# Sport vs. Real Dog?



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

I have gone from perpetually waiting for a puppy, to now being faced with actually bringing one home soon. This eventuality has been a catalyst for some thinking on what I really want in my working line GSD?

In absolute terms here is what I can say about the GSD I desire;
1.) A working line GSD
2.) Solid nerve
3.) Stock Coat (a dog within standard)

Here is what I think I can say;
1.) I thought I'd prefer a male, although fate has me second guessing that......
2.) I prefer a real dog to a sport dog

Which leads me to my question......what is a sport dog vs. a real dog? I think I know.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

what dog isn't a "real dog"????



W.Oliver said:


> Which leads me to my question......what is a sport dog vs. a real dog? I think I know.


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

To me a "sport dog" is a dog who has not only the ability to work (structure, nerve, temperament, etc..) but has the drive to want to work. 

Stark is a great dog, excellent nerve, great temperament, okay structure (prelims looks good) but he does not have the drive to work. It is getting better with age and training/finding his "thing" he will work for but it still take me a lot of energy to motivate him.

To me a "sport dog" is a dog that was bred to be enthusiastic to work for the handler, a yearning to please and to work.

They are all "real dogs" but I think a "sport dog" just has that extra 'zing' for life. I think this can be found in a lot of working lines, not ones just deemed for sport.


----------



## GSDBESTK9 (Mar 26, 2002)

I too prefer a REAL dog. Luckly we own two of those...Dorian and Arko. These 2 dogs have solid nerves, nothing phases them and they both have a ton of drive but when they go on the field, they are serious about their job, not a game. They don't care if there is a sleeve present or not.
I know some people prefer sport dogs, but I like the serious ones.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Interesting. Don't think I've ever heard Elisabeth's definitions of "sport" or "real" before. Guess that really shows that when using terminology it's important to make sure the terms mean the same to the people talking!

My experience with these is that the common definitions of them tend to focus mainly on the way the dog approaches protection work. To the "sport" dog it is very much a game. A big, rough and tumble game, but still mainly a game with the dog working primarily (and often exclusively) out of prey drive. Whereas to a "real" dog protection is more about protection and fighting with the dog working out of a more balanced set of drives, one of them being aggression. I prefer a "real" dog in that sense. A dog who approaches protection as a fight, and views the helper as someone to be dominated and beat into the dirt, not as a playmate.

Of course, then there are those who use "real" dog to describe dogs who are nutcases. Overly sharp dogs working out of pure defense. Dogs who are civil not because they want to beat the daylights out of someone, but who are civil because they are unstable. The dog can't be made sleeve sure, or who immediately spits out the sleeve and lunges at the neutral helper to some is impressive and "real". To me that sort of behavior shows imbalance, either in temperament, training or both. Certainly I would not want a "real" dog based on that definition.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

Does that mean that a "real" dog isn't having fun or enjoying himself in the protection phase?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Emoore said:


> Does that mean that a "real" dog isn't having fun or enjoying himself in the protection phase?


No, he's still having fun. But the enjoyment comes from beating an opponent, dominating them, pushing them around, controlling them, and basically showing that he is "top dog" moreso than getting a toy.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

To me a "real" dog is a thinking dog that possesses aggression, power, and courage from the right place and does not work from being neurotically overloaded with prey drive and/or being overly reactive/sharp.


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

I think my definition of a "sport dog" is off compared to some because I have yet to have that dog that will work for me "just cause". I think the closes definition of Stark would be considered a "real dog" in terms of working ability, he's a very serious boy, even as a puppy. He's not one to see the sleeve and go nuts, he wants the guy wearing the sleeve. Now, I wouldn't consider him a sport dog for those two reasons by my definition or yours. I don't think I would consider him a "real dog either though because he is lacking qualities that I see as important in terms of a well balanced working dog. Not sure if that makes sense or not? It did in my head.. lol.

I think I perfer a "real dog" going off of Chris and Carolina's definition. I like the fact that they are not there to "play games" that they know there is a job to be done and they take that seriously. I also think that being a newbie that this type of dog may be too much for some not only in training but in the real world as well. Not sure how acurrate that is, but with what I think a 'real dog" is, I have a feeling that it is a lot of dog. I also think that a "real dog" may be easier to mess up, espeically if you don't know what your doing - which I really don't at this point. I'm learning but I am not there yet.

I think a real dog would show confidence, maybe a little cocky even. They would be a little harder and I agree, would be of balanced drives.


----------



## lesslis (Sep 23, 2007)

Can't a well bred "sport dog" turn into a "real dog" ??? With proper training of course.


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

Chris Wild said:


> Of course, then there are those who use "real" dog to describe dogs who are nutcases. Overly sharp dogs working out of pure defense. Dogs who are civil not because they want to beat the daylights out of someone, but who are civil because they are unstable. The dog can't be made sleeve sure, or who immediately spits out the sleeve and lunges at the neutral helper to some is impressive and "real". To me that sort of behavior shows imbalance, either in temperament, training or both. Certainly I would not want a "real" dog based on that definition.


As long as we are not talking about "real" dog in that sense. Too often you hear people talking about how their dogs are too "real" for Schutzhund and that's why they stopped training, or never started training, or the dog chewed up the helper, or chewed up the handler, or is now a PPD, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

Looking in from outside the sport, my definition of a "sport" dog is one that scores high at trials, but can't settle well so lives in a kennel all of the time. A "real" dog may not score as high, but can live in the house, etc. I would rather have a REAL dog.


