07/26/2026
Before We Talk About Dog Fighting…
Today we continue a discussion that we began some time ago.
How do we preserve the Tosa?
That is the question.
We have talked about the importance of understanding what a Tosa is. We have examined some of the most commonly proposed methods of preservation. Now we arrive at what is perhaps the most frequently suggested answer of all:
Dog fighting.
Before we begin, however, there are a few things I want to make clear.
The first is purpose.
The purpose here is to engage honestly with the idea.
Far too often, people respond emotionally to a subject like this and forget that emotion alone is not enough to carry action—especially action free from distortion. An argument becomes weaker when it rests only upon how something feels or how we believe things ought to be because of those feelings.
If right is right and wrong is wrong, then we should be able to support our conclusions logically and rationally.
Now, I understand that sometimes we recognize truth before we possess the words to explain it. That happens. But that does not mean we should stop there. We should remain with the truth until we discover language capable of communicating it clearly.
So let me begin by making one thing absolutely clear.
I am not advocating for dog fighting.
I am only going to say that once.
To the person capable of understanding what that statement means, I need not repeat it. To the person who requires me to repeat it every other sentence, it ultimately does not matter what I say. The need for constant repetition is itself evidence of that. Such a person has already decided what they believe and will interpret my words accordingly. I have spoken truthfully. If someone chooses to believe they know my intentions better than I do, then so be it.
There is another point I wish to establish, and I believe it is every bit as important. Unfortunately, it is also a posture that discussions like this rarely take. Yet I believe it is essential.
Allow me to state it plainly.
You are not merely free to make up your own mind.
You have the responsibility to make up your own mind.
You are not merely entitled to an opinion. You have the responsibility to engage honestly enough with a subject that you preserve clarity and coherence within your own thinking.
I am not here to make your decisions for you.
I am not here to tell you what you must think.
It is not my role to settle every question on behalf of the world.
My purpose is to begin an important discussion and offer a framework that is both meaningful and practically useful—a framework through which information can be organized, examined, and understood so that you may arrive at your own conclusions.
I do not intend to stand between you and what is rightfully your decision.
If what I have to say possesses any merit, then it should not require me to carry it.
It need only be pointed out.
Gravity does not require my understanding in order to exist. It does not require me to become its authority before anyone else may discover it. We simply observe that what goes up must come down. We teach a child that if they lose their balance, they will fall rather than float. Life itself provides the experience.
The most any teacher can hope to do is point toward experiences you have already had, truths that already surround you, and offer a framework through which those experiences become more deeply understood.
Gravity was not invented by the person who teaches physics.
It was not invented by Isaac Newton.
It could be observed long before it was explained.
It can be discussed.
It can be studied.
But gravity does its own work.
That is the nature of the conversation we are about to have.
With that in mind, I will speak clearly, declaratively, and decisively about what I believe. I will support those beliefs, and where they are challenged, I will defend them vigorously—not dogmatically, but rigorously.
Do not mistake clarity for coercion.
Do not confuse conviction with the demand that you agree.
This is not a dissertation.
It is not even really a prescription.
Think of it instead as a shared exercise in careful thought.
The things we are about to discuss are in plain sight. You are capable of seeing them for yourself. The observations I will ask you to consider are neither hidden nor inaccessible. My hope is simply to orient our attention toward them and provide a framework through which they become easier to recognize.
With that in mind, let us look together at the question before us.....and see what we find.
Turning Toward The Elephant
To revisit the saying: "The rule makes the dog." I take that statement literally—but not simplistically. The rules are not merely how the contest is judged. They are the developmental environment. They are the forge. That does not mean every change to the rules is harmful. It does mean every change must be understood.
The rules are not valuable simply because they are traditional. They are valuable because they create the selection pressures that shaped the Tosa over generations.
Fortunately, we do not have to speculate about this principle. We can observe it in other working dog disciplines. Protection sports provide an excellent example because they illustrate how small differences in what a system rewards gradually produce different kinds of dogs.
Anyone familiar with police or protection work knows that not all working dogs are created equal.
Officers themselves sometimes joke about certain dogs being "point and pray" dogs…
Not “prey,”…
Pray.
“Point the dog in the right direction and pray nobody else gets in its way.”
Likewise, anyone who has spent time on social media around protection sports has probably seen photographs or videos of 2-4 month old shepherds hanging from a tug, launching themselves toward a bite pillow, or clinging to a decoy's sleeve/pants with extraordinary intensity.
