GAMENESS

By Andrew P.O’ Conor, 1929

In the early days of cocking in England, cock-fighting was considered a "Game" just as Tennis, Rugby, Hockey, Cards, etc., and instead of being referred to as Game Cocks, they were called "Cocks of the Game," and it was not until the reign of King James I, that they were "chris ened" game cocks, and the word from that date had a different meaning, because the word game then, as now, meant high courage, and it means the same in all languages throughout the world.

Hundreds of words in daily use in the most polite and cultured society, had their origin in the cock-pit.

Many renowned students of natural history maintain that gameness was perfected by man. Their claims would be entitled to more respectful consideration by breeders who have devoted their lives to the perpetuation of this monarch of the feathered tribe, if they had furnished any evidence in support of their claims. Quails were fought in China centuries before cocking was referred to in The Institutes of Manu, 1200 B. C., and if man had the power to create gameness as we know it in game cocks, it seems reasonable to suppose that they would have improved the courage of quails, which were also fought by the early Greeks and Romans.

Mr. Darwin, in his account of his discovery, (The Origin of Species), said: "My first notebook was opened in July, 1837. I worked on true Baconian principles, and without any theory collected facts on a wholesale scale,  more especially with respect to domesticated productions, by printed inquiries, by conversation with skillful breeders anld gardeners, and by extensive reading   I soon perceived that selection was the key-stone of man's success in making useful races of animals and plants." This is the crux of Mr. Darwin's story. I can believe that "selection" is the only basis upon which breeding can be successful, and by what Herman B. Duryea, referred to as "the most minute and careful selection" breeds can be improved in color, plumage, conformation and health, but with game fowl, gameness must be a fixed and hereditary quality. That quality is arbitrarily settled by nature, and with it, there is not one scintilla of evidence either in Mr.  Darwin's work, or anywhere else, to support the claim that gameness is man-made. If it were possible fifty, one hundred or one million years ago, for illiterate Barbarians, to develop gameness in fighting fowl, it is a reflection upon our boasted intelligence, that we are inferior to those savages, because we cannot breed out the bad stock in strains, by the most careful and intelligent systems ot mating. By continuous breeding pure game fowl to what we call "dunghills" we can develop cocks that will take their death in a long, severe and distressing battle. So, here, to all appearance, we have proved the truth of the Darwinian theory. But mate a brother and sister of these "man-made" game (?) cocks, and the progeny will be deflcient in courage, and absolutely worthless for the purpoae for which game cocks are bred.

Where the breed is pure and undefiled, inbreeding does not affect their courage, and the only true test for the highest type of gameness, is close in-breeding, for the first mating of brother and sister, if the parent stock is impure, the breeder will know from the usual test, of their lack of courage.

About twenty years ago, a trashy publication in South Carolina, stated in an editorial that: "All strains of game fowls will occasionally produce quitters."

He was an ignorant editor who received his inspiration through the business office; the statement was not based upon any substantial evidence, but it was the only way he thought he could satisfy his subscribers, who complained about the inferior quality of fowl sold to them by the most extensive advertisers in his storm center of misinformation.

I was publishing THE ARENA, in Norfolk, Virginia, at the time, and it occurred to me that the most effective way to disprove this false claim, was to submit it to the foremost breeders of the time, and publish their replies.

  The letter from Mr. W. L. Morgan, I had stereotyped at a cost of $150, and it appeared in THE' ARENA just as he wrote it with his own hand.

East Orange, N. J., Oct. 10, 1910.

My dear Mr. O'Conor:

Your letter of the fifth received. I am afraid that anything I may say will be of small interest to fraternity at large.

My experience in over sixty years' cocking has shown me a number of strains of cocks that never produced a quitter.

Of course they must be fought in good health and condition.

You can only breed cocks just about so good, or in other words, first class in their fighting ability and a high grade of gameness; if you try to do more than that you are apt to go the other way.

The trouble is, men try to breed cocks instead of hens: All the goodness you can get into a hen the better, and a dozen proven hens will last a man a good many years.

I mean proven through their sons, and to get such a vard of hens, all must be bred separate the first year. It IS a lot of trouble, but pays in the end.

