|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Sept 14, 2023 16:03:56 GMT
The 60 dog sample I used isn't limited to Vindolanda dogs. Only the fully black circles are Vindolanda dogs. The stars are modern pet dogs, the other symbols are from different archaeological excavations. When it comes to Pitbulls we should probably look towards the dogs we know for sure are related to them, that is the Vindolanda boarhound and the tac gorsium Bulldogs. We know they are from the gripping dog family, the rest we have no idea. Even so, most are more robust than red wolves, but we should focus on the known gripping dogs as being our best indicator for Pitbull robusticity, and they are between 10 and 12.5 ml %. Way way way more robust than red wolves and all wild canines on record. Homever even in those stars, there is a very very large variation between the Dogs. There is an outlier at high 11% but most are significantly below that, after that one there are 2 more that just fall short of 10%, leaving the remaining dogs at 6-8% Of course there is a lot of variation. They are random dogs. Not just bulldogs or boarhounds (we don't know if ANY are, in fact. Most likely none are), but just "dogs". They could be collies and shih tzus and dalmatians and poodles, we have no idea. The only ones where we have some idea what they are, are the vindolanda boarhound and the tac gorsium bulldogs. At least with those ones we know they are related to the pitbull. With the modern dogs we unfortunately don't have any info, never the less, overall it is clearly demonstrated from the sample of 60 dogs that MOST dogs, in general, are more robust than wolves. Combine the fact that most dogs are more robust than wolves, and dogs from the gripping dog family are the most robust dogs on record, it is safe to assume the pitbull is way way way more robust than the wolf. That should be considered beyond a shadow of doubt to be the case. The fact the combat-oriented dogs have high robusticity compared to other dogs, by itself, proves that robusticity is significant in fighting. Comparing combat-oriented dogs with other dogs actually can answer a lot of questions in regards to what is useful in a fight (and what isn't). The micro-cosm of dogs serve as a great "lesson" that can be extrapolated over the rest of the animal kingdom, because we know they differ in form in reponse to functionality and application. This is supported really by all the robusticity results of wild carnivores as well, and was the conclusion of the study. Robusticity correlates with capacity to target larger prey and also combative prowess. Not PERFECTLY with no further analysis required, no. There are other factors that can come into play, but it's a strong indicator and correlates fairly consistently. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Sept 14, 2023 16:23:47 GMT
Thanks @(bolushi). I'll go on "minimum weight out of land carnivorans" for "minimum animal". A cat probably isn't a bad choice of carnivoran, because if the cat isn't strong enough in forelimbs to subdue the dog that way, it's got nothing, nothing whatsoever, more-or-less no fight at all. And the cat needs to be quite a lot heavier to subdue an APBT with forelimbs. Nah I won't go with snow leopard, I'd go with cougar before snow leopard. Well we do know from limb long bone studies that cougars have impressive forelimbs for a cat. But still, they aren't the fighters that pantherines are, and against an APBT this isn't a hunt, this is a fight. But instead of cougar I'll go with cheetah. I'll choose a big arse cheetah, the biggest on record, I don't know, lets say a 180 lb cheetah. I'll put my money on the 60 lb tested APBT to beat the 180 lb record cheetah, the dog being a third the cat's weight. And with the cheetah not only having weaker forelimbs, but also relatively non-flexible limbs, this makes the cheetah's prospects even far worse. For this reason if I was looking at cats to lose to APBT, then besides forelimb robusticity and strength, I think you want to go with cats that are stiffer and less flexible, as I feel that flexibility combines with forelimb strength to subdue a dog, like for the cat to use it's forelimb strength to best effect, it needs flexibility, and the more flexible it is, the better. No, just no, i personally believe it's quite lower but i will be nice to Dog fans and take their estimate (12.5% Pitbull ML robusticity) as granted for the hypothethical, Cheetah ML robusticity is 7%, so even using the maximum robusticity estimate for the Pitbull, Cheetah would need to be about 1.75 times heavier to overpower it, not 3. Curious where you stand on wolverine vs cheetah? |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 14, 2023 16:51:37 GMT