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

Chris Wild said:


> Interesting. Don't think I've ever heard Elisabeth's definitions of "sport" or "real" before. Guess that really shows that when using terminology it's important to make sure the terms mean the same to the people talking!


Therein lies the essence of this thread, and I think I know what those expressions mean....I'll let you know after this thread runs it's course.


----------



## dOg (Jan 23, 2006)

This Is Your Brain on Metaphors - NYTimes.com


This thread reminded me of the above article I read the other day, and another one I just read yesterday:

The Terminology of Canine Behavior and Training


point being the word real is relative to the viewer's opinion of it.

keeping it real may be easier said than done!


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

dOg said:


> point being the word real is relative to the viewer's opinion of it.


Again, a validation of the essence of the thread, and exactly what I intended on exploring.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

W.Oliver said:


> 1.) I thought I'd prefer a male, although fate has me second guessing that......


Say it ain't true?!


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I wonder if a dog can do well at sport, very well, and still not be the package that one might desire for police type work?

When I was considering the Hogan baby, I asked the breeder if he had worked the sire and if he was "for real". I probably didn't really understood all that might be meant by that. But he replied yes. the sire is for real and that his goal is to produce police service animals.

I think of it as a dog who has very strong nerves, nice aggression and a strong desire to fight with the opponent. 

The dogs that I have thought of as "real" were very solid dogs. They were great in home and kennel. There was no hyperactivity in them. Their solidity did not make them so flashy in obedience and thus they might not score super by today's standards. In protection there were several nice scoring dogs that many helpers were willing to catch. The "real" dogs.... not so many volunteers. These dogs were convincing, powerful and exuded an aura that you could not mistake. Sometimes these dogs did not look so super in the sport work often because of the nature of the helper work. But, work them in a manner where could show their power under control... very nice and convincingly "real".


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

GSDElsa said:


> Say it ain't true?!


A driving variable is stock vs. long coat.......long coat is not an option for me...regardless of how much in love I am with the idea of a particular pup. I'd prefer a male this time, but really, I am very flexible on male vs. female (dogs only)!!


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

I'm curious about this idea that "real dog = don't score as well" because this brings up a question: so all these dogs that are scoring high right now at the national/international level, what are they? When you see a nice 270, 280ish score at the high level, does that make you think: "Oh, can't be a real dog. He scored too high!"


----------



## Uniballer (Mar 12, 2002)

"Real" obedience means that the dog will obey in the real world when you call him off the deer, or down him before he gets to your old friend that he never met. As opposed to "Sport" obedience which means that which is required by the routine, even if the dog wouldn't even acknowledge you if there was something more fun...

So, "real" protection must mean that the dog will engage under real world conditions. No sleeve, no suit, no muzzle, not play.


----------



## Vinnie (Sep 4, 2001)

Wayne, I love the question.

A sport dog is a real dog. IMO. Now if you want to talk a sport dog vs. a working dog, they are 2 different things in my book. Maybe I’m just using different terminology than everyone else does. It wouldn’t be the first time. :crazy:

I like to say I prefer a working dog over a sport dog. Funny thing is that no one has ever asked me to really define what I mean. I usually get dumbfounded looks or comments like they are both “working” dogs. And in a way I agree. Maybe I just haven't worked it all out in my own head yet to fully understand. Anyway.

My simple way of looking at it is this. (And this is a generalized example.) In humans it would be athletes vs. farmers or blue collar workers. Both are strong, full of energy and could go all day doing their “job”. Neither are lazy couch potato types. They both “work” hard. Both could possibly do each others “job” but would they really want to? They would both approach the other’s job in different ways and with a different attitude. One may try the other’s occupation but more for the fun of it than to take it seriously. 

This brings me to Schutzhund as an example. Some people treat it as a sport and some treat it as work. In my mind it’s both. Some dogs present themselves as happier like they are playing and some are more serious treating it like a job not a game. You can see this in the dogs. For the sport side I think more importance is placed on the protection phase or score or the top placing level the dog earns. It’s more about the competition. 

On the working side of things in SchH I look more to tracking & obedience (that’s just me other working folks may look to different things). Why I look to those areas? It’s easier for me to see if a dog can work out the problem on his own and complete a task. Can the dog “think” or is he following the motions or a pattern taught to him? Yes, I believe the protection phase is important too (it’s part of the job) so don’t get me wrong. However, I’m not the kind of person who gets real excited about the high protection score. In fact, I don’t think scores are the most important unless they are consistent and obtained in a variety of places/situations. I look more at the obedience and/or tracking scores and videos and critiques. 

Herding can also be used as an example between sport vs. work. 

Can you train a dog to be one or the other? I think it depends. If it’s a purely sport dog or purely work dog, you would really be going against its nature and making things much more difficult. You can maybe get it to appear as one or the other but it’s not what his genetics say he’ll be in his head and there’ll always be that internal conflict. Like someone becoming a doctor because his parents want him to be one but he, himself really doesn’t have the desire.

Thanks for the topic. Sometimes the discussions help me work out where I'm wrong and what I actually believe. :thumbup:


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

Jason L said:


> I'm curious about this idea that "real dog = don't score as well" because this brings up a question: so all these dogs that are scoring high right now at the national/international level, what are they? When you see a nice 270, 280ish score at the high level, does that make you think: "Oh, can't be a real dog. He scored too high!"


