Should the Game-Dog definition of Game/Gamess be updated?

It seems the definition of GAME/GAMENESS has been a very controversial issue on this forum which has been evident in numerous post.

The Game-Dog Glossary definition:

Game - Courageous, dexterous, obstinate, spontaneous; bravery and heroism from a noble and self sacrificing devotion; a contest lasting until a result is obtained

Gameness - A very hard to obtain, courageous, dexterous, obstinate, spontaneous grade of game. Once obtained it is very hard to hold onto. Once lost it is impossible to obtain again, except through sheer luck occasionally or many years of breeding, conditioning, and culling

Many believe Gameness can only be determined in combat where the goal of each combatant is to destroy the other no matter the cost and when asked to continue after being separated, the combatants must be willing to do so. Others will argue that gameness can also be seen in sporting events such as baiting or hunting where a specimen does anything and everything necessary to accomplish the task with disregard to the animals own well being. It is widely regarded with the APBT that this quality can only be seen using the first method. However, those who argue the latter, are by still 100% correct by Game-Dog definition.

Doesn't a hog dog who has lost a quarter of blood, has entrails hanging out, keeps being tossed out of his hold BUT keeps trying and no matter what, comes back for more show the qualities defined above? This "hunting" dog can refuse to pursue and quit at any time, just like Wallace's Toney could have refused to cross the line. However no where in the definition does it mention that this quality must only be obtained in the arena.

By Game-Dog text aren't both types of dog "GAME"? Should members come to an agreement or should our forum defintion be changed....

 

it should be MUCH simpler than that.

when an animal's will to dominate supersedes it's desire to survive, it's game.

 

b-i-n-g-o......

 

i think that this will be a interesting thread once it kicks off.

 

:winnertrophysign: :thewave2:

 

No, there is only one way to test your pitbull.

The way it is proven does not need to be mentioned by definition for obvious reasons. One being the times we are living in now, another being its something doggers understand. It doesn't need to be written so the newbs can get a better grasp of the word.

I've mentioned before that I believe there are dogs that can possess the traits some describe as game... but it is not game because it is not the kind of combat the word was built around. Besides, I don't think the hog guys let big ass boars just rip into their dog one after another so it can prove its self.

 

I am with Venom, The words game and gameness were built around one thing and one thing only and I am pretty sure we all know it wasn't hog hunting. A hog, as big and bad as he may be, is basically running for its live and if given the chance, would run rather than fight. The words game and gameness were built around 2 willing combatants going at each other both willing to stand and deliver, and if unsupervised it's like marriage... Till Death do we Part!!!

 

i get the feeling that this will turn into a debate of choice.

for example:
firearm
gun

both words are the same thing unless you are talking to a fanatic then there is a very big difference

 

Many believe Gameness can only be determined in combat where the goal of each combatant is to destroy the other no matter the cost and when asked to continue after being separated, the combatants must be willing to do so.

I dont like how thats worded Gameness can only be determined in combat period and most of the ones ive seen werent really trying to DESTROY their oppenent they were just trying to Dominate them. Destroyers are not the norm. And bulldawgs arent seperated they are handled and asked to scratch.

Like tony just said one word to some might have a total different meaning to others!!!

 

No disrespect to anyone, but did these words exist and were they used in this context before our sport? If so I stand corrected, but only recently can I remember these terms being used for other than our sport.

 

Thats a good question.

 

I think it may have been used in the ground terrier world at the same time in history as it began being used for box dogs.... I could be wrong, but I've seen lots of old books that talk about the desire for a terrier that will go to ground with its prey to be "game". Obviously, the definition is not the exact same, but the premise of the term for ground terriers was the same - a dog whose desire to dominate and succeed superceeds its desire to preserve the self.

 

Boom Shut this thread down LOL easy simple explination, and yes the word game is also used in small working terriers

 

guy who said hogs will run before they fight, I'VE been fucking charged by hogs...i've seen hogs disembowled by other hogs. many of them would rather fight.

 

and you would think wrong because that is exactly what i do its legal and it has worked ok for me 8,9,10,hogs back to back im i say its better than the [] probably not but it is legal and a hell of a lot better than most breeders are doing to game test....

 

crazy stuff

 

I believe that there's only one true way to determine whether or not your bulldog is game... You can literally hunt with the dog, and it can be a great dog, but it'll just be a great hunting dog. The breed wasn't BRED to hunt hogs.

 

imo thats the true difinition.

 

Chef:

I agree with your first statement.

Second statement is sloppy. It says very little if anything. Here is the same statement(?): when an animal's desire to survive supersedes it's will to dominate.....
There are i would imagine a few combinations of that statement that could be made without producing a nonsensical one.

How do you differentiate between "will......" and "desire......."?

What if a dog put 3 hrs in strictly on the desire to survive, is he not game? What would that look like? How would that be measured?

many more counter-examples........

 

twistedmettle:

I am not sure that the definition was too specific to exclude any example you gave. The definition seems pretty broad which should allow for a number of phenomena.