The Undesirables

[Officially Retired]

Cur is just a word used to describe something.

Yes, used to describe "a dog that will quit."

Dogs that quit in an hour are curs. Dogs that quit in 3 hours are curs.

That would be an illustration, yes again.

But what you don't seem to realize (and haven't ever seemed to realize, in the 20-something years we've debated this topic online, lol) is that this is also an illustration of degrees of gameness

A dog in shock most of the time can't go when it gets so far, so I don't lump them into the discussion. Before I label a dog a cur, I would like to see what exactly happened. Did the dog just quit or was it stopped? Lord knows most folks simply can't tell the difference.

We agree here, and these are ponderings we all have, the more intelligent of us anyway.

So no, I don't think it's a non-thinking word.

Saying the word "cur" can very well be a non-thinking statement.

To lump a 3-hour dog (that finally hung it up after losing half its blood supply and scratching on 2 broken legs) in the same "cur bag" with a dog that sailed over the wall after getting its toe pinched harder than expected, IS a non-thinking, idiot thing to do. It most definitely is.

Which is precisely WHY it is more intelligent to speak in (and have a concept of) DEGREES of gameness.

The term "pit game" is an understanding of a certain degree of gameness (enough to win, if ahead), but it doesn't command the same respect as deep game dog (who will continue to try, even if never ahead).

To fail to recognize the difference is yet another form of Proof of Stupidity (imo).

I think if I label a dog as such, I've given it a lot of thought as to what happened.

That is your opinion of yourself. Others may not share your opinion.

Unchanging facts are inarguable, while the presence (or abscence) traits is arguable, ad nauseum.

For example, you will never get a serious argument that your Frosty was "a dog," but you can get arguments, forever, as to his "ability" or "gameness" ...

That is the difference between an unchanging, inexorable truth (that he's a dog) versus a forever-changing, inexact characteristic (that he is "good" or "game").

Don't believe that as I've seen those right helpings and the dog paid for it with it's life.

Clearly they weren't "the right helpings," then, were they?

Or the right opponent, etc.

Question everything? I can see a dog's ability, talent, it's strength, etc. There is nothing eternally skeptical in those thoughts.

You can give your opinions on these things, nothing more.

But history is FILLED with dogs that some of the greatest dogmen EVER said, "He can not be beat," or, "He would never quit," etc., etc. ... which dogs went right out to lose/quit the next time.

WHY???

Precisely because, as I said, talent and gameness CAN VARY, both across individuals, as well as within individuals.

As Heraclitus said, "It is impossible to step twice into the same river," which is possibly the single greatest quote to reflect the CHANGEABILITY of life itself.

I am not the same man I was 25 years ago. I have lost certain physical blessings, I have gained some perspective, etc.

But I am still a human being.
My TRAITS have changed; the inexorable truth about my species has not.
Gameness is simply not an inexorable truth--it is only A TRAIT that comes in degrees and can vary based on circumstance

The dog that belly-crawled to a killing last year ... may hang it up to an ace ear dog this year ... because his TRAITS can change ... yet the fact he is still A DOG will not.

This is WHY we question traits, like gameness and ability, while no one EVER asks themselves, "Is rover going to be 'a dog' tomorrow?"

We know he is going to be A DOG tomorrow ... but we don't know if he is going to be a BULLdog tomorrow

Gameness is not like ability IMO. I believe dogs are either game or they're not.

Again, you are simply wrong.

There is no way that you will find an argument that Frosty was "a dog" ... but people could debate you as to whether he was a dead game dog or not.

And just because he belly-crawled today, against "that" opponent ... doesn't mean he'd crawl tomorrow, against "this other" opponent.

Frosty's traits can vary; his abilities can be enhanced (or diminished); yet he remains A DOG, regardless.

