|
|
Post by s on Aug 30, 2023 10:55:09 GMT
"better weaponry" is kind of a matter of opinion, weaponry for what? Is it really better if it doesn't do anything and you get thrashed to death by the opponent with "lesser weaponry"? As i said many times i changed my mind and now believe the Pitbull would win more often than not because it's both more agressive and more robust. Homever you keep talking like if the Lynx would try attacking the Dog frontally instead of using it's better reflexes and agility to outmanouver it and attack from the rear or back, i think Pitbull's agressivity would be the thing that would carry the fight for him, sheer agression can make up for inferiority in numbers or weight or strenght (Pitbull doesn't lack the latter) |
|
|
|
Post by s on Aug 30, 2023 10:57:34 GMT
I think the fight would start off well for the Lynx, using it's better agility and better damage outpout to do some hefty damage early on, but felines don't have good endurance and once it tires the pit can clamp on the lynx, which would be stuck and eventually the pit overpowers him and tears it to death. Pit would get seriously wounded too though.
|
|
|
|
Post by s on Aug 30, 2023 10:58:42 GMT
Once the pit gets passed the initial phase of the Lynx going all-out... a whirlwind of teeth and claws, the pit will have the advantage and take over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 30, 2023 11:04:01 GMT
Yes, a weakness of gripping dogs is damage output of their dentition. They have unremarkable, fairly small and blunt teeth, because their primary purpose is to hold onto big game and never let go no matter how hard the target tries to dislodge them. If they had sharp slicing teeth they'd be dislodged with a chunk of steak in their mouth and then the approaching human would be killed by the badly wounded but still very dangerous and now free and angry beast. So these dogs have a blunt gripping bite, and when they want to cause damage (say after the prey has stopped resisting) they then need to generate forces on their holding bite by shaking their body and twisting, but even then yes, slicing and penetrating through hide and flesh is a weakness. What is remarkable about their jaw, however, more impressive than a wolf, is the forces it can withstand. The mandible is deeper and thicker and the condyle, where the mandible joins the skull, is wider. The skull in general and muzzle etc is also proportionately wider relative to the length, making for a more steadfast purchase on the hold. The whole skull is also deeper relative to the overall size. They can endure more punishment to the skull and withstand more twisting and jarring forces and impacts. Yes, damage output from their dentition is absolutely low, that is correct, but their bite is exactly perfectly suited for what it is meant to do. That is control, neutralise and demoralise an opponent. Far far far more serious opponents than a lynx. You seem to conflate "Gripping Dog" with "Hound" a lot, Gripping Dogs (like Pitbulls or Presa Canarios) were made primarily to fight other dogs, Hounds (like Dogos or Alanos) were primarily made to tackle Game. Gripping Dogs are better against other Dogs and Hounds are better at tackling/distracting a target so the Hunter can get a good shot. Oh boy.... All of the above are gripping dogs. The alano is actually probably the most pure gripping dog on earth, all gripping dogs are essentially part alano. The alano descends from the original gripping dog brought over by the "alans" who migrated into western europe from western asia in repeated waves. Before that western europe just had wolfhounds/deerhounds, but that "bulldog" element was introduced and prized as alanos/alaunts. The presa canario, alano espanol and the "cordoban fighting dog" were mostly "pure" alano or butcher's alaunt. That's the basis for gripping dogs. This bulldog base was crossed with deerhounds/wolfhounds to make boarhounds, and crossed with terriers to make bull terriers. All of the above are still "gripping dogs" due to that alano "big game gripper" foundation. The dogo argentino was made from multiple gripping dogs crossing with sighthounds (primarily) and a little scenthound and gun dog as well. The gripping dog foundation keeps them rooted in the gripping dog category, mostly because their function and application remains; seizing and subjugating dangerous animals. The gripping dog comes in 3 very basic varieties - the boucheries (butcher's bulldog, just for catching unruly bulls and moving them to market, the alano a classic example, but loosely the pitbull stays in this category), the gentil (the boarhound, bulldog x sighthound, bull lurcher, can not only catch and subdue dangerous big game but also run it down and prevent it from escaping) and the veantre (basically a bigger heavier gentil, a heavy set boarhound, possibly with scenthound infusion sometimes, but most importantly its a "heavy hanger", think great dane, fila brasileiro, functional ancestors of the english mastiff, even tosa in a way). These are all gripping dogs, and this encompasses the whole history of the lineage. All of the above types have been mis-used as dog-fighting dogs, it is neither here nor there, doesn't impact the type of dog they are. |
|
|
|
Post by s on Aug 30, 2023 11:10:03 GMT
You seem to conflate "Gripping Dog" with "Hound" a lot, Gripping Dogs (like Pitbulls or Presa Canarios) were made primarily to fight other dogs, Hounds (like Dogos or Alanos) were primarily made to tackle Game. Gripping Dogs are better against other Dogs and Hounds are better at tackling/distracting a target so the Hunter can get a good shot. Oh boy.... All of the above are gripping dogs. The alano is actually probably the most pure gripping dog on earth, all gripping dogs are essentially part alano. The alano descends from the original gripping dog brought over by the "alans" who migrated into western europe from western asia in repeated waves. Before that western europe just had wolfhounds/deerhounds, but that "bulldog" element was introduced and prized as alanos/alaunts. The presa canario, alano espanol and the "cordoban fighting dog" were mostly "pure" alano or butcher's alaunt. That's the basis for gripping dogs. This bulldog base was crossed with deerhounds/wolfhounds to make boarhounds, and crossed with terriers to make bull terriers. All of the above are still "gripping dogs" due to that alano "big game gripper" foundation. The dogo argentino was made from multiple gripping dogs crossing with sighthounds (primarily) and a little scenthound and gun dog as well. The gripping dog foundation keeps them rooted in the gripping dog category, mostly because their function and application remains; seizing and subjugating dangerous animals. The gripping dog comes in 3 very basic varieties - the boucheries (butcher's bulldog, just for catching unruly bulls and moving them to market, the alano a classic example, but loosely the pitbull stays in this category), the gentil (the boarhound, bulldog x sighthound, bull lurcher, can not only catch and subdue dangerous big game but also run it down and prevent it from escaping) and the veantre (basically a bigger heavier gentil, a heavy set boarhound, possibly with scenthound infusion sometimes, but most importantly its a "heavy hanger", think great dane, fila brasileiro, functional ancestors of the english mastiff, even tosa in a way). These are all gripping dogs, and this encompasses the whole history of the lineage. All of the above types have been mis-used as dog-fighting dogs, it is neither here nor there, doesn't impact the type of dog they are. Thanks you for correcting me, alright to avoid confusion i'll use "Fighting dog" to distinguish it from "Hound" |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Aug 30, 2023 11:21:40 GMT
I don't think "fighting dog" is a valid category really, not genetically. Bulldogs, boarhounds, bull terriers, livestock guardians, spitz breeds, random Chinese dogs, etc have all been fighting dogs. It's safe to say the best fighting dogs have been gripping dogs. Maybe one could say bull terriers are the peak of fighting dogs, lbs for lbs definitely, but bull terriers have been much more than that too. They have worked as bull dogs, boar dogs, bear dogs, etc etc. They should still be thought of as gripping dogs.
