Best to Best vs Pretty Ped?

We all know the answer to this, but I thought it would be a good title to get some conversation going.

While we all agree you should do your best to breed good bulldogs to good bulldogs, we know that's not the end all be all. I agree with many, litters should be the emphasis for selection and not individuals. I wouldn't breed to an ACE that was the only dog worth feeding in his litter when I could breed to any one of a solid litter. Exceptions in any direction shouldn't be anything to get to excited about, when deciding to use that dog in a breeding program. I would much rather focus on the average of the total sum of a litter. Matter of fact, I'd rather breed to the one cur who had 5 litter mates who all proved to be bulldogs than breed to the ACE who comes from an otherwise all cur litter. That's just how I prefer to think about that.

Now, the question I have, is about the pedigree and what it can tell someone. I see questions all the time and there is a thread going on where a fellow asked Jack to "check out his per" and I agree with Jack, you can't tell or know what to tell someone if you don't know the dogs. HOWEVER,,,,,,what if you do know the dogs? Take Jack for instance. Everything he's ever bred and what he knows about them leads me to believe, 100%, he could breed dogs for a couple of generations that were good quality dogs without evaluating the offspring b/c there is so much knowledge and understanding of several generations behind the offspring.

I do believe more attention should be paid to the actual pedigree of a breeding than what most folks like to admit, PROVIDED, you know the dogs in the pedigree yourself and have an understanding of your line. I think too many folks get a little to over the top with the macho "BULLDOG X BULLDOG" and "BEST x BEST" b/c if that is ALL anyone ever did, there would be no bloodlines or families at all. I understand completely selecting and breeding the best we have within families and proven crosses, but the genetic structure, dan and pedigree have to be considered.

Startin Convo - that's all!

Let's hear it.

Do you own a best?

I don't know if I would breed to a dog out of a "solid litter" over an ace who was the only one worth feeding. for me it comes back to your question, how was the dog bred? does that ace embody everything that was hoped for in that breeding? was it a well caculated breeding that just happened to capture lightening in a bottle and the rest of em just didn't get what he got? sometimes that's how the dice roll. could possibly be different if u repeated the same breeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2L

Do you own a best?

---

R2L, what exactly does this have to do with the conversation?
To answer your question, it's all relative, so yes, everyone has a "best". Do they not?
The best of lines and the worst of lines, there is still a #1, #2, #3.........and so on.

I'm just trying to spark a conversation man......something to talk about, on an internet forum titled, "Bloodlines and Breeding Theories"

What about you man - you got a best?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Hand

I don't know if I would breed to a dog out of a "solid litter" over an ace who was the only one worth feeding. for me it comes back to your question, how was the dog bred? does that ace embody everything that was hoped for in that breeding? was it a well caculated breeding that just happened to capture lightening in a bottle and the rest of em just didn't get what he got? sometimes that's how the dice roll. could possibly be different if u repeated the same breeding.

---

Exactly Black Hand. I agree. There are about a million variables. Well, not really a million, but there are a lot of variables to consider. For me personally, I would rather breed to a bum of a solid litter than the ACE of a litter where he's the freak. The odds of getting a freak is slim, in my opinion. If the freak is a bum, same goes.

The only think I don't completely agree with, and I'm assuming just a bit here, but your last sentence, regarding, "could possibly be different if you repeated the same breeding" shouldn't be a possibility, IF YOU KNOW THE BACKGROUND OF YOUR DOGS. If I really know my pedigree, I know all 14 dogs in the first 3 gens, then I should know what to expect. If the family is solid and it's a well done, linebred family, then the results, most likely, will be the same, concerning the average of the litter.

I suppose you are referencing me when I asked everyone and Jack to evaluate the ped I posted. I am knowledgeable about the dogs in that ped and have talked with Mr Garner about them on several occasions. However...I was looking for some outside opinions. Other experiences with very tight bred dogs in general. Not just mine. I try and learn from everyone. Jack has alot more knowledge than myself just like TG does. And I'm not very familiar with the WIC. That really showed me just how inbred he is lol I knew he was...but everybody is uncle daddy in his ped lol. Ive never had dog inbred to this level before and was looking for some outside opinions and knowledge. I still would appreciate any of either from anyone. Especially if you know any of the dogs because some people only tell you what they want you believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

R2L, what exactly does this have to do with the conversation?
To answer your question, it's all relative, so yes, everyone has a "best". Do they not?
The best of lines and the worst of lines, there is still a #1, #2, #3.........and so on.

I'm just trying to spark a conversation man......something to talk about, on an internet forum titled, "Bloodlines and Breeding Theories"

What about you man - you got a best?

---

A best as in multiple winner, great dog. A personal best can still be very average. This is not personal dedicated to you, but its mostly the people who don't who is staring blind at a pedigree and hyping up the dogs that are behind the sire and dam. While people who do, breed them to other good dogs, keeping the litter, roling and showing each everyone one of them. In the meanwhile this guy is still behind his computer calculating how much times boomerang rom is in his dog peds being happy if 1 or 2 from the litter ends up in working hands.
For myself i don't have a "best", im trying to figure out who is and if in the coming years i find out or even own one at all, i would not mind to breed it to a another "best" with the characteristics i think would be a good adition but who aint got nothing to do with my dog bloodwise.

