No, I skip most of those threads, and I live way out in BFE and don't have a land internet connection, and can't even watch streaming videos.Originally Posted by bluebeard
Jack
.
No, I skip most of those threads, and I live way out in BFE and don't have a land internet connection, and can't even watch streaming videos.
Jack
.
Good point to bring up YigYang.
I agree, there is no question that top conditioning brings out the best potential in any performance animal. Absolutely. However, wouldn't you agree that overcoming adversity is another matter entirely?
In other words, I agree that a dog in top condition going :50 is going to put on "a better performance" than he would if pulled off the chain ... but the point I am making is it will be harder for that dog to go :50 while not in shape. When checking for gameness, adversity is what challenges "the will to continue," so being tired as hell (through lack of condition) will be a bigger game test for a dog than will being fresh as a daisy through optimal condition, thanks to the dog being in the best shape of his life.
So, yes, being in top shape will bring out the best in any dog, no question. However, being out of shape will challenge a dog's "will to continue" more quickly, and thus will let you see just how game your dog is a whole lot sooner, thus minimizing the trauma because you don't have to sit there and watch them for 2 hours before they start to slow down.
This brings up another matter, which is AIR, or natural stamina. Some dogs have great natural air, and can actually go :50 no problem because of this. In fact, one old man I know (who's been doing dogs since the mid-60s) said this to me: "Jack, if any dog doesn't have the natural wind to go a good strong hour, hard, right off the chain, then I don't need that f---ing dog."
And he has been associated with some of the greatest dogs in the history of the game ...
Jack
.
No, I skip most of those threads, and I live way out in BFE and don't have a land internet connection, and can't even watch streaming videos.
Jack
.
well basically it is asking the question "is this too much for a hound's first time at schooling?" which was about 17 minutes in length. i was just curious as to your answer/insight. both dogs ran hot, both mixed it up, and both wanted more. i personally said it went too long(poll question)
IMO "Hard Tested" means, I don't know what I'm looking at, OR what I'm looking for.
I don't believe you need to hard test an animal. The ONLY reason I could see it is in the case of a low talent individual. So if for some reason you're looking for a reason to keep that low talent individual, you test him hard and keep him based on "gameness".
I'm not interested in low talent individuals, no matter how game they are. I'm looking for an all around good dog, from a good gene pool. You should be able to see all you need about an animal rather quick IMO. Is the dog high ability? How does he work, does he blow his wad or pace himself. I think too many people don't know what it takes to truly be an athlete, and simplify it to Mouth vs Gameness. If he doesn't have "mouth" he has to be "game". Mouth isn't high on my list of priorities. It's in there, but much farther behind things like athletic ability, speed, wind, balance, intelligence. Honestly, those things I mentioned come before gameness to me. A dog possessing the traits I mentioned, against dogs his own weight, isn't going to NEED his gameness too often. It's nice to know its there if he needs it, but I want more of a "total Package".
So I think "Hard Tested" usually comes down to: I have this dog, he aint got much, but I can say he's hard tested...
Again, the biggest issue is "hard tested" against WHAT... As an example, I saw a dog that dog was supposed to be "hard tested" and deamed game by some big names. But when that dog couldn't get his mouth on his opponent, he packed it in rather fast. I think being totally controlled is going to cause a "hard tested" dog to stop, far more often than a hard mouth dog would cause one to stop. If the dog can get in there and mix it up, a lower level of gameness is going to keep him going, whereas if that same dog is being totally controlled, he has to be ONE GAME MOFO to keep on coming... but "Fatigue makes cowards of us all".
Ah I'm starting to ramble...
MinuteMan
Great post and I agree with you! If you don't have a "good eye", hard testing usually ruins many! The amount of damage sustained and wear and tear on a dog is more harmful than good! You should be able to tell what kind of dog you got in a couple 10-20 min rolls. IMO!!!
Well, as it states in my book, I don't believe young dogs should ever be pushed into a "running hot" situation while they're learning; they should just be learning the ropes and having fun in fairly-brief schooling sessions. So I would agree with you.
However, I would also say that if two dogs are "running hot" enough to be gasping at :17 that either a) they must have been going at it hard as hell, b) it was really hot outside, and/or c) they have lousy natural stamina.
Jack
.
Agreed. And what's interesting is, with a low-talent individual, he is already "being tested" by virtue of the fact he's behind all the way
Excellent post MM, I agree with you 100%.
Jack
.
That never happened. That story was just the BS sales pitch of his owner for a magazine interview, trying to appeal to the gullable nature of most folks who want them "tested hard". :roll: I don't care much for the man and have not had dealings with him for nearly a decade, but to his credit........... he was a much better dogman than that.
most people don't know a good dog when they see one. Most of the time when he's been skull dragged he's not worth nothing in the sense of using for performance. I've seen many done like this and made it . But hunted afterwards and pulled up early. "HARD TESTED" usually means I'm an IDIOT.
Fantastic post, MM. The first sentence sums it up perfectly, IMO. Every successful dogman or oldtimer who's been around the block I've ever spoken with has communicated the exact same sentiment -- if you can't tell what you're looking at in a short amount of time, you ought not be the one looking at them. Jimmy Mayfield has said numerous times that he wouldn't look at a dog before FULL maturity, and he wouldn't put real time on them until he's putting a bet on them. Makes all the sense in the world to me. Having a real "eye for a dog" is about the best standard of a GOOD dogman to me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote