Who is the Better Dogman?

[FrostyPaws]

Well, the only percentages that can actually be measured is win/loss; the rest is speculation and/or opinion.

You're right in the only percentages that can be factually measured are win/loss ratio.

Furthermore, "how hard" a dog is looked at in school means nothing either as to a win/loss record. I sold a dog to a good dogman in Canada. He matched the dog from me into a son of a well-known Champion, and the camp who brought the opponent claimed have "high standards," declaring they had two-dogged their charge for :50 ... and they said their dog would "never quit" ... but yet their dog quit to my dog in :53. The dogmen who lost could not believe their dog quit to the one dog from me where he did not quit to 2 dogs before. Why is that?

There are plenty of reasons why a dog that was supposedly 2 dogged would quit. The 2 dogs were smaller dogs that he handled easily. Both dogs were subpar dogs, etc etc. Maybe the style of the dog you sent there frustrated him. The list can continue on and on. There is nothing wrong with holding your dogs to a higher standard than others if you actually have the ability to understand what that means.

Finally, there are also a lot of people who have good records, yet they really haven't matched into a top-caliber animal, nor produced a top-caliber animal. They win/lose against done-nothing dogs, or (maybe) a 1xW, into local boys. They have never faced a highly-regarded dogman, or a highly-regarded dog (nor have they produced one). In other words, the dogs they 'win' with are always against mediocre competition, so they might have been losers against elite competition, etc.

You're right, but winning is winning. It all counts toward a percentage, so whether the dog is top caliber or not doesn't matter. What matters is the dog won. Winning percentages aren't really about producing top caliber animals for someone only interested in showing dogs. I can see how that's important to breeders such as yourself. You're right about those dogs and mediocre competition, but that's all just opinion as they just as easily may have won against elite competition, etc.

I know my dogs have faced the very best in the world, beaten Champions owned by some of the most competitive kennels in the world, done so without getting touched in some case, gone 2-3 hours into the best in the world, crawled 100% DG into the best in the world ... "as well as" won over no-name competition.

I don't know all the specifics of what you've done, but I know I can say that about my dogs ... which have done so for 2 decades ... that they have competed with and BEAT the very best in the world ... and that they have also lost 100% DG to the very best in the world ... taking multi-winning dogs longer than all their previous opponents put together. I don't know how many people can honestly make the same statement. Beating "a dog" in a known dogman's hands isn't the same as beating his best Champion in that same man's hands.

I haven't bred a line of dogs for 20+ years, so I don't have dogs all over the world. I can't compare what my dogs have done to anyone when it comes to a breeding program. I've only bred my dogs for myself to keep what I like going in a direction I want. I'm not interested in being that person that created a line over the world. Beating “a dog” in a known dogman's hands could, at times, mean beating his best dog whether he has champions or not.

I don't think any dogman has always put his dogs into the very best, every time, and that includes you.

Of course I haven't as I have no control over that thing, but, as I stated, that is when percentages would matter to me as something to pay attention to IF people were able to do that.

Again, beating "a" dog in a known dogman's hands isn't the same as beating his finest Champion, etc. Therefore, unless you are always facing Champions, Grand Champions, DOYs, etc., you too are competing against "lesser dogs" yourself to some degree. Everyone is. Therefore, all things are relative, and therefore all wins mean something ... precisely because the dog that was put in there won, which becomes a statistical fact, and which win increases the factual record of the dogman.

No one is always facing the competition of dogs you mention on a regular basis. We all face “lesser dogs”. We're all glad to win, but the sense of accomplishment isn't the same as beating a quality dog. Sometimes there is no sense of accomplishment. If I were to win all shows in 40 minutes or less, my sense of accomplishment would be near the bottom rung of the ladder, if there at all. You're not getting any type of indicator of beating lesser dogs as that's something we all feel like we should do. A win only means something if the competitor that won attaches some worth to it. If there's no worth attached to it, it means nothing. At that point, it is simply a matter of fact, as you said.

Of course, I agree that quality of competition (in both dogs and men) alters "our perception" as to the worth of that win, but it doesn't alter the fact that both dogs won.

Agreed here, and perception is what a lot of decisions are made on and simply not simply a win. Above post

Which, again, proves the point of this post ... allowing a dog to mature, and being patient, pays off

Jack

Patience is something we should all have with dogs. At times, patience pays off. At other times, it makes zero difference.

[Officially Retired]

You're right in the only percentages that can be factually measured are win/loss ratio.

Agreed.

There are plenty of reasons why a dog that was supposedly 2 dogged would quit. The 2 dogs were smaller dogs that he handled easily. Both dogs were subpar dogs, etc etc. Maybe the style of the dog you sent there frustrated him. The list can continue on and on. There is nothing wrong with holding your dogs to a higher standard than others if you actually have the ability to understand what that means.