Now, that doesn't take away from a dog that loses in 3 hours, gets drilled the entire time and stops. There is no shame in breeding to a dog such as that, but that being said, he wasn't a game dog. Maybe he was in the 2 or 3% of dogs on the planet at any given time that will take that much, but he still wasn't a proven game dog. Top shelf cur maybe?

Once again, you misuse (and misunderstand) the word, "game."

Consider the word "strength" for comparison.

We don't say dogs are "strong" or "weak" ... AS IF a dog is either 100% strong or 100% weak.
Anyone who would think like this is a hopeless idiot.
Most people realize that a dog's strength comes IN DEGREES ... they have genetic aptitudes/weaknesses ... and everyone on earth realizes that these aptitudes can be enhanced or diminished (to within whatever genetic limitations the animal has). The strongest dog in the world, on his worst day, will still be a better animal than the weakest dog in the world on his best day.

For clarity, we can all easily see that a dog who can pull 500 lb is "stronger" than a dog that can only pull 45 lb.

Yet for some reason, hundreds (thousands?) of dogmen-morons cannot accept this same blatant truth about gameness.

While we can easily see that a dog which can pull 500 lb is strongER than a dog that can only pull 100 lb ... some people really can't seem to say that a dog that belly crawls after 3 hrs of abuse is gamER than a dog that sailed over the wall after getting its lip cut.

There is no other way to categorize this kind of blindness other than OBTUSE STUPIDITY (lack of comprehension, whatever).

There are simply DEGREES of gameness, same as there are degrees of strength.

And, just because a dog achieved its highest mark of strength "yesterday," doesn't mean he can do it again "today" ...
He may always have the strength to achieve a "high mark" ... but he canNOT always achieve his BEST mark, every day.

That is why gameness is nebulous.
A dog with a truly high degree of gameness may ALWAYS give an impressive showing, compared to a German shepherd, but that does not mean the dog is 100% dead game, every day of his life, regardless of age, health, etc.

It is just ridiculous to think so.

I don't want extremes in both; I only want extremes in one.

You get what you breed for. The funny thing is, in saying you breed for "extremes" in gameness, you're admitting there are degrees of gameness, by default

I have always bred for extreme levels of gameness, speed, intelligence, and stamina ... and I have repeatedly and consistently gotten these things.

I have never bred for mouth, so this trait has been more of a hit-and-miss with me, but I can reliably and consistently get dogs that can go 1-3 hours and win.

Whether they will "take their death" (on every day they breathe the air) is irrelevant.

What they will do is be gamer than MOST, when the money's on the line.

Many have taken their death, a few have not, but this is irrelevant to MY objective that they have the right combination of gameness/traits to win 9x out of 10, wherever they get off the plane, regardless of what they face.

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

But what you don't seem to realize (and haven't ever seemed to realize, in the 20-something years we've debated this topic online, lol) is that this is also an illustration of degrees of gameness

I realize all too well that we don't agree on this subject, and that's fine. I don't see a dog that quits in 3 hours after being ahead for 2:55 as having any degree of gameness. Scenarios matter. Blanket statements do not, and I'm guilty of making plenty of blanket statements over the years.

Saying the word "cur" can very well be a non-thinking statement.

To lump a 3-hour dog (that finally hung it up after losing half its blood supply and scratching on 2 broken legs) in the same "cur bag" with a dog that sailed over the wall after getting its toe pinched harder than expected, IS a non-thinking, idiot thing to do. It most definitely is.

Sure, which is why I don't do that, and nowhere in this post did I lump that type of dog in with such a dog as you described. Nor would I, which is also why I said what I did previously about thinking about such things before using such a word.

Which is precisely WHY it is more intelligent to speak in (and have a concept of) DEGREES of gameness.

The same can be said for believing in degrees of dogs being curs, whatever. Top shelf curs, run of the mill curs, rank curs, etc.

The term "pit game" is an understanding of a certain degree of gameness (enough to win, if ahead), but it doesn't command the same respect as deep game dog (who will continue to try, even if never ahead).

