New GRAND CHAMPION – F2F and Solo’s El Titere 5XW – Son of CH Panthro 4XW

[AmberLamps]

I was laughing at the way in which R2L worded his reply, it was the fiction part that tickled me. But like it or not Jack (and I don't btw) it's commonly accepted by everyone in dogs, that a dog who loses a match either can't go for his Gr Ch title or would lose it if he's already attained it.

Your example of Robert T losing his Gr Ch title was a good one and it's equally preposterous of a dog not being given the opportunity to attain his Gr Ch title if he/she happened to lose one early in their career. An example would be Ch Silver, he waxed a gr ch, lost his second while sick, then went on to wax another 2 grand champions and a champion. But he could never go for a Gr Ch title, or ever be recognised as a Gr Ch because he had a loss on his record.

Anyone who stops to actually think about it for a second, can see it's absurd, but like i'v already said, it's become so commonly accepted and ingrained amongst dogmen, most wont even give it a second thought. It's simply just accepted as the way it is.

I don't subscribe to it but i understand the online sdj has alot of people reading it, so it potentially could have a big influence in the way dogmen think if an article was written regarding this outdated rule. Someone with your writing skills could change the way alot of people think if you ever chose to do an article on this.

[Officially Retired]

I was laughing at the way in which R2L worded his reply, it was the fiction part that tickled me. But like it or not Jack (and I don't btw) it's commonly accepted by everyone in dogs, that a dog who loses a match either can't go for his Gr Ch title or would lose it if he's already attained it.

I am well-aware that the notion is commonly-accepted, and it was the sarcasm that I was referring to when I made my post. That is why I made it.

The mentality to trivialize a dog's accomplishments, and to reject the idea that a great dog can lose, is precisely why I made my post.

Your example of Robert T losing his Gr Ch title was a good one and it's equally preposterous of a dog not being given the opportunity to attain his Gr Ch title if he/she happened to lose one early in their career. An example would be Ch Silver, he waxed a gr ch, lost his second while sick, then went on to wax another 2 grand champions and a champion. But he could never go for a Gr Ch title, or ever be recognised as a Gr Ch because he had a loss on his record.

There are many examples of great dogs that have lost (as well as great human boxers who have lost), which is why discounting a dog's greatness (or all-time title) is preposterous. Jack Kelly is the one who originated the "rule" that any dog that loses cannot be a Grand Champion, and (as I said) the majority of bulldoggers follow this credo like lemmings, even though Jack Kelly and his mag are gone. It is an ignorant way to think IMO, and unfair to many great dogs. IMO, any dog that wins 5+ times in top competition is a "Grand" Champion, way beyond the normal competitor.

Anyone who stops to actually think about it for a second, can see it's absurd, but like i'v already said, it's become so commonly accepted and ingrained amongst dogmen, most wont even give it a second thought. It's simply just accepted as the way it is.

Well, that is exactly what I intended to do, and in fact did do, and that is de-rail the common mentality here, wipe the snicker off of some faces, and give a reality check

I don't subscribe to it but i understand the online sdj has alot of people reading it, so it potentially could have a big influence in the way dogmen think if an article was written regarding this outdated rule. Someone with your writing skills could change the way alot of people think if you ever chose to do an article on this.

That is a good idea, and the owner has asked me to write some articles for his mag, I just haven't gotten around to doing so yet. But that would be a great place to start.

Jack

[No Quarter Kennel]

You are exactly right Jack. I don't agree with the "traditional" way at all.

How is this dog NOT a SUPER GR. CH?

http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...p?dog_id=27180

[Officially Retired]

Exactly, MelonHead would be the quintessential example of the folly.

If ever there was a GRAND Champion, he surely was it.

[sinister]

i understand what you mean jack, but what criteria do we go by then?

[Officially Retired]

i understand what you mean jack, but what criteria do we go by then?

Easy. Same thing as what we do with a Champion.

For example, if your Champion wins 3 and loses his 4th, he is still called a "Champion," is he not, and he still deserves to be called as such. He does not get his title stripped!

IMO, the same logic should apply to Grand Champion. A dog that wins 5 contracted matches is still a "Grand" Champion, he just finally lost, same as the 3xW Champion is still a Ch who finally lost.

In human fighting, Sugar Ray Robinson finally lost too ... so did Ali ... so did Jack Dempsey, Marvin Hagler, Michael Spinks, etc. Yet they are all HOF all-time-great Champions.

Jack

[drz]

Easy. Same thing as what we do with a Champion.

For example, if your Champion wins 3 and loses his 4th, he is still called a "Champion," is he not, and he still deserves to be called as such. He does not get his title stripped!

IMO, the same logic should apply to Grand Champion. A dog that wins 5 contracted matches is still a "Grand" Champion, he just finally lost, same as the 3xW Champion is still a Ch who finally lost.

In human fighting, Sugar Ray Robinson finally lost too ... so did Ali ... so did Jack Dempsey, Marvin Hagler, Michael Spinks, etc. Yet they are all HOF all-time-great Champions.

Jack

Those men you listed are ex-champions not champions. They lost their titles which is no different than a Grand Champion losing his title after a loss. Maybe the boxing analogy would make sense if you were arguing that champions should lose a title if they lose but I'm not sure how it works when applied to saying a Grand Champion shouldn't lose his. Most sports you are not given a title in perpetuity. In boxing you must defend your title, if someone beats you you become a former champion. In team sports you must make it back to the finals and defend or your team becomes former champs. HOF has nothing to do with it as losing one doesn't stop a dog from being considered HOF worthy. Dogs really don't even have to win to be considered worthy of HOF. Sporting HOF is based on your past accomplishments. Championships are more an indication of your current.
status.

I like how a lot of the European dog men do it by listing their dogs as Ex-Grand Champions. Which is becoming a title all on it's own in a way.

To be honest I don't have an issue with it one way or the other. But I do see valid points on both sides of the argument. Still kinda comes down to putting too much faith in titles. Titles don't always speak to the depths of a given career.

[Officially Retired]

Those men you listed are ex-champions not champions. They lost their titles which is no different than a Grand Champion losing his title after a loss. Maybe the boxing analogy would make sense if you were arguing that champions should lose a title if they lose but I'm not sure how it works when applied to saying a Grand Champion shouldn't lose his. Most sports you are not given a title in perpetuity. In boxing you must defend your title, if someone beats you you become a former champion. In team sports you must make it back to the finals and defend or your team becomes former champs. HOF has nothing to do with it as losing one doesn't stop a dog from being considered HOF worthy. Dogs really don't even have to win to be considered worthy of HOF. Sporting HOF is based on your past accomplishments. Championships are more an indication of your current.
status.

I like how a lot of the European dog men do it by listing their dogs as Ex-Grand Champions. Which is becoming a title all on it's own in a way.

To be honest I don't have an issue with it one way or the other. But I do see valid points on both sides of the argument. Still kinda comes down to putting too much faith in titles. Titles don't always speak to the depths of a given career.

Good post and rebuttal.

[Nextlevel]

Good post and rebuttal.

They lose their belt not their title once a world champion always a world champion no matter how many times they lose......

[R2L]

cant follow the whole discussion but

like it or not Jack, it's commonly accepted by everyone in dogs, that a dog who loses a match either can't go for his Gr Ch title or would lose it if he's already attained it.

this, no disrespect. to much "rules" not everyone agrees with made up some time but seemingly no one can change them. im searching for a poll about this matter which was done a while ago... can't find it.