I think high scores can be an indicator of a sport dog, but cannot strictly be interpreted as such. All crows are black birds, but not all black birds are crows.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

From an article: "Sport Dogs vs. Real Dogs"
By Christine Sonberg & Pierre Wahlström

"*Christine: *You select dogs both for your private breeding program as well as for the Swedish military breeding program. Is there a difference in the dogs that you select? If yes, what are the differences?
*Pierre: *The answer is no. We use big parts of the bloodlines and dogs that are available.
*Christine:* Is there a difference in the selection of your private competition dog and a dog for military purposes? If yes, what are the differences?
*Pierre:* The answer is no. I want my dogs to function as competition dogs as well as in military service.
*Christine: *Do you see a difference in the “sport dog” and the “real dog”? If yes, what is the difference?
*Pierre: *There are good, average and bad dogs. The difference for me is that a dog that only is suitable for sport has good fight drive, good search abilities and has the ability to cooperate, but can lack strength in environments. The dog that is only suitable for service has good fight drive, good search abilities and is strong in environments, but lack the ability to cooperate. Both of these dog types are for me average dogs. We can use these dogs for breeding purposes, but we have to be aware of where and what the weaknesses are, so we don’t get surprised.
The GOOD dog, that we should/have to use in our breeding, has good fight drive, search abilities, cooperative abilities and is environmentally strong. The bad dog can lack in any of the above listed things, but can be trained by good handlers. These dogs we should not take further in breeding.
(Realize that the best trainers will rarely take on a dog like this, of logical reasons!)

*Christine: *Why do you think it has become a trend to separate the “sport dog” and “the real dog”?
*Pierre: *My judgment is that dog people are like horse dealers... good at finding marketing arguments. They classify dogs in different categories and make it easier to label their dogs / breeding program. The people that do this lack knowledge and understanding... My opinion is that if I accuse my competitor’s stud dog of “only being a sport dog”, and at the same time claim that my own is a “real working dog”, I can get more people interested in my dog. I am sick and tired of those who try to label dogs and put them in different categories. It is mostly the males that get labeled.
Very rarely we hear these statements about females, even though it is the same breed. Often people think that the dogs that act like dirty pigs on the training field are the ones we should use for breeding. I will use an example from my own dogs, this way I don’t have to “rat” on others… I have had / have five different males that are used a lot as stud dogs. From these five there are mainly two males that have the reputation of being brutal and real, and it is these two dogs that breeders are talking about... I know which one of the five are the best. I have tried to train four of these five males (one was to old to start with).

_Pierre judging the WUSV in 2005_
The dog that later got the reputation of being the most brutal and hard, was the dog that didn’t bother training anymore... The dog had decided after my “Sunday school” training that he didn’t want to be my friend anymore. The other ones kept on working!!!
An important ability for a good working dog is the ability to take something negative and put in into something positive, with this I mean trying to do better after a negative experience... If they are not able to do this we have to question their ability to develop in their education, their “guidibility”. I am not saying that these individuals should be excluded in breeding, but again...
realize it so you don’t get surprised."

The entire article can be viewed here: Sport Dogs vs. Real Dogs


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

Vinnie said:


> Thanks for the topic. Sometimes the discussions help me work out where I'm wrong and what I actually believe. :thumbup:


Me too, like I said, I think I know.


----------



## holland (Jan 11, 2009)

I don't care-really I have a dog who doesn't do schutzhund she once looked at the helper and yawned-seriously-she doesn't yawn at every helper and she'll bite the hidden sleeve. Is she real I don't know and I don't care- she tolerates all other dogs- is awesome with children and is really easy to live with. My other dog that does schutzhund does all the above too (except for the dog she lives with) Those qualities are more important to me than whether a dog does schutzhund- I was also told by someone that my dog that does schutzhund isn't as good as I thought-so I try not to care what other people think-and I hope if I ever have a dog that does not do schutzhund I'll just find something else to do with my dog and enjoy it. All of my dogs in my mind have been real


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

W.Oliver said:


> Me too, like I said, I think I know.


Now that I understand the question better... I am trying to figure out what I think the answer is (for me anyways).

Gosh, why do you people have to post such questions on my only day off.. lol..

Maybe we can post a video of a dog who we think is a "sport dog" and one who is a "real dog" or at least mention what dog is which so us newbies can get a better understanding?


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

The ideas in the article Zahnburg posted are interesting. A better way to talk about the dog package is regards what aspects are missing and what are present. I never have thought a dog a great dog who was terribly hard to train or handle or as being more "real" because of that. At least, that would not be an aspect that I would find desirable. I would call that dog a "real so and so".


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

elisabeth_00117 said:


> Maybe we can post a video of a dog who we think is a "sport dog" and one who is a "real dog" or at least mention what dog is which so us newbies can get a better understanding?


I'm interested in this definitely ... especially with the "sport dogs". Who are some of the dogs today or in the past that have scored really well at very high level that you would classify as "sport dogs"?


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

I am definitely going to be asking my TD and helper about this on Sunday. I am curious as to how they would define each.

Also, do you think each type of dog is more suitable for a particular type of owner?


