Let me just say this old timer is a far cry from a researcher, a scientist or even what one would call a learned man. So some where the personal experiences were researched and proved by the scientific community (or disproved for that matter).
Any other science vs. personal experiences similar to this? EWO
that is what I was saying. The corn flakes were not the reason the dogs were winning, they were winning in spite of the corn flakes. And in time, science proved the personal experience to be non-effective. But, if a guy was winning feeding potatoes and onions he would be hard pressed to make drastic changes to what is winning. George Halas won Superbowls with O-lineman and D-Lineman running many laps at slow speeds for "endurance" and although both he and Lombardi and all the greats until recently this was how football players were conditioned. Now football players like many athletes are conditioned more along the lines of sport specific. But if they were running laps (feeding corn flakes) others would follow suit either right or wrong.
My point is that there is no scientific studies to improve the performance of a fighting dog. There are no labs out there matching conditioned dogs to prove and dis prove theories. At some point people's personal experiences collide with science.
Originally Posted by CA Jack
It's not that "corn flakes were working" ... it's that the dogs won in spite of the misguided use of corn flakes (not because of)
Jack
Reply With Quote