What dogman had the biggest impact on the game as a breeder?

[Wise]

In terms of having dogs that people took and went their own way with having success creating their own line. Not the guy that sold the most puppies or made the most money.

[EWO]

For me it would be too hard to call. I do not think I could actually do a top five because the #6 guy is just about as deserving as the first five. I am partial to the Redboy dogs. Redboy had as much impact as any other. Redboy himself, then the Medlins Outlaw strain. There is no Redboy-Jocko without Redboy. There are no Cottingham dogs. Whitleys. Robinsons. Marlowes. Hollands. Mims. Baileys. No Mayday dogs. No Jeep-Redboy dogs. The list can go on and on.
With that said. I could start with Bolio and get to the Buck dogs and do the same. Or with Dibo. etc. etc. The Eli family tree as well. I could not say any one of the major families has had any more impact than the other, nor their breeders. If I said Patrick, he would have a large amount of support and at the same time he would have just as many detractors. Same with Beaudreaux. Carver. Tudor. Mims. Interesting topic though and I look forward to others opinions. I sort of fence ride on this one. EWO

[Officially Retired]

In terms of having dogs that people took and went their own way with having success creating their own line. Not the guy that sold the most puppies or made the most money.

Back about 1993, Ed Faron started running a pedigree program called CompUPed, that could do reverse-pedigree searches that would list the total # of champions down from Dog X, Y, Z, etc., spanning (I think) 7 generations. He used to sell this information.

At the time he did so, the dog with the greatest # of Champions down from it (7-generations-deep) was Boudreaux' Eli followed by Indian Bolio. There are, literally, thousands of winners down from these dogs. I know that Redboy is now the big thing, but without Bolio there are no Mayday dogs either, nor any Boyles' dogs (which have oodles of ROMs/Chs, etc.), my dogs, Buck dogs, Hollingsworth dogs, etc.

Who gets the credit for these dogs? Patrick? Carver? Boudreaux?

I would have to say, impact-wise, Tudor, and especially Carver, Boudreaux, Patrick, Chavis, and Tant would be the top-6. Many people could make a powerful argument for Colby and Crenshaw, too.

However, to narrow it down to one breeder would be almost impossible, but if I had to I'd have to say Maurice Carver was the most influential, foundation-dog-creating breeder ever.

Jack

[CRISIS]

maurice carver,earl tudor

[CYJ]

Mr. Egan Skinner who knew most of the older foundation breeders. Told me one day while we were talking dogs. That he felt Maurice Carver has had the greatest impact on the up coming dog blood lines of the 70's etc. Would probably go down as the greatest breeder of our times since Colby, Corvino, Lightner, and Tudor. Some of the best La Cream of the crop M. Carver dogs were those bred in the early 70's-80's.

Over time I too felt the same. At the end of my dog breeding plans. I was working on a Carver Bullyson-Art's Missy blend. I had let V.J. run with what we had bred over the past years. My cross to this Bully Son-Art's Missy line was hopefully going to be to a good Bolio line, but preferably to a Tudor's Red Bill bloodline.

Jim Usleton knew the value of this Tudor's bloodline for crossing to other good bloodlines. He offered to help Clayton with trying to save the Sampson dog after the bout with Hooten's Butcher Boy dog. Sadly he accidently got shot and crippled in one leg for his troubles from a bad misunderstanding with Clayton.

When I was getting into the dog game in the early 70's. I got to see some of the first M. Carver dogs that hit the N.C. and S.C. dog scene. The M. Carver dogs fast became popular in Florida and Georgia along with J. Carver's bloodlines. The total dog game started making a radical change in the Southeast. These Carver dogs showed up with mouth and the tensile strength of a Bear. The conditioning-feed methods was different and the older methods of matching dried out dogs on bottom weight would not work against these dogs.

Lester Hughes thought L. Pratt had lost his mind when he opened up a jar of beef broth and fed it to Vindicator around the 12 or 6 hour mark before the Bo bout. He asked what Lonzo was doing. Lonzo replied I am feeding my dog. Dried out dogs will not fair too well today in hard pulling competition

For those that have manage to keep some straight bred M.Carver or tight Bolio bloodlines. You have some of the best breeding stock available today. But still have to apply good selection and common sense culling. If they key back to a heavy Tudor's Dibo- Tudor's Minnie- Boudreaux-Blind Billy influence better give them a least 2 1/2 years to be fully matured in the mind.