"hound" umbrellas over all hunting dogs, and gripping dogs have been among the hunting dogs. Some have been specialised grippers where you lead them in to ONLY engage in the subjugation aspect, and I guess someone could argue "that's not a hound", but boarhounds which are usually half gripper mixed with hound are still IMO gripping dogs because they are very different to hounds in regards to how they perform in a fight or predatory scenario, they are much more like gripping dogs, they just ALSO can run and hunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by PumAcinonyx SuperCat on Aug 31, 2023 10:52:04 GMT
Yes, logically according to the robusticity data S. Fatalis would have been too proportionately powerful. I'm even open to felids potentially having a slight advantage at equal robusticity levels. Jaguar vs boarhound for example, yes boarhounds have the robusticity advantage but my hunch is jaguars are close enough in robusticity to maximise the benefit of their dexterous forelimbs and possibly dominate. EVEN THOUGH if you read between the lines on the legendary bulldog vs jaguar fight the jaguar was overwhelmed and losing before the dog succumbed to injuries, that's bulldog vs jaguar. Boarhound vs jaguar at parity, I would not be surprised if the jaguar was dominant despite being lesser in robusticity. On the other hand, I actually think boarhounds and bulldogs might OVER-achieve against bears at close robusticity levels and close weights. Just a styles make fights situation. So it is funny I am always accused of being biased against felids, I really give them every chance and boost them higher than I need to, and for the reasons cat fans talk about- the dexterous forelimbs and the claws and the killing ability, etc. To some extent I do agree, but you give an inch and they take a mile and next thing you know caracals are beating Staffordshire bull terriers. No. Even boarhound vs puma around 100 lbs, no. Closer than it should be thanks to cat strengths, but no. However, absolutely, fatalis seems to be out of the question. Even hypothetical parity (though not possible) it is pinning down the best bulldog and killing it. Kind of off topic, but according to the book Menvidas referenced, Hercules died against a leopard, not a jaguar. It would appear that the Facebook page might have gotten it twisted. |
|
|
|
Post by grippingwhiteness on Aug 31, 2023 11:47:16 GMT
Sure, if a domestic cat scratched the hell out of a pet bull that didn't even fight back an eurasian lynx would probably tear its face. Bobcats have terribly injured lazy petbulls aswell. Now, replace that dog with this . View AttachmentIm aware the Dogs likely didn't resist at all. And in fact i do back a working Pitbull over an Eurasian Lynx more often than not. I was simply justifying my decision to mark power as "Tie" (reason being that Pitbull is stronger but Lynx has better weaponry) Better weaponry for what? An apbt has more robust bones, stronger jaws, proportionally stronger necks. The only thing an EL has over a pit is claws and deadlier teeth, but as far off it's not going to help against a same sized gripping dog. A 70-75 lb outlier lynx could put up a good fight but it's just not going to go well for it, larger dogs have lost to game apbts, and all of those dogs would clap a lynx |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Sept 1, 2023 3:20:08 GMT
Yes, logically according to the robusticity data S. Fatalis would have been too proportionately powerful. I'm even open to felids potentially having a slight advantage at equal robusticity levels. Jaguar vs boarhound for example, yes boarhounds have the robusticity advantage but my hunch is jaguars are close enough in robusticity to maximise the benefit of their dexterous forelimbs and possibly dominate. EVEN THOUGH if you read between the lines on the legendary bulldog vs jaguar fight the jaguar was overwhelmed and losing before the dog succumbed to injuries, that's bulldog vs jaguar. Boarhound vs jaguar at parity, I would not be surprised if the jaguar was dominant despite being lesser in robusticity. On the other hand, I actually think boarhounds and bulldogs might OVER-achieve against bears at close robusticity levels and close weights. Just a styles make fights situation. So it is funny I am always accused of being biased against felids, I really give them every chance and boost them higher than I need to, and for the reasons cat fans talk about- the dexterous forelimbs and the claws and the killing ability, etc. To some extent I do agree, but you give an inch and they take a mile and next thing you know caracals are beating Staffordshire bull terriers. No. Even boarhound vs puma around 100 lbs, no. Closer than it should be thanks to cat strengths, but no. However, absolutely, fatalis seems to be out of the question. Even hypothetical parity (though not possible) it is pinning down the best bulldog and killing it. Kind of off topic, but according to the book Menvidas referenced, Hercules died against a leopard, not a jaguar. It would appear that the Facebook page might have gotten it twisted. The original source was a book written in 1907 by Robert Leighton called "The New Book of the Dog". This is the original excerpt-  Any suggestion it was a leopard has come later and is an inaccurate accounting of what the original said. |