Pit game is not a term I would even utter from my mouth. Pit game = front running cur until it can't front run any longer. It's just a nice way of saying of it.

That is your opinion of yourself. Others may not share your opinion.

They may not share my opinion, and that's ok. My opinions are formed due to my own experience. Someone else may have completely different experiences which form their own opinion. That's fine.

Clearly they weren't "the right helpings," then, were they?

Or the right opponent, etc.

I think if a dog has taken it's death in the box, it clearly IS "the right helpings" and/or opponent.

You can give your opinions on these things, nothing more.

True. Same goes for everyone else.

But history is FILLED with dogs that some of the greatest dogmen EVER said, "He can not be beat," or, "He would never quit," etc., etc. ... which dogs went right out to lose/quit the next time.

History is also filled with those same men saying those exact same things, and the dogs they were talking about went right out to win/die trying the next time.

Precisely because, as I said, talent and gameness CAN VARY, both across individuals, as well as within individuals.

Or they were simply wrong and there wasn't really any variation except a better dog. There could have just as easily been zero variance, and the dog was simply a cur from the very beginning.

The dog that belly-crawled to a killing last year ... may hang it up to an ace ear dog this year ... because his TRAITS can change ...

Maybe so. Maybe not. Traits also may not change. The dog that takes the killing may simply sustain the killing without any issues, but gets frustrated on an ace ear dog. Does that necessarily mean his gameness changed? Not necessarily. Frustration was his achilles heel, and it took the ear dog to find exactly that. The same can be said for dogs that have taken a killing damage wise, but quit as soon as they get hot in the summer. Did the traits change? We don't know. No one knows if they actually changed or not or if that was simply the weak spot in the dog's armor.

Again, you are simply wrong.

There is no way that you will find an argument that Frosty was "a dog" ... but people could debate you as to whether he was a dead game dog or not.

And just because he belly-crawled today, against "that" opponent ... doesn't mean he'd crawl tomorrow, against "this other" opponent.

Frosty's traits can vary; his abilities can be enhanced (or diminished); yet he remains A DOG, regardless.

Again, there's this nasty word again: Opinion. Your opinion is I'm wrong based on your perspective of dogs. Based on mine, I'm right. Who exactly is wrong when ideas are based on opinions and experiences. I would never tell anyone Frosty was deadgame as he never died in the box. So, that's simply a one sided debate folks can have with their own inner voice.

And just because he did belly crawl once doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again, or the next 10 days. Or maybe he would simply take his death in the box, and nothing ever changed for him. The only way to know would be to take a dog out there and do it to see if his traits changed.

Once again, you misuse (and misunderstand) the word, "game."

I don't misunderstand the word game. I simply have a different out look on it than you do. Your ideas are not mine.

There are simply DEGREES of gameness, same as there are degrees of strength.

Degrees of curs

You get what you breed for. The funny thing is, in saying you breed for "extremes" in gameness, you're admitting there are degrees of gameness, by default

LOL. Not hardly. What I breed for pushes dogs into a grey area of possibly living or dying, maybe even being stopped. When I see what I want, I'm satisfied. I also know that since my dog isn't dead, he could still possibly quit, and yet, he may not either hence Top Shelf Cur. Maybe the dog is in the top 5 or 10% of dogs alive at that time, maybe not. I'm quite happy to admit that most all dogs alive are curs, and that's pretty normal within this breed. What I won't do is use a label reserved for the epitome of this breed simply because it fits neatly and is a wanted definition by most.

Again, curs, gameness, whatever you want to use.

[Officially Retired]

So much possibility for discussion here

Unfortunately, I am packing for a 3-day weekend in Utah at the moment.

Rest assured, a voluminous response will be forthcoming next week ...