Just some of my thoughts and there were other great breeders like Hernandez, E. Crenshaw that bred dogs along with M. Carver. M. Carver had the talent to take good dogs off their yards and blend them to his own. From what Pete Sparks/H. Teal /E. Skinner told. M. Carver even introduced some of Peggy Harper's Tacoma-Doyle bred staffs into his line.

Was told when she got one that was too fight crazy. Would give her down the road neighbor Maurice a call. He would take the dog and check out it's oil. Passed the test to M. Carver's satisfaction. Would breed them. Being this was a told thing and did not see personally. Could be true or not. My Chuck dog that was Carver-Creel breeding, Brewer's Snooty, Davis's Boomerang some of Sorrells dogs looked good enough to show.

[swampdawg]

CYJ,would this be the same Mr.Skinner from Chas.SC?

[BOJINGLES62]

Good Thread

[CYJ]

Hello Swampdog, that was the Mr. Egan Skinner I was referring to. Before Mr. Skinner moved to Charleston, he had lived in N.C. He had bred up a line of old family Lightner dogs crossed to the Bullet dog owned by Bill Cotton. Mr. Teal matched two of them being Teal's Tip and Teal's Susie Q. One of the dogs related to his dogs was Crenshaw's Sad Sack. That played a part in the Carver line of dogs.

You will see another of his dogs called Skinner's, Shivar's or Lopasay's Beanie. Beanie is listed in some of the best producing lines of Lopasay dogs. When I knew Mr. Skinner he was up in age and had lost his best dogs back in N.C. from a bad flash flooding in the area. His property was on a creek.

Mr. Skinner was a lot of fun to be around and liked to give R.Braddock,V.Jackson,Scotty Todd.J. Spruill and self a lot of ribbing about all those curs we were feeding. I asked him one time why he wanted us to roll dogs every time he came to visit. His reply was he was not going to live much longer and wanted to see all the dog action he could. LOL I enoyed his stories about Bob Wallace,Edwards,Earl Tudor,Hemphill,Bill Lightner,George Saddler,Mike Ferris and many other dog men he personally knew in his life time.

Another N.C. transplant to Charleston that was good friends with E. Skinner and self was Scotty Todd. Scotty at that time was a good dog man and a great night club singer. Scotty later got out the dogs and became a Preacher back in N.C. Scotty and self one time went on a dog hunt venture for some of the last old Lightner bred dogs. Scotty knew all the N.C. dog men and run down a nice little brindle bitch called Mousy. Was the last of her kind. Tar Heel Matt remembers a lot about that. Seems Matt may have had a old stud dog of similar or same Lightner breeding but was to old to breed to. Mousy may have been a descendant off that dog.

Eagan asked Scotty to breed Mousy to my Red Nose-Red Brindle Coplin bred Geronimo dog when V.J. had him on his yard. Breeding was made, but a cur dog got to Mousy and bred her as well. That was a lost cause. Egan not long after that passed away. Later Scotty did breed Mousy to my later owned Carver-Creel bred Chuck dog. Saw one of the bitches and a Male. But do not know what became of that litter. The Charleston boys got hush hush about that breeding and never found out what happen to Mousy or what dog men ended up with the dogs. I wanted one of the bitches real bad at the time.

Mr. Skinner and H. Teal were fast friends along with Mr. Medlin and many other older dog men. It was Mr. Skinner,myself and my now deceased first wife that went with Mr. Teal to the dog show matches in Georgia. The one that Mr. Teal had the heart attack at. Mr. Teal made us drive him all the way back to his home in N.C. Would not go to a emergency medical hospital.

Was a long trying ride back home and his Doctor was very mad with him. Had done way more damage to his heart than necessary. Mr. Teal did not live long after that episode.

[CYJ]

The Lightner strain that Mr. Eagan Skinner had bred up was off some of the brindle Bill Lightner dogs blended to some of Edward's/Plemmon's Red Nose Lightner dogs. This cross came Fawn buckskin with black mask, light and dark brindle and some red nose ones as well. When crossed to the Cotton's Bullet dog that pretty well set the strain of dogs he was going to use.
Mostly came in dark and light brindles and Fawn. Had those lappy Lightner ears. Very good acting dogs in the lower 45 to 30 pound weight class.

