THE HARDCORE FARMER

[Osagedogman2015]

Sure Osage, which is why I stated up front I don't ruin young dogs.

That being said though, I personally don't think a serious game test is stupid. Have I done it with every dog? No, but I've done it with plenty. A serious game test is tantamount to a serious match. That's how I look at it.

I never make dogs push weight in any kind of gameness check, but I do believe, and always have, that gameness should be the backbone of a program.

I can agree with all of that. Each and every dogman have their own threshold that they cross when it comes to testing their dogs. It can vary in many ways and we don't have to agree on how to do it either. I tend to fall somewhere in the middle between you and Jack when checking one out. It's never cut and dry.

I've been around some that like to test their dogs when they are out of shape and overweight. I've seen some that like to test their dogs when it is super hot. Some put them both together (overweight and hot) at the same time. I disagree with all of that and would never do it that way. It is my opinion that it is the lazy way and doesn't really give a good insight to true gameness and many times falls into the "Hardcore" mentallity. I like to see them make their decision for other reasons.

I've been around people that really never found what they were looking for too. They go through dog after dog and never seem to ever have anything to show for it.

[Officially Retired]

This is a great topic. One of "those" topics for me concerning the dogs. My first experiences in the dogs was with a guy who basically only matched dogs. He maybe bred three times in 10 or so years. He kept 10-12 dogs and at least 8 or so would be open to the world and the other 4 or so would be ones that look like they might earn a chain spot.

Nothing wrong with that.

He fell into the hard core farmer category and in turn I did so too. It was never about preserving or perpetuating, or even checking or testing, it was all about winning. He had a couple of quotes similar to the Tudor quote above. "I'm not sure if my dog is game but on Saturday night you better be sure your is". Actually a ton of those lines. " I can't tell you what he will do next time only what he did do last time".

Nothing wrong with that either.

He culled hard. Harder than most and a lot of those dogs could have maybe went on to produce. Removing a cur was never considered culling, it was just understood. His "culled hard" because a lot of game dogs didn't have the tools to win, and that is a hard decision to make. Thus he 'culled hard'. Most of his dogs came from the same breeder. I 'learned' from him early on it was easier to buy a young dog than to deal with the whole puppy picture. I have had a number of dogs I should have bred, or bred more. Like most men, in every facet of life, he has a disease called " wishedihadof ". "I wished I had of" did this and that. His was to breed more of the dogs that performed. Me too.

I totally understand getting rid of a cur (a short-winded idiot who can't win, whatever).

I believe a person can be as severe as they want, standards-wise, I just don't see the justification for killing perfectly healthy, happy dogs.

Never have, never will.

It has always been a form evil to me.

I totally "get" the desire to fight. I totally "get" the desire to watch a fight.

If I raised my son to be a fighter, and he didn't cut it, I can see being disappointed ... but I can't see killing him.

I can see killing a dog that tries to attack me ... for real ... but I can't see killing a dog that is my friend, happy and playful, just because he doesn't suit me.

I can see clearing out his chain spot, and making room for a better animal, but I have always been the type to try to place the dog in a good home.

However, if a dog is dangerous (most of mine make great pets), then I'd kill it if it didn't work out.

As far as care, his was impeccable. His dogs were in perfect health, clean living quarters, the whole nine. He nurtured young dogs, and each had his own time to turn on. Once he felt they were on, they faced the trials and tribulations of being a game dog on the yard of a dog man who matched dogs. There were a lot of game dogs that did not have the tools to win and they did not maintain a chain spot. Some went back to the breeder as a brood dog, some simply did not maintain a chain spot. On more than one occasion I have seen him give a winning dog back because the next dog coming at that weight was better. The breeder was the only one who could get him/her back. If the breeder could not make room or have space or have time the dog simply lost his chain spot. He sold two dogs in a 10-15 year span.

Then IMO, he was not a "hardcore farmer," because he provided excellent care and allowed them to mature.

What I would say is he only wanted the very best dogs to put his money on, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Again, there is nothing wrong with being selective with chain spots. There is nothing wrong with wanting the best.

But I believe the owner (as with the farmer) has to do his best first before he can expect the best back.

