Good small dog beats good big dog 9/10 times

A Great small dog beats a Great big dog, 9/10 times.

University studies done on dogs and research has confirmed that smaller dogs have

1. faster reaction times

2. greater ability to accelerate body movements

3. stronger muscles in proportion to body weight

4. greater endurance and the ability to rotate the body faster

5. less likelihood of breaking bones when falling

6. superior cardiovascular endurance

7. healthier blood flow, less inflammation

Bigger dogs carry more weight which can even out in the box. Smaller dogs are more stable on the ground and they tend to be faster and more explosive.

Smaller dogs are more flexible, and less prone to injury than big dogs are during fighting. They are more durable.

It takes less time for sensory information to travel to a small dogs brain, thanks to a process called “temporal binding”. The brain receives sensory data from different parts of the body at different speeds, so it synchronizes conflicting messages by defaulting to the slowest processing speed. Which means, for a bigger dog, a touch on his toe will take longer to travel to his brain, as will other sensory messages.

 

This is complete bullshit. Being in all your a fan of Floyd then ask him what a difference 3 pounds made against bullyson. Then ask him if he would give up 5 lol

 

According to you, research based facts is bullshit.

Mr. Boudreaux is the one who told me a great small bulldog beats a great big bulldog. Thank you very much.

 

I agree with this. Its the same with people. Look at boxers for example. There are not to many Heavyweights that have the athletic ability of a lightweight, speed,reflexes,movement,coordination,endurance there is no comparison. And with the dogs take a little jack russell they can run damn close to 30mph, jump 5' in the air, turn on a dime and so on find a dog of any breed 100lbs plus that is comparable pound for pound. They don't exist. I use to do a fair bit of dog weight pull and the smaller dogs of various breeds out pull the amount of times their body weight than larger dogs and breeds.

 

You got the saying wrong. A ''great'' smaller dog beats a ''good'' bigger dog. That's what it is suppose to say. With two greats the bigger will win.

 

In weight pulling I'd agree. In the game, not at all. Big good dog wins 9/10 times against a good small dog. It's like saying if Mayweather meet Tyson in both their primes Mayweather would win. He'd get knocked the fuck out viciously and violently. Little guy is faster and more agile but big guy only needs to connect once and it's curtains.. 5lbs in the dog world is like 25 on a human. Unless your lil guy is an Ace, it's very unlikely going to prevail. Even if he is an ace after 10lbs it most likely won't matter much unless the big dog is a cur.
My money would be going on the larger dog.

Just my 2 cents worth.
Worth about, 2 cents... lol.

 

LOL..define "small dog" and "large dog". OP points 1-7 are conjecture, nothing more.

 

Theoretically speaking give me 5lb and in return I give you back a dead dog lmfao

 

the reason they have a top weight , if both dogs are good , the bigger dog will be a smaller dog 99% of the time

 

Eh?

 

Great small dog defeats great big dog 99.9% of the time

 

So why do they have weigh-in's then, what's the point of it all?

 

So is it same for boxers & MMA fighters? Does a great lightweight beat a great heavyweight? I think that's nonsense.

2 champion males I saw.. Scotsman's CH Yogi was 42lb and Hell's Jock's CH. Bash was 38lb
Bash had bigger reputation in area and Yogi was up and coming, egos & bragging rights won over common sense as usual and Scotsman convinced Bash's (original) owner to give away 4lb to match Yogi at 42lb.. Long story short I still believe Bash was better dog than Yogi, but fact is the weight difference was too much for him and after 1.17 he needed picked up, not that Bash wanted picked up since he was so game that he actually believed her was winning, but he needed out of there for his own good.. Now would Yogi have beat Bash if the weights were even? IMO never!
Neither of aforementioned dogs were aces, but they was very good dogs.

Another dog I seen was GR CH Bill, he was considered by everyone who saw him (including Indian Sonny) to be an ace.. Bill could fight anywhere between 55lb - 65lb and was open to any dog calling itself a fighting dog and at 'ANY' weight.
IMO no dog any weight could beat Bill and anyone willing to give weight away to Bill (regardless of their ace) was only condemning their dog to a quicker death.

 

you know very little if you believe that

 

Why are you guys still entertaining this nonsensical statement?
Maybe if the topic was around your preference for a small great dog or big great dog then it will come down to a personal opinion, that doesnt involve facing the two off against each other in the box.

 

There's There's story somewhere of a small champion getting killed by a bigger dog only to quit from a dog it's own size ..in a short time also

 

Some of the stupidest shit I ever heard.

 

Hell we don't even know the context. Now if I'm not delusional, which I may be, I think a 30lb Amstaff would in fact lose to a 120lb Mastiff. I'm not sure, it is smaller so it is better, but just a thought.

 

While the smaller size can give all these small perks, they are still dogs and size can make all the difference. I'm not sure all of these are true.
Endurance may help, not when you can't move though.
Nobody will be breaking bones from a fall in a fight.
I'm sure the blood flow would make all the difference, that can be a real game changer!
I think a good small dog against a good big dog is a 50/50 depending on how drastic of a size difference it is. If it is same breed, and 1 dog is giving up 3lbs, you're stupid to think the dog giving away weight has a good shot.
If a dog is outsized by 100lbs and the other dog isn't a complete cur then you are stupid to think the smaller dog would win even a single round.