Who is the Better Dogman?

[FrostyPaws]

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.

There is no factual data that can be used across the board to prove one way is better than another. Unless you have factual data from everyone that's ever owned dogs on how they do dogs, you will have nothing more than a small sample that can be swayed one way or another.

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.

What's left from a man's yard is usually dictated on how they look at their yard. Percentages pertaining to what? Dogs making it to the box? Dogs actually winning? Dogs being game? Overall percentages can be construed in numerous ways. I know someone that said they've not had a dog quit in 6 years. While that's true, they leave out the fact of picking up dogs at the first sign of trouble. They leave out the fact of picking up dogs, during shows, when they're looking like they're going to pack it in. Maybe the most time they see out of a potential brood dog is 20-30 minutes, and they breed it. Once everything is factored into these individuals and how they do things, the “percentages” are shown in an entirely different light.

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 would rather associate with men that could show me something I've missed over time, and I've learned things from both of those individuals. A lot of the men I know that were hard on their dogs gave their dogs all the chances they were willing to give their dogs. Not all dogs, given every chance in the world, are going to amount to anything that we define as a sport. If you do everything you can for a D class dog, it's still a D class dog, and most people don't want D class dogs for any particular reason.

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.

I guess we think about different things when we think of men who only want the best. The men I knew that did that didn't just cull dogs because they didn't start at 16 months old. They weren't idiots. A couple of them usually gave their dogs until the age of 3 to get with the program. It didn't always pan out for them. Some only gave them until the age of 2 to start. Those men knew their dogs. If the dogs didn't meet what it was they wanted, they did what they thought was best for their yard.

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.

You're right about green dogmen. I guess I just don't think about greenhorns much as I generally don't deal with them. I know I've slowed down a lot on my rush to judgement over the years as I think most people do that are successful within dogs. Greenhorns will make every mistake in the book usually unless they have someone that is actually looking out for their best interest and their dog's best interest.

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.

Agree

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

The thing about trying to factor in how dogs win is actually seeing what they win over. This is just how I see it. I've seen many dogs win over 3 subpar and average dogs in my day, but those dogs are still Champions. It's not the dog's fault his opponent wasn't up to snuff. He did his job as he was supposed to do. There are ton of people who show a ton of dogs because they simply want to show dogs. That's what they want. And if the dog looks good in a few rolls against some dogs, then they take their chances and hope for the best. A lot of times, they're simply showing average dogs. That is how a lot of shows are done, won, and lost. The percentages are high for these kennels until they meet someone who actually brings a match quality dog to a match and not just some dog they want to show. All competition is not created equally, and to me, that's the crux of the entire percentage aspect.

If every dog that was shown would meet an equal opponent, then I guess percentages would mean more to me than they do. While it's nice to hear that a dog, or dogs, that you bred won, it simply doesn't mean that much to me unless the man that won REALLY knows what a quality dog is, and that man feels like he beat a quality dog and not just some average dog someone wanted to show.