. They pissed off so much talent and ruined potential fighters, mentally. The fact is when you have a bunch of 18yr old kids scrapping with each other often times the bully type will win or the one who is overly confident. I have 18yr old students that are physical specimens but will break under pressure. They act like world beaters when they are dishing it out but will give up when the going gets tough. These kids need to know that someone believes in them and that there coach is there to take care of them and is trying to put more into them, and not always test them through hard sparring day in and day out. If I see one of my young charges getting beat up a little in a sparring session getting frustrated and beat more than I think they are ready for, I stop it. I'll sit the kid and talk about how we can improve their skill set and build a better game plan. That student will not get challenged like that again until they have mentally healed. With humans gameness often grows with age, and the ones that are "hot" at an earlier age, rarely turn out
to be the best fighters. Just like Jack said, intelligence is a huge factor with any successful fighter. Intelligent fighters analyze things and don't just automatically believe they are the baddest things around. They need to believe in their skill set, know they have the right conditioning, and know they have the tools to get the job done. Just like the dogs, there "schooling" needs to be fun and they will get tested harder and harder as they mature. When I work with my young fighters, I can sense when they "crack". Often times they have already given up before a sparring session begins, especially if their sparring partner has beaten them before . You can see it their facial expression, you can tell by how they are breathing, see it in their eyes etc etc.

Also, often times the guys that come out sparring super aggressive, it is out of fear. They are just trying to end things quickly to avoid getting hit and being taken into deep water. This style uses excess energy especially when the fight or flight kicks in and adrenaline dump happens. These type of guys start blowing out after 1 or 2 minutes. Go watch any amateur boxing or kickboxing event. The pace is a furry for about 30 seconds and then.......they can't even keep their hands up they are so tired.

The gyms that have the mentality I described above basically use the crap shoot method. They have enough prospects coming through the door that they can run through them and still have a couple outstanding prospects that will rise to the top regardless of how bad their schooling was. These types of places are not building talent, just ruining students.

Anyone who's known me back in the 90s, when Poncho was alive, knows that I used to call Poncho ... The Old Bull ... :mrgreen:

That was exactly his fighting style: expend no energy, make the dog wear itself out, then put them away.

I was guilty of some of that when I first started. This is a good tread.

I understood that an apbt of 2 years old considering his size and breed would be actually more like a 25 year od human
I do understand some of the waiting but considering time one can match a dog in his prime a 2 year old should be ready to have a show ,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldoghistorian

I understood that an apbt of 2 years old considering his size and breed would be actually more like a 25 year od human
I do understand some of the waiting but considering time one can match a dog in his prime a 2 year old should be ready to have a show ,

---

Some 2 year olds are ready for a show, some are not even started.

Chinaman wasn't ready till he was 4.

2 years old is not a dog's prime ... ages 3-5 are a dog's prime years.

Starting a dog at 18 months to 2 years, schooling from 2-3, and matching as they approach 3 is best practice.

Jack

Great post @ Milehighmisfit

colors WAS a great movie!

Jack, in Ed Faron's book Pinky describes looking at WSK Rapid Roy for an hour...it says the next morning he let him go again to prove to BLEEDWATER that Roy wasn't a cur...real crazy...and hooked him shortly thereafter....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realitytv

Jack, in Ed Faron's book Pinky describes looking at WSK Rapid Roy for an hour...it says the next morning he let him go again to prove to BLEEDWATER that Roy wasn't a cur...real crazy...and hooked him shortly thereafter....

---

Yep. He was the classic, "I must prove to all my peers that I would never own a cur," insecurity story.

None of what he did made Rapid Roy into a world-beater.
At the end of each test Rapid Roy was still just a game, tough, somewhat-above-average dog.
Testing dogs exceptionally-hard does not turn them into aces. It does not turn them into Champions.
If anything, testing a dog super-hard (or multiple times) reduces the chance that dog can win 3 or 5 by leaving too much in the gym.

As I have met and interacted with other dogmen over the years, it has been my universal observation that the guy who wants to prove to others that "his" dog is "not a cur" is always an insecure person (and, in turn, dog butcher).

The dog always pays the price for the man's weakness (or, in Pinky's case, the 5'6" guy trying to appear 6' tall to his peers :rolleyes:)

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

Some 2 year olds are ready for a show, some are not even started.