|
|
|
Post by PumAcinonyx SuperCat on Sept 1, 2023 7:19:30 GMT
Hardcastle Oh, thanks. There was conflicting information, so I just felt Menvidas' information was the right one. Seems I got it wrong too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Sept 1, 2023 7:32:35 GMT
Hardcastle Oh, thanks. There was conflicting information, so I just felt Menvidas' information was the right one. Seems I got it wrong too. I would think in general if people are gonna confuse one for the other, it would more often be people calling a jaguar a leopard, rather than vice versa. The Jaguar is a relatively obscure species, if someone from back in the early 1900s says jaguar they probably mean it. There are a lot of mistakes, especially earlier in the 1800s, but it is usually simple folk going for the more obvious well known species. Calling cheetahs "leopards" was common for example. But yeah calling a leopard a jaguar would be strange. That is akin to if they wrote "I had a malaysian sun bear rifling through my garbage last night" when it was a regular american black bear, I don't think anyone would do that. |
|
|
|
Post by PumAcinonyx SuperCat on Sept 1, 2023 7:51:15 GMT
Hardcastle Oh, thanks. There was conflicting information, so I just felt Menvidas' information was the right one. Seems I got it wrong too. I would think in general if people are gonna confuse one for the other, it would more often be people calling a jaguar a leopard, rather than vice versa. The Jaguar is a relatively obscure species, if someone from back in the early 1900s says jaguar they probably mean it. There are a lot of mistakes, especially earlier in the 1800s, but it is usually simple folk going for the more obvious well known species. Calling cheetahs "leopards" was common for example. But yeah calling a leopard a jaguar would be strange. That is akin to if they wrote "I had a malaysian sun bear rifling through my garbage last night" when it was a regular american black bear, I don't think anyone would do that. Coming to think of it, this actually kind of makes sense. It's a less popular animal that is usually mistaken for a more popular one, not the other way round. So, logically, it sounds more likely that a jaguar would have been mistaken for a leopard than a leopard being mistaken for a jaguar. Cool info. Food for thought 🤔. |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 19, 2023 9:35:24 GMT
Yes, a weakness of gripping dogs is damage output of their dentition. They have unremarkable, fairly small and blunt teeth, because their primary purpose is to hold onto big game and never let go no matter how hard the target tries to dislodge them. If they had sharp slicing teeth they'd be dislodged with a chunk of steak in their mouth and then the approaching human would be killed by the badly wounded but still very dangerous and now free and angry beast. So these dogs have a blunt gripping bite, and when they want to cause damage (say after the prey has stopped resisting) they then need to generate forces on their holding bite by shaking their body and twisting, but even then yes, slicing and penetrating through hide and flesh is a weakness. What is remarkable about their jaw, however, more impressive than a wolf, is the forces it can withstand. The mandible is deeper and thicker and the condyle, where the mandible joins the skull, is wider. The skull in general and muzzle etc is also proportionately wider relative to the length, making for a more steadfast purchase on the hold. The whole skull is also deeper relative to the overall size. They can endure more punishment to the skull and withstand more twisting and jarring forces and impacts. Yes, damage output from their dentition is absolutely low, that is correct, but their bite is exactly perfectly suited for what it is meant to do. That is control, neutralise and demoralise an opponent. Far far far more serious opponents than a lynx. The dog in your link has extremely superficial scratches, I can promise you it is not impacted by that at all. A lynx would do slightly worse but still ultimately superficial scratches. There's a very small chances it could achieve more serious deeper gashes if it was really raking on a sensitive area, but most of the time it would just be thrashed and ragdolled to death fairly quickly. I see little excuse for a 20-25kg Canine to having such short teeth. I Googled "Pitbull teeth" and they are just as short as they imagined, having longer and more dagger-like teeth would come at the cost of some ability to "not let go" but this is compensated because longer fangs meant to paralyze would achieve the desired outcome in less time anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Sept 19, 2023 16:20:50 GMT