These images are often celebrated because we believe they demonstrate commitment. However, that type of commitment alone does not tell us what kind of dog we are looking at.
As a dog trainer and behavior therapist, I can attest to the fact that there are many paths that lead to the same outward behavior.
Now is a good point to clarify something important.
What I am saying here is not necessarily something that can be broadly applied to every relationship between humans and dogs. It is important to understand that people who work with dogs are not a monolith. There are different ways humans relate to dogs, and those different relationships create different frameworks for understanding what a dog is.
If I were to broadly categorize the uses of dogs, I think dog fighting falls into a category where the dog is not primarily a tool.
I know that may sound strange, so allow me to explain.
In this category, the dog is performing a function that is not actually necessary for human survival. No person will live or die based upon whether or not a dog wins a dog fight. The outcome may matter deeply to those involved, but it is not a matter of practical necessity.
Then there is another category.
In this category, the dog truly is a tool.
I want to be clear: that may sound cold or heartless on the surface, but historically, many of these relationships were not only practical—they were necessary.
Herding.
Hunting.
Protection work.
Agriculture.
The list goes on.
In these situations, the dog’s function was essential. The work itself was necessary, and therefore the dog was often understood primarily through its ability to perform that work.
Consider a protection dog.
A handler does not necessarily care whether a dog is biting because of fear, confidence, dominance, excitement, or some other internal motivation. What matters most is whether the dog performs the correct action, at the correct time, against the correct target.
The function comes first.
The same principle applies to livestock guardians, farm dogs, hunting dogs, and many other working roles. The dog’s character, temperament, physical attributes, and abilities all matter, but they matter because they serve the function.
That does not mean the dogs were unloved.
It does not mean people did not appreciate their personalities or form deep emotional bonds with them.
It simply means that, structurally speaking, the dog was understood as a tool first.
The problem I encounter frequently is that people do not realize there are multiple ways of relating to dogs. Because of that, they unconsciously carry assumptions from one framework into another where those assumptions no longer fit.
This creates confusion.
Dog fighting, as a category, has sometimes been viewed as a way to determine whether a dog could perform in a serious life-or-death situation. However, when examined carefully, fighting another dog does not actually prove that.
The activity itself is not a survival necessity.
The dog is not performing a task that protects the human, provides food, manages livestock, or fulfills another practical role essential to life.
The dog may be treated as a tool.
The dog may be regarded as a tool.
But structurally, the activity itself does not function in the same way as other working roles where the dog’s performance directly serves a necessary human purpose.
With that distinction established, I want to point out one final thing before we continue.
Throughout this discussion, I will be examining premises, assumptions, thought processes, and the logic behind certain conclusions.
These are not personal attacks.
They are not statements about the intelligence, morality, or character of individuals.
This is a structural analysis of how we arrive at the conclusions we arrive at.
There is an important difference between a person's ability to reason and the premises they are reasoning from.
Premises are often inherited.
Sometimes consciously.
Sometimes unconsciously.
We frequently begin with assumptions that were given to us without ever stopping to examine them.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. Human beings have to operate from assumptions constantly. The problem arises when we never examine whether those assumptions actually belong in the situation we are applying them to.
To illustrate this, imagine that I teach you from the beginning that two plus two equals ten.
Then I give you a test where that equation appears in several different forms.
When you complete the test, your answers will be wrong.
But the incorrect answers do not necessarily prove a failure of reasoning.
You may have followed every step correctly.
Your process may be consistent.
Your logic may be organized.
Your work may even be beautifully executed.
But if the numbers you began with were incorrect, the conclusion will still be incorrect.
The problem was not the process.
The problem was the premise.
That is the level at which I want to examine this discussion.
Not merely the conclusions people have reached, but the foundations those conclusions were built upon.
If the premises are accurate and the reasoning that follows is sound, then I have no objection.
You do not have to agree with me.
You do not have to see things exactly as I see them.
That is not my place to demand.
My purpose is not to replace your judgment with mine.
My purpose is to examine the framework together and ask whether the assumptions we are using actually belong to the question we are trying to answer.
Because I believe there are places where we may all be carrying assumptions into this discussion without realizing it.
One of those assumptions is the idea that the dog should be understood primarily as a tool.
Again, I want to be clear.
I am not saying that viewing a dog as a tool is inherently wrong.
Many of humanity’s greatest relationships with dogs have existed within that framework.