Chinaman wasn't ready till he was 4.

2 years old is not a dog's prime ... ages 3-5 are a dog's prime years.

Starting a dog at 18 months to 2 years, schooling from 2-3, and matching as they approach 3 is best practice.

Jack

---

I am just wondering
why would anyone need a year to school a dog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldoghistorian

I am just wondering
why would anyone need a year to school a dog

---

You don't have to wait for exactly a year (nothing is set in stone here) :rolleyes:

But the fact is, as a dog approaches 3 ... he is going to be hitting his prime.

So if you want to match a dog while he's in his prime, then you're going to have to wait till he's about 3.

Now, as far as how long the actual schooling takes, it depends on what you consider "schooled."

If you want to roll the dog once or twice, then match him, you're not schooling your dog at all ... you're just seeing if he'll fight, seeing if he has ability, and then betting on him.

If you're actually schooling the dog, this means you're going to roll him 4-5x against different-styled opponents.
You're not just dropping him in there with dogs "a couple times," then betting on him.
You're selecting opponents based on their styles, to expose the dog to different styles. This takes some time.

In truth, I think MOST dogmen don't actually school their dogs at all. They roll them a couple times "against whatever," then match them.

If you actually school the dog, it's going to mean against at least 4-5 specifically-selected opponents. And, if you give the dog 4-6 weeks to heal in between sessions, then you're talking about a 4-10 month process ... which also allows the dog to mature from between when he's first started, to develop through the schooling process, to finally be matched for real when he's in his prime.

Remember, I am talking about BEST practice, not "standard" practice :idea:

Standard practice is, bump the dog, roll him again, then shoot (match or game-check) the dog. Next!

Most people do not engage in best practice, but that doesn't mean what they do is correct or in the best interest of the dog.

I know people who will match a dog right after his first roll, if he looks good.
Sure this can be done, but the dog can hardly be called "schooled."

Most dogs (with intelligence) get progressively better, after each session, set 4-5x down, in 10-15 min sessions.
It's like sparring for 3 rounds in boxing. It's long enough to teach the dog, but not long enough to take anything out of the dog.

Jack

:appl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milehighmisfit

I recently recall something that Coy Dickenson wrote regarding this. A lot of the dogs that passed through his hands were based off Carver blood and he said Mr. Carver said most of his dogs were slow starters or late starters, something like that. Coy believed Mr. Carver meant that they were slow to start working real hard in a show, and not that they turned on late. I have heard that many Aligator/Rufus dogs are slow to get going and that blood is, in-part, in-bred off Satin Lady which was supposedly Carvers Ironhead x Carvers Black Beauty.

---

I also agree with what Jack is saying here. If anything, I have been guilty of waiting too long - in other's opinions anyways. Too young looks just like that kid who comes up from the JV for his first Friday night football game as as sophomore. Like Bambi on ice. And what, outside of seeing what something is like, does this do for anyone?

Man, I've never heard of any athlete ever being TOO READY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOSES

:appl:

---

X2
@ No Quarter.... "Too Ready" funny, but true!

Well said Jack

Dunno how its there. Here, you should be happy if U can roll into 2-3 dogs about the same size with honest people, regardless style.
Allot of times it dont even help. Dog gets owned on the head by a good head dog prospect, now ur dog knows what it is to be owned on the head. lol. Also some dogs will never change style. Not to many real intelligent dogs out there. Other side, i have seen dogs on first roll fight like a fully "schooled" dog, mixing it up and adjusting to different situations. They just have it in them.

Well those are two different subjects: schooling properly versus the ability (resources) to school properly.

Like I said, most people roll a dog 1-2x, then match. But they are hardly matching "schooled dogs."

I agree with the fact there are "naturals" ... dogs that seem to be an ace on their first rolls.

So too, there are dumb dogs that can never improve.

However, there is also a middle ground (where most dogs fall in), which are dogs that progressively get better, and develop their styles, as they get exposed to different styles.

Poncho was a front leg/chest dog when I first rolled him ... but by his 4th roll he was on the head.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Officially Retired

Well those are two different subjects: schooling properly versus the ability (resources) to school properly.

