What is more desirable?

Ok.. hopefully I am not in any violation of any rules or anything.. been a while since I've posted and I know some stuff has changed... but historically speaking back when the game was legal. What was more desirable, more sought after, more popular, and what would you have picked?

If you you had to pick between a dog with super hard mouth.. I mean serious monster stopping power... but if the mock went long he'd probably get discouraged and less likely to win.
or..

A dog with real pit intelligence, but no real mouth to speak of..but just deep deep game...you know the kind where hours into it he's still going strong.

I guess if I was to relate it to MMA.. something like Chuck Liddell If he catches you early you're through... or Forrest Griffin not a serious threat in the power game but a fightin' sumbitch that you'll have to knock out to win for the most part.

For those that can call to mind some of the dogs that would fit this equation feel free to include an example of each... you know me still learning.

 

Id rather have an intelligent, dead game dog than a super hard mouthed dog. Ive heard old stories of really hard mouthed barnstormers who came into a dog with less mouth but staying power. Real funny fighter that just held on until the hard mouthed dog got frustrated and wouldnt cross. Good topic. Im interested to see what others think.

 

well, i would like to have a great combination of both. however the question you posed was one or the other. as long as the dog could last a solid hour, i would prefer a totally dominating hard mouthed dog that could end a mock in thirty minutes. theoretically speaking, and in no way meant to encourage violation of the animal welfare act of 1976,lol, i would not mock a dog that wasn't savvy in the pit either. that is pure ignorance. so a savvy hard mouthed dog it is.

 

the pit or box is the place where you took a dog to win not for any other reason i would have never bet on a dog being game but if he is a finisher thats worth a bet i heard someone saying (breed your game dogs and mock your killers) i would have to agree. alot of game dogs have weatherd the storm of hard mouth curs and came out on top the problem alot of them dogs died late that night .. so i like dogs with mouth and sires and dams that were game

 

i want it all or nothing..no single trait is better than the other..it is better to have a little of each then you have something..a whole lot of one thing and you have nothing..has to be a total package..

 

Well of course we'd all like to have a dog that is great in all aspects... but do you lean more toward one or the other? I mean if you HAD to choose.

 

......... Good topic, let's stay withing the rules.

 

well if i had to choose i would say hard bite..but it would have to be super hard bone crushing bite...get an old dog with no teeth and gameness will only carry him to a bowl of soup.its hard to answer because no answer is right..hard biting cur..game but cant bite through a paper bag..ability and wind to run away...wow they had it right back then..bad breeding has turned it into a puzzle..always missing a piece and pieces that just dont fit.

 

Ahh haaa but that is not the question

Truly great stories don't come from watching a wrecking ball come through and make a mess. Well- Tank Abbott was always a hoot to watch but you know what I mean.
A lot of us have read "The Gamest Scratch Ever Made" and that story wouldn't have been anywhere near as moving -yes moving- with all brawn and no heart.

Maybe it's my female affliction, but I would think it would be a no-brainer- the athlete with the heart, stamina, determination and intelligence to outlast an intimidating mouth would be the pick every time.

 

I havent read that story, where can I find it?

 

Here ya go. I goofed the title a little bit.
It was "The Gamest Scratch Ever Witnessed"


http://www.game-dog.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15478

 

I love how he was bred. Wish there were more dogs with hearts like his. Once in a lifetime kind of dog as far as heart goes.

 

Well myself i wanted a dog with a average mouth,and always looked at the entire package over just one paticular trait.now i have had a couple real hard mouthed dogs in my day but i always casted a doubtfull eye on them because to me as with many others if a dog was biting overly hard it was seen as a sign of fear.so when i was looking at a dog i wanted a total package,good movement,nice staying power,good wind average mouth and so on and so forth.all i really looked for was a honest bulldog i didn't want nothing extreme one way or another,and that always worked for me.

 

If I lived back before 1976, and I had to choose between a super hard mouth or a real intelligent pit with staying power, I would most definitely choose the real intelligent pit with staying power, because if the hard mouth made one or two wrong moves in the beginning, it would be only a matter of time before the other brought him down.

 

Man, that was some of the coolest sh!t I've ever read!

 

Id take the hard biter for matches. Matches mean repuation and obviously money that helps expand your yard or pay your feed bill.

But I would take the smart one for breeding.

 

I haven't got to read anyone else's replies yet, but I would like to say, just from a gut instinct, I would go with the intelligent dog. I know a guy who does Schutzund training with German Shepards and even he doesn't like a dog with too hard of a bite. He breeds for prey drive over a hard bite, because hard biters are usually fear biters. Fear biters will likely back down in the line of duty, as he tells me. I try to think of it from other perspectives and it makes sense to me.

I take this info from the GSD trainer and apply it to our dogs. I feel, pre-1976, that a good intelligent dog would be able to work a hard biter down, and prove himself. Wasn't that the original meaning of gameness anyways (pre-1976)?

Now as far as lines with no mouth, a good outcross is necessary for an all around dog, IMHO.

 

Thanks Luvin, great story!

 

I wanted to first clarify that IMO, three options have been given. One option is the hard-mouth dog. Second option is the deep game dog. The final option is a pit general. A deep game dog does not need be a pit general or visa versa.

The question is one of choosing between them not our ideal choice. Therefore, i have to clarify my view of the dog sport pre-1976. There are at least three types of components in this sport. One being the breeder of athletes, second being competitors, and third being fans/expectators. Each has its own reason for participating in a contest. The fan/expectator may be seeking thrills or doing research for his future first hand involvement in the dogs. The competitors may be in the pit for the sole purpose of winning or to test a breeding program against another. The breeder which may double as a competitor seeks to show to their peers a superior breeding program.

That said, answer depends on your part in the scheme of things. If you are solely a competitor mainly for $, you want a stopper who will finish their job before any gameness begins to kick in. Case in point, Chinaman and Bad Rosemary. These dogs dominated from release to breaking stick.

Now, if you are a competitor who acts as a medium for testing a breeding program, well, if those three are the only options, gameness is what you seek to prove in your dog.

A pit general would be ideal for a newbie who is getting their feet wet. The dog takes little damage, while dishing it out, and stays there a while. The staying there a while would directly depend on the conditioning of the canine athlete. A better conditioned dog will show longer than otherwise.

Who are you (or want to be) in the scheme of things?

 

Great post Rocky!