A true "hardcore farmer" doesn't bother doing his best at anything. He does everything wrong, and violates basic principles, in the insane belief that "only the strong survive" a total LACK of care. And here is the parallel:

The best farmers are NOT the ones who get rid of, kill, waste, or destroy the most crops ... nope.

Invariably, the best farmers are the ones who understand farming principles the most, work the hardest to ensure all of the favorable conditions to the crop's growth have been met, that the parasites have been managed well, and that they have done their job on every level first, and that (finally) they have allowed for enough time for the crops to ripen "before" trying to harvest

And so it is with these dogs ...

For him, it was never about the money. It was never about the preserving or perpetuating a family of game dogs. It was never about "gameness". It was only, and I mean only about winning. Since I was new, I learned what he taught and I just assumed it was like that everywhere. In time I figured some things out and changed direction, slightly, but changed direction nonetheless.

It truly is all about winning, whether you're a competitor or a serious breeder.

I may not have matched a dog in 20 years, but the entire thrust of my breeding program is to isolate, harness, and perpetuate winning traits in my dogs, so that they can win or produce winners wherever they get off the plane ... which they have done, BTW

Looking back I missed out on a ton of opportunity, and my mentor even more. But as I have said before, it takes all kinds to make the dog game go around. In a lot of respects he was the hardcore farmer, and I guess by default I have been as well. It has a lot to do with being mission orientated and maintain the same 'mission statement' throughout.

It sounds like you're a hardcore culler, not a hardcore farmer, so long as you're doing everything you can to ensure a "successful harvest" of dogs.

Great topic. Should be a good thread. EWO

Indeed

Jack

[Officially Retired]

I think what you described yourself as is quite different than what Jack was describing as "Hardcore". Even a type of "Hardcore". At least the way I interpreted it anyway.

What you described sounds like a dogman that knows exactly what he is looking for and someone that has a good grasp on what to expect. There is nothing wrong with testing your dogs the proper way when they are ready and "ripe" and have been given the attention that is needed. At least I don't think there is. That is where experience and wisdom comes in to play.

These dogs didn't evolve from good dogmen pussyfooting around and making excuses for dogs that don't measure up. They were molded in the fire of physical and mental struggle, wrought with pain and adversity, for untold years upon years. It needs to be done intelligently and purposefully though, without the ignorance that Jack was describing as "Hardcore".

Bullseye, my friend

[Officially Retired]

Sure Osage, which is why I stated up front I don't ruin young dogs.

I don't think young dogs should be judged yet, either.

Only schooled and developed.

That being said though, I personally don't think a serious game test is stupid.

I guess we would have to come to terms with what "a serious gametest" means, exactly.

Have I done it with every dog? No, but I've done it with plenty.

I will never purposely game test any dog with extreme talent.

If a dog its own size can't "test him," then that is all he needs to prove: that he is a badass dog capable of beating the piss out of any dog its weight.

A serious game test is tantamount to a serious match. That's how I look at it.

In this, we agree.

I have "rolled out" uncountable dogs, which is tantamount to an unconditioned match.

Dogs like Sun Demon were rolled-out 3x, always being on bottom, always getting the worst of it, and always coming back to stop the dog in the end. I didn't roll Sun Demon much, because of his low ability, and he always had to give up so much blood to finally "win" ...

On the other hand, nothing Silverback's weight could stay with him: not Jeep/Redboy dogs, not Eli/Redboy dogs, not heavy Boomerang dogs, not the Old Man's Robert T-bred dogs, and not my own dogs his weight. He fucking decimated them all. He had faults, but his strength (literally), speed, and his innate knowledge of how to finish, simply were too much for the dogs he faced, 9x in a row. I rolled him so much because it was always over with so fast.

I never make dogs push weight in any kind of gameness check,

I had to make Silverback push weight to game-check him, 4-lb to be exact, and only then was his shortwindedness exploited by the TANK of a dog in Sun Demon. Still, Silverback never went down in ANY roll he ever had, and was driving Sun Demon all over the pit. Sun Demon had a telephone pole for a neck, and I knew The Gorilla wouldn't be able to finish him, and so I got to see him tired (it was a very hot day and The Gorilla fought at 100 mph), and he was heat-stroke-tired by only :29. That was the longest he ever went, but his drive and total intent NOT to be dominated and to TRY to kill Sun Demon were unmistakable.

If they were the same weight, it would have been a :05 fight (like 4 of Silverback's were, including 2 into the Old Man's stock, where they were down and dying in short order, one with Silverback pushing 2 lb). That wasn't going to happen with Sun Demon.

Anyway, I can't say Silverback is "dead game" over that, but I think he would push it as hard as he could ... and NO DOG HAS LOST off of any Silverback dog that's been matched, one winning in 2:38.

My point is, I won't make any bum push weight (they're already bums and so can't whip something their own size).

But if you have a truly talented dog, then you need to push some weight to even things out a bit to see some bottom.

I would never make it so the smaller dog could be truly hurt, but only to even the odds.

but I do believe, and always have, that gameness should be the backbone of a program.

It has always been the backbone of mine, and they win long-distance wars of attrition FAR more than they lose them.

Jack

[Officially Retired]

I can agree with all of that. Each and every dogman have their own threshold that they cross when it comes to testing their dogs. It can vary in many ways and we don't have to agree on how to do it either. I tend to fall somewhere in the middle between you and Jack when checking one out. It's never cut and dry.

Winning a lot more than you lose is the "proof" of method.

Those who aren't doing this, need to re-evaluate.

I've been around some that like to test their dogs when they are out of shape and overweight. I've seen some that like to test their dogs when it is super hot. Some put them both together (overweight and hot) at the same time. I disagree with all of that and would never do it that way. It is my opinion that it is the lazy way and doesn't really give a good insight to true gameness and many times falls into the "Hardcore" mentallity. I like to see them make their decision for other reasons.

Rolling dogs in the heat is a good way to check gameness, IMO, so long as it's not dangerously-hot.

They get tired faster, and thereby take less damage.

You get to see their willpower under stress a lot quicker ... but you have to have the sense to pick up before they're gasping for breath.

I've been around people that really never found what they were looking for too. They go through dog after dog and never seem to ever have anything to show for it.

And those are invariably "the hardcore farmers" ...

Jack

[EWO]

Enjoying the topic. If we had a young dog that was outclassing his pals at his weight he may not get the 'proverbial' check. If I felt really good about the dogs he was whipping and he was handling his business I felt like he could do it elsewhere. So when those dogs came around we let the first one be the game check, making it count. I have always been a gas tank guy, and I just feel like that hard game test may take a match away from him.

http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...p?dog_id=42272

This dog won his first at nearly 3. He was nearly murdered in a chain accident. He made one of the gamest scratches I have ever seen, basically stupid game. I sat on him for nearly two years until I started schooling, fully expecting the chain accident was going to be his demise. At his next opportunity he was a little slow to get going but after 10 minutes of soul searching he showed all the tools, and showed extreme finish. Rolled him again and he went across like a rocket, ruined a pretty good dog and seemed piss they picked up. Next roll he punished a dog who went on to win a pound heavier. After the chain accident, after maybe 30-40 minutes of box time I rolled the dice. First show he finished a really good dog and second show the same. I can't say he was purposely checked but I did not see the need. EWO

[EWO]

I need to make a pedigree for US1's Abu 1XW. He was a GrCh virgil/GrCh Mayday bred male. In a roll at 18 months his owner did not like him. I thought he showed promise. I swapped out a puppy for him. We sat on him for a few months then rolled him. He was no world beater but looked better than the last time. We schooled him a couple-three more times. He got better and better. I had no experience with either of the lines much less the cross. I liked what I had seen but wanted a little more of the warm fuzzies about his gameness. For his 'game check' I ran the shit out of him on a carpet mill, got him really tired and worn down and then put him in the box. I felt like he showed gameness as far as being tired and being enthusiastic about performing and after a couple long counts he went across with ill intent. Without taking a long drawn out beating. Again, I rolled the dice.

He made all his scratches. He was a game dog. Won in 1:55. EWO

[brokeback]

Spending some time reading some of these older posts, some older than others. There are some good info and perspectives throughout.

EWO- I really enjoy reading your stories. Thanks for sharing.

[flashsbulldogs]

Jack I must say I have always admired how well written and intelligent you come off by reading your posts on the internet over the years, did you go to school for writing? just curious good post by the way thanks.

[Frank43]

Bump