Like I said, most people roll a dog 1-2x, then match. But they are hardly matching "schooled dogs."

I agree with the fact there are "naturals" ... dogs that seem to be an ace on their first rolls.

So too, there are dumb dogs that can never improve.

However, there is also a middle ground (where most dogs fall in), which are dogs that progressively get better, and develop their styles, as they get exposed to different styles.

Poncho was a front leg/chest dog when I first rolled him ... but by his 4th roll he was on the head.

Jack

---

Is there any correlation between slow or late starters and intelligence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Officially Retired

Anyone with experience, and/or intelligence, will say the same thing.

Anyone who is trying to "test" dogs younger than 2.5 - 3 is a moron.

You can "start" dogs whenever they seem ready, and "bump" them in short practice runs, but you do not test dogs until they are fully-mature.

Same thing as you can lace a pair of gloves on a 12 year old kid, and let him have some short 2-3 round amateur bouts, but you are NOT going to put a 12 year old in a 15 round world title fight to the finish (even with another kid).

There is also a difference between "sexual" maturity and full-fledged social maturity.

A human kid can reproduce at 12-14 years of age, but that doesn't mean he's a MAN yet :idea:

He is not a leader, is not prepared to support himself (let alone a family), make important decisions, or command respect, anywhere.

He is still a BOY with a BOY'S MIND.

By the same token, so it is with dogs :idea:

A young male may hike his leg at 12 months, and be able to sire a litter, but that doesn't mean he's an "adult" yet either.

It is a biological fact that wolves don't reach SOCIAL maturity until 3-4 years of age. Meaning, they may be sexually-mature at 1, but they haven't become full, socially-mature males (ready to challenge the leader) until they're 3-4 years old.

Too many toothless, inbred idiot-dogmen understand nothing about dogs (or anything else for that matter), and roll/test PUPPIES ... and kill them before 1-2 years of age ... when these dogs aren't even anywhere near ready :angry:

Just because a pup fires-up at 14 months, for a min or two, doesn't mean he's ready for a full-blown game test next month.

You're just supposed to SCHOOL THEM, with a short bump every couple months, AND ALLOW THEM TO MATURE for another year or two. Same as you let a young kid develop his boxing skills, in short, amateur fights for a few years, before he is ready to turn pro.

There are basic concepts staring people in the face everywhere ... but some people are just too blind to see them.

So think "idiot" every time you hear someone talk about testing any dog that isn't at least 2.5 - 3 years old.

Some dogs, like Chinaman and Dibo, were not ready till 4 or 5 years of age.

A dog's quality is based on LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE (not "how quick they start"), and it is a fact that some of the better-performing dogs took awhile before they were fully-ready.

Jack

---

need ta put that shit on facebook. maybe then people will start payin attention

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HLC219

need ta put that shit on facebook. maybe then people will start payin attention

---

I'd not want to post anything on Facebook. Certainly nothing about gamedogs. Facebook is not a safe site, and you cannot "delete" anything, it is stored forever. They are just out to take as much info as they can for their own gain. Take a look at this article --

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/...servation.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGC

I'd not want to post anything on Facebook. Certainly nothing about gamedogs. Facebook is not a safe site, and you cannot "delete" anything, it is stored forever. They are just out to take as much info as they can for their own gain.

---

SO TRUE, I'M NOT EVEN ON FACEBOOK, AND IF I WAS, I DAMN SURE WOULDN'T BE TALKIN ABOUT DOGS. I GOT A HOMIE (LEARNING ABOUT THE DOGS) WHO'S ON IT AND HE READS A LOT A SOAP OPERA SHIT ON THERE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigpopdog

SO TRUE, I'M NOT EVEN ON FACEBOOK, AND IF I WAS, I DAMN SURE WOULDN'T BE TALKIN ABOUT DOGS. I GOT A HOMIE (LEARNING ABOUT THE DOGS) WHO'S ON IT AND HE READS A LOT A SOAP OPERA SHIT ON THERE.

---

PS. THAT SITE IS A PEDDLERS PARADISE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigpopdog

PS. THAT SITE IS A PEDDLERS PARADISE.

---

My point exactly. I see that weng over yall head. But glad to see nobody here fuck wit fedbook