The Undesirables

[EGK]

S_B no disrespect taken and you actually have me thinking how to explain this lol, great example. I believe that little black dog had his fill that day. No matter how long he went he also left some things to be desired. I wouldn't say POS cur because he was shock blind at the point of truth telling. I just acknowledged he was stopped and was a good little game dog though not a proven game loss and I do believe the bond kept him going a good deal. He took more than most and I see his case as the difference between cur and stopped. He couldn't see the hand being waved a few inches in front his face, started out the corner off a clap stumbling to a neutral corner. You see what I'm saying it's more a reason and situation. It's not so much anybody would question the heart shown. I get the degrees deal completely but I don't think exceptions and reasons or situations dont need a label as its described. Minus the reasons and situations some just can take more than others. In most it'll create a stigma to question objective and have them looking for the reason each one quit.

[FrostyPaws]

S_B no disrespect taken and you actually have me thinking how to explain this lol, great example. I believe that little black dog had his fill that day. No matter how long he went he also left some things to be desired. I wouldn't say POS cur because he was shock blind at the point of truth telling. I just acknowledged he was stopped and was a good little game dog though not a proven game loss and I do believe the bond kept him going a good deal. He took more than most and I see his case as the difference between cur and stopped. He couldn't see the hand being waved a few inches in front his face, started out the corner off a clap stumbling to a neutral corner. You see what I'm saying it's more a reason and situation. It's not so much anybody would question the heart shown. I get the degrees deal completely but I don't think exceptions and reasons or situations need a label as its described. Minus the reasons and situations some just can take more than others. In most it'll create a stigma to question objective and have them looking for the reason each one quit.

I don't mean any disrespect toward the dog either. Yes, the little black dog had his fill that day, but that was more due to his style than anything else. With a different style, that dog would've went home a winner and be alive. What kept him going, IMO, was his ability to negate any serious damage after about the first hour. We all saw what dog was in better shape that day, and I think that's where the style comes into play. A little different style, and the black dog comes to the top and it's for his taking. Instead, he did what he'd done the entire time, and that was just hold without advancing into any type of serious offense. I personally don't think he took more than most. He succumbed to a battle of attrition, not outright brutality coupled with everything else that goes along with that. Either way, I was extremely proud of the black dog and his owner. I just wish the dog would've been a little more. His owner had done his job as he needed to do.

[S_B]

I don't mean any disrespect toward the dog either. Yes, the little black dog had his fill that day, but that was more due to his style than anything else. With a different style, that dog would've went home a winner and be alive. What kept him going, IMO, was his ability to negate any serious damage after about the first hour. We all saw what dog was in better shape that day, and I think that's where the style comes into play. A little different style, and the black dog comes to the top and it's for his taking. Instead, he did what he'd done the entire time, and that was just hold without advancing into any type of serious offense. I personally don't think he took more than most. He succumbed to a battle of attrition, not outright brutality coupled with everything else that goes along with that. Either way, I was extremely proud of the black dog and his owner. I just wish the dog would've been a little more. His owner had done his job as he needed to do.

Fuck yes!!!! I agree with you wholeheartedly on this, he did not want the fight so he was smart enough to hold out his opponent for 2:17, that's nothing to scoff at. But a truly game dog he was not, he could have gone, he simply had enough of playing keep away. I don't think he was in shock nor blind, he was just flat our worn out and done. But a pretty damn smart fella he was to avoid what he did, no shame in that.

S_B

[EGK]

Fuck yes!!!! I agree with you wholeheartedly on this, he did not want the fight so he was smart enough to hold out his opponent for 2:17, that's nothing to scoff at. But a truly game dog he was not, he could have gone, he simply had enough of playing keep away. I don't think he was in shock nor blind, he was just flat our worn out and done. But a pretty damn smart fella he was to avoid what he did, no shame in that.

S_B

See in either manner or opinion it's not a degree of gameness to it. He simply checked out and left more to be desired. That's not something I'd want to have at question in my program or feel really needs a label of concern. It's just one you move forward from and say good show. Not game is simply not game. If his owner had blown the keep its simply a blown keep and a decision to make is more my view of it in line with the topic. I wouldn't put a degree of gameness on it though. It is just and opinion at the end of the day and with different experience and the amount that opinion may vary in my humble opinion.

[S_B]

See in either manner or opinion it's not a degree of gameness to it. He simply checked out and left more to be desired. That's not something I'd want to have at question in my program or feel really needs a label of concern. It's just one you move forward from and say good show. Not game is simply not game. If his owner had blown the keep its simply a blown keep and a decision to make is more my view of it in line with the topic. I wouldn't put a degree of gameness on it though. It is just and opinion at the end of the day and with different experience and the amount that opinion may vary in my humble opinion.

EGK,

That dog was a pretty "pit" game dog, game enough to hang in there longer than a lot would and take what he did. This is what makes these dogs special...the different perspectives. Would I call him a game dog, no, but he sure as hell wasn't a rank cur.

S_B

[EGK]

I can agree with that and those things mentioned were what was to be desired. Salute

[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