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

I have seen dogs that are what I call "sporty". These are dogs that lack balance and lack aggression. I prefer a much more balanced dog and one that has aggression, what I consider "real" and true to the nature of a GSD.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

So we are saying it is possible for a dog to score well in sport without an entire balance of characteristics.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

I think sometimes people spend too much time looking at the words and labels, and forget to look at the dogs and their progeny.

These are the titles for Annies sire. He wouldn't be called a "working dog" he didn't start doing Shutz. until he was older and didn't come from working lines. Was he a sports dog? Not a clue. He was however a "real" dog in every sense of the word.

Obedience Titles
AKC OTCH Obedience Trial Champion
AKC UDX Utility Dog Excellent
AKC UD Utility Dog
AKC CDX Companion Dog Excellent
AKC CD Companion Dog
CKC OTCH Obedience Trial Champion
CKC UD Utility Dog
CKC CD Companion Dog
CKC CDX Companion Dog Excellent
U-CD UKC Companion Dog
U-CDX UKC Companion Dog Excellent
Performance Titles
Versatility Companion Dog 2 (VCD2)
Versatility Companion Dog 1 (VCD1)
Open Agility Preferred (OAP)
Open Jumpers Preferred (OJP)
Novice Agility Preferred (NAP)
Novice Jumpers Preferred (NJP)
AKC Tracking Dog (TD)
CKC Tracking Dog (TD)
Schutzhund BH (Obedience & Temperament Test)
Schutzhund TR1 (Tracking Test)
Flyball Master Champion (earning 15,000 pts)
Herding Capability Tested (HCT/sheep)
Herding Instinct Certified (HIC/ducks)
Canine Good Citizen (CGC)


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Samba said:


> So we are saying it is possible for a dog to score well in sport without an entire balance of characteristics.


Yes, depending on what you consider scoring well, the level of the competition and the judge.


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

If the distinction between "sport" and "real" is that the "sport" dog views Sch as a big fun happy game and the helper as prey/playmate, while the "real" dog views it more as an MMA fighter views a fight, I'd honestly rather have a "sport" dog. I think working breeders should breed for "real" dogs, but I'd be happy to have a culled-out "sport" dog and neuter him. 

Why? I like dogs that are happy and goofy and view the world as a big fun game. I don't need my dog to try protect me in a world where the bad guys carry guns and knives. I just want to have fun with my dog. 

Wow, maybe I should have this conversation with my breeder, I hadn't even though of this before.


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

lesslis said:


> Can't a well bred "sport dog" turn into a "real dog" ??? With proper training of course.


No, or not always. Sport dogs lack the character and nerve to become "real" dogs, the one who can become real often show it in some way even if they lack the training to really work the way they should. Sometimes it even shows in what the sport now calls faults.



Samba said:


> I wonder if a dog can do well at sport, very well, and still not be the package that one might desire for police type work?


Easily and in a lot of ways.



Jason L said:


> I'm interested in this definitely ... especially with the "sport dogs". Who are some of the dogs today or in the past that have scored really well at very high level that you would classify as "sport dogs"?


A lot of Ferro progeny for starters.



Samba said:


> So we are saying it is possible for a dog to score well in sport without an entire balance of characteristics.


Not only possible but dogs lacking in certain characteristics or in the development of those characteristics have become the norm at high level competition. Think of every time the crowd goes wild but the dog only gets about 80-85, odds are you just saw a "real" dog working. At least lately.


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

Samba said:


> I never have thought a dog a great dog who was terribly hard to train or handle or as being more "real" because of that. At least, that would not be an aspect that I would find desirable. I would call that dog a "real so and so".


I'm also curious as to why people say real dog can't have "flashy" obedience (I assume "flashy" means high scoring since no one cares about a dog that is flashy but blows every exercises in the book lol). What does active aggression and balance of drive have to do with whether or not the dog can score high in obedience or if the dog's obedience is crisp?


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

A lot of that flash often shows up as the dog is nearing drive overload. The prancyness, the OCD type of focus, the quivering in place, these all for some reason have become rewarded characteristics on the obedience field. They do make it look like the dog is really into the routine but they usually come from a dog who like I said is near their drive limit.

A dog who has better balance of drive and greater nerve strength (a necessary component of the active aggressive dog) very seldom shows the above edgy, flashy, characteristics that have become almost compulsory to score a V.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

I always love to hear people make the excuse that their dog is too "real" to score well. 
__________________


----------



## holland (Jan 11, 2009)

...maybe its cause it lacks fero in its lines---me I prefer b------


----------



## sagelfn (Aug 13, 2009)

I always saw the difference as sport vs hard dog. Hard as in tough/serious. "Real" vs sport just seems to insult the sport dogs. They are doing the same work but in a different manner. I do not see it as one is far superior over the other and calling one real seems to imply that.

I see a sport dog as one that when doing a bark and hold will bark as it was trained and bark because its excited about this task its doing. I see a hard dog as one that when doing bark and hold will scare the pants off you with its bark. It would be a serious controlled bark that means business vs a bark that just sounds like a bark.

Assuming I'm right in that view, what separates the two outside of work/sport? What are they like at home and in public?


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

Since I opened the question, and the thread has developed a bit, allow me to share my view.

When I am on the field with a sleeve or in a suit....a real dog frightens me. I am facing real aggression. I am on edge because if I don't handle myself correctly, I will get hurt. That dog is focused on me, not the equipment. When that dog comes in to bite, it is center mass on me, not chasing the equipment. When it is on me, it is pushing me, punching in, it wants to take me to the ground, it is there to kick the crap out of me. It is in a fight to dominate me and win.

