THE IMPORTANCE OF A BOND BETWEEN MAN & DOG (Yes / No)

[Officially Retired]

Dogs that can win in anyone's hands are not an extreme, rather, that is a very common thing for a greater majority of dogs.

I believe the exact opposite.

Actually, the most common dogs of all are dogs that can't win in anyone's hands ...

The second most common thing are dogs that can win so long as they're in the best of hands ... or dogs that can win with one camp ... but when they get sold, get put in a different keep etc., then suddenly they lose ...

In fact, one of the greatest (and therefore hardest and most UNcommon of) things any dog can overcome is winning a Championship with 3 different men, fed 3 different ways, and put through 3 different keeps ... that is always considered rare, and a testimony to the dog, rather than any special dogman. Fact.

I'm not disappointed in a dog that I deem to be worth a match, whether win or lose. Would I be disappointed in a loss? Hell yeah, but I'm not disappointed in the dog. I chose that dog, and that dog gave everything he had at that particular time. Unfortunately, whether the dog quit or shows honest or whatever the case may be, I'm convinced the dog gave it's all.

Well, it is therefore arguable that "any" dog gives its all at that particular time, any time it is shown. The question thus becomes could the dog have given more under different circumstances? I firmly believe that certain dogs *will* give more for certain owners. In fact, you yourself admitted this when your own dog went :40 for you but wouldn't fight a minute for anyone else.

It's possible you know of who I speak, but I only used the one individual as an example. I've known more men that way than the other way, and one group doesn't win more than the other. The man that wins the most is the man that takes the correct dog to the box. Without us knowing about all the "greatest" dogs and what bond they did or didn't have, we can't make that determination.

I agree with this.

My definition of nutters aren't dogs without any intelligence. They are simply nutty dogs attitude wise. I don't know why he never had a truly great dog. Maybe he lacked the ability to create those types of dogs through breeding practices along with whatever other reasons there are.

I personally saw dogs on his yard that could have been good, had they been worked with, but were so shy and spooky when taken off the chain they never had a chance to acclimate. Had they been worked with as pups, and built more confidence in general, they could have been really good dogs. I would say most completely nutty dogs tend more towards the stupid side than the smart side. That is my experience anyway, and I have always bred for intelligence in dogs. Other lines might be different, but that sure is true of my own. Intensity is one thing, but all-out raving lunatics are usually stupid dogs IMO (though many can be extremely game).

Bonding with the right dog can break your heart just as much as bonding with the wrong one. I think it may give an edge in a very small amount of dogs.

True on the first part, but I think bonding does give an edge to any dog ... it's just that some dogs suck so bad it still won't make a difference ... but they still were better dogs than they would have been without the bond.

If the process of matching dogs is winning, and the bonded dog didn't win, then it didn't make any difference in the outcome of the contest.

The process of matching dogs is trying to win ... and "Best Practice" is doing everything within one's power to get that win ... but the reality is losing is exactly as equal a part of matching dogs as is winning.

So, sure, if the bond didn't help get the win, then it didn't help with winning. This is a tautology. Hell, the same can be said for getting the weight right: if getting the weight right didn't help with winning, then it didn't make any difference as to the outcome of the contest. Again, this is a tautology. (A is A)

Yet are you prepared to say getting the weight right isn't ALWAYS a good thing to do (i.e., Best Practice), regardless of winning or losing? Just because a dog didn't win doesn't mean it isn't ALWAYS best practice to get the weight right, so you have no point here. The point you are missing is, just like with getting the weight right, in some cases the bond will help the dog to get the win ... and it is ALWAYS best practice to form a bond same as it is ALWAYS best practice to get the weight right.

I can think of bonds I had with dogs when I seriously believed in all of that, and the dogs were simply better than their opponents. I don't NOT love the dogs I feed. I simply don't believe that is going to make any significant difference in the outcome of things, and I've never seen anything to make think differently.

We will just have to disagree here then.

That could very well be true, but again, it's simply something I've never seen play out that way between two equal dogs with things hanging in the balance.

I have seen it make a huge difference ... and most of the dogmen I have talked to, who had really great dogs, did form a bond with those animals.

I think the best practice is to take legitimate combat dogs to do perform in combat. I think you're right in your assessment of some people and their feelings for the most part. I also think there are plenty of people who don't allow their feelings to be hurt, for whatever reason, and are more successful than those who do. I agree that a bond doesn't hurt one thing, but in the end, the ability to choose the best dog for the show is what makes the winner a lot more times than not.

I absolutely agree that having a good eye for a good dog is the most important thing of all ... and I agree that a bond will not make a great dog out of a bum. However, like getting the weight right, forming a bond with the dog gives the animal its best chance ... within whatever genetic limitations it has ... and within whatever capabilities its opponent has. And, therefore, taking the time to bond with a match dog will always be "Best Practice" ... every bit as much as calling the weight right, etc.

Jack