This is very true. I do not see any correlation between big dogs and little dogs and the percentages of their gameness. The first this thing that pops to mind is define a big dog. Since most of the dogs I have owned have been less than 45, I consider 46 and up is a 'big' dog. Guys that consistently run in the 46-50 group need to get to 52 and up to be a big dog. For me I am not so sure where the cut off is to define the two.

I like reading percentages of wins and bloodlines and all that but none of them are really accurate. For every ten dogs out of a line that are reported and we know about there are a hundred we don't know about that could put a positive or negative sway on the percentages (more than likely negative).

But, I enjoy the reads and the posts similar to this one, even the RBJ post that got too far off topic, but I am not sure if there is ever going to be an accurate answer. If it could get close that would be great but then we factor in personal subjectiveness or relative success and the numbers get whacky all over again.

With that said, if someone can figure out the correlation between big dogs and little dogs and gameness it would be great. Then we can move onto whether those black dogs quit more often than the red ones? And after that are the red nose dogs typically deeper game than their black nosed brothers/sisters?

EWO






Quote Originally Posted by FrostyPaws View Post
I think the only way you could possibly correlate gameness and size is sheer numbers. There will always be more smaller dogs. As a person that has owned small dogs my entire life, I can say there are plenty of curs within that area.