[realpitsnobull]

I agree with most of y'all but I will go with the triple c's on this one Colby , Crenshaw and Caver and i have to put in Mr Boudreaux but if I had to pick 1 will go with Mr Colby IMO

[BRICKFACE]

This is a topic I have seen many times and it is too broad of a statement to narrow it down to 1 or just even a few. It's all matter of facts and opinion and depends on what timeline in these great dogs history you would like to give the men credit. Here are some facts: from the beginning you have to credit gents like Colby(JP & Lou), Heinzl(who is often over looked), and Tudor for their stamp on the game. Then follow suit with Boudreaux, Patrick, Crenshaw, Carver because their dogs are the foundation for a lot of the dogs of today. Now I will credit Boyles and the dogs based off his breedings. In my short time in the dogs 10yrs, I have seen many fads come and go but those Boyles and crosses are still on the scene and are consistently being sought after IMO. But if just one I say Colby, from JP in the beginning to Lou who had a run longer than anyone, the Colby family has stood the test of time.

[grindhard]

correct if i am wrong, carver bred boilo, honeybunch, rascal , bomerang, and the list goes on. however he sold more dogs then he showed again correct me if am wrong. where as men like floyd, and ozzie, and mayfeild, and crenshaw were more hands on. but hell, crenshaw ran carvers blood.

[Officially Retired]

People need to read the question.

Ozzie was a great conditioner/handler/breeder for himself ... but he had a minimal impact on the game as a breeder (in other words, how many yards are actually Ozzie-based?).

Likewise with Colby. Someone said that blood has "stood the test of time," but how many top, competitive yards are Colby-based these days (or 10 years ago ... or 20 years ago)? Yeah, Colby sold a lot of dogs, but these dogs really haven't been the mainstay of top, competitive yards for decades.

IMO, even today, the Lion's share of today's competitive dogs are still Carver/Boudreaux/Patrick-based ... with a huge amount of more recent Chavis influence as well.

Any time you say, "Boyles" you have to remember he got his two main foundation dogs from Patrick, as well as mentioning anything with Buck or Hollingsworth.

There are a lot of great minor players along the way (Clouse, Hemphill, E. Crenshaw, Heinzl, etc.), but none of these guys, important as they were, had overall HUGE impacts across the board. They pretty much only get an asterisk (*) somewhere in a more important breeder's pedigree. Sure Heinzl had Dibo, but Tudor made the important breedings with him. Sure again, Heinzl made the breedings that created the parents to Boudreaux' foundation dog Scrub (but, here again,Tudor made the actual breeding that produced him). True again, Heinzl also bred Bolio's grandsire Ch Goldie ... but it was actually Boudreaux and Patrick who bred and marketed their dogs widely enough to have the huge impact overall, while Heinzl's own involvement was incidental.

In other words, more important actual yards got started with dogs bred by Patrick and Boudreaux than by Heinzl (even though Heinzl gets a footnote in there). Same with Carver, even more than Patrick and Boudreaux, which is why I would say Carver is behind more modern dogs still competing today than anyone, and that is because more of these dogs trace to a larger Carver-foundation-base than anything else. (Him and Tudor.)

Of course this is just an opinion; nothing is set in stone. To get the absolute facts, a person would have to create a powerful program (with the majority of dogs in history in it) to come up with a tangible answer. Actually, if enough people entered their dogs in this database, correctly, and if they included the true breeder info in EVERY dog, with no duplicate pedigrees, our database could be programmed to make determinations like that in the statistics feature (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_statistics_dogs.php). We could actually add a "Breeder" feature, totalling the number of Champions/ROMs, etc. each breeder has produced ... down 15 generations ... and we could actually come up with some hard numbers :mrgreen:

So the more you guys take the time to do so, the more truly useful data we ALL can harvest from all of our input :idea:

Just something to think about as this resource grows: we ALL are responsible for its usefulness (or lack thereof) by virtue of how diligent we are in our data entry when we add dogs (or by how much we prevent its usefulness by our sloppy/incomplete data entry) ...