No, just no, i personally believe it's quite lower but i will be nice to Dog fans and take their estimate (12.5% Pitbull ML robusticity) as granted for the hypothethical, Cheetah ML robusticity is 7%, so even using the maximum robusticity estimate for the Pitbull, Cheetah would need to be about 1.75 times heavier to overpower it, not 3. Curious where you stand on wolverine vs cheetah? Wolverine would put up a good fight but Cheetah is too big IMO. So i favour it. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Sept 14, 2023 18:37:37 GMT
Curious where you stand on wolverine vs cheetah? Wolverine would put up a good fight but Cheetah is too big IMO. So i favour it. Yeah I have a really hard time imagining a cheetah beating a wolverine, despite the size difference. Ditto for a bull terrier of any kind. You need to remember cheetahs typically strangle an animal while they balance it upside down on it's back, no decisive quick skull penetration or whatever. When you are talking about a wolverine or pitbull you need to realise even in some hypothetical scenario where the cheetah has already attained a throat hold and is pinning the animal down, we're talking extremely compact powerful little balls of muscle that will be fighting and squirming, and I think even if they started from that extremely disadvantaged position they'd actually fight out of it and then the cheetah would be screwed. In reality the cheetah would be extremely unlikely to achieve that position in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 15, 2023 9:04:34 GMT
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. So 5%, it turns out, is hyperbolic exaggeration. I never actually measured the statistics before. Now I have.  The real exact figure is 38%. Pretty big difference, my apologies, but still ... the bottom 38% of least robust dogs, factoring in italian greyhounds and chihuahuas and salukis and etc etc, is where pitbulls would need to be to match the red wolf in robusticity. 62% of random dog breeds would need to be more robust than the pitbull?? What do you think? Is that likely? Mind you, in the top 18%, we have this dog which was recreated in this image using it's skull-  A dog used to catch boars as evidenced by healed wounds on its skull. And its robusticity score for its humerus was 10ML%, a full 1.5% higher than the most robust Pleistocene wolves, let alone the red wolf which is 2ML% higher than. Then, to the top of the graph, we have two other dogs at about 12.5ML%. They stand 19 inches tall at the shoulder (unlike 25 inches like the above 10ML% "boarhound"), so might be a better more accurate analogue for a pitbull. They would be "bulldogs". We're not totally sure, but it seems very likely the pitbull is somewhere between 10-12.5ML%, either way far above the red wolf or any wild canine, and in the top 18% of domestic dogs robusticity wise, at bare minimum, while the red wolf would place in the bottom 38% least robust dogs. >Takes a sample source of one (1) that scores 10% >Takes it as a final conclusion and uses it to extrapolate the score of a quite different Dog type Lol, a sample source of one is nota definitive score, let's imagine an Alien asked a single human to take an IQ test, he scores 135, so he starts assuming the average human IQ is 135 based on that single tested individual |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Sept 15, 2023 9:22:26 GMT
No?
There's a sample of 60 dogs, 62% of which are more robust than wolves. The 4 we know are related to pitbulls, scored 10%, 12%, 12.5% and 12.5%. The one that scored 10% is 25 inches tall (like a dogo argentino), the one that scored 12% was 14 inches tall (sbt size) and the other 2 that scored 12.5 were 17 inches tall (smallish apbt size).
The most logical conclusion would be to assume the apbt would be AT THE VERY LEAST 10 ML%, and possibly up to 12.5. But 10 is a conservative minimum robusticity score based on the indications from the data. That's the most rational conclusion to reach, and that makes pitbulls at the very least 2ML% more robust than wolves, and a similar proportional robusticity advantage over the wolf to what is enjoyed by the jaguar over the domestic cat.