I am saying that it may not be the correct framework for this particular discussion.
The question before us is not simply: "What can this dog do?"
The deeper question is: "What is this dog?"
Only one of those questions is suited to carry an identity. The other carries a function. Neither can substitute for the other.
Getting back to the discussion at hand, a dog may bite because it is confident. Another because it is insecure. Another because it is reactive. Another because it lacks impulse control. Another because it possesses extraordinary nerve. From a distance, the behavior may appear identical.
The psychology is not.
Imagine placing several shepherds side by side.
One is fearful.
One is reactive.
One is quiet.
One is nervous.
One is socially dominant.
One is calm, clear-headed, and confident.
Suppose I never allowed you to meet them beforehand. Instead, I handed you a report listing only one fact: Which dogs bite.
Could you tell me which dog possessed the strongest character? Of course not. However, every one of them may bite. The observable behavior is real. It simply isn't enough.
The same principle applies to every working discipline. Whenever we evaluate only what a dog does, without asking what produced that behavior, we run the risk of selecting for qualities we never intended to cultivate.
This, I believe, is what Japanese and Korean dogmen mean when they say, "The rule makes the dog." The important thing is not the rule itself. It is the developmental pressure the rule creates.
Now you know why you don’t see Japanese and Korean dog men flying with their dogs to every country they can find a fight in. These people are not interested in subjecting their dogs to selection pressures (rules) that were never intended to carry a dog like a Tosa.
That realization fundamentally changed the way I began evaluating every proposed substitute for the historical ring. I began asking, "What qualities will this system consistently reward generation after generation?" Because that is what ultimately shapes the breed, not simply rules.
The rules can change while preserving the same developmental pressure. Conversely, the rules can remain almost identical while quietly changing what the system rewards. The outward appearance may stay the same.
The dogs do not.
That is why I judge changes by whether they preserve—or alter—the developmental pressures that historically produced the Tosa. Only after understanding that principle can we honestly address the most commonly presented suggestion.
Dog Fighting
The Elephant in the Room: The Historical Method
Before we move on, we must address what is perhaps the most common proposal. If the Tosa was historically developed through organized fighting, why not simply preserve organized fighting?
That question deserves an honest answer. So, let’s deal with it.
Fact: The Tosa was, in fact, developed within a fighting tradition. Ignoring that history does nothing to preserve it. Anyone who denies that is not protecting the breed's history. They are avoiding it.
To whom it may concern: The Tosa was not created as a show dog. It was not created as a guardian breed. It was not created as a companion animal. It was not created as a service dog. Those uses may exist today, and individual Tosas may excel in them, but they are not the historical arena in which the breed was shaped.
The historical environment in which the Tosa was created is the Japanese Sumo ring.
That fact deserves respect not revision or repression.
If we cannot acknowledge the truth of where something came from, we cannot honestly discuss where it should go. We can’t even begin to understand what it is.
However, acknowledging history requires something more than simply repeating the most apparent part of it like we lack the sense or the diligence to understand what was underneath the surface.
It requires understanding what that history was actually doing.
Not what it looked like. Not what it involved. What it consistently guarded against and what it rewarded.
That matters because two systems may appear almost identical while producing entirely different animals. Even within categories, regions, and disciplines, variation can be quite drastic. Corgis, Dachshunds, and Basset hounds all look similar in body proportions. German Shepherds, Blue Heelers, Collies, and Corgis are all shepherds. Are any of those breeds like each other in truth? Of course not.
The difference lies in what each system makes visible—and therefore what each system allows breeders to select.
Returning to the topic at hand, we have already examined companion life, conformation, hog hunting, and protection sports. Each reveals something. Each leaves something unseen.
To the notion that we can fight Tosas to preserve them, the same question applies.
What qualities can this forge actually produce?
I would like to analyze that topic in four broad movements that are centralized around the four main problems facing the idea. They are as follows:
1. The Perceptual Problem
2. The Cultural Problem
3. The Practical Problem
4. The Structural Problem
________________________________________
Next we will examine each of these and see what we can find.
For today, I want to leave you with a thought on the perceptual problem...
--------------------------
What a Tosa is Actually Like...
Tosas are not violent or aggressive blindly. Most Japanese or Korean dogmen would say that they have never seen one attack a house dog, regardless of gender.
Males do not attack females except for in extreme circumstances in which they need to defend themselves. In those instances, the male does not use his skill and ability to harm. He uses it to resolve the situation without a single hair missing or an ounce of blood present on any of the animals.
