The Undesirables

[FrostyPaws]

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

I realize all too well that we don't agree on this subject, and that's fine. I don't see a dog that quits in 3 hours after being ahead for 2:55 as having any degree of gameness. Scenarios matter. Blanket statements do not, and I'm guilty of making plenty of blanket statements over the years.

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.

Sure, which is why I don't do that, and nowhere in this post did I lump that type of dog in with such a dog as you described. Nor would I, which is also why I said what I did previously about thinking about such things before using such a word.

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

The same can be said for believing in degrees of dogs being curs, whatever. Top shelf curs, run of the mill curs, rank curs, etc.

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).

Pit game is not a term I would even utter from my mouth. Pit game = front running cur until it can't front run any longer. It's just a nice way of saying of it.

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

They may not share my opinion, and that's ok. My opinions are formed due to my own experience. Someone else may have completely different experiences which form their own opinion. That's fine.

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

Or the right opponent, etc.

I think if a dog has taken it's death in the box, it clearly IS "the right helpings" and/or opponent.

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

True. Same goes for everyone else.

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.

History is also filled with those same men saying those exact same things, and the dogs they were talking about went right out to win/die trying the next time.

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

Or they were simply wrong and there wasn't really any variation except a better dog. There could have just as easily been zero variance, and the dog was simply a cur from the very beginning.

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 ...

Maybe so. Maybe not. Traits also may not change. The dog that takes the killing may simply sustain the killing without any issues, but gets frustrated on an ace ear dog. Does that necessarily mean his gameness changed? Not necessarily. Frustration was his achilles heel, and it took the ear dog to find exactly that. The same can be said for dogs that have taken a killing damage wise, but quit as soon as they get hot in the summer. Did the traits change? We don't know. No one knows if they actually changed or not or if that was simply the weak spot in the dog's armor.

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.

Again, there's this nasty word again: Opinion. Your opinion is I'm wrong based on your perspective of dogs. Based on mine, I'm right. Who exactly is wrong when ideas are based on opinions and experiences. I would never tell anyone Frosty was deadgame as he never died in the box. So, that's simply a one sided debate folks can have with their own inner voice.

And just because he did belly crawl once doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again, or the next 10 days. Or maybe he would simply take his death in the box, and nothing ever changed for him. The only way to know would be to take a dog out there and do it to see if his traits changed.

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

I don't misunderstand the word game. I simply have a different out look on it than you do. Your ideas are not mine.

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

Degrees of curs

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

LOL. Not hardly. What I breed for pushes dogs into a grey area of possibly living or dying, maybe even being stopped. When I see what I want, I'm satisfied. I also know that since my dog isn't dead, he could still possibly quit, and yet, he may not either hence Top Shelf Cur. Maybe the dog is in the top 5 or 10% of dogs alive at that time, maybe not. I'm quite happy to admit that most all dogs alive are curs, and that's pretty normal within this breed. What I won't do is use a label reserved for the epitome of this breed simply because it fits neatly and is a wanted definition by most.

Again, curs, gameness, whatever you want to use.