Just sayin ...

Jack

[evolutionkennels]

People need to read the question.

Ozzie was a great conditioner/handler/breeder for himself ... but he had a minimal impact on the game as a breeder (in other words, how many yards are actually Ozzie-based?).

Likewise with Colby. Someone said that blood has "stood the test of time," but how many top, competitive yards are Colby-based these days (or 10 years ago ... or 20 years ago)? Yeah, Colby sold a lot of dogs, but these dogs really haven't been the mainstay of top, competitive yards for decades.

IMO, even today, the Lion's share of today's competitive dogs are still Carver/Boudreaux/Patrick-based ... with a huge amount of more recent Chavis influence as well.

Any time you say, "Boyles" you have to remember he got his two main foundation dogs from Patrick, as well as mentioning anything with Buck or Hollingsworth.

There are a lot of great minor players along the way (Clouse, Hemphill, E. Crenshaw, Heinzl, etc.), but none of these guys, important as they were, had overall HUGE impacts across the board. They pretty much only get an asterisk (*) somewhere in a more important breeder's pedigree. Sure Heinzl had Dibo, but Tudor made the important breedings with him. Sure again, Heinzl made the breedings that created the parents to Boudreaux' foundation dog Scrub (but, here again,Tudor made the actual breeding that produced him). True again, Heinzl also bred Bolio's grandsire Ch Goldie ... but it was actually Boudreaux and Patrick who bred and marketed their dogs widely enough to have the huge impact overall, while Heinzl's own involvement was incidental.

In other words, more important actual yards got started with dogs bred by Patrick and Boudreaux than by Heinzl (even though Heinzl gets a footnote in there). Same with Carver, even more than Patrick and Boudreaux, which is why I would say Carver is behind more modern dogs still competing today than anyone, and that is because more of these dogs trace to a larger Carver-foundation-base than anything else. (Him and Tudor.)

Of course this is just an opinion; nothing is set in stone. To get the absolute facts, a person would have to create a powerful program (with the majority of dogs in history in it) to come up with a tangible answer. Actually, if enough people entered their dogs in this database, correctly, and if they included the true breeder info in EVERY dog, with no duplicate pedigrees, our database could be programmed to make determinations like that in the statistics feature (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_statistics_dogs.php). We could actually add a "Breeder" feature, totalling the number of Champions/ROMs, etc. each breeder has produced ... down 15 generations ... and we could actually come up with some hard numbers :mrgreen:

So the more you guys take the time to do so, the more truly useful data we ALL can harvest from all of our input :idea:

Just something to think about as this resource grows: we ALL are responsible for its usefulness (or lack thereof) by virtue of how diligent we are in our data entry when we add dogs (or by how much we prevent its usefulness by our sloppy/incomplete data entry) ...

Just sayin ...

Jack


Well stated, you gotta give credit to southern kennels victor Aycarts, yourself, and David Tant. . The mayday dog's are everywhere and did very well.

[Officially Retired]

Thank you. Myself, I have made a lil ripple in the game with my breedings ... and hurt some well-known, well-established feelings in many shows along the way ... lol ... but overall my breeding influence has been modest compared to the all-time greats. However, I think I have been a pretty big influence with my books and website over the years ... I see tons and tons of people basically quoting my book every day, which is great.

As a breeder, I would have to agree that Victor Aycart is probably the most influential breeder of modern times, no doubt about that, but I do not think of all time. Tant would be right there with him.

Jack

[SteelyDan]

I can't really speak on this breed as a whole as my concerns lie with my dogs and no one else's. That being said I'd have to say the breeder with the biggest impact on this yard before the current breeder was probly Jim Williams or Lightner.

[swampdawg]

The Lightner strain that Mr. Eagan Skinner had bred up was off some of the brindle Bill Lightner dogs blended to some of Edward's/Plemmon's Red Nose Lightner dogs. This cross came Fawn buckskin with black mask, light and dark brindle and some red nose ones as well. When crossed to the Cotton's Bullet dog that pretty well set the strain of dogs he was going to use.
Mostly came in dark and light brindles and Fawn. Had those lappy Lightner ears. Very good acting dogs in the lower 45 to 30 pound weight class.Thanks for the info. CYJ,most people today have never heard of MrSkinner.I grew up hearing about him and his dogs but never got the chance to meet him.

