Jacks blood

[CORNERBOYZ]

Now that u have moved on to other endeavors who did you past the torch to. I know there are alot of people with your blood. Who's breeding it like you would.

[Officially Retired]

No one makes the decisions I would. They may breed Poncho dogs (or Silverback dogs) but their decisions are their own.

[Officially Retired]

No one makes the decisions I would. They may breed Poncho dogs (or Silverback dogs) but their decisions are their own.

I have gotten a few PMs on this, so allow me to clarify:

In maintaining a bloodline, SELECTION is everything. There really aren't many people in the game (running any bloodline) that have actually kept a family alive, pure, and competitive, for 23 years running the same family. Not many at all.

Most people start "mixing other blood" into what they have, and very quickly have a mutt farm on their yard to where you can't even call what they're feeding "a family" anymore ... so most of the people who have my dogs are creating this kind of scenario. They're breeding all kinds of other stuff into what they have, so I don't really consider the pups they're producing to be "my blood" at all. I wish them success, but I don't call what they're producing "my blood."

Of the people who do try to keep their own family going, and who are breeding my stuff pure, I have no way of knowing which dogs of theirs can do what. I don't know if the two dogs they bred together are the two dogs I would have bred together. Maybe they made a decision that will produce better dogs than my decision would have produced. Maybe they made a decision that would produce worse dogs than I would have produced. No way for me to know. Maybe they're not factoring-in doubling-up on the right dogs in back of the dogs they're feeding, because oftentimes breeding dogs involved more than just "the two dogs" you're breeding ... it involves aliging the best dogs behind them, in the pedigree, to keep the highest percentage ancestors strong for DEPTH of quality :idea:

And most people don't even know what I mean by that last sentence ...

Ultimately, breeding a family selectively involves the personal tastes, and depth of ancestral knowledge, of the breeder making the selections ... and it involves continuously steering the dogs towards the breeder's ideal ... and two men will almost invariably differ as to what their "ideal dog" is in their eyes ... so they will be making different breeding selections in their choices.

The good news is, my dogs are almost invariably game, tough mofos ... I have laid that foundation as well, and as consistently, in my line as anyone in the history of dogs ever has ... so that is what most people are going to get when they breed them: game, tough mofos that will go the route.

However, when trying to refine that, and get the very best athletes from it, style-wise, and ability-wise ... I have no way to know which people have "the best" of what I have ... and whether they're breeding to keep the head style, intelligence, and speed I have ingrained into most ... or if they are trying to keep Silverback's finish in there ... I just have no way to know as I have not personally seen the performance of what they're feeding ... but I do wish everyone who has them all the success in the world.

Hope this makes sense,

Jack

[CORNERBOYZ]

So there is no one out there that you took under your wing, and said this is why I do it like this or that. Vise grip kennels only conceited of Smile wiper? Just wondering because you seemed like you would have been a hell of a mentor.

[Officially Retired]

Thank you.

There are thousands of people I have "took under my wing" with my book ... and through thousands of conversations ... but at the end of the day people make their own decisions. This can be a good thing or a bad thing.

For example, Hollingsworth told me the secret to his breeding ideas (which I have in my book), but *I* am the one who made the breeding choices that created my bloodline. My dogs are no longer "pure Hollingsworth dogs," because I added other dogs into the mix ... and, very quickly, I started breeding Poncho dogs and not linebreeding on Lady In Red (like Hollingsworth did) nor any other particular Hollingsworth dog.

Hollingsworth linebred on Lady In Red while I linebred on Poncho.
These are two totally different animals, and thus were two totally different breeding programs, each based on similar ideals, but expressed through two vastly different animals.

And even if I would have kept and bred only "pure Hollingsworth dogs," and continued to keep everything "tight Lady In Red," *I* would still be the one making the breeding decisions (for better or worse). They could not properly be called "Hollingsworth dogs" ... only (maybe) "Lady In Red" dogs ... but whether or not they would be like Lady In Red is a whole other deal. (I never saw Lady In Red, so how would I know?). Likewise, how can anyone linebreed Poncho dogs, like I do, without ever seeing the dog, his parents, nor most of the foundational dogs I bred to get to the dog they now own? They can't.

Now, they may or may not have my best dogs, and be able to keep them that way, but I just can't answer the question without seeing all of them myself (or at least really being kept in the loop with what's going on).

In other words, there are lots of "heavy Poncho dogs," but whille some of them are good representatives of my dog, and of my line, many are totally unlike Poncho and not what I want them to be. If people breed these latter dogs, are they really Poncho dogs? Not in my view.

So, it depends not just on the pedigree, and not just on the "percentage of Poncho" in the pedigree (or Silverback), but on whether the dogs themselves are like (and/or can produce) the traits of these dogs?

