I guess no one actrually read what I said, so, once again, we already have titles for "ability" also: do not the titles of BIS / Ch / Gr Ch already reward ability?
So, following your logic, why do we even need DOY?
Isn't Dog of the Year to separate the best-of-the-best?
If we're going to go over and above the already-existing titles of BIS/CH/GR CH, and add another title (Dog of the Year) ... for ability ... why don't we *also* give some extra title to the extremest of extreme game dogs for all the GIS winners?
Also, to say that just because a dog lost, "it doesn't have the ability to win," is a pretty far stretch.
Ozzie's Homer didn't have the ability to win, against Jeep, at 2 lb below his best weight, C/H by Stepps (as opposed to fighting at his best weight 44 lb, in Ozzie's hands), but that doesn't mean Ch Homer "didn't have the ability to win" ... AT ALL ... Homer just didn't have it that day, at that weight, in those hands. But his gameness was so extreme as to be remembered, historically, more than 99.99% of any Gr Ch ever.
So let me say this again: we already have titles for ability: CH/Gr Ch/BIS ... and DOY ... that is 4 different ways to confer glory to winners ... and yet we only have ONE way to confer glory to our GAME dogs![]()
That sucks IMO.
Why shouldn't there be equal consideration given to the extremest of game dogs of our sport?
The more I think about it, the more the title of Game Dog of the Year is a title that is long, long, long overdue![]()
Jack