Smaller dogs more game?

that is why we have weight classes in competition for the weight pulls

 

No, he doesnt look that big in the pic but when you see him in person lol.. to bad I cant get a picutre of him next to my 60 pounder..then you can really see the difference

I dont like big dogs in general but Clyde is one of the best dogs as far as loyality, heart, willingness.. hes not that talented but he loves every minute that that earns him a spot on the yard regardless of how big the moose is.

anyway, its not about the size of the dog or even the color. its about what the dog does .

 

Rocksteady..

He may be a Big dog but he is a good looking dog, If I were to go striktly on looks and opened a DOGS USA to find a breeder based on pictures, I would choose that dog on looks alone over these show dogs featured.

Same with AlligatorClubs dogs, both the dogs in his pictures (the white and red one) based on looks alone are what I want a dog to look like.

There is a variety of look in the dogs obviously when breeding properly but certain individual dogs appeal to me based on their good looks.

 

thank you..

He is a good looking dog.. a bit doopey in the face, reminds me of a hound dog (I like the structure of the head in your avatar..thats a good looking head!) and he's a bit straight in the hocks but the one thing about him is for a big dog he is in proportion like they should be..nothing too big or exaggerated on him .I guess thats why he looks smaller in the picture.

 

I have seen Rocksteady's Clyde in person and he is awesome. He is one of the studs I am interested in for my female Chante a.k.a Friday ( you can see her in the gallery) when she is ready . But like I said Clyde is and all around awesome dog . I can say enough about him.

 

A new group of members may have their own thoughts on this topic. What are your opinions on smaller dogs being more game than their bigger counterparts......:cool:

 

I love them small dogs :d

 

I personally prefer em small :-) That's jus my preference. I feel gameness depends on each dog, not size. But from my experiences, I prefer 'em small.

 

I prefer 'em small but its a bit foolish to think that smaller dogs are more game. That's like saying black dogs are more game than the reds.

 

My big dog was only 55# that was a big dog then, I got smaller ones as time went on.
size did not play a role in gameness. But it did make more room in the truck for the little woman.

 

i would rather have a average sized one 40-45 male and 40-under for females

its not a matter of gameness but the feed bill gets kinda costly when you have a yard full of them bigguns

 

If comparing small as below 80lbs (as origianlly posted) and large as over 80lbs. I would say the "small" dogs are more game by nature of being more likely to be pure than the "large" dogs.

Since we all know that the APBT doesnt naturally mature to over 80lbs without outside sources (mastiff etc). That being said there are some genetic anomilies which may defy that, but on a whole this is true.

 

is this correct? thats 30lbs off.

 

Gameness is not identified by size, but size can average out abilities. Just look at boxers, light weights and heavy weights. Both different size boxers, both different phenotype, both move different according to there structures, both give it there all.

 

are you kidding yes smaller dogs are more game than bigger dogs ..... if your going into a 40 pound dog all you need to do is take a 39 pound dog and your a shoe in .............................................. lololol.................... some people are so funny

 

I like the point Slick Willie made about wind on smaller dogs, though. Smaller dogs do have an advantage by being able to go a lot longer than big ones. Like the point he made about heavyweight fighters vs. lightweights. But does a dog's wind affect it's gameness?

 

just because they are bigger dont make them better or stronger .... and just because a dog is bigger say 60# + doesnt meen that they have less wind or slower either . there are some big dogs out there that can run any small dog to death . unless we are just compareing little pit dogs to fat ass blue dogs but if you are compareing small pit dogs to large pit dogs then there should be no real difference other than size since most lines vary from size to size anyway .. willypete

 

you could have said my name I can read between the lols

and I never said I thought just cause a dog was smaller than the other it a for shure win
but I did say I would rather give up weight instead of coming in fat

an with that said I thought catch weight started at 55lbs
and that was a rare thing to see a dog that big

the standerd was set at 45 top for the males

because a big dog was just to much to handel in the pit

get you a real good 60lb dog that a fool to hold in the corner I bet you curr out before him specialy if they were both game/scratching in turn
you get tired of handeling em
Hell, I hate to deal with a 50lb male in the woods

 

I will say i prefer smaller dogs as well. I am a smaller guy and I enjoy the benefits of agility and stamina etc. But prolly lack the power to knock out a 250 lb man.

And I also think that wind may not determine gameness as you can have a proven game dog that is asked to perform without proper training and the dog may quit due to circumstances.

strictly speaking in a hypothetical pre 1976 frame of mind.....

 

Where did you go to school lol 72-56 does not = 30:rolleyes:
On another note most redboy dogs run heavy and Mayday was 70lbs.
My RB/Snooty 65 cw.....Is he game? Don't know? But he seems more than willing to find out!