[Wise]

I started this thread so I may as well put my two cent in it! I've only been in these dogs for 14 years and when I came on the scene the game was at its peak, it was no longer a regional or national thing it had reached global status. You had American dogs competing in all corners of the globe. Even though they came from over seas in the first place I hope you get my drift.
With that said if the game had stayed "local" I'd say carver or Boudreaux. But since it didn't and from what I've seen as far as many different yards based off of one breeder it'd have to be Pat Patrick for me.

[Black Hand]

It is a very interesting topic and kind of difficult to come up with a real answer. The smaller the group of men that keep a certain breed, the bigger impact those will have as a whole on the population of animals. The more people, more studs available, more families, subfamilies or extended families that there are makes it much harder for an individual and his dogs to really impact the rest like in the past.

My own opinion is that Carver was the best and most influential straight across the board. This is mostly attributed to the man not needing any particular dog and didn't stumble on success. Bolio, Midnight cowboy, Stompanato, Boomerang, Snooty, Missy, Honeybunch, Rascal and more. Its hard to deny the impact of those animals and the lines they gave birth to that we see and talk about today. That's one hell of a line up and I know im leaving a lot out.

The cold part about it is, some of the guys who had those dogs probably didn't know how they were really bred but that never stopped the dogs from having awesome production careers. Basically, they produced without any real blueprint to look at.

[Wise]

Carver was motherfucker I mean he really really did his thang, it's so hard to pick one. Hell I said Patrick and that may even seem contradicting to my thread because he sold a bunch o dogs but man them same dogs worked out in good n good percentage and that impact is still being felt through today's crosses.

[swampdawg]

Theres alot of different breeds of dogs and they all have there own registries and yr.after yr. they give props to people who have made an impact on that particular breed.One award that has always bothered me more than the others is breeder of the yr. and it always goes to the guy that has sold the most pups for that yr. but has nothing to do with % points.It is about $ for this particular reg..Most people will think this person must have the best dogs because of this but in reality all he is doing is hurting his breed by sticking any dogs he has for the sole purpose of making a dollar.

[grindhard]

i agree swampdog thats how i feel

[Eliman]

Tudor, Caver, Boudreaux

[Officially Retired]

Theres alot of different breeds of dogs and they all have there own registries and yr.after yr. they give props to people who have made an impact on that particular breed.One award that has always bothered me more than the others is breeder of the yr. and it always goes to the guy that has sold the most pups for that yr. but has nothing to do with % points.It is about $ for this particular reg..Most people will think this person must have the best dogs because of this but in reality all he is doing is hurting his breed by sticking any dogs he has for the sole purpose of making a dollar.


By default, any time you're going to try to hand out the title, "Biggest IMPACT on the Breed," the individual is going to have to have put out a lot of puppies all over the world (or at least all over America). Otherwise, how in the hell is anyone going to have a "big impact" on the breed, if he keeps all his pups to himself? :shocked:

So "biggest impact" doesn't necessarily = "best percentages" or anything like that.

Biggest impact means what it means, which is affecting the game more than any other breeder. It is my opinion that Tudor and Carver affected the game more than any other breeders ... with Boudreaux, Patrick, Chavis, etc. deserving honorable mention. That doesn't mean these guys could whip Ozzie Stevens 10-0 if they faced him, that means they had a bigger impact on the game AS BREEDERS (which is the question ;) ), and that is all that it means.

Hollingsworth had a massive impact on the game, considering the little bit he bred dogs, and his percentages were legendary. He had the best "Patrick dogs" of his time, but not as big an overall impact as Patrick himself.

I did not have anywhere near the impact Patrick did overall, but most people who have run both lines prefer my dogs over his, and it is a matter of record that the 5 times "pure Patrick dogs" faced dogs directly from my yard, my dogs whipped Patrick's 5-0, with 4 of Pat's quitting in under the hour mark, with only 1 dog of his showing game, that was still picked up in less than 1 hour. For that matter, I would compare my own percentages (Wins versus Losses %) to any breeder who has ever put dogs out there, but that does not mean what small amount of dogs I put out there had the same "overall impact to the game."

