Who is the Better Dogman?

[FrostyPaws]

Well, the only percentages that can actually be measured is win/loss; the rest is speculation and/or opinion.

You're right in the only percentages that can be factually measured are win/loss ratio.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

I don't think any dogman has always put his dogs into the very best, every time, and that includes you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed here, and perception is what a lot of decisions are made on and simply not simply a win. Above post

Which, again, proves the point of this post ... allowing a dog to mature, and being patient, pays off

Jack

Patience is something we should all have with dogs. At times, patience pays off. At other times, it makes zero difference.