Yes, a weakness of gripping dogs is damage output of their dentition. They have unremarkable, fairly small and blunt teeth, because their primary purpose is to hold onto big game and never let go no matter how hard the target tries to dislodge them. If they had sharp slicing teeth they'd be dislodged with a chunk of steak in their mouth and then the approaching human would be killed by the badly wounded but still very dangerous and now free and angry beast. So these dogs have a blunt gripping bite, and when they want to cause damage (say after the prey has stopped resisting) they then need to generate forces on their holding bite by shaking their body and twisting, but even then yes, slicing and penetrating through hide and flesh is a weakness. What is remarkable about their jaw, however, more impressive than a wolf, is the forces it can withstand. The mandible is deeper and thicker and the condyle, where the mandible joins the skull, is wider. The skull in general and muzzle etc is also proportionately wider relative to the length, making for a more steadfast purchase on the hold. The whole skull is also deeper relative to the overall size. They can endure more punishment to the skull and withstand more twisting and jarring forces and impacts. Yes, damage output from their dentition is absolutely low, that is correct, but their bite is exactly perfectly suited for what it is meant to do. That is control, neutralise and demoralise an opponent. Far far far more serious opponents than a lynx. The dog in your link has extremely superficial scratches, I can promise you it is not impacted by that at all. A lynx would do slightly worse but still ultimately superficial scratches. There's a very small chances it could achieve more serious deeper gashes if it was really raking on a sensitive area, but most of the time it would just be thrashed and ragdolled to death fairly quickly. I see little excuse for a 20-25kg Canine to having such short teeth. I Googled "Pitbull teeth" and they are just as short as they imagined, having longer and more dagger-like teeth would come at the cost of some ability to "not let go" but this is compensated because longer fangs meant to paralyze would achieve the desired outcome in less time anyway. Longer fangs don't paralyse, they open wounds and cause damage that will weaken prey over time. Something that is totally irrelevant to a bulldog's application. This is why they don't even bite the flanks or hindquarters at all, because they aren't in the business of injuring prey to weaken it. They just go straight for the face and hold with their first grip. They have that peculiar instinct built into them. 1 wolf will EVENTUALLY go for the head and hold, when a prey animal has been weakened (via flank and hindquarter damage accumulation, and waiting... lots of waiting) to the point it is ready for death, bullbreeds go straight for the head at the beginning while the target is still so fresh and vigorous a wolf wouldn't even think about beginning its weakening process, let alone initiating its finishing process of subjugation (typically one wolf will lug and stretch a severely weakened prey animal, and then the rest of the pack will eviscerate it, but this process starts about 6 months after the wolves noticed the prey animal was weak already, and then started weakening it more). Sharp long teeth are not optimal for trying to subdue fresh vigorous beasts with 100% of their "health bar". A fresh beast hits you hard in the face and long teeth simply get knocked out easier, long sharp teeth also can't hold as well, because they shear through flesh, and that means if they are planted in flesh, and then have extreme g-forces applied to them, say from a beast spinning and twisting with all its might, those sharp teeth will shear themselves straight out of the flesh and the hold will be lost. Say you wanted to hold a stick of butter, or for that matter a steak, which would hold it better, a sharp pair of scissors or relatively blunt tongs?   Bulldogs have teeth perfect for what they do; holding, controlling and subjugating (including animals that MAY then be killed, or may not, in fact sometimes we may want them totally uninjured). Wild wolves have teeth perfect for what they do; lacerating, slashing, accumulating damage to weaken prey (and later consuming the meat efficiently and etc) They do need to do SOME gripping and subjugation, but they select their targets so carefully and make their targets so weak first the subjugation struggle is nerfed, they also allow themselves to fail and try again later, they can be much worse at controlling and subjugating and still succeed, so they have diminished subjugation abilities compared to subjugation specialists (shouldn't be a surprise), but on the other hand this allows for them to have superior slashing and lacerating and carcass stripping and superior defensive snapping and all sorts of other jaw applications. But specifically for gripping and holding and subjugating, the bulldogs smaller teeth are more optimal (and as is everything else about the bulldog). |
|