[S_B]

Maybe so. Maybe not. Traits also may not change. The dog that takes the killing may simply sustain the killing without any issues, but gets frustrated on an ace ear dog. Does that necessarily mean his gameness changed? Not necessarily. Frustration was his achilles heel, and it took the ear dog to find exactly that. The same can be said for dogs that have taken a killing damage wise, but quit as soon as they get hot in the summer. Did the traits change? We don't know. No one knows if they actually changed or not or if that was simply the weak spot in the dog's armor.

This is simply breaking it down, anything else is our own individual interpretation or emotions.


I can subscribe to levels of curness or gameness, I'm ok with it. But I see where you are coming from Frosty. In a climate where those labels are tossed about freely by those who don't have a clue it gets nauseating.

S_B

[Officially Retired]

I realize all too well that we don't agree on this subject, and that's fine.

Yes it is.

However, make no mistake: one of us is right, and one of us is wrong.

I don't see a dog that quits in 3 hours after being ahead for 2:55 as having any degree of gameness.

First, we have to define what gameness **IS** in order to have an intelligent discussion about the subject

If we can agree that Gameness = The Will to Keep Trying to Win, then the described dog had "a will to win" ... so long as he was ahead ... however, if challenged or put behind, the will to win disappears.

If you personally define gameness as something other than "the will to keep trying to win," then you need to define what you're talking about so that we can have a common frame of reference for discussion

My own personal view is you are calling DEAD gameness "gameness," which is the source of your 20+ year blunder and MIS-understanding of the concept IMO.

Gameness simply = the will to win.

Dead Gameness means "a will to win that is GREATER THAN the will to survive" ... and so a DG dog will keep on trying to win, even in the face of death.

Moreover, my own view is that even a dog that displays "dead gameness" to ONE opponent (set of circumstances) may not necessarily display the same level of gameness to another opponent (set of circumstances).

Your belief appears to be that, if any dog shows dead game, then (by default) you assume said dog will be dead game to any opponent, under any circumstance, which I happen to view as naive and too simplistic to be valid. History has shown many dogs that proved to be ALMOST dead game in one match/set of circumstances, but who hung it up on another match/set of circumstances. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that this could happen to a "proven DG dog," if it was able to be resurrected and put in another position, against a different level opponent, in different condition, in different health, etc.

Scenarios matter. Blanket statements do not, and I'm guilty of making plenty of blanket statements over the years.

I agree scenarios matter, which is precisely why I reject your simplistic view that "a dead game dog is a dead game dog," regardless of opponent/circumstance.

You just said scenarios matter, and therefore circumstances matter. AND YET you fail to take in these very things when analyzing gamenees.

I believe you are not yet intellectually-aware that your statement "a game dog is always a game dog" is one of very those BLANKET STATEMENTS that can therefore NEVER be true, again precisely because of the infinity of variables out there.

There is a certain density to your view of gameness IMO ...

Sure, which is why I don't do that, and nowhere in this post did I lump that type of dog in with such a dog as you described. Nor would I, which is also why I said what I did previously about thinking about such things before using such a word.

The word "cur" is simply a disparaging remark.

If cur = a dog that "quit," it is still a worthless word until we analyze those very CIRCUMSTANCES you mentioned earlier (scenarios, etc.).

Again, a dog that quit after going 2:55, on the bottom, brutalized, in-shock, etc., can not in any way be put in the same "cur bag" as a dog that pissed itself and sailed over the wall when his lip got pinched in the first :05.

Anyone who tries to equate these dogs is simply a fucking idiot.

There will always be the begging question TO WHAT

Game TO WHAT?

Cur TO WHAT?

A dog that goes 2:55, ahead, and untouched, may not be as game as a dog that belly-crawled 3x, with its guts hanging out, but finally collapsed, and failed to go at the :40 mark.

People who don't understand this are idiots IMO ... they fail to take in the various "scenarios" you mentioned.

Each case is unique; each case requires scrutiny.

The same can be said for believing in degrees of dogs being curs, whatever. Top shelf curs, run of the mill curs, rank curs, etc.