A sport dog, may not be extreme in it's sleeve happiness, but does not threaten me the same way. This dog is dancing with me in a trained/choreographed routine. I can allow myself to feel more at ease, less worried my amazingly good looks will be damaged. When it is on the sleeve it hangs on for the ride.

This is not to say a real dog is civil...I have worked civil KNPV dogs with Wildtim in Florida, and after the handler choked or flanked the dog off of us, the dog would almost always reattack. When in the suit, we turtle our hands to avoid bites, and in many cases, the choked or flanked dog would reattack by sticking its nose up the sleeve of the suit to bite our bare hand....a dirty and painful lesson to learn for a decoy.

This also isn't to say a real dog is not balanced well enough to be a solid companion or engage in social activities, a good GSD can and should be able to do it all, but there is an underlying demeanor that has it roots in real aggression that is absent in what I would consider a sport dog.

To me, none of this really has anything to do with scores....an excellent real GSD should be able to hold its own with scores...no excuses!


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

Okay, here's my newbie brain working again... sorry guys.

When you say the dog is playing dirty can't that be a sign of bad nerves? Say, that is feels threatened enough to reattack? How do you know the difference between weaked nerves and real "positive" aggression?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I personally don't think playing dirty equates to a real dog. Not the way many people think it does. Most often it IS nerves, IMO. The dog lacks the confidence to fight within the rules he has been taught or lacks the mental clarity to transition drives, switch behaviors, listen to the handler, modulate his drive and aggression appropriately to the situation, and basically lacks judgment and self control. Things can happen in training, both from the helper and handler, that can case all these things even in a sound dog. But very often there is an underlying nerve issue there.


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

Chris, that's what I was thinking (you said it better.. lol) as well. 

I can understand a training issue (not clear to the dog what is expected, etc.) but if I saw a dog go back at the helper, my first impression would be bad/weak nerves.


----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

So are you saying that a dog that would rather bite the MAN than the sleeve he is wearing is a weak nerved dog?

Say you have a dog that WILL bite the sleeve if it is jammed in it's mouth when it comes in for a bite. BUT if the helper slips the sleeve, the dog has the sleeve spit out before the helpers hand clears the sleeve and the dog is back trying to get at the helper.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

A dog being sleeve sure is not the same as a dog being sleeve happy. Any sound nerved dog with proper training should be able to be made sleeve sure. If the dog will not bite the sleeve, and goes for elsewhere on the helper, then something is off in either the dog or the training, or both. A good dog should engage the helper, sleeve or no, but if the sleeve is present then that is where he should bite and nowhere else.

As for the dog who spits out the sleeve as soon as it is slipped, it would depend on what the helper is doing. If the helper is neutral, then the dog should not be spitting out the sleeve to go for the helper. If he is, then something is unbalanced, either in dog, training or both. Now if the helper is threatening after the sleeve is slipped, then that is another matter entirely and in that case the dog would be well within his rights to spit out the sleeve and go for the helper. A dog spitting out the sleeve even before the helper has fully slipped, I would put into the first category of something being unbalanced.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

sagelfn said:


> I always saw the difference as sport vs hard dog. Hard as in tough/serious.


But that's not quite right either, although I used to think that's what it meant too. Hardness is more about resilience than being tough or serious - high thresholds, the ability to handle and bounce back from negative experiences, both physical and emotional, high pain tolerance, and able to withstand pressure without crumbling. 

Keefer is not what I would think of as a hard dog. He's a big cuddly mush, there's nothing serious or tough about him. And yet.....he has an extremely high pain tolerance (well presumably he HAS one, we haven't found it yet!) and our trainer has commented before on his high thresholds and his resilience to compulsion and physical corrections. Nothing much bugs him. "Hard" is certainly not a description I would have ever applied to him, but he does fit the definition pretty well.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> But that's not quite right either, although I used to think that's what it meant too. Hardness is more about resilience than being tough or serious - high thresholds, the ability to handle and bounce back from negative experiences, both physical and emotional, high pain tolerance, and able to withstand pressure without crumbling.
> 
> Keefer is not what I would think of as a hard dog. He's a big cuddly mush, there's nothing serious or tough about him. And yet.....he has an extremely high pain tolerance (well presumably he HAS one, we haven't found it yet!) and our trainer has commented before on his high thresholds and his resilience to compulsion and physical corrections. Nothing much bugs him. "Hard" is certainly not a description I would have ever applied to him, but he does fit the definition pretty well.


I agree...I think all the descriptions we are throwing out here today should be ON THE FIELD WHILE WORKING. No one wants a hard/civil/nervy dog at home. No one wants a nervy dog at all. But the dog should be able to "turn it off" and turn into a cuddlebug once the tuff stuff is over.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

How I would define “sport” vs “real” based on the many discussions on this forum, I understand these terms to be defined as...

Sport dog- Dog who is suited to compete in sport. Has high prey drive that makes for flashy obedience and deep calm bites in protection. They may or may not have strong enough nerve to keep their drive in check. The lower defense, aggression, and fight can be to the point of breed fault. There seems to be a general belief that the sporty dog is the result of breeding for points in SchH and this practice is causing the breed in general to lose aggression and defense. These dogs may not protect in a “real life” situation.

