Gameness and Size ????

[Officially Retired]

I think this debate has gone off topic. And to compare weight divisions of human boxers to that of animal athletes is really pointless.

No it isn't. To ignore the similarities is simply clueless.

The athletic ability between the two doesn't match up....not p4p and damn sure not in the gameness department.

That has already been addressed, in my previous post to you, so there seems to be an echo/density feature here whereby people can't comprehend what was previously said, ignore the progress, and go back to saying what they originally said.

NO ONE IS COMPARING ATHLETIC ABILITY ... SO GET THAT OUT OF YOUR HEAD.

What is being compared is the concept of PROPORTION, and if you can't comprehend the difference, between "ability" and "proportional strength," then there is nothing to discuss.

Also, there is 100% agreement that GAMENESS has nothing to do with size. It comes in all shapes, colors, and sizes ... in men and in dogs. So there is no need to re-hash this either.

I don't think size has anything to do with gameness. I think it does play a role in the ability department, and it does p4p as well, maybe not 100% of the time. There will always be the exception.

We agree here.

I'll give an example of Pit Bulls pulling weight. Many years ago I competed in weight pull. I had a 40 lb female and a 61 lb male. My female would pull 100x her body weight consistently everytime, and sometimes more. The male would average 84% most times, but occasionally he'd pull more.
She was game bred he wasn't, but I think that would be a good measure of these dogs p4p if things were equaled, such as dogs being used being game bred and the stats being drawn from the exact same track.

We agree here. Smaller dogs are stronger proportionally ... and they are also faster and better athletes.

Jack

[No Quarter Kennel]

Jack, don't waste your time.
I don't think I ever said it, but I am not thinking proportionally in any way whatsoever. I don't think I ever suggested it, but if I did, I apologize b/c I was trying to compare gameness in percentages, in numbers and NOT proportionally in an equal sense, if that makes sense.

So to maybe clear some things up, I am with SB. I don't think either has a monopoly on gameness. Not animals or humans. I think there are equal numbers of game animal and athletes in each division (for lack of better compartmentalization).

My original question or post was simply to provoke thought as I see a tendency from most people I've been exposed to, that smaller is always associated with more gameness and I disagree. When the doctor wouldn't allow Frazier to come out of his corner at Ali in the 15th, I believe Joe displayed as much gameness as any human athlete by telling the doctor after they said he couldn't see, "I will feel him there" or something to that affect. Meanwhile, Dundee is in Ali's corner and quotes, "Ali is saying, I can't go back out". In a dog match, we all know who wins. BUT, it's not that kind of sport, so it doesn't matter.

Anyways. Sorry for bring something up that pissed some folks off. Crap, all I was doing was trying to kick up some convo. Jack, seriously, don't waste your time. You WILL PROVE YOUR POINT, but it's not a point I'm trying to win or learn. HOWEVER....LOL...this is the argumentative side of me. I do believe, there will be a higher percentage of KO's as the weight divisions climb upward as I also believe there will be a climb in rounds fought per victory as the weight classes get smaller.

Use to have these dicussions all the time in strength forums with some real deal gurus of strength. Glenn Pendlay, Mark Rippatoe, Louie Simmons and some of the Russians whose names I can't spell. The argument of power and strength. Power is limited by or dictated in capacity by how much strength one possesses. The "power formula" will point to smaller guys all the time that THEY are the more powerful and by formula, they are. However, which takes more power to Press overhead? A 500lb lift or a 300lb lift? Many would argue the smaller guys were more powerful, but there were more guys lifting 500lbs over their head than the smaller guys. SO, while the little guys are more powerful by formula and math, the larger guys are simply......more powerful. I love this stuff....sorry to bring it into a bulldog forum, but the twist myself or Jack has taken this thing is interesting to me nonetheless.

Take care men.

[S_B]

The "power formula" will point to smaller guys all the time that THEY are the more powerful and by formula, they are. However, which takes more power to Press overhead? A 500lb lift or a 300lb lift? Many would argue the smaller guys were more powerful, but there were more guys lifting 500lbs over their head than the smaller guys. SO, while the little guys are more powerful by formula and math, the larger guys are simply......more powerful.

And to this I agree.

[Officially Retired]

Jack, don't waste your time.
I don't think I ever said it, but I am not thinking proportionally in any way whatsoever. I don't think I ever suggested it, but if I did, I apologize b/c I was trying to compare gameness in percentages, in numbers and NOT proportionally in an equal sense, if that makes sense.

When dealing with a sport that has weight classes, and when talking about "power/ability," you have to speak in terms of proportion.

Everyone knows, in general, a 60-lb dog is stronger "overall" than a 33 lb dog.

But the 60-lb dog may be a piece of shit by comparison in each's respective weight class.

So to maybe clear some things up, I am with SB. I don't think either has a monopoly on gameness. Not animals or humans. I think there are equal numbers of game animal and athletes in each division (for lack of better compartmentalization).

Again, everyone agrees gameness has nothing to do with size.

But "ability" damned sure can ... as there are simply "certain things" that large dogs/men cannot do ... that the most-talented smaller dogs/men can do ... (e.g., gymnastics)

My original question or post was simply to provoke thought as I see a tendency from most people I've been exposed to, that smaller is always associated with more gameness and I disagree. When the doctor wouldn't allow Frazier to come out of his corner at Ali in the 15th, I believe Joe displayed as much gameness as any human athlete by telling the doctor after they said he couldn't see, "I will feel him there" or something to that affect. Meanwhile, Dundee is in Ali's corner and quotes, "Ali is saying, I can't go back out". In a dog match, we all know who wins. BUT, it's not that kind of sport, so it doesn't matter.

