Todays staffords it's a shame

I would have aquired his services- and if they did not pick him up I would have lost all respect for them. If I wanted to use a dog for game I know which one I'd use. If I wanted to use a dog with reach I can get that anywhere. Not saying that he wasn't a good dog also as I'm sure he was. JMO. Which one is correct I remember an old mate of mine who is no longer with us that showed myself, alot about these dogs. It must be close to thirty years ago now said to me which way would I go mate gameness to gameness and let ability take care of itself or mate abitity to ability and let gameness take care of itself?

 

I like dogs that win........they dont have to be DG just game enough. Plenty of DG dogs end up RIP. Ability trumps deep gameness JMO

Thats the difference between dogmen and breeders. And breeding too many DG dogs without ability loses you money in the fastlane

 

I get you drift. If winning money is you main objective or seeing who is the best fighter I reckon you are right. Cheers.

 

Cheers H.H, by the sounds of E.Rs narrative,this match was won on morphology??? So can anyone throw me a line here??
what is the difference in morph from a same weight apbt to a stafford?? Reach has been mentioned and i suppose that could be a deciding factor as long as the dog is "ring savvy". is there any degrees of intelligance required or would it all come under the banner of experience.
Interested in the intelligence factor as i have seen clever dogs. Ones that use foresight,planning and execution. (ideas,thought process) to achieve an aim.

 

similiar to boxing......styles make fights. An experienced dog will ideally had met leg,ear and nose dogs whilst rollin' But if he aint durable or enjoys his work you wont get pass 1st base. Most arent worth the time and effort......Unless you have proven dogs dont even think about breeding. Therefore most pits and nearly all staffs would be culled

 

In a nutshell.........if you aint got money on the dog you will excuse all manner of poor performance. Results beat theory every time.........unless your at a KC dog show where the well connected fat blimp will be held aloft and raised as victor, lol!

Same in any working breed.......i got a book from the turn of the centuary on all breeds. The Rottis look like today labs, labs look like lurchers, and foxhounds look like pits. Thats what breeding to any standard will and does lead to....FACT:dogdrink:

 

Yes but surely,game dogs wernt bred to the same standard?

 

Agree totally practal experience beats theory everytime. Have had the same arguement for years. If you need a breed standard I'd say you would have a total dillusion of the breed. I have had many dogs that out perform the so called champions which many of which are laughable. If you have to make excuses for a loser whether you have money on it or not the results still stay the same.

 

Just because you have a dog with regd papers does not mean it is bred to any breed standard.

 

For many of the old timers the game was more about...The pursuit and preservation of gameness...than it was the pursuit of money...how times change...shit matched into shit and then breeding from the winner will still give you...Shit...if its all about money...in the long run you would get a better return betting on the dogs down the dog track

 

Excellent post!

 

In my humble opinion how I understand it that originally it was nothing to do with a winner from a dog fight per se. Even though I'm sure the occassional dog fighters were at it. It was all about testing a dogs gameness. They tried them out on all sorts of combatants against impossible odds sometimes which the dog was absolutely going to LOSE I'm not knocking the [] but how does a lion sound. I know what alot are going to say so I'll say it for them it's different because all the lion wants to do is get away. Well what if the lion can't get away it is locked in a cage. Well I'll back the cur lion. I can remember the names of two lions that went up against the bulldogs one was Nero and the other was Wallace. One was alot easier on the dogs and the other was an absolute destroyer and all the dogs that went up against him were smashed in seconds, I suppose they weren't game some would say as they weren't tested in the []. Even though death was inevitable. Most of the bulldogs weight went around the 30lb mark. Not to mention bull and bear baiting still not a test for gameness for some. Well as history has it they had to find some other form of test as these so called sports became illegal. So they started matching dog against dog not to see who the winner was but to see who could take the most punishment without quitting. Of course then some people saw a shilling in it and the whole game changed. I can remember some old Pommy mates of mine that are no longer here. Telling me about some winners but their favourite stories were all about the ones that started off like "bludy hell, couldn't he just hav tak it."

 

Wally, I agree with a lot of what you're saying but I think you and hammer head are talking about two different things. You're talking about game testing and he's talking about matching. Two different exercises with different purposes.

 

I agree totally with what you are saying and I totally agree with HH if like I said in a previous post if your interests lie in winning money or the best fighters. My point is that these dogs original purpose was about gameness. I can't disagree with HH theory that a dog with a stack of ability with enough gameness will bury most adversaries regardless of how game they are.I have been pushing the same cart for years myself, because when it gets down to the nitty gritty all your theories and what you have been told adds up to jack. Like I said before I don't enter into or debate dogs much. 'cause normally it doesn't add up to much either. I've had these dogs for 37 years I will believe my own experiences and what I've seen and not what a dog looks like or someones opinion from what they think from a photograph. Some on here may-be surprised about some of the dogs that they have knocked that they have never seen that I have had personel experience with. I have had many discussions with people and their families that have bred bulldogs for generations and we have had disagreements on what makes a good sire over a particular type of bitch. But when it gets down to it I was looking for something a little different to them. If you wanted a pit winner you would be better off seeing them. If you are after a General I agree with all your points in that aspect. Cheers all the best.

 

The standard was winning in the box.........sure you can debate BIS over GIS but its hard to get to that level without being very critical of your stock. Ability beats gameness in the short term but over time the reverse is true. Every line has CH and a few Gr CH but the test is ROM and POR. Within that folks can debate ROM status and % vis-a-vis the number of TIMES a dog/bitch was mated ie JEEP but SNOOTY was a cur and produced.

But Im gettin' away from the point..........you have to work with what you got and when you hit a wall CROSS. Be it ALLIGATOR/YANKEE/JUMBO/REDBOY/COWBOY etc.

Dogs need skooling, gameness, ability and throw those traits to future generations but that hard enough in the FASTLANE and no existant in the SHOWLANE

 

the staffords today are a mess, no doubt about it to me anyway. there are some quality ones still knocking about but just in the last couple of years losing dogs like ozzy and bridgette isnt good for the breed. i can think of a handful i would be happy to have a pup from, but they hardly ever get bred, so it's a double edged sword really....the last of the mohicans has been said many times but it's pretty true as the good dogs need to go into young enthisiastic hands for the future, but no one is just going to blindly put pups into peoples hands or let them use a stud when they dont really know them.

 

Good post!

 

Someone earlier mentioned that the breed standard was created i 1935,is this true?? and that since the standard "staffords have been bred to conformity" If the above is true,what was pre 1935??

 

H.H do you agree with wally,"that the dogs ORIGINAL purpose was about gameness????

 

Jacko, Max!!