Real dog- Dog who is more balanced in drives including aggression, fight, defense, prey... These are dogs who do not necessarily look like a Mal when doing obedience. With the focus on precision and flashiness, they are not necessarily point earners, but placed in a real life situation will protect whether trained or not.

My preference would be the sporty side of the “real dog” category. What is most important to me is that the dog has strong nerves and the brain to use whatever drives he has.


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

I am learning so much from this thread. I just have to say that the people who belong to this forum are awesome. So knowledgable, patient and always willing to teach. Thank you.

Now.. another question...lol.



Ruthie said:


> My preference would be the sporty side of the “real dog” category. What is most important to me is that the dog has strong nerves and the brain to use whatever drives he has.


Is it possible to have both in one dog? Can you have a "sport/real" dog? Or is one or the other?


----------



## JKlatsky (Apr 21, 2007)

Chris Wild said:


> My experience with these is that the common definitions of them tend to focus mainly on the way the dog approaches protection work. To the "sport" dog it is very much a game. A big, rough and tumble game, but still mainly a game with the dog working primarily (and often exclusively) out of prey drive. Whereas to a "real" dog protection is more about protection and fighting with the dog working out of a more balanced set of drives, one of them being aggression. I prefer a "real" dog in that sense. A dog who approaches protection as a fight, and views the helper as someone to be dominated and beat into the dirt, not as a playmate.
> 
> Of course, then there are those who use "real" dog to describe dogs who are nutcases. Overly sharp dogs working out of pure defense. Dogs who are civil not because they want to beat the daylights out of someone, but who are civil because they are unstable. The dog can't be made sleeve sure, or who immediately spits out the sleeve and lunges at the neutral helper to some is impressive and "real". To me that sort of behavior shows imbalance, either in temperament, training or both. Certainly I would not want a "real" dog based on that definition.



This is sort of where I went when I saw this. I feel like every time I hear about someone's REAL dog...it's a dog that's actually not stable and seem desperate to explain why their dog is not succeeding in SchH. And they they proceed to bad mouth all the "sport dogs". As is for some reason the dogs that are succeeding are someone less than their real dog. 

Everyone who has a great dog that I know in SchH...well they don't go on and on about what a REAL dog they have. They just say it's a good dog. Period. 

I think for some, "sport dog" has come to equate to the more Mal-like dogs seen in higher end competition with the thinner nerves, more reactivity, and flashier performance. Certainly doesn't mean that the dog isn't REAL. There are plenty of Mals out there that are stable and will fight for real. Just saying.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

elisabeth_00117 said:


> Now.. another question...lol.
> 
> Is it possible to have both in one dog? Can you have a "sport/real" dog? Or is one or the other?


That is a good question. What I meant by my statement is that I like the flashy dogs with lots of prey, but at the same time I would not sacrifice correct temperament to get it. I think my preference would be a dog with correct temperament but leans a little more toward the prey side. 

Clarifying though that I don't like the dogs that I see that just buzz because they don't have the nerve to contain what they have. To me, it is equivalent to Cheri O'Terry in the old SNL Spartan cheerleader skits.


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

elisabeth_00117 said:


> Is it possible to have both in one dog? Can you have a "sport/real" dog? Or is one or the other?


Thinking about it that way would be as if the GSD were a switch with only on or off. Think of it more as a dial...and the mix/ratio is different with every dog....what is referred to as balance in drives. A sport dog operates largely in prey, and lower true aggression, where a real dog would possess a ratio that had more aggression...a better balance.


----------



## JKlatsky (Apr 21, 2007)

W.Oliver said:


> Thinking about it that way would be as if the GSD were a switch with only on or off. Think of it more as a dial...and the mix/ratio is different with every dog....what is referred to as balance in drives. A sport dog operates largely in prey, and lower true aggression, where a real dog would possess a ratio that had more aggression...a better balance.


When I think about this...I really think that a lot of this has to do with training. Sure there is a genetic component...but some dogs that you see that are sleeve focused are not necessarily happy sleeve monkeys that are not "real". 

Dogs learn to operate in the drive they're taught in. I have 4 siblings- with a pedigree that is not exactly known for lack of aggression. 2 were started early as puppies in prey. 2 who are now hard to break out of prey. They are confident and tough and will step up to civil aggression from the helper...but still operate primarily in prey. The other 2 were not started early. They were allowed to mature before they entered into any kind of protection work. They did little to no puppy circle or rag work. Their work was started more balanced from the very beginning, and consequently they are more balanced in their approach to the work. 

My 8 year old is also a prey trained dog. His original handler was also his helper (because there was no one else). He would set the dog up into a sit, go into the blind, and then call him in, taught him to side transport on his own...Can't exactly do a lot of defense training when you are handling and sleeving for your dog at the same time. However, this dog is a good dog and when given a lot of threat and pressure from a strange helper responds with fight. But without that pressure...the dog looks to sleeve because that's how he understands the exercise. 

I would also like to add that of course there are dogs out there that are unbalanced due to genetics and not just training. I think it's easier to see in dogs that have no prey and lots of defense, than it is in dogs that have a lot of prey..but I think like with anything else that unless you really get to see the dog in training and know the journey on how the dog got to where it is...It can be hard to tell.


