Who is the Better Dogman?

[Officially Retired]

The question is subjective.

Disagree. There are factual results that obtain that can be measured, quantified, and data drawn.

Same as we could measure the farming details, or overall crop yield, between two farmers and come out with objective facts that prove one methodology is superior to another.

Who is the better dogman? That could be any number of individuals on both sides of that fence.
Who would you rather associate with? That could be any number of individuals on both sides of the fence also.

Disagree again. That some dogmen can compete and win with "what's left" of their yard, and maintain respectable percentages with that, still doesn't change the fact that their overall percentages suck. In the same fashion, if a lousy farmer is able to sell a couple of fruits or vegetable at the market, it still doesn't change the fact he lost most of his crop that never made it to market.

And, since we're dealing with living animals that deserve a fighting chance and to be given all the tools they need, I would much rather associate with the kind of dogmen that give their dogs that chance and meet all of those needs.

I've personally learned a shit ton from both types of individuals, and I have both types of individuals within my mindset. I apply what I learn, from both types of individuals, to what I do. I don't normally start dogs until 2. I refuse to show any dog until right at 3. That being said, I don't have any issue sending a dog down it's way that doesn't fit what I like to see in my dogs. Have I gone through a bunch of dogs? Yes, and if you're in dogs for any length of time, you will for various reasons and not just quitting.

Once a person has done all he can, and the dog still doesn't live up to the standards, then he has the right to judge the dog. I personally don't like to cull dogs through killing, and have been able to maintain an awfully high % win record not doing so, while at the same time being very exacting in what I want in a dog, both athletically and gameness-wise. I like dogs. I like them for more than just their ability to fight, or to be game, I just like being around dogs. Yet I also know what it takes to win, and that in order to win against the best you can't breed based on whether you like an animal or not, but by whether (objectively) it has the skills, drive, tenacity to win. And I can breed to dogs like this, while not killing dogs that aren't like this.

Factor in what it is that you're exactly breeding for. The well rounded individual, the ace head dog, the superb body dog, or just an honest dog. Where does your bar for all of those things start and stop. If your bar is the same at beginning as it is 10, 15, or 20 years down the road, then I'd say you've not seen much or know much of anything.

Agree.

Your bar should be rising throughout your time. You should be striving to improve what you have the entire time. I was really lucky in starting off in dogs that I didn't toil for years with shitty dogs. I saw at the beginning what it meant to be around serious men and their dogs. That being said, my bar has constantly risen over the years. I've always attempted to better my yard, and I've been a lot more successful now since I adopted a mixture of the two mindsets instead of being just one or the other.

I agree, a person's bar should rise as his knowledge and experience rises ... and yet so, too, should his willingness to relax and be patient. Green dogmen have no idea what a good dog is (generally), and yet they're impatient and "want the world" while they themselves don't have the tools to provide it. They rush dogs, and are in a big hurry to "test" dogs, and don't seem to want to put in the time required to properly school a dog.

As we get experienced, we're supposed to have a better idea of what a "good dog" is ... and yet we're also supposed to have the patience to allow these dogs to get up there in age, and to school them out properly and with purpose, before we go ahead and judge them.

Myself, I have always liked dogs, and while I have gained experience over the years, I personally have never found the need to be brutal or reckless in my culling of dogs. I have always given them time to grow up before I judge them. Knowledge-wise, the less I listened to the standard dullard in dogs (who focuses on "how much abuse" a dog could take "and still scratch") ... and the more I concentrated on what it takes to win (how smart & athletic they were, and how much they can control the situation, while pacing themselves), the more I have seen my win record grow. And I do have the factual statistics that show my win/loss record as a breeder continuously improved from 1997 (57%) to 1999 (75%) until it plateaued at ~87% from 2002 on out, where it's stayed. (This is across the board, in various states/countries, in various hands & levels of competence. I am absolutely the number would be higher if they were always, 100% in top hands.)

So I very much do believe that there are objective, factual statistics that prove one method is superior to another.

Jack