I don't believe smaller dogs = gamer dogs (but they may have more energy/moves, and the ability to fight at a good rate for a longer time, which can appear to be "gameness" ...)

Anyways. Sorry for bring something up that pissed some folks off. Crap, all I was doing was trying to kick up some convo. Jack, seriously, don't waste your time. You WILL PROVE YOUR POINT, but it's not a point I'm trying to win or learn. HOWEVER....LOL...this is the argumentative side of me. I do believe, there will be a higher percentage of KO's as the weight divisions climb upward as I also believe there will be a climb in rounds fought per victory as the weight classes get smaller.

You are simply wrong here, and your "beliefs" are based on nothing but your baseless, over-active imagination ... and certainly NOT on actually crunching the numbers of fight records/KO percentages

Use to have these dicussions all the time in strength forums with some real deal gurus of strength. Glenn Pendlay, Mark Rippatoe, Louie Simmons and some of the Russians whose names I can't spell. The argument of power and strength. Power is limited by or dictated in capacity by how much strength one possesses. The "power formula" will point to smaller guys all the time that THEY are the more powerful and by formula, they are. However, which takes more power to Press overhead? A 500lb lift or a 300lb lift? Many would argue the smaller guys were more powerful, but there were more guys lifting 500lbs over their head than the smaller guys. SO, while the little guys are more powerful by formula and math, the larger guys are simply......more powerful. I love this stuff....sorry to bring it into a bulldog forum, but the twist myself or Jack has taken this thing is interesting to me nonetheless.
Take care men.

Well, sure. The ability to push 500 lb takes more power than pushing 300 lb. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

But the strongest smaller men are proportionally stronger than the strongest big men ... based on the simple math S_B laid out above, and the smaller athletes tend to have better KO %s also

Jack

[Officially Retired]

Crap, all I was doing was trying to kick up some convo.

And you surely achieved your goal

[S_B]

And you surely achieved your goal

Haha yes, indeed he did.

I think NQ, you are speaking more in terms of power lifters. Your belief system is like Danny Burton's in that respect.

But when it comes to dogs, the big dogs generally fall short of impressive ability. They aren't power lifting.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, this is the vibe I get, feel free to corect me if I'm wrong.

[No Quarter Kennel]

Haha yes, indeed he did.

I think NQ, you are speaking more in terms of power lifters. Your belief system is like Danny Burton's in that respect.

But when it comes to dogs, the big dogs generally fall short of impressive ability. They aren't power lifting.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, this is the vibe I get, feel free to corect me if I'm wrong.

SB - I was using lifting sports as an example, but I have a very strong understanding of strength sports and understand power. I was simply using that example to discuss power. There are some small lifters out there that blow my mind in what they can do. There are impressive things accomplished by larger lifters that floor me.

My belief system parallels DB's in many ways, but we don't see eye to eye that much on a lot of other things.

I wasn't comparing any of this to power in dogs, but rather in my discussion with Jack about boxers and power.

You aren't wrong, you are just talking.

[FrostyPaws]

I think the only way you could possibly correlate gameness and size is sheer numbers. There will always be more smaller dogs. As a person that has owned small dogs my entire life, I can say there are plenty of curs within that area.

[No Quarter Kennel]

You are simply wrong here, and your "beliefs" are based on nothing but your baseless, over-active imagination ... and certainly NOT on actually crunching the numbers of fight records/KO percentages

This is your response to my statement about heavier classes having more ko's and lighter classes having more rounds per victory.
You are right that it is baseless. I am completely assuming such and I honestly think this is an assumption 99% of most people would make. I don't know it however and if you say I'm wrong, I'm cool with that and will accept it. You have lot of history and research in boxing and I won't dispute that. Kinda floors me to be honest that it wouldn't be true, but I will take your word for it.

[EWO]

This is very true. I do not see any correlation between big dogs and little dogs and the percentages of their gameness. The first this thing that pops to mind is define a big dog. Since most of the dogs I have owned have been less than 45, I consider 46 and up is a 'big' dog. Guys that consistently run in the 46-50 group need to get to 52 and up to be a big dog. For me I am not so sure where the cut off is to define the two.

I like reading percentages of wins and bloodlines and all that but none of them are really accurate. For every ten dogs out of a line that are reported and we know about there are a hundred we don't know about that could put a positive or negative sway on the percentages (more than likely negative).

But, I enjoy the reads and the posts similar to this one, even the RBJ post that got too far off topic, but I am not sure if there is ever going to be an accurate answer. If it could get close that would be great but then we factor in personal subjectiveness or relative success and the numbers get whacky all over again.

With that said, if someone can figure out the correlation between big dogs and little dogs and gameness it would be great. Then we can move onto whether those black dogs quit more often than the red ones? And after that are the red nose dogs typically deeper game than their black nosed brothers/sisters?

EWO

I think the only way you could possibly correlate gameness and size is sheer numbers. There will always be more smaller dogs. As a person that has owned small dogs my entire life, I can say there are plenty of curs within that area.