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

JKlatsky said:


> I think for some, "sport dog" has come to equate to the more Mal-like dogs seen in higher end competition with the thinner nerves, more reactivity, and flashier performance.


I wish I had said that.......


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

JKlatsky said:


> This is sort of where I went when I saw this. I feel like every time I hear about someone's REAL dog...it's a dog that's actually not stable and seem desperate to explain why their dog is not succeeding in SchH. And they they proceed to bad mouth all the "sport dogs". As is for some reason the dogs that are succeeding are someone less than their real dog.
> 
> Everyone who has a great dog that I know in SchH...well they don't go on and on about what a REAL dog they have. They just say it's a good dog. Period.


I totally agree with this.


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

JKlatsky said:


> Dogs learn to operate in the drive they're taught in. I have 4 siblings- with a pedigree that is not exactly known for lack of aggression. 2 were started early as puppies in prey. 2 who are now hard to break out of prey. They are confident and tough and will step up to civil aggression from the helper...but still operate primarily in prey. The other 2 were not started early. They were allowed to mature before they entered into any kind of protection work. They did little to no puppy circle or rag work. Their work was started more balanced from the very beginning, and consequently they are more balanced in their approach to the work.


IMHO, this quote is one of the most important things posted on this thread.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Makes me wonder if starting a pup young is detrimental to protection work. I've seen dogs that never were started til over a year and came out stronger and more confident than pups that had "foundation" from 10 weeks on.


----------



## sagelfn (Aug 13, 2009)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> But that's not quite right either, although I used to think that's what it meant too. *Hardness is more about resilience than being tough* or serious - *high thresholds, the ability to handle and bounce back from negative experiences, both physical and emotional, high pain tolerance, and able to withstand pressure without crumbling. *
> 
> Keefer is not what I would think of as a hard dog. He's a big cuddly mush, there's nothing serious or tough about him. And yet.....he has an extremely high pain tolerance (well presumably he HAS one, we haven't found it yet!) and our trainer has commented before on his high thresholds and his resilience to compulsion and physical corrections. Nothing much bugs him. "Hard" is certainly not a description I would have ever applied to him, but he does fit the definition pretty well.


Thanks for the clarification! This is where I get confused. To me those things bolded are signs of a tough dog, guess I think of tough and hard as the same thing. Going to have to straighten this all out in my head :crazy:
---> me :greet: <--- Noob


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

onyx'girl said:


> Makes me wonder if starting a pup young is detrimental to protection work. I've seen dogs that never were started til over a year and came out stronger and more confident than pups that had "foundation" from 10 weeks on.


There is the opposite problem to consider, like Bison. He is extremely confident and a hard dog. He wasn't worked when he was young and had no defense/aggression developed. From what I am able to ascertain from talking to people who own offspring from his sire, and what I have learned about his dam this is not a genetic issue, it just wasn't developed. (Although I admittedly could be completely wrong)

Because of Moose's fear aggression issues I worked very hard to make sure that he was not afraid of anything thus didn't build suspicion. Moose was the house guarder, so he needed no defense/aggression at home.

Now that he is 5 years old and is 95 lbs of muscle, it is a bit hard to go back.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

No worries Brandi, I'm a noob too! I don't even do Schutzhund, and I realized that this is a Schutzhund discussion, so I probably should just be keeping my big mouth shut. D'oh! But we have an awesome trainer (Michael Ellis's partner in the Loup du Soliel working Belgian Malinois kennel), and we've learned SO much from her. Halo is WAY more "tough" and serious than Keefer, so it was a revelation for me to think of him that way. He's just a pretty showline boy. :wub: Halo I would think of as hard, not Keef. But Lisa is right, he IS very resilient. Her exact words were "you'll never see compulsion on him". It took a level 70 (out of 127) correction on an e-collar for him to ignore another dog and decide to notice he was supposed to be working with her. He doesn't even flinch when we roll our office chairs over his tail.


----------



## sagelfn (Aug 13, 2009)

I don't do SchH but am trying to learn as much as possible. I would love to do it in the future. When Sage is more mature and we've gotten some training issues down I will have him tested. I don't think he has the nerves for it but maybe we could do the other 2 phases and I could work another dog to learn protection.

I've been following your training on the other board. Super jealous of your trainer


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I think that Jklatsky's 2nd post on page 6 is very informative and good reading for those who are learning or who care. The key to this question,IMO, is based on the definition of real. Sport has parameters to make subjective opinions, but real is so varied depending on whether you exist in the "real" world or not.(Gotcha)


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

On a serious note....to me sport dogs operate out of a pattern or routine, and real dogs operate out of circumstances.JMO


----------



## lesslis (Sep 23, 2007)

"to me sport dogs operate out of a pattern or routine, and real dogs operate out of circumstances.JMO "

Great thread Wayne and learning a bunch. 

I am a Sch. newbie, so be patient. I have a question on the above quote.

If the pattern or routine changes does it mean that the sport dog is doomed to fail and the real dog can work thru the changes?


