The Undesirables

[Officially Retired]

Cur is just a word used to describe something.

Yes, used to describe "a dog that will quit."

Dogs that quit in an hour are curs. Dogs that quit in 3 hours are curs.

That would be an illustration, yes again.

But what you don't seem to realize (and haven't ever seemed to realize, in the 20-something years we've debated this topic online, lol) is that this is also an illustration of degrees of gameness

A dog in shock most of the time can't go when it gets so far, so I don't lump them into the discussion. Before I label a dog a cur, I would like to see what exactly happened. Did the dog just quit or was it stopped? Lord knows most folks simply can't tell the difference.

We agree here, and these are ponderings we all have, the more intelligent of us anyway.

So no, I don't think it's a non-thinking word.

Saying the word "cur" can very well be a non-thinking statement.

To lump a 3-hour dog (that finally hung it up after losing half its blood supply and scratching on 2 broken legs) in the same "cur bag" with a dog that sailed over the wall after getting its toe pinched harder than expected, IS a non-thinking, idiot thing to do. It most definitely is.

Which is precisely WHY it is more intelligent to speak in (and have a concept of) DEGREES of gameness.

The term "pit game" is an understanding of a certain degree of gameness (enough to win, if ahead), but it doesn't command the same respect as deep game dog (who will continue to try, even if never ahead).

To fail to recognize the difference is yet another form of Proof of Stupidity (imo).

I think if I label a dog as such, I've given it a lot of thought as to what happened.

That is your opinion of yourself. Others may not share your opinion.

Unchanging facts are inarguable, while the presence (or abscence) traits is arguable, ad nauseum.

For example, you will never get a serious argument that your Frosty was "a dog," but you can get arguments, forever, as to his "ability" or "gameness" ...

That is the difference between an unchanging, inexorable truth (that he's a dog) versus a forever-changing, inexact characteristic (that he is "good" or "game").

Don't believe that as I've seen those right helpings and the dog paid for it with it's life.

Clearly they weren't "the right helpings," then, were they?

Or the right opponent, etc.

Question everything? I can see a dog's ability, talent, it's strength, etc. There is nothing eternally skeptical in those thoughts.

You can give your opinions on these things, nothing more.

But history is FILLED with dogs that some of the greatest dogmen EVER said, "He can not be beat," or, "He would never quit," etc., etc. ... which dogs went right out to lose/quit the next time.

WHY???

Precisely because, as I said, talent and gameness CAN VARY, both across individuals, as well as within individuals.

As Heraclitus said, "It is impossible to step twice into the same river," which is possibly the single greatest quote to reflect the CHANGEABILITY of life itself.

I am not the same man I was 25 years ago. I have lost certain physical blessings, I have gained some perspective, etc.

But I am still a human being.
My TRAITS have changed; the inexorable truth about my species has not.
Gameness is simply not an inexorable truth--it is only A TRAIT that comes in degrees and can vary based on circumstance

The dog that belly-crawled to a killing last year ... may hang it up to an ace ear dog this year ... because his TRAITS can change ... yet the fact he is still A DOG will not.

This is WHY we question traits, like gameness and ability, while no one EVER asks themselves, "Is rover going to be 'a dog' tomorrow?"

We know he is going to be A DOG tomorrow ... but we don't know if he is going to be a BULLdog tomorrow

Gameness is not like ability IMO. I believe dogs are either game or they're not.

Again, you are simply wrong.

There is no way that you will find an argument that Frosty was "a dog" ... but people could debate you as to whether he was a dead game dog or not.

And just because he belly-crawled today, against "that" opponent ... doesn't mean he'd crawl tomorrow, against "this other" opponent.

Frosty's traits can vary; his abilities can be enhanced (or diminished); yet he remains A DOG, regardless.

Now, that doesn't take away from a dog that loses in 3 hours, gets drilled the entire time and stops. There is no shame in breeding to a dog such as that, but that being said, he wasn't a game dog. Maybe he was in the 2 or 3% of dogs on the planet at any given time that will take that much, but he still wasn't a proven game dog. Top shelf cur maybe?

Once again, you misuse (and misunderstand) the word, "game."

Consider the word "strength" for comparison.

We don't say dogs are "strong" or "weak" ... AS IF a dog is either 100% strong or 100% weak.
Anyone who would think like this is a hopeless idiot.
Most people realize that a dog's strength comes IN DEGREES ... they have genetic aptitudes/weaknesses ... and everyone on earth realizes that these aptitudes can be enhanced or diminished (to within whatever genetic limitations the animal has). The strongest dog in the world, on his worst day, will still be a better animal than the weakest dog in the world on his best day.

For clarity, we can all easily see that a dog who can pull 500 lb is "stronger" than a dog that can only pull 45 lb.

Yet for some reason, hundreds (thousands?) of dogmen-morons cannot accept this same blatant truth about gameness.

While we can easily see that a dog which can pull 500 lb is strongER than a dog that can only pull 100 lb ... some people really can't seem to say that a dog that belly crawls after 3 hrs of abuse is gamER than a dog that sailed over the wall after getting its lip cut.

There is no other way to categorize this kind of blindness other than OBTUSE STUPIDITY (lack of comprehension, whatever).

There are simply DEGREES of gameness, same as there are degrees of strength.

And, just because a dog achieved its highest mark of strength "yesterday," doesn't mean he can do it again "today" ...
He may always have the strength to achieve a "high mark" ... but he canNOT always achieve his BEST mark, every day.

That is why gameness is nebulous.
A dog with a truly high degree of gameness may ALWAYS give an impressive showing, compared to a German shepherd, but that does not mean the dog is 100% dead game, every day of his life, regardless of age, health, etc.

It is just ridiculous to think so.

I don't want extremes in both; I only want extremes in one.

You get what you breed for. The funny thing is, in saying you breed for "extremes" in gameness, you're admitting there are degrees of gameness, by default

I have always bred for extreme levels of gameness, speed, intelligence, and stamina ... and I have repeatedly and consistently gotten these things.

I have never bred for mouth, so this trait has been more of a hit-and-miss with me, but I can reliably and consistently get dogs that can go 1-3 hours and win.

Whether they will "take their death" (on every day they breathe the air) is irrelevant.

What they will do is be gamer than MOST, when the money's on the line.

Many have taken their death, a few have not, but this is irrelevant to MY objective that they have the right combination of gameness/traits to win 9x out of 10, wherever they get off the plane, regardless of what they face.

Jack