Agreed.Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
However, judging/culling young dogs is just as wasteful.
Judging/culling young dogs is like trying to judge the tastiness of fruit before you've let the fruit ripen.
Not too bright IMO.
I look at dogs to see if they have ANY distinguishably-excellent characteristics, and if so, how many distinguishably-excellent characteristics.
My preference is speed, style, air, intensity, and intelligence. If I can get a fast, slick, longwinded, smart dog ... that puts out that pressure ... and has good air ... then I am going to beat my opponent 9x out of 10, by beating him to the punch, getting what I want, while preventing him from doing what he wants ... and I can outlast him if I have to also.
As far as gameness goes, I am softer on a dog than most, and yet harder on a dog than most
By that I mean, I stopped seriously game-testing my dogs a long time ago, which means I do NOT beat my dogs down anymore, and call that "a test." To me, a serious game test is stupid, and takes too much out of them. I NEVER make a smaller dog get beat down by a bigger dog. NEVER. However, what I will do is simply watch how a fully-schooled dog performs against another quality dog, for as long as it takes that dog to get pretty tired, especially if he's slightly behind. If I see ANY sign that they're not 100% into what they're doing, I just don't want that dog anymore. I don't need to see it go another 30 min, until it finally does quit; nor beat the dog down till he "can't move"; I just don't want any dog the moment I see something I don't like in the animal.
I have rolled dogs 15 min and not liked the way they fought.
I have rolled (short-winded) dogs for :25-:30 and felt they were extremely game because of how absolutely tired they were ... and yet never once stopped giving it everything they had ... always trying to finish ... even though they were practically suffocating to the heat/exhaustion.
I have rolled truly-talented, pacing dogs for 1:30, off the chain/unworked, and never seen a bad move ... and not really been able to see a whole lot, gameness-wise, because I knew I'd have to watch them for another hour before they became truly exhausted. But I felt they were so good, and so long-winded, that 99% of what's out there would quit to these dogs, because they were so talented/longwinded.
I have no set time for what I do, all I know is I rate ALL a dog's characteristics, and if I see something I don't like, gameness-wise, I don't want the dog anymore.
I will add that I have also rolled young dogs, seen them quit in :05, but KNEW it was because they weren't fully-started ... sat on them ... and have them prove very game later when they were fully mature.
I have also seen young dogs stop ... and never make it, given every reasonable chance.
But I WILL give young dogs the benefit of the doubt ...
However, once they're fully-mature (3+), and once I see they're truly, fully-on, then they need to have 100% commitment in their eyes and never make a bad move again.
Dogs that aren't competitive, athletically, need to have extreme gameness. Most people agree on that.
If they also have extreme air + rugged durability, then they can actually defeat so-called "high ability" match dogs, in the end.
Again, for ANY dog to be truly useful, it has to have SOME kind of excellence ... and the more categories a dog rates "excellent" in, the better.
The less competitive characteristics a dog has, the more useless that animal is (unless it is highly-inbred on a truly great dog, and is able to throw those "skipped" great characteristics in its offspring).
Too many people forget that last part and waste (what could have been) an awesome producer: ability can skip a generation, just like a red nose can.
Jack
Reply With Quote