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

No, it doesn't mean that the sport dog is "doomed" to fail, it means you have changed the dynamics of that sport and once the dog has been trained to do the new routine or pattern it will be successful; if its capable.
I am looking more at end result in defining the dog; based on what you ask a dog to do. Sport doesn't require problem solving anymore, because the analness of the scoring to the Nth degree removes the problem solving element; less you be penalized. 
Take tracking, there was a time that if the dog slowed up at a corner, sifted the track, then continued in the right direction the first time he would not be penalized. Today; it must be a robotacle procession of the same speed, nose perfect on the ground, no thinking at corners, etc to get maximum pts. This discourages training for the dog to problem solve and makes it sport in my view. JMO


----------



## W.Oliver (Aug 26, 2007)

lesslis said:


> If the pattern or routine changes does it mean that the sport dog is doomed to fail and the real dog can work thru the changes?


Not at all, the SchH rule changes that are coming simply mean alot of folks and thier dogs are going to be tuning-up their training....I am sure there are other folks with older dogs that may simply be retired from trialing rather than invest the time in training them to the new rules.


----------



## lesslis (Sep 23, 2007)

After reading all of this it makes me wonder am *I *changing what I consider my "real dog" into a "sport dog" by training in Schutzhund? 
Oh heck, guess he'll be a "real sport dog" lol 

Seriously, great thread, great discussions. 
SDA did not seem near as robotic. (sorry, had to add that)


----------



## Wilhoit (May 17, 2010)

Wildtim said:


> Sport dogs lack the character and nerve to become "real" dogs, the one who can become real often show it in some way even if they lack the training to really work the way they should. Sometimes it even shows in what the sport now calls faults.
> 
> Think of every time the crowd goes wild but the dog only gets about 80-85, odds are you just saw a "real" dog working. At least lately.


A video of a "real" dog's performance would be a big help for this newby, if that is possible!


----------



## JKlatsky (Apr 21, 2007)

onyx'girl said:


> Makes me wonder if starting a pup young is detrimental to protection work. I've seen dogs that never were started til over a year and came out stronger and more confident than pups that had "foundation" from 10 weeks on.


The conclusion I have come to about this has more to do with what puppy you have in front of you. Having worked the first two of mine I learned that they were HIGH prey drive with a low threshold. It took almost nothing to activate prey in them. And while aggression certainly exists...it's not really something you can do with a baby puppy. Consequently working my dogs in prey all those months as puppies created those prey based habits in the work.

Going into the second two- I now KNOW that my dogs have that level of prey drive. So I don't mess with it. I don't bring it out, I don't develop. It already exists in quantity without any help from me. We teach some principles of biting and grip on toys so that they have that foundation, but we didn't start work with a helper until they were more ready to deal with some aggression presented. 

On the other hand though, people who have puppies without much prey drive or that tend to be overly defensive can benefit from early prey work. It's about looking at what you have and figuring out how to compensate to get the balance that you are looking for. (Which of course opens a whole nother can of worms about the "naturally balanced" dogs vs. the created balanced dog...which I don't really want to get into here)

The only other additional problem I see with working puppies early is that people forget that they are puppies. Everyone always seems to want to push training and "make progress". And what people like about protection is the Field Exercises- the long bites, the barking/guarding, the stick hits. So everyone can exclaim about how tough their dog is, how fast their dog is, etc. Everyone wants to get to all that in a hurry and sometimes things that are fundamental get lost. For a OB comparison- I spent months teaching my puppy to quickly scoot his butt under in the sit. I know why I wanted him to do that but I have to say It felt pretty stupid that my 4 month old puppy was still learning to sit properly when someone else could tell their 10 week old puppy sit, and their pup would rock right back into a lovely sit. Of course I'll feel better at the end but sometimes it's hard to keep those goals in mind when you're training and you feel behind- like in protection when my 9 month old is still working on a wedge and puppy pillow on targeting and entry and just learning to bark for the right reasons...and someone else's 9 month is on the sleeve and doing most of the exercises. What I have to remember is that my training will be solid and correct, and that the person who rushed is going to have keep working on those begining areas.


----------



## Ruthie (Aug 25, 2009)

JKlatsky said:


> The conclusion I have come to about this has more to do with what puppy you have in front of you. Having worked the first two of mine I learned that they were HIGH prey drive with a low threshold. It took almost nothing to activate prey in them. And while aggression certainly exists...it's not really something you can do with a baby puppy. Consequently working my dogs in prey all those months as puppies created those prey based habits in the work.
> 
> Going into the second two- I now KNOW that my dogs have that level of prey drive. So I don't mess with it. I don't bring it out, I don't develop. It already exists in quantity without any help from me. We teach some principles of biting and grip on toys so that they have that foundation, but we didn't start work with a helper until they were more ready to deal with some aggression presented.
> 
> ...


I think that is an awesome outlook and one I would like to pattern after with my new pup. I tend to be more of the "over acheiver" type, but if you think about it, in SchH you can't trial until 15 months anyway. What is the rush?

Thanks for the post.


----------



## BlackGSD (Jan 4, 2005)

Ruthie said:


> I think that is an awesome outlook and one I would like to pattern after with my new pup. I tend to be more of the "over acheiver" type, but if you think about it, in SchH you can't trial until 15 months anyway. What is the rush?
> 
> Thanks for the post.


IMO, way too many folks just want "instant gratification".
It isn't about the training and bond with with their dog, it is about the TITLES/TRIALS. It's about having a SchH 3 on the dog ASAP.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

JKlatsky,
Your last post is,IMO, so very very true and quite incisive from my experiences. Lot to be learned in that post!!


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

What a great discussion.. I seriously learned a lot from it. 

THANK YOU to everyone who posted.

I am definitely looking at things in a new light.


----------