You take six full sisters, and you will find that there is one in the bunch worth more as a breeder than the 01 her five, and when you get a yard of that kind of hens, von can put the father, uncle or brother right with them and keep them together as long as they hatch healthy,  vong chicks: And a stag from this mating can be put on to the hens as soon as necessary. A hen's breeding life is about three times as long as the cock's, and you can, by saving your first pullets each year, keep up your proven hens. 

Faithfully,

WILLIAM L. MORGAN.

Columbus, Georgia, Oct. 7, 1910.

Mr. A. P. O'Conor, 

Norfolk, Va.

My dear friend:

I have your letter of recent date, in which you request my views regarding the hereditary gameness of fowl. I can speak only of my own strain, and it is indeed a pleasure to state that my "Shawlnecks" have never sulked, stopped fighting, or quit fighting in my hands. I have fought thousands of them, and the modern idea which is being advanced by interested parties, that all strains will occasionally produce quitters, is too absurd - to discuss.

I loping to see you at Monroe, believe me,

Always your friend,

CHARLES F. BROWN.

No. 105 East Rochester, N. H., Oct. 8, 1910.

Dear O'Conor: 

Your letter of October 5th to hand. I stand as you do regarding game fowl. I firmly believe a thorough game strain, of which there are many, will prove game through and through, in health and condition.

Your friend,

JOSEPH WINGATE.

Ogdensburg, N. Y., Oct. 12, 1910.

 Friend O'Conor:

Yours of the 8th inst. received, and contents noted. Your idea of breeding agrees with mine. I never had any doubt of the gameness of my fowl, when I knew the stock I bred from were game.

About 18 years ago I bought of the late P. W. Carew, some Mahoney "Gulls" and Genet Pyles, and never while I bred them, did I see one show any sign of sulking or quitting, and mind you, up in this part of the country, anybody in the cocking business that don't show up during the holidays with a few of his stags to fight, would be considered afraid, and at best the stags could not be more than 7 1/2 or 8 months old.

What you mention, I firmly believe. That is, that you cannot get dunghills from game fowl, neither can you make game fowl out of dunghills.

It is hardly worth while asking the average breeder for his opinion on the subject, for only a few have the same strain long enough to be able to intelligently answer your question.

Your friend,

MICHAEL CONLEY.

Louisville, Ky., Oct. 12, 1910.

Editor The Arena:

Replying to yours of the 5th inst., I will say that I have bred game fowl all my life, and my father before me is a true cocker now at the age of 86. My youngest boy is now 26 years of age, a natural-born cocker.

We have never shown a quitter or sulker, and I know from breeding the past fifty years that a game strain will not produce quitters.

The trouble with our sport is, there are too many incompetent men that like to see their names in print, and they really don't know what they are writing about. Along comes an ink-slinger and tries to patch up matters for the peddlers by saying "occasionally all strains produce quitters." I say no game strain will breed quitters, but cocks must be fought in good condition. .

Your friend,

JOHN H. KUHN.

Dawson, Ga., Oct. 11, 1910. Dear Andrew:

In reply to your letter regarding gameness as a fixed characteristic in certain strains, I beg to say that from personal experience, I cannot go back very far, but my father, Dr. W. A. Lunday, has bred fowl for forty years, and his opinion, as well as Jim Clarke's, coincides with your claim for game fowl.

I fight on an average of 150 cocks a year, of my own breeding, and I have never known one of the old family strain to quit. Any sick cock would quit, but cockers don't fight sick ones. Hope to see you at Monroe.

Your friend,

CROWELL C. LUNDAY.

New York, Oct. 20, 1910.

No one who knows anything about game fowl, or the breeding of them, would make such a foolish statement as that printed in the paper you sent me. It would be a waste of time to answer it.

Yours truly,

MICHAEL KEARNEY. 

Cock-Spur Cottage, Tamworth, Eng. 

November 1, 1910.

My dear O'Conor:  

 There are now and have always been many badly bred strains, and among the good ones, there are many different degrees of gameness. Sporting farmers i hat I know, who have walked game cocks for a great many years, and to see the hens bred from game cocks year after year, you would not want to see better. The farmers sell the stags and cocks to young sportsmen, and many of them make game fights, and if not killed outright, many cockers would be tempted to breed from them, but in reality they are no gamer in breeding than the bad ones from the same matings.