Male Tosas do not attack puppies. I don't mean just young dogs in the sense of babies. I mean that in the 30 years I have worked with dogs of this breed that I have imported from all over the world including Japan and Korea I have never once had a single concern of any male dog being a threat to a puppy. What do I mean by puppy? I mean the average male puppy does not begin to raise its leg consistently until it's about a year and a half. Until it raises its leg, be it 18 months or 24, I have never had any concern whatsoever and no incidences that should convince me otherwise.
These dogs are naturally good protectors with excellent situational awareness, the ability to apply pressure appropriately is intrinsic. They know the difference between night and day, the behaviors people usually exhibit at those times, the difference between someone you've acknowledged and someone you didn't notice, All of that.
I've never had to teach these dogs what a baby is, I'm talking about humans. I've imported dogs directly from Japan that would stand all day next to a toddler's playpen and pick up toys and put them back in every time. The same dog would come and find me if that child began to cry.
These dogs have worked as seizure alert dogs, balance support dogs, emotional/therapy dogs, and I have used them with great success as dogs who help me train other dogs. Particularly dogs who have dog aggression.
If there's one thing I know about this breed it is that you would likely go your whole life without ever seeing one get into a fight with just about any dog you would encounter here in the West save for two specific circumstances. First, if the dog in question makes itself an imminent threat to something that the Tosa is protecting then you will absolutely see Tosa Tōken show up. Again this is not something that you have to teach, the dog immediately understands it before the other animal seems to even make up its mind and the Tosa without hesitation moves in between the thing that it is protecting and the thing that is making a threat. From that point it makes a beeline towards the threat and will address it with prejudice.
In the other scenario, the Tosa would have to see a legitimate challenge. It would have to be a dog that presents the same character mind and body of a Tōken. This is why I say you can go your whole life here in the West and never see a Tosa actually fight. They will let the other dog bounce off of them and wear itself out and then give it a look like "Are you done?" And then go about their day. They are not given to reactivity and they do not respond to it. They simply don't care.
It's not that they are programmed, it's that they are educated to the point where perception carries recognition and they know the difference between a legitimate concern and something that's not, a legitimately stable challenge and something that is not in control of itself.
Speaking on perception, the things this dog learns from watching you will always outweigh the number of things it learns from you training it. Opening doors, opening containers, paths, problem solving, the dog is never not watching and never not learning. They are not simply quiet, they are focused and observant.
When it comes to the body, I have never met one that couldn't do at least 4 hours next to a bicycle in Texas. Males can clear 6 ft fences without touching them. They have uprooted small trees, pulled down chain link fences, pulled up patio support beams, and towed trucks, all in my own personal experience.
For things I am familiar with, from the distance of about 2 to 3 ft away I know of a female that broke a grown man's leg. They were playing, the toy landed behind him, she went to get it. It was not a bite. Just the sheer force of running to get that toy, the momentum she generated in about 2 to 3 ft, was enough to snap his lower leg.
These dogs understand role and authority at levels that exceed some people. If you can demonstrate you are a better leader than they are they will happily abdicate that role to you but they will not do so for anyone who has not specifically earned it. That being said, they are more concerned with building than they are with destroying. You will not find a dog on this planet that can outplay a Tosa. When it comes to other dogs they do not assume a need to attack. They assume peace. Individuals may have different personalities but whether they are goofy or structured players, they'd rather make a friend than an enemy.
That being said, they will not forget an enemy ever. Once an enemy is marked they do not let go of it unless instructed to do so by someone who has taken the position with the authority to instruct them so.
I have had males and females from all over the world, just about every line most people can name and several that they cannot. I have never in my life had a dog of this breed that required more than my normal speaking voice to control it. Most of them don't require voice at all. I've had males getting ready to get into a fight and I can look at them sternly and say don't with a normal speaking voice and they do not.
-------------------
Ok, if the definition you have of Tosa Token only carries that the dog cannot be trusted around other dogs, and does not carry ALL that you see in the above description, then you are not describing Tosa Token.
To put a finer point on it...
If the Tosa Temperament you carry is of a dog that cannot tell the difference between a legitimate threat, a stable and worthy challenger, or a dog that has lost control of itself. If the temperament/description you carry means that the Tosa cannot ignore and deflect an unworthy opponent, then you do not have a description of a Tosa. You have a western misperception, a false premise.
