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

While I like the new definition I'm not sure it would work. Prey weather stronger than the dog or not is viewed as prey and not a combatant. JMO

 

if it ain't broke don't fix it no need to change or update anything. there's only one way to prove game but there's other ways to show gameness.

 

I like that one Ben!

 

Ya i like that one too.

 

...exactly

 

it wasn't broke before 'dog on dog'. bear, bull, and other baiting were outlawed so in all actuallity the [] is the game preserver not the game creator yes it has resulted in longer winded dogs but thats only because a dog can rarley finish a dog easily so of course they had to be a little more athletic so in turn breeding the dogs that lasted longer physicaly did improve stamina not gameness. a bear or a bull does massive damage fairly fast so do you think after the first slash or stomping these dogs just ran away no! so maybe they were not as long winded but game they were and they didnt get to fight another equal sized apponent no they had to run back into the 300 to 2000lb. beast that was killin them now i dont care what or who you are that is game and dont give me that 'its a diffrent kind of game B.S........... ps i think a lot!!!!!!! of people mistake stamina for gameness.

 

i'd have to say i look at it like this -

my microscope is a generic one for a kid's science set........i see what's on my slides, but my microscope only has one power. without the ability to zoom in and identify things on a smaller level, or even to zoom out to a weaker power and look at the broad scope of things, my research will always be limited.


any one person should have this limited view.....they have their hypothesis and draw their own conclusions based in their data. without the scrutinization of their peers though, their findings aren't worth shit in my book.

thank god i know some folks who i can refer my data to for them to look at with their equipment, which has the ability to examine it at multiple levels. and i trust their opinions. but that's a whole different conversation (validity of sources). i look at it like a medicine journal......your crackpot findings aren't getting published without your process being dissected by your peers. and if you can't show your work that led to your conclusions, then keep on going.

as far as calibration goes, you better have a solid control group, something to hold as your standard. that way you'll know what your looking at under your microscope. but as far as that goes with how other's equipment is calibrated and how they read your data, we can go around and around all day. to me it boils down to trusting your source and the opinion of your peers. w and x might agree, but that doesn't gaurantee y and z will.

i know i went in circles again, but it's how my logic ( or lack there of :p ) works.

 

that's some pretty insightful jibberish IRONhide.

 

jibberish? is that sarcasm? not bashn the game just like to try to teach the vast majorit of people who are not doing anything to preserve the most important trait that makes this breed great 'gameness' so maybe they will find legal ways to at least try to test ther dogs you know as well as i do most people wont risk freedom but still keep breedin..... curs bullys show dogs adba show dogs this goes for you guys too........

 

ironhide stamina and gameness go hand in hand and them bull and bear dogs would stop because all dogs will stop for different reasons the last thing you see is gameness but for how long is down to each dog and before people start talking deadgame all deadgame is a dog left to long and goes into shock and dont make the scratch

 

IRONhide by your outlook of game in not to sure your in any position to " teach" anyone.

 

Chef:

Jibber jabber at best. Couldn't help but noticing that you conveniently avoided some serious questions. Your fading so let me go for the finish:

Is gameness an absolute word, term, idea, concept? If your answer is yes, then you have effectively removed yourself from a conversation among adults. If no........
than i'll have to invoke Darwin's famous passage: the disaggreement becomes ".....one of degree not of kind." I could have given you that CORRECT answer from the get go but what fun would that have been (deductive reasoning).

 

never an absolute. depends on the eyes looking at it. i prefer shades of grey, not black and white.

edit - this has been fun.

 

when animals are injured they run if the injury is bad enough, these dog do not. when animals in the wild are scared they usually run away that is why standing the line is different than jumping the box, well to me it is different they both quit but the one that jumped was truly preserving his life while the other simply did not want anymore

Boze: very smart people have gotten themselves in trouble by attempting to match one system to another when those systems are dissimilar. Are you extrapolating info from non-domesticated organism and making comparisons to domesticated ones? What are some of the pitfalls of that approach? scientist have a hard time matching (behavior)non-domesticated organism in captivity to the same ones that are free.

Here is a passage from designing minds (wasserman/blumberg):

A salient recent example can be found in a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in Spring 2009,in which crows were observed to fashion wire into hooks that were then used to retrieve out-of-reach food items. These behaviors have been interpreted by some authors as products of this species’ creativity and insight. In contrast, other scientists have investigated similar “insight” problems in crows, monkeys and other animals; but by focusing on the origins of these behaviors, they have discovered the critical learning experiences, as opposed to forethought, that gave rise to them. Nonetheless, we seem to be in the midst of a resurgence of faith among some scientists that animal behavior can be explained by creativity, insight and other mentalistic concepts. For our part, we remain skeptical about the utility of such groundless explanations. Indeed, we are unconvinced that creativity and insight are proper explanations even for human behavior

 

junebug....in the example you posted.....why was the conclussion reached that the animal in question was operating in pure survival mode...?
what constitutes pure survival mode...?

 

How would one be wrong to say that matching dogs is the only true way to distinguish gameness? While hog hunting is a good legal alternative for a sport it is not an accurate way to distinguish gameness, and isn't saying that it's better than what most others do to game test their stock still saying it isn't up to par? Kind of like saying well I might have curs, but at least they aren't blue dogs. Not saying your dogs are curs at all, just saying.

 

point blank period you can talk for an hour and if your not gonna say exactly that in those words........... i dont wanna hear it........BRAVO BRAVO
that was the shortest most meaningful post ive ever seen:bow::bow::bow:
you are my new best friend lol

 

point blank period you can talk for an hour and if your not gonna say exactly that in those words........... i dont wanna hear it........BRAVO BRAVO
that was the shortest most meaningful post ive ever seen:bow::bow::bow:
you are my new best friend lol

 

this thread is hillarious ......we havent yet reached a consensus on what gameness is ........let alone the purest way to test it ..

 

you may have misunderstood me i test my dogs in a 1 acre pin i have them work one hog after another no break the dog has a choice sorta like a scratch these tests last 1,2,3 hrs sometimes. i have had these dogs for 20yrs now im not young unlike what someone implied in this forum im 33 have shipped dogs to mexico,canada,& itali,i actualy have family in acopulco mex.who have a few of my dogs not blood fam. lol... some dogs turn out some dont but i will say i have been told i have a good percentage of good dogs like i said that is my test it works for me