Gameness and Size ????

[Officially Retired]

I think this debate has gone off topic. And to compare weight divisions of human boxers to that of animal athletes is really pointless.

No it isn't. To ignore the similarities is simply clueless.

The athletic ability between the two doesn't match up....not p4p and damn sure not in the gameness department.

That has already been addressed, in my previous post to you, so there seems to be an echo/density feature here whereby people can't comprehend what was previously said, ignore the progress, and go back to saying what they originally said.

NO ONE IS COMPARING ATHLETIC ABILITY ... SO GET THAT OUT OF YOUR HEAD.

What is being compared is the concept of PROPORTION, and if you can't comprehend the difference, between "ability" and "proportional strength," then there is nothing to discuss.

Also, there is 100% agreement that GAMENESS has nothing to do with size. It comes in all shapes, colors, and sizes ... in men and in dogs. So there is no need to re-hash this either.

I don't think size has anything to do with gameness. I think it does play a role in the ability department, and it does p4p as well, maybe not 100% of the time. There will always be the exception.

We agree here.

I'll give an example of Pit Bulls pulling weight. Many years ago I competed in weight pull. I had a 40 lb female and a 61 lb male. My female would pull 100x her body weight consistently everytime, and sometimes more. The male would average 84% most times, but occasionally he'd pull more.
She was game bred he wasn't, but I think that would be a good measure of these dogs p4p if things were equaled, such as dogs being used being game bred and the stats being drawn from the exact same track.

We agree here. Smaller dogs are stronger proportionally ... and they are also faster and better athletes.

Jack