|
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 15, 2023 9:26:01 GMT
No? There's a sample of 60 dogs, 62% of which are more robust than wolves. The 4 we know are related to pitbulls, scored 10%, 12%, 12.5% and 12.5%. The one that scored 10% is 25 inches tall (like a dogo argentino), the one that scored 12% was 14 inches tall (sbt size) and the other 2 that scored 12.5 were 17 inches tall (smallish apbt size). The most logical conclusion would be to assume the apbt would be AT THE VERY LEAST 10 ML%, and possibly up to 12.5. But 10 is a conservative minimum robusticity score based on the indications from the data. That's the most rational conclusion to reach, and that makes pitbulls at the very least 2ML% more robust than wolves, and a similar proportional robusticity advantage over the wolf to what is enjoyed by the jaguar over the domestic cat. You take a single depiction of a Roman working eog that died 2.000 years ago, assume it was a Boarhound in particular because of head wounds (that doesn't narrow it down much) and then extrapolate it to modern Dogos 2.000 years later, confusing... |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 15, 2023 9:34:03 GMT
Vindolanda dogs were fighting/working Dogs and still, it can be seen most of them were below the most robust ancient Wolf sample, Vindolanda average being similar to ancient Wolf average.  |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Sept 15, 2023 9:49:56 GMT
Its not confusing at all. What becomes clear through enough research is working dogs haven't changed, a working boarhound then was the same as a working boarhound now. The demands of the task are an evolutionary pressure that sculpts the same animal. Historical artworks make that very clear, as do all historical testimonies and literature. Big fat sloppy pet dogs are new, but working dogs are not.  The guys at the bottom didn't research history and recreate it, they just are the same animal doing the same thing unconsciously, that goes for the humans involved and the dogs. So the boarhound from that archaeological excavation, distinguishable by the healed tusk wound but also the healed bashing damage to its skull where one of it's human handlers have been bashing it repeatedly to try to break it off its holds, and multiple lost teeth, that dog would have been recognisable to us today as a "mongrel pig dog", or if it happened to be white, I guess a dogo argentino. Same thing. The stocky little tac gorsium dogs were built similarly but were shorter, and were likely "bulldogs" that were 14-18 inches tall, 35-40 lbs, and specialised for lead-in catch work or baiting sports. Its actually more logical to push assumptions about the modern apbt towards the latter, those smaller bulldogs are more like the grouping the apbt would belong to, BUT at the very least it would bare minimum be as robust as the 25 inch boarhound. MAYBE due to terrier influence it is less robust than the 14-18 inch bulldogs of that era. Maybe. That's the only thing preventing saying with full confidence that the apbt's robusticity is probably 12 +. I think it is the same animal now that they were then, and is more like the smaller bulldogs. but MAYBE. That is ALL the lenience that can be given, dropping the apbt robusticity guesstimate to 10 is as "generous" as we can be to wolves in the comparison, and with that we are being hard on the pitbull. You acting like its a total mystery and we can't glean anything and the dogs from the past are totally alien and different despite being from the same bloodline and performing the same job... that is really far fetched and kind of ignorant to dog history. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Sept 15, 2023 10:00:12 GMT
Vindolanda dogs were fighting/working Dogs and still, it can be seen most of them were below the most robust ancient Wolf sample, Vindolanda average being similar to ancient Wolf average. No. That is totally wrong. Vindolanda dogs were not "fighting/working dogs", they were a diverse array of dogs in a society, and were divided by the archaeologists into distinctive types -  Toy, Miniature, Dwarf, Harrier, Boarhound, village dog, courser, mastiff. Those are the basic groupings they came up with, with varying numbers of bones and bone fragments found for each, some very few, but vindolanda it is clear had a big variety of dog types. Many of which, as you can see, are extremely light and gracile little dogs. Those are the ones with lower robusticity than wolves. |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 15, 2023 12:35:36 GMT
Its not confusing at all. What becomes clear through enough research is working dogs haven't changed, a working boarhound then was the same as a working boarhound now. The demands of the task are an evolutionary pressure that sculpts the same animal. Historical artworks make that very clear, as do all historical testimonies and literature. Big fat sloppy pet dogs are new, but working dogs are not. The guys at the bottom didn't research history and recreate it, they just are the same animal doing the same thing unconsciously, that goes for the humans involved and the dogs. So the boarhound from that archaeological excavation, distinguishable by the healed tusk wound but also the healed bashing damage to its skull where one of it's human handlers have been bashing it repeatedly to try to break it off its holds, and multiple lost teeth, that dog would have been recognisable to us today as a "mongrel pig dog", or if it happened to be white, I guess a dogo argentino. Same thing. The stocky little tac gorsium dogs were built similarly but were shorter, and were likely "bulldogs" that were 14-18 inches tall, 35-40 lbs, and specialised for lead-in catch work or baiting sports. Its actually more logical to push assumptions about the modern apbt towards the latter, those smaller bulldogs are more like the grouping the apbt would belong to, BUT at the very least it would bare minimum be as robust