So it helps if people learn to study the question :idea:

I can think of one breeder who has had a HUGE impact on the game, with many Champions produced, but for every dog that comes from him that "wins" ... 2 dozen never make it because they quit. So "impact" does not necessarily mean "quality across the board"; it only means put enough dogs out there to change the face of the game.

Surely Carver and Tudor both had a huge impact, and a lot of quality dogs, foundational to everyone else ... but that doesn't mean some small-time, local breeders couldn't and didn't have as good (or better) dogs on their yards. It only means that whatever these small-timers did, it didn't really have as big an impact as Carver or Tudor (though these men had superb dogs for themselves).

An example would be, and I can't remember the name of the man (Paul Sweeney, I think), but I believe he whipped Tudor 3-4 times in a row ... but he still didn't have as big an impact on the game as Tudor did.

Jack

[Eliman]

By default, any time you're going to try to hand out the title, "Biggest IMPACT on the Breed," the individual is going to have to have put out a lot of puppies all over the world (or at least all over America). Otherwise, how in the hell is anyone going to have a "big impact" on the breed, if he keeps all his pups to himself? :shocked:

So "biggest impact" doesn't necessarily = "best percentages" or anything like that.

Biggest impact means what it means, which is affecting the game more than any other breeder. It is my opinion that Tudor and Carver affected the game more than any other breeders ... with Boudreaux, Patrick, Chavis, etc. deserving honorable mention. That doesn't mean these guys could whip Ozzie Stevens 10-0 if they faced him, that means they had a bigger impact on the game AS BREEDERS (which is the question ;) ), and that is all that it means.

Hollingsworth had a massive impact on the game, considering the little bit he bred dogs, and his percentages were legendary. He had the best "Patrick dogs" of his time, but not as big an overall impact as Patrick himself.

I did not have anywhere near the impact Patrick did overall, but most people who have run both lines prefer my dogs over his, and it is a matter of record that the 5 times "pure Patrick dogs" faced dogs directly from my yard, my dogs whipped Patrick's 5-0, with 4 of Pat's quitting in under the hour mark, with only 1 dog of his showing game, that was still picked up in less than 1 hour. For that matter, I would compare my own percentages (Wins versus Losses %) to any breeder who has ever put dogs out there, but that does not mean what small amount of dogs I put out there had the same "overall impact to the game."

So it helps if people learn to study the question :idea:

I can think of one breeder who has had a HUGE impact on the game, with many Champions produced, but for every dog that comes from him that "wins" ... 2 dozen never make it because they quit. So "impact" does not necessarily mean "quality across the board"; it only means put enough dogs out there to change the face of the game.

Surely Carver and Tudor both had a huge impact, and a lot of quality dogs, foundational to everyone else ... but that doesn't mean some small-time, local breeders couldn't and didn't have as good (or better) dogs on their yards. It only means that whatever these small-timers did, it didn't really have as big an impact as Carver or Tudor (though these men had superb dogs for themselves).

An example would be, and I can't remember the name of the man (Paul Sweeney, I think), but I believe he whipped Tudor 3-4 times in a row ... but he still didn't have as big an impact on the game as Tudor did.

Jack

Awsome post Jack.

But i do feel the % should play a factor, i understand your point a breeder must affect the bulldog world with large number of his stock to make such a impact. But IMO the quality of that stock should be reasonable to be able to leave a dynasty of dogs in its wake.

RoughNeck

[CYJ]

Well thought out and well spoken Ca. Jack, I too concur. You missed your calling as a Lawyer. You have a great mind for analytical reasoning. I at times can not see the tree for the forest. LOL

Carver built his yard of dogs from smaller dog yards around Texas, Mexico etc. and even Tudor himself. Many of these Dog men with smaller yards had some cream of the crop breeding stock. K. Marlowe told me and V. J. one time that M. Carver called her too get some info about her Red Boy dogs.

M. Carver was good friends with Leo Kinard and many others. One writer stated Tudor did not like Carver, Carver still made that Black Widow breeding. He brought something Tudor had a weakness for to help get the deal sealed. If a true story, was no need for Tudor to start not liking someone, after the preconceived fun was over with. LOL

[swampdawg]

Evetyone has there opinion on what they like in a dog I guess but I would rather get a pup from a proven breeding (male to female) instead of getting a pup from a person solely because his name wil be on the papers.Put hundreds of pups out there and your bound to have some make it.