IMO, if Gameness = the will to win and go forward, then Curness = the will to stop and run away.

The term Cold = the desire to do neither; the dog will not run, but the dog will not fight, either.

If we can accept these terms (that Gamness = the desire to continue forward; Curness = the desire to run away/give ground; while Cold = no desire at all), then we take a GIANT step in understanding WTH we're talking about.

If we cannot agree to these terms, then we need to hash-out some definitions before we argue this topic any further.

Pit game is not a term I would even utter from my mouth. Pit game = front running cur until it can't front run any longer. It's just a nice way of saying of it.

Front-running cur is just your typical non-nice way of saying it

Both say the same thing: a dog that WILL fight, so long as he's ahead and doesn't get put too far behind ...

They may not share my opinion, and that's ok. My opinions are formed due to my own experience. Someone else may have completely different experiences which form their own opinion. That's fine.

I don't think your opinions are formed from "experiences," but rather from personal bias combined with close personal association with some of the densest, dog-wastingest individuals in the sport.

I think if a dog has taken it's death in the box, it clearly IS "the right helpings" and/or opponent.

A dog that takes its death in the box has shown DEAD gameness against ONE opponent, under ONE set of circumstances, nothing more, nothing less.

The fact that it has done so has absolutely ZERO bearing on what that dog might do against ANOTHER opponent, in DIFFERENT shape, in a DIFFERENT state of health, under ANOTHER set of circumstances, etc. None at all.

True. Same goes for everyone else.

The simple truth is, some people's opinions are in alignment with reality, and some people's are not

One of the greatest fallacies in life is to believe that "all" opinions are correct ...

History is also filled with those same men saying those exact same things, and the dogs they were talking about went right out to win/die trying the next time.

True.

Or they were simply wrong and there wasn't really any variation except a better dog. There could have just as easily been zero variance, and the dog was simply a cur from the very beginning.

No, these men were right, based on the information available to them (how the dogs handled themselves, against their previous opponents and under the previous sets of circumstances).

Sometimes dogs will perform the same way, against the next dogs, and against the next set of circumstances ... HOWEVER ... sometimes a whole new dog, and a whole new set of circumstances will CHANGE EVERYTHING ... and in your bones you know this is true ...

Maybe so. Maybe not. Traits also may not change. The dog that takes the killing may simply sustain the killing without any issues, but gets frustrated on an ace ear dog. Does that necessarily mean his gameness changed? Not necessarily. Frustration was his achilles heel, and it took the ear dog to find exactly that. The same can be said for dogs that have taken a killing damage wise, but quit as soon as they get hot in the summer. Did the traits change? We don't know. No one knows if they actually changed or not or if that was simply the weak spot in the dog's armor.

You're simply refusing to acknowledge the obvious, due to that "density" I mentioned earlier.

If a dog shows extreme gameness under one set of circumstances, but shows "weakness in the armor" under another set of circumstances, then all this means is the dog's gameness is AFFECTED by opponents and circumstances ... ALL DOGS ARE! Here are some of the MANY "circumstances" that can affect gameness:

• Age
• Health
• Experience
• Condition
• Quality of Opposition
• Hormones/Heat Cycles
• Pregnancy
• Drugs/Poison, etc.

If anyone doesn't believe these things can and do affect gameness, then they are not very intelligent IMO.

However, I am pretty sure even you will concede that these things can and do affect gameness, and if you do acknowledge that these things can affect gameness, then you are (by default) admitting that GAMENESS CAN BE AFFECTED.

Once you admit that gameness can be affected, then you admit that gameness is NOT absolute, that is comes in DEGREES, and that those very "scenarios" you mentioned up-top DO MATTER in the assessment of each individual case you're looking at.

Again, there's this nasty word again: Opinion. Your opinion is I'm wrong based on your perspective of dogs. Based on mine, I'm right. Who exactly is wrong when ideas are based on opinions and experiences. I would never tell anyone Frosty was deadgame as he never died in the box. So, that's simply a one sided debate folks can have with their own inner voice.