as the 25 inch boarhound. MAYBE due to terrier influence it is less robust than the 14-18 inch bulldogs of that era. Maybe. That's the only thing preventing saying with full confidence that the apbt's robusticity is probably 12 +. I think it is the same animal now that they were then, and is more like the smaller bulldogs. but MAYBE. That is ALL the lenience that can be given, dropping the apbt robusticity guesstimate to 10 is as "generous" as we can be to wolves in the comparison, and with that we are being hard on the pitbull. You acting like its a total mystery and we can't glean anything and the dogs from the past are totally alien and different despite being from the same bloodline and performing the same job... that is really far fetched and kind of ignorant to dog history. Evolutionary pressure??? These Dogs are manmade, they aren't found in nature. And are inmune from the pressure there, if by evolutionary pressure you mean selective breeding then i agree, homever it's true that Dogs, just like Humans, have been getting easier and easier lifes over the past few centuries, resulting in deterioration of strenght and other qualities, WW1 soldiers were considered weak by contemporaries compared to 2rd Boer war soldiers, which were considered weak by contemporaries according to Napoleonic wars soldiers. So no. Just like Humans, the strenght of those Dogs has actually DECREASED recently |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Sept 15, 2023 16:32:48 GMT
Evolutionary pressure??? These Dogs are manmade, they aren't found in nature. And are inmune from the pressure there, if by evolutionary pressure you mean selective breeding then i agree, homever it's true that Dogs, just like Humans, have been getting easier and easier lifes over the past few centuries, resulting in deterioration of strenght and other qualities, WW1 soldiers were considered weak by contemporaries compared to 2rd Boer war soldiers, which were considered weak by contemporaries according to Napoleonic wars soldiers. So no. Just like Humans, the strenght of those Dogs has actually DECREASED recently Not a good argument. All living organisms are under evolutionary pressure. Boarhounds are under evolutionary pressure to live a lifestyle where they work as boar hunting dogs for smooth hominids and that lifestyle has it's hazards and obstacles and standards that they need to live up to, that lifestyle shapes an animal through evolutionary pressure. Any "selective breeding" is merely a facet of that evolutionary pressure. Their life is easier in many ways and harder in others, when it comes to the difficulty of the combative contests they engage in, it is harder, and they have rose combatively to meet that standard. When it comes to lots of other aspects of wilderness survival, yes it is much easier and in those departments they have diminished. That just doesn't include fighting, or anything where the demands on the boarhound's performance are high. Equally for humans, this guy-  easily kills this guy with his bare hands-  Every time. It doesn't matter how much harder the guy on the bottom's life was, might mean he is better equipped to endure a miserable existence, doesn't make him win a fight. |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 15, 2023 16:40:40 GMT
Evolutionary pressure??? These Dogs are manmade, they aren't found in nature. And are inmune from the pressure there, if by evolutionary pressure you mean selective breeding then i agree, homever it's true that Dogs, just like Humans, have been getting easier and easier lifes over the past few centuries, resulting in deterioration of strenght and other qualities, WW1 soldiers were considered weak by contemporaries compared to 2rd Boer war soldiers, which were considered weak by contemporaries according to Napoleonic wars soldiers. So no. Just like Humans, the strenght of those Dogs has actually DECREASED recently Not a good argument. All living organisms are under evolutionary pressure. Boarhounds are under evolutionary pressure to live a lifestyle where they work as boar hunting dogs for smooth hominids and that lifestyle has it's hazards and obstacles and standards that they need to live up to, that lifestyle shapes an animal through evolutionary pressure. Any "selective breeding" is merely a facet of that evolutionary pressure. Their life is easier in many ways and harder in others, when it comes to the difficulty of the combative contests they engage in, it is harder, and they have rose combatively to meet that standard. When it comes to lots of other aspects of wilderness survival, yes it is much easier and in those departments they have diminished. That just doesn't include fighting, or anything where the demands on the boarhound's performance are high. Equally for humans, this guy- easily kills this guy with his bare hands- Every time. It doesn't matter how much harder the guy on the bottom's life was, might mean he is better equipped to endure a miserable existence, doesn't make him win a fight. My point was not best Vs average, sure, a top 1% man from today would beat an average man from 1.800, average Vs average though? |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 15, 2023 16:45:00 GMT
Take the example of the Army lowering requirements to see what i mean
Modern USA army requires a minimum height of 152cm for males. Despite populations being significantly shorter in the Napoleonic wars the height requirement was 160cm for a standard regiment, for more elite units like Curaissers 170cm was required
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Sept 15, 2023 17:05:40 GMT
How would these points about the average modern guy being an incel apply to working boarhounds?
Average loser guys playing video games are not analogous to working boarhounds, maybe if you said "average mma fighter", and then yes they would all beat guys from 200 years ago (or a thousand years ago or 20 000 years ago) who were living hard lives.
|
|