[Officially Retired]

Evetyone has there opinion on what they like in a dog I guess but I would rather get a pup from a proven breeding (male to female) instead of getting a pup from a person solely because his name wil be on the papers.Put hundreds of pups out there and your bound to have some make it.

I get what you mean, but it's not as simple as that.

Like great fighters, many great breeders got soft once they made it to the top and stopped doing the things that made them great in the first place. But what made these men great in their heyday was great foundational stock, a great eye and great standards, and a great pool of dogs to tap into.

Your ramble of "having some make it" out of a hodgepodge of shit is just that, a ramble. This kind of guessing game is not going to cause anyone to have an enormous positive impact on the breed ... you're talking about what 99.99% of the retards on PedsOnline are doing, but NONE of them has made any kind of an "impact" whatsoever, anywhere.

The people who had the biggest impact on the history of our breed had ALOT of dogs make it ... not "some" ... to where entire yards, bloodlines, and new histories were created. The breeders we're taking about here didn't get that way by being dumbasses peddling shit they knew nothing about. They got that way by breeding LOTS of damned good dogs. Their percentages might not have been the absolute best, and maybe some faded over time, but at their best MANY of the dogs these breeders produced damned sure were the best to be had in the history of the sport. That is how the "impact" was created ... and lasted ;)

Jack

[Black Hand]

Numbers go both ways. it's like when someone says well he was bound to produce good dogs sooner or later. same can be said about a dog with good numbers who's only had two litters. That dog is bound to produce bad ones if you breed him enough. that's just the way it goes, and you can't really grasp how someone's producing based on looking at peds online pages of offspring compared to number of champions lol. Today you have to think about how many of those offspring really went to Dogmen, really went to good Dogmen, n how many were just pets. this obviously plays major role in a breeders %. A lot of it has to do with the luck of a good dog going to a good dogman. A breeder has no control once that animal leaves his yard.

[grindhard]

i dont look as patrick or carver as men who just bred for papers. they paved the way for all dogmen. unfortunately in todas world of dogs are generation lacks hard work. as anything else in 2013 we live in a microwave society we wont it now. and it has damaged the work that the patricks and carvers has done

yet and still they birthed this generation of dogmen and the roosters have came home roost.

[grindhard]

i dont look as patrick or carver as men who just bred for papers. they paved the way for all dogmen and work speaks for it self. unfortunately in todays world of dogs are generation lacks hard work. as anything else in 2013 we live in a microwave society we wont it now. and it has damaged the work that the patricks and carvers has done

yet and still they birthed this generation of dogmen and the roosters have came home roost.

[evolutionkennels]

Numbers go both ways. it's like when someone says well he was bound to produce good dogs sooner or later. same can be said about a dog with good numbers who's only had two litters. That dog is bound to produce bad ones if you breed him enough. that's just the way it goes, and you can't really grasp how someone's producing based on looking at peds online pages of offspring compared to number of champions lol. Today you have to think about how many of those offspring really went to Dogmen, really went to good Dogmen, n how many were just pets. this obviously plays major role in a breeders %. A lot of it has to do with the luck of a good dog going to a good dogman. A breeder has no control once that animal leaves his yard.

Well stated

[Down_on_the_bayou]

Boudreaux hands down for me almost all of carvers success can be attributed to dogs bred by or down from Floyd's dogs. its funny that everyone says tudor when every old timer that knew him that I spoke to never considered him much of a breeder he had some great dogs yes indeed. Carver was out of this world with the dogs he produced. those two for mw are 1A and 1B. from there id go with guys like Patrick, garner, tant , Hollingsworth, thibadeaux and a few others im surely missing

[ROCK-MACHINE]

Great thread, thanks for bumping it.

I'll go with Carver.
https://i.imgur.com/NlgggED.jpg

http://www.fiapbt.net/carver100years.html

https://youtu.be/2DzgN3-3F8s

[EWO]

Over all, Mr. Carver as well. Just so many dogs over such a long time with his name/family.

