1. Welcome to Game Dog Forum

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

    Dismiss Notice

Don Mayfield’s Keep (Part 1)

Discussion in 'Training & Behavior' started by Stratman, May 18, 2016.

  1. bamaman

    bamaman GRCH Dog

    Yea, no way to compare.Lots of times your ear dogs were the ones suited for catch work .Now u can use him as a schoolin dog also.it doesn't mean he lacks heart or drive .
    niko likes this.
  2. niko

    niko CH Dog

  3. c_note

    c_note CH Dog

    david63 and niko like this.

  4. Unfortunately, you are not even wrong. Are you familiar with the concept of a "model organism" and the contributions they have made to our body of knowledge? How would you explain the progress this domain (game dogs) has made over the years?

    I suggest you read the excellent essay: "How the choice of experimental organism matters". Which you can find in the volume The epistemology of development, evolution, and genetics (selected essays) R.M. Burian. This book is part of the Cambridge studies in Philosophy and Biology.

    You mentioned Krebs, here is a quote from the above essay: " This is part of the dialectic, noted by Krebs and emphasized by Holmes (1993), between working with organisms that offer special advantages and attempting to gain unobscured access to "basic principles" pertaining, ideally, to large classes of organisms or to organisms in general". This is from my 2005 hardcopy first edition. The essay provides page after page of counter-examples......

    *This is a footnote (page 24) to the above essay: "....all of these claims are uncontroversial and can be documented adequately in virtually any good current textbook of molecular biology or molecular genetics. See also chapters 9 and 12."

    You might also like to read: "Model organisms in the study of development and disease" E.Bier/W. McGinnis. I found this essay in the monograph Inborn errors of development ed. C.Epstein,R. Erickson, A. Wynshaw-Boris. This is the 49th volume of the Oxford monographs on medical genetics.
    My copy is the first edition hardcopy (2004). Table 3-1 ; Strengths and limitations of various model organisms; Could be a helpful visual for you.

    Or you can read: Selectivity and Discord - Two problems of experiment A. Franklin. This book might give you a better understanding of how Science is done.

    If you are still unsure of the incorrectness of your position, please see A. Sokal and the Sokal Hoax (your post is an example of this phenomenon).

    I think a relevant analog might be to say this is similar to an inexperienced dogman needing to look at a dog until he is spent or wrecked (or to place dog in a short/long term compromised state) vs. an oldtimer who needs a few minutes and some "contextual knowledge" to make an informed decision and not delay progress/success.

    To sum it up: it is okay to extrapolate.

    I am usually wrong which is why i usually ref. to folks who are not usually wrong.

    * I really dislike writing so i hope you at least read the first essay i recommended.
    david63 and niko like this.
  5. As far as Mayfield goes, he seemed to be not very bright and i don't know anyone who has used or would use that "blood".

    To the rabid fans of Mayfield: What is the relationship between gameness and conditioning (please properly vet your thoughts and statements before responding)? An experienced Dogman knows that conditioning can be represented as "noise" in an experiment. "Noise" can (usually?) produce false-positives and make it more difficult to extract relevant data (measuring degree of gameness).

    How man animals have won on conditioning?
    david63, AGK and niko like this.
  6. slim12

    slim12 Super Moderator Staff Member

    To go in reverse order. Lots of animals have won on conditioning. But since we are going scientific, (LOL) LOTS is not an amount that can be defined. I do not know the actual number. But let us say 1. Chloe was a really good dog. She had a not so typical keep and yet she turned out to be in great physical condition. Her first social gathering was with a good one who had already been to the spring dance and to the prom. Chloe's set and incredible pace with a lot of power. (Speed plus strength). Chloe's every effort was thwarted by a superior cake maker. Her pace was her only advantage. At 61 minutes into the cake baking gathering the better baker came up short. It happens.

    There is no direct connection between gameness and conditioning, other than one can either hid the other or compensate for the other. There is no scientific data to support either because both are subjective topics. What is game to one may not be game to the next. What is conditioned to one may not be conditioned to the next. But to the laymen's eye conditioning can hide the lack of gameness. Most believe, without any scientific backing, that fatigue and frustration are the primary reasons for most dogs quitting/not showing gameness. So if one were to be in superb condition and not become fatigued and frustrated he may very well continue when he is not really game, or he may not meet the definition of the particular owner. A game animal may continue in spite of his conditioning an continue til he physically can't continue. That leads to another subjective debate between "stopped and quit"

    And true, many people 'skull drag' dogs to find the cur in them. Subjective thought process coupled with lots of opinion that 'all of them will quit' if 'quitting is your goal'. And no, most dog men do not consider conditioning to be noise in an experiment because most dog men would not know how to conduct any type of sound science driven emperiement, much less define terms along the way.