There are game strains here that I have known for upwards of sixty-five years, that nothing but death will stop. It is not right to publish in a newspaper that all strains will produce some quitters, or dunghills, because every careful breeder of long experience knows that it is not true. .   Yours ever,

WILLIAM GILLIVER. 

Lark Hill, West Derby, Liverpool.

8th Nov., 1910.

Dear Andy:

 It is indeed quite unfortunate that a magazine with such a wide circulation should disseminate such false statements, as that about which you request my views, which, however, you know very well, but if it is a written statement you require, I gladly give it in the interest of young European breeders who may be influenced by such doctrine. Therefore, you may quote me as denouncing as utterly false, the claim that "all strains will occasionally produce quitters." I know many strains which, for the last 40 years, have never shown the least inclination to quit under the most severe punishment. 

Ever yours,

B. H. JONES.

Greenwood, Miss., Oct. 10, 1910.

Dear O'Conor:

In reply to your letter of Oct. 5, I will say, a cock, or a main of cocks in proper hands will not show a quitter: If we are to judge the future by the past, and the histories of so many strains with which I am acquainted, has long since convinced me of the above facts. Take for instance, the great main fought by the Eslins against the Claibornes. Neither side produced quitters. Charles F. Brown against Major Bacon, neither side produced quitters. Charles F.   Brown against Tom O'Neal, neither side produced quitters, and these cockers showed and fought the strains which they have always fought in big mains. I mention the names of only a few of the great breeders who have produced strains of world-wide reputation, but there are many others, who have equally pure game fowl.

When the hens and cocks are kept pure, they will not breed quitters, and this fact is so thoroughly proven that I did not think there was a man in the world who doubted it.

 Whether you raise and walk one stag or one hundred, put them on walks. . When two years old, get them in condition and fight them, and if one out of the lot quits, then, you have dunghills, and you can't breed it out of them. You may take the gamest of those brothers and the best fighter. He may win a dozen or more fights: you breed him to a game hen, and nine chances in ten, his sons will not stand as much punishment as a barnyard cock. A sick cock is never fought by a cocker but a sound, healthy cock must stay. Wishing you much success,

Your friend,

HENRY GRIMME.

My experience with fowl of my own breeding, has convinced me of the soundness of my argument in defense of gameness as a set characteristic in pure bred fowl.

I enjoyed the friendship and confidence of all the famous cockers whose letters are here presented: they were not only capable breeders and successful cockers, but they were gentlemen of high character.

With the exception of the Kearney-Duryea strains and the strains from which they descended, I considered the Wm. L. Morgan fowl among the best cocks in this country, and it has always been a mystery to me, why Mr. Morgan claimed that a dash of impure blood was advantageous, and he considered his best fighters, those cocks which were about 7-8 Whitehackle and 1-8 dunghill. While he claimed that he never parted with any fowl containing the bad cross, many of them must have passed out of his hands. Tommy Rogers, who successfully fed the Morgan cocks for many years, told me the strain is virtually extinct as a pure breed.

Whether their passing was due to Mr. Morgan's frequent infusions of cold blood, to produce the sort of cocks he professed to prefer, we do not know, but we do know that as active contenders in the pit, they do not occupy a very exalted position, but we frequently see crosses of the Morgan fowl which seem to be all that a cocker could desire in a strain of first class fighters. How game they are, we do not know.

History proves that in countries where the proper tribute was not paid to gameness, cocking has ceased to attract the attention of first class sportsmen, and it becarne a gambling instrument, which appealed only to that class which is now, and always has been, a detriment to this ancient and honorable pastime.

The decline in the interest of cocking in England, according to the highest authorities in that country, is dated from the introduction of Asil crosses. For many years these crosses were invincible, the pure old strains were neglected, and many of them became extinct.

The trouble came when the Asil crosses required fresh infusions of game blood. The honest, careful breeders refused to part with their pure strains; the Asil breeders could obtain none of it, and in the end, their speedy, strong cutting Asil crosses, became as Samson, when his hair was bobbed by the siren.