EWO

[brokeback]

Carver/Crenshaw... depending on which ped you believe of the "Carver" dogs lol..

[EWO]

Agreed.

Taking the pedigrees on face value and then thinking they are different than advertised can easily sway the opinion.


I had dogs bred down out of Patrick's Kasai. He stamped his puppies to the point the female could contribute color, but that was about it. They looked like him, acted like him, developed like him and the most tell-tale sign was they barked like him (early and often). Nearly identical.

There is a prominent dog man in the south that bred to him several times and never got puppies. He never missed otherwise. We often joked about it but there was never a way to say it was a fact one way or the other.

I visited his yard some two years later and as we walked toward the dogs I did not need a lie detector test, a blood test or a DNA swab. It was no doubt he had puppies on those breedings. His dogs were shaped like mine, carried on like mine and that tell-tale sign was they barked just like mine.

I believe this happens on every level.

So I agree with the above post, taking peds at face value or not can swing a vote one way or another.

EWO

[apeman]

John P Colby

Colby had a major impact on the breeding programs of Heinzl, Komosinski, E. Crenshaw, Carver, and Tudor.
Dibo/Colby was one of the most popular crosses of the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's.

Carver's impact imo was mixed as a breeder and dog broker. The dogs he placed (whether he bred them or not) created most of the popular bloodlines of the last 40 years.

Patrick had a major impact on the breed from the 1970's to the late 1990's. Boyles, Garner, WCC, Hollingsworth, Mickels, and many others created programs that had a major impact in the breed world wide from the 1980's to the 2000's.

I think T. Garner and Southern Kennels had the biggest impact as breeders from the mid 1990's to the present due to the volume of dogs produced and the replication of their genetic blends.

[ROCK-MACHINE]

What dogman had the biggest impact on the game as a breeder?

I disagree with Garner's name even being mentioned in this thread, in my opinion his one claim to fame is that he turned peddling into big business. Just look at the amount of pups he's pumping out there per year and how many actually become stand outs. I know the man, have nothing against the man personally, just think his ''contribution'' to the sport as a whole is vastly overrated, especially when compared to some of the other names being mentioned through out this thread. I know this post may not be to popular, as I said before people tend to defend Garner as though he were kin, I'm not here to argue the fact just ''voicing'' my own personal view.

[brokeback]

I have to agree...

[EWO]

I have one shot of his blood in some of my dogs. I have never bought a dog from him nor do I think I ever will.

I do think he mastered the dog business like none other. I think also he should be teaching a business class at an Ivy League school as his business model is on the same level as the Microsofts, the Facebooks, the Amazons (the dollars are not in the billions but the business model is an equal). He made an initial investment, changed as the times changed, maintained a supply and allowed demand to increase the profitability of his product. Just a few years ago those $1500-2000 puppies were $500. Every increase was a test of the market and the market said he could continue to increase.

As a breeder of dogs I think he will go down as the breeder of record for more champions than any other. There may also be an asterisk by his name based on the sheer volume of puppies sold.

At a couple pig pickings ago I saw a guy come from behind the wall with two puppies. I am sure he gave a chunk of cash for two puppies. He got down to an older Ford truck and put the puppies in a crate in the front seat. He lifted the hood, topped of the oil and water and off he went.

When there are a customers like that the prices will increase and the sales will soar.

I think he will go down at the top of the charts.

EWO

[ROCK-MACHINE]

I will say this for the man, he runs a beautifully kept yard and all his dogs receive nothing but the very best veterinarian care and I've been on the yard of many ''highly respected'' dogmen who's yards were disgraceful (a topic for another time perhaps).

[EWO]

Agreed.

One of the best dog men I ever met, a guy that won a shit load of matches, beat the very best going, made several ROM dogs and at the same time his yard looked like a trash pile. Like he threw out the garbage and the dogs shredded it in the chain spots. That bad.

I will say I am sure it cost a ton to look out for that many dogs and that many puppies, and I am sure he pays for a lot of services (yard help) but the place is immaculate and the dogs are well cared for....

EWO

[brokeback]

Agreed again. That's one thing I respect the heck out of the man for. He sets the bar high for quality care for a decent size yard. His kennels and whelping kennels are top notch and even thought he sells a ton of pups he obviously puts money back into his setup.