Agreed. And I do. And I am sure you do too

You're right, but winning is winning. It all counts toward a percentage, so whether the dog is top caliber or not doesn't matter. What matters is the dog won. Winning percentages aren't really about producing top caliber animals for someone only interested in showing dogs. I can see how that's important to breeders such as yourself. You're right about those dogs and mediocre competition, but that's all just opinion as they just as easily may have won against elite competition, etc.

What you said is true, except that 1) winning percentages are important to everyone, breeders and competitors alike, and 2) winning percentages are about producing top-caliber animals.

An individual win may not necessarily prove anything, one way or another, but the greater the number of random matches become the more accurate the statistics become. That is how intelligent people in sports rate EVERYTHING (from horseraces to batting averages) is based on percentages. And, in the sport of dogs, no one is going to build a FAR greater-than-average family record, consistently, by repeatedly sending out mediocre dogs into a random sampling of hands worldwide. No way in hell can that happen. The only way a consistently mediocre group of dogs can build a FAR better-than-mediocre record is by spot-picking, if sub-par dogs are always selectively placed in truly superior human hands who then set out to face average (or lesser) competition. Because even a great dogman given a mediocre dog will still lose to another great dogman, who's bringing a truly superior dog.

In point of fact, my dogs generally get dealt the opposite hand, and yet they still almost always prevail

My dogs don't always go to good or experienced hands; the fact is many times they're put in relatively green hands, and yet they almost invariably win or show game regardless, even when totally outclassed in levels of experience on "the human" end. Take Ch Vengence, for example. He was owned by Minute Man when he beat Ch Soldier. Minute Man faced Gamedog Inc., a highly experienced dogman, who had Captain America in his corner as the conditioner, who's as "fastlane" as it gets. These veterans had a pretty famous guy named STP on their side basically saying Ch Soldier was a "shoe-in" to make Grand Champion. Minute Man was a rank newbie by comparison, and so the disparity of "level of human competition" was literally night-and-day in that fight. And, just to put a punctuation mark on it, Vengence came in there light. Yet none of those "perceived intangibles" mattered, as Ch Vengeance outclassed the shit out of Ch Soldier, and pitched a shutout, precisely because he was a truly superior athlete.

The same thing happened when the relative beginner Griddog beat Harry Hargrove so bad with Ch Mr. Serious that Hargrove walked passed his own yard of dogs three times to go breed to Mr. Serious. No way is a man like Hargrove going to breed to some beginner's dog who beat him, unless he thought that beginner had a truly special animal. Time and again, my dogs get sent to relative novices, who take their dogs out and whip some of the biggest names in the history of dogs, and there is no way this can happen without my consistently sending people far greater-than-average dogs.

Any statistician will agree that the larger the sampling, the most accurate the statistics are, and my dogs have been put out there long enough, often enough, and with the same % results worldwide, regardless, that I am as positive as I can be that my dogs a far better than average and far more likely to win than lose, regardless of who or what they face.

I haven't bred a line of dogs for 20+ years, so I don't have dogs all over the world. I can't compare what my dogs have done to anyone when it comes to a breeding program. I've only bred my dogs for myself to keep what I like going in a direction I want. I'm not interested in being that person that created a line over the world. Beating “a dog” in a known dogman's hands could, at times, mean beating his best dog whether he has champions or not.

I understand what you're saying, and there is nothing wrong with what you're doing. In fact, it is arguably the best way for the dogs. To be honest, I often wish I had done things your way, and really mastered my own conditioning program, so that all my dogs got the same fair shake.

And yet, had I gone this route, I would never have gotten to breed as deep into my own line as I have. I would never have gotten to get the same feedback, worldwide, nor would my dogs have faced the wide variety of opponents that they have, and so I wouldn't have gotten to know how reliable and consistent they really are. Because the flipside is, dogs that are always in top hands are in some ways "sheltered." Even though your standards may be high, the conditions you keep your dogs in are optimal. Your experience is there.

Imagine sending your own dogs to a random sampling of people, from all over the world, to see how they do ... when things are NOT optimal for them. When they're done at a young age, or spotting 2-4 lb of weight, or put in keep 1 month after they just won a brutal war in over an hour (being put on a mill while still sore and limping) ... and yet they still keep winning in the same percentages. Some people who think they have good dogs, might find their percentages drop quite a bit when they get placed in less-than-optimal hands/conditions. So, despite how infuriating situations like this can be, because I have seen this happen to my dogs time and again, the flipside is I know they can stand up to just about anything out there, under just about any circumstance, and still prevail or die trying.