Has nothing to do with my not mentoring this information, or my having it available for anyone to access, ultimately it's a question of 1) whether people actually listen, 2) whether they actually understand, 3) whether they actually have the same ideals, 4) whether they actually have the best of my stock, and 5) whether they actually apply everything in the right way ... or even a better way ... which, again, I simply cannot answer without seeing the dogs. And I just haven't stayed in touch with too many of the people who have my dogs, because I have been pursuing other interests with my spare time.

I will say this, though, of the people who have my dogs, and know about what's going on with them (more or less) I would say Wildchild is the one most on point with what he has and what he thinks.

Jack

[CORNERBOYZ]

Thanks Jack, just was wondering was there anyone on a personal level.

[luvmybulldogs]

I have seen some of wild child's stock first hand... I was impressed. The only knock I had is those dogs are usually pretty small. A good friend of mine brought over some of wild child's stock purchased from a friend of his that was having some trouble. Man, I loved that little dogs attitude. I can see why "those idiots" as u call them Jack can ruin one. If you haven't been around much, these dogs aren't for you... A novice will ruin them. I'm no seasoned vet by far but I have enough common sense to keep dogs. After seeing that pup, I said to myself I shoulda got some when I had the chance...

[evolutionkennels]

Thank you.

There are thousands of people I have "took under my wing" with my book ... and through thousands of conversations ... but at the end of the day people make their own decisions. This can be a good thing or a bad thing.

For example, Hollingsworth told me the secret to his breeding ideas (which I have in my book), but *I* am the one who made the breeding choices that created my bloodline. My dogs are no longer "pure Hollingsworth dogs," because I added other dogs into the mix ... and, very quickly, I started breeding Poncho dogs and not linebreeding on Lady In Red (like Hollingsworth did) nor any other particular Hollingsworth dog.

Hollingsworth linebred on Lady In Red while I linebred on Poncho.
These are two totally different animals, and thus were two totally different breeding programs, each based on similar ideals, but expressed through two vastly different animals.

And even if I would have kept and bred only "pure Hollingsworth dogs," and continued to keep everything "tight Lady In Red," *I* would still be the one making the breeding decisions (for better or worse). They could not properly be called "Hollingsworth dogs" ... only (maybe) "Lady In Red" dogs ... but whether or not they would be like Lady In Red is a whole other deal. (I never saw Lady In Red, so how would I know?). Likewise, how can anyone linebreed Poncho dogs, like I do, without ever seeing the dog, his parents, nor most of the foundational dogs I bred to get to the dog they now own? They can't.

Now, they may or may not have my best dogs, and be able to keep them that way, but I just can't answer the question without seeing all of them myself (or at least really being kept in the loop with what's going on).

In other words, there are lots of "heavy Poncho dogs," but whille some of them are good representatives of my dog, and of my line, many are totally unlike Poncho and not what I want them to be. If people breed these latter dogs, are they really Poncho dogs? Not in my view.

So, it depends not just on the pedigree, and not just on the "percentage of Poncho" in the pedigree (or Silverback), but on whether the dogs themselves are like (and/or can produce) the traits of these dogs?

Has nothing to do with my not mentoring this information, or my having it available for anyone to access, ultimately it's a question of 1) whether people actually listen, 2) whether they actually understand, 3) whether they actually have the same ideals, 4) whether they actually have the best of my stock, and 5) whether they actually apply everything in the right way ... or even a better way ... which, again, I simply cannot answer without seeing the dogs. And I just haven't stayed in touch with too many of the people who have my dogs, because I have been pursuing other interests with my spare time.

I will say this, though, of the people who have my dogs, and know about what's going on with them (more or less) I would say Wildchild is the one most on point with what he has and what he thinks.

Jack

:appl:

[Officially Retired]

:hatsoff:

[bently]

Do you think it is possible to recreate a breeding with different sire and dam but produce the same type of dogs?
am thinking of a heavy poncho male to a lever red bitch or the opposite a poncho bitch to a lever red male. "Jack do you know where am going with this one with this cross!?"

[Officially Retired]

Do you think it is possible to recreate a breeding with different sire and dam but produce the same type of dogs?
am thinking of a heavy poncho male to a lever red bitch or the opposite a poncho bitch to a lever red male. "Jack do you know where am going with this one with this cross!?"

I think you are trying to re-create the Zukill breeding :mrgreen:

As to whether of not you could do this, it would (as always) depend on selection.

This means, I wouldn't be looking only at pedigrees, but also on style of the parents (which you'd have no way to know).

Poncho, of course, was a slick powerful head dog ... who never expended any energy, but forced his opponent to waste his own. I never saw Zsa Zsa go, but from what I remember being told she was a driving chest dog. There were a lot of good, rough, absolutely game dogs in that litter, but the two aces were Zukill and Little Kim.

Zukill was a powerhouse driving dog, like his mama, yet he was bizarre & slick as oil too (like his daddy) and would go for kill spots, which was entirely unique to him. Little Kim was simply a devastating nose and muzzle dog. Simply devastating. And that was like Poncho's two sisters, Missy and Ruby.

Jack