    And I believe Mayfield had innovative ideas on conditioning, feeding and supplementing. Whether he was bright or not, is not my call as I never personally spoke to him. I had two people that had years and years of experience visit with him and they both say he was as good a conditioner as any, ever. Whether that blood is used today or not is another huge variable that science can't explain unless dogs from then were DNA'ed and the dogs of today were DNA'ed and then we could see who is using what. That will never happen. But that leads to the idea of winning.

    Back then the dogs were about winning. Not the nostalgic thought process of preserving the breed, or preserving gameness or creating more game dogs. It was about winning. If a cur could be conditioned to put something on another for the length of time that was required to win, that dog became a winner. If the 'blood' that was used was accurately documented it may or may not help the next guy do the same. If the idea is winning, then I am not so sure every one was above board and gave up the family recipe to the great cake that was just baked.

    My apologies for th length.

  7. slim12

    slim12 Super Moderator Staff Member

    I will do the reading if you will do me a solid and point me to the one where scientists set pit side and watched two dogs impose their will on one another and then noted all their findings, or they simply note the continuing list of subjective variables that can't be explained.
    Did dog A win over Dog B because he was more game? was he better conditioned? was he more talented? And a true scientist would not go any further until he defined the parameters of his quest. Define gameness.....then define 'pit game', 'deep game' , and my least favorite of the all, 'dead game'. The number of definitions will multiply as the question is asked. The same will be said about conditioning and talent. Before the conversation ends the word 'mouth' may come into play and that will be another discussion that will be tabled.
    At what point did the owner of said dogs leave them there to prove gameness in an attempt to preserve gameness, or did that owner leave them there with his money on his mind and the dog a simple vehicle to a purse?

    I have no issue reading and learning. I have no doubts that science is the backing off all that is, and at the same time I understand there are certain things science can't prove or disprove when the variables of based solely on subjectivity. If 100 double blind scientifically based studies were conducted on any of the topics on this board were conducted. The easiest means to answering and forming a scientifically based opinion is to count the number of posters on that particular topic. If it is 25 posters there will be 1 out of 25 correct and 24 out of 25 wrong. The 1 correct will be mine if you ask me, yours if you are asked, and more than likely 23 others if they are asked. The odds of two people discussing dogs agreeing from start to finish is another unlikelihood.

    I enjoy these posts. They soon become the chicken or the egg. And then we will move from there to creation and that really makes science scratch its weary head.

    Great posts. I sit with my mother-in-law in the afternoons and this is one of the stops that help me pass the time. Regardless of where it ends it is beneficial to me. For that, thanks.

    Saiyagin, AGK and niko like this.
  8. niko

    niko CH Dog

    Good posts guys...That's why every dogger should run their program however they see fit,in the end the only thing that gives you validity is winning!
    ELIAS'PISTOLA likes this.
  9. slim12

    slim12 Super Moderator Staff Member

    I like dog sayings, one of my favorite type posts. One of my favorites, "You feed yours, I'll feed mine".

    If that were not the case we would all have the same lines from the same families doing things the same way and on Saturday night things will come to a draw. How boring would that be?
    Stratman, niko and AGK like this.
  10. slowstarter

    slowstarter Big Dog

    This is one everyone should read through. Definitely loaded with some good information
  11. slim12

    slim12 Super Moderator Staff Member

    I agree.

    But like most good topics and good conversations with differing opinions, the name calling and insults soon follow.

    But it was a good exchange for the most part.

    corvettedex likes this.
  12. corvettedex

    corvettedex CH Dog Premium Member

    Very good read. Don's match record speaks for itself. I wasn't surprised when I read that he won a few matches doing (road work) along with nutrition and everything else. "TDK" always said that Don was very knowledgeable as well as honest. If folks would keep an (open mind ) could learn alot. " Its easy to get caught up in whats wrong and miss whats right "
  13. YellowJohnJocko

    YellowJohnJocko Big Dog

    True statement. Don pioneered certain conditioning techniques. All of us after him that get off on that aspect of the dogs owe him a debt of respect. At the same time we will burn a new path as advancing is what we do. Great thread.
    corvettedex and slim12 like this.
  14. slim12

    slim12 Super Moderator Staff Member

    Another true statement.

    His stuff was cutting edge at the time. He was ahead of his time.

    I bet everyone here had bought a laptop or computer and 6-8 months later it was yesterday's news.

    Anytime there is competition involved things get better.

    Keeps/nutrition/supplementation, animal sciences ins general, they are ever improving.

    The key is to have an open mind as things progress.


Share This Page