Of course I haven't as I have no control over that thing, but, as I stated, that is when percentages would matter to me as something to pay attention to IF people were able to do that,

There was a time when I paid attention to everything, and kept meticulous records, but I stopped doing this in about 2007. My dogs have both beaten and lost to the best, and sometimes they quit too, but the losses and quits are SO few and far between, compared to the wins, that they are nothing but a minor surprise to me that quickly gets forgotten when the next string of wins comes in.

No one is always facing the competition of dogs you mention on a regular basis. We all face “lesser dogs”. We're all glad to win, but the sense of accomplishment isn't the same as beating a quality dog. Sometimes there is no sense of accomplishment. If I were to win all shows in 40 minutes or less, my sense of accomplishment would be near the bottom rung of the ladder, if there at all. You're not getting any type of indicator of beating lesser dogs as that's something we all feel like we should do. A win only means something if the competitor that won attaches some worth to it. If there's no worth attached to it, it means nothing. At that point, it is simply a matter of fact, as you said.

I understand what you're saying. All wins my dogs gain bring me a sense of accomplishment, because they did their job ... yet how much sense of accomplishment is, as you say, relative to the perceived worth of the opponent.

Yet even a dog like Prime Ape, who just beat a local dogman (unknown to most) still gave me a tremendous sense of accomplishment, preceisely because of the odds he overcame. He was the smaller dog, and these local boys who had his opponent have beat some good dogmen in that area. They knew they were facing a stone killer dog in Prime Ape, and they brought what they thought was a truly badass dog, and he was. Wildchild said the dog's strength and mouth were incredible, as was his condition. Dogs don't know who their owners are, and even dogmen the level of Hardcore Kennels can still lose to relative beginners, as for instance when Ram's Flash beat HCK's SDJ Cover Dog, Ch Doogie. The fact is, relative beginners can and do get their hands on some truly awesome dogs. So, even though "public perception" of a relatively unknown dogman might not be much, that has nothing to do with the fact that many are as hard to beat as kennels get.

And, BTW, it's a good thing most of my dogs win after the :40 mark, LOL, because that is generally what separates "the fastlane shit" from truly game bulldogs

Agreed here, and perception is what a lot of decisions are made on and simply not simply a win. Above post

Agree and disagree.

My perception means everything to me ... whereas "the perception of others" never has. If I see a dog go with my own eyes, on my own yard, then I will make my decisions and be confident that they're better decisions than most. If I hear of my dogs performing in a way that "makes sense" based on how they're bred, then I will be proud of that dog. And if I hear that a dog didn't live up to the way I had hoped, and he's been done right, then I will be disappointed. I don't like being disappointed, so fortunately this doesn't happen very often

Patience is something we should all have with dogs. At times, patience pays off. At other times, it makes zero difference.

True enough. Sometimes patience makes no difference ... except in one very important detail ... we know in our bones that we did our job and the best we could for that dog, and its failure was therefore its own.

These dogs have a tough row to hoe, and things are hard enough for them even in a perfect world, so there is no sense making it harder than it has to be. Ultimately, if we want the best results, it is our job to clear the way for them, manage the intangibles favorably, and do the best we can for them, first, before we expect the best out of them in return. That is only fair.

I would rather waste my time being patient on 3 dogs that ultimately disappointed me, than to lose and unfairly waste 1 good dog that just needed a little more time and patience. For example, I took Bolo back because the customer I sold him to said he was cold and sucked. You know the story on his parents, Pup Pup and Super Red, who were absolutely as game as live ones could be. And these dogs were CHALK FULL of some of the gamest, baddest, and best-producing dogs a man could ask for. So I was 100% confident Bolo would "turn on" and live up to his incredible pedigree. But the fucker never did. He was absolutely mortified by fighting contact, and sailed over the wall every time he got touched. It was freaking embarrassing

So I made an experimental "double Pup Pup" breeding with him, just to see if I could "shake the genetic jar" and get game dogs back out of him. Most of those pups did turn out pretty good, but "pretty good" is not what I am after. I believe one male was cold also, and "coldness" is neither something I am used to, nor desire, so I just got rid of it all.

So, as you said, in that particular case my being patient didn't mean a damned thing. Still, I would rather waste my time with a dog like Bolo, and be disappointed on occasion, than EVER miss the opportunity to own a Diamond Girl or a Ch Vengence, who did turn out to be truly game, valuable animals thanks to a little patience. In other words, just because we might get disappointed by trying our best, is no reason to stop doing so. Truly good dogmen should never forgo the quality work of being patient and doing their job.

Jack