My opinion is based on my INTERPRETATION of my experiences; your opinion is likewise based on your INTERPRETATION of your experiences.

Facts are facts. It is all in how we INTERPRET the facts that we see, which allows us to form CORRECT (or INCORRECT) opinions ...

And just because he did belly crawl once doesn't mean he wouldn't do it again, or the next 10 days. Or maybe he would simply take his death in the box, and nothing ever changed for him. The only way to know would be to take a dog out there and do it to see if his traits changed.

We agree.

I don't misunderstand the word game. I simply have a different out look on it than you do. Your ideas are not mine.

You have to first DEFINE the word "Game" in order to discuss this term intelligently

I have placed my definition, which is the standard definition (one which Greenwood postulated before either one of us was in dogs).

I am asking you to CLEARLY DEFINE your understanding of the word GAME ... so that we can see if we're even talking about the same thing.

Degrees of curs

Your old compatriot, and mentor, Pinky & The Brain, used this argument on me almost 2 decades ago

He likened the gameness/curness debate to the debate of HOT versus COLD

Pinky very intelligently, and astutely, pointed out that (when discussing the presence of "hot" versus "cold"), the scientific reality was THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS COLD

In other words, what we "call" COLD is merely the absence of heat.
The biological reality is there is ONLY "heat" (the vibration of atoms/molecules).
What we call "cold" is simply the lessening of these vibrations; what we call "heat" is simply the amplifying of these vibrations

Pinky, like you, therefore, only thought there was "degrees of cur."

And, like you, I destroyed this premise by focusing on THE POSITIVE (whereas you two characteristically focus on the negative).

In the hot/cold debate, the TRUE existence is the existence of THE POSITIVE (VIBRATION ---- HEAT) ... and, in the same sense, gameness is also a POSITIVE existence, namely, the existence of the POSITIVE will to GO FORWARD and TRY TO WIN

Therefore, if we use the hot/cold analogy, and admit that scientifically there IS NO "presence of cold" (there is only the ABSENCE of heat) ... then there IS NO "presence of cur" either (there is only the ABSENCE of gameness)

A dog that has "Absolute Zero" degrees of gameness = a cold dog.

A dog that fights for :05 has almost no gameness.

A dog that fights for :30 has an average amount of gameness.

A dog that fights until the last breath of life in him is a dead game dog.

On and on and on it goes ...

LOL. Not hardly. What I breed for pushes dogs into a grey area of possibly living or dying, maybe even being stopped. When I see what I want, I'm satisfied. I also know that since my dog isn't dead, he could still possibly quit, and yet, he may not either hence Top Shelf Cur. Maybe the dog is in the top 5 or 10% of dogs alive at that time, maybe not. I'm quite happy to admit that most all dogs alive are curs, and that's pretty normal within this breed. What I won't do is use a label reserved for the epitome of this breed simply because it fits neatly and is a wanted definition by most.

In closing, I don't actually think the Hot/Cold model fits the Gameness/Curness scenario with exactness.

The reason is, there can also be the presence or RANK COWARDICE (the will to run away).

If gameness = the volitional will to go FORWARD and TRY TO WIN ... and if "coldness" = NO volitional will to do anything, to just stand there and not fight ... then (in reality) CURness = cowardice THE COWARDLY WILL TO RETREAT/RUN AWAY.

Therefore, while the Hot/Cold comparison makes an interesting analogy, there is a difference, which I tried to illustrate via the attached bell-shaped curve below:

MOST dogs are neither total rank curs nor 100% dead game.

Therefore MOST dogs fall in the middle somewhere ... and we pit bull breeders try to "breed to the right-side" of this bell-shaped curve

Again, curs, gameness, whatever you want to use.

Using the terms we have available to us loosely is not the same as using them correctly

Jack