Quote:

---

Matter of fact, I'd rather breed to the one cur who had 5 litter mates who all proved to be bulldogs than breed to the ACE who comes from an otherwise all cur litter

---

exactly what Jack said :) its an interesting way of thinking, i like the article but again, i like to know what people do if they accualy own that ACE, lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kimo615

I suppose you are referencing me when I asked everyone and Jack to evaluate the ped I posted. I am knowledgeable about the dogs in that ped and have talked with Mr Garner about them on several occasions. However...I was looking for some outside opinions. Other experiences with very tight bred dogs in general. Not just mine. I try and learn from everyone. Jack has alot more knowledge than myself just like TG does. And I'm not very familiar with the WIC. That really showed me just how inbred he is lol I knew he was...but everybody is uncle daddy in his ped lol. Ive never had dog inbred to this level before and was looking for some outside opinions and knowledge. I still would appreciate any of either from anyone. Especially if you know any of the dogs because some people only tell you what they want you believe.

---

No Kimo, I wasn't referencing anything. I literally try to start some conversation at times b/c it is, after all, an internet forum specializing in a topic we are all here for. I'd like to contribute to this board so that it takes off and stays took off as I think it's a great thing

I wish I could tell you about your dogs, but I'm not real versitile. I know what I feed very well, but I'm not the know all bloodlines kind of guy. More of a breeder than anything. Best of luck to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2L

A best as in multiple winner, great dog. A personal best can still be very average. This is not personal dedicated to you, but its mostly the people who don't who is staring blind at a pedigree and hyping up the dogs that are behind the sire and dam. While people who do, breed them to other good dogs, keeping the litter, roling and showing each everyone one of them. In the meanwhile this guy is still behind his computer calculating how much times boomerang rom is in his dog peds being happy if 1 or 2 from the litter ends up in working hands.
For myself i don't have a "best", im trying to figure out who is and if in the coming years i find out or even own one at all, i would not mind to breed it to a another "best" with the characteristics i think would be a good adition but who aint got nothing to do with my dog bloodwise.




exactly what Jack said :) its an interesting way of thinking, i like the article but again, i like to know what people do if they accualy own that ACE, lol

---

I see. In that case, I can't say I own any "best" at this time. My yard is old man. Like a damn old folks home right now. I have a very solid game female who is 5 and everyone else is literally 9 or 10 years old. Except, for two young ones under a year, so it will be some time before I have something to brag about again. All the old ones on my yard are very good dogs, in their prime. It is why I am breeding them now. I have two little stud dogs and 3 very good, older bitches. Other than that, I have dogs that belong to other people as well. I wouldn't breed any of these dogs if I didn't know about their pedigrees in depth. That is a benefit of sticking with one family for so long.

For me, if I were to possess an ACE, I wouldn't concentrate on him as much as I would his parents and grandparents. I would look in that direction (pedigree) to see where this ability may have come. If there is nothing within 3 or 4 generations like him, then I'd be at a loss. If I had an idea where HE came from, then I would breed that ACE back in that direction. This all validates the importance of knowing your pedigree, but I am also emphasizing, knowing the dogs in the pedigree.

There is a little strain of the Spike blood that I like and will only use a certain pocket of that line. Why? B/c I have firsthand knowledge of that particular pocket. Spike blood is not just Spike blood to me. I has to be the pocket, or pedigree of dogs I KNOW.

If any of this makes any sense.

What Spike blood you like man?

I like the Garner's Gr. Ch Spike that's down from Doc, China Boy and those dogs. The Spike x Molly breeding. I like it as a cross with my Alligator stuff. Some real good dogs have come from that cross. I have a little stud dog that is a grandson to China Boy, but he's 3/4 Tonka Red Baron as well. Which is fine, but I wish I had a little bit more of it. I like the Chinaman stuff as well, but I'm no Frisco fan. No offense to anyone out there, it's just not for me. I guess I'm partial to what I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

I think too many folks get a little to over the top with the macho "BULLDOG X BULLDOG" and "BEST x BEST" b/c if that is ALL anyone ever did, there would be no bloodlines or families at all. I understand completely selecting and breeding the best we have within families and proven crosses, but the genetic structure, dan and pedigree have to be considered.

Startin Convo - that's all!

Let's hear it.

---

I think this last paragraph sums up a lot. Best to best or Bulldog to Bulldog, within a certain family, is absolutely the way to go. That's if you're actually interested in breeding and/or maintaining a line of dogs. To the man that is only interested in showing dogs, it doesn't make any difference what the pedigree says a lot of the time.

Yea thats what breeding the little Gator stuff is out of. My pup im referring to is Chinaman/Little Gator. He out od Crocodile/Miss Crocodile breeding this year. Little Gator...Black Angel...Joe Black. All in his ped

Breeding to get a good family of dogs is not an easy task. By the time you breed 2-3 generations down, it's already been 5-6 years. And by that time who knows..you might be out of the dog game. I give props to the breeders thats been breeding the same line for a long period of time.

Sometimes it is not just best to best or bulldog to bulldog. Let's say the best bitch is a freak mouthed, game dog with little to no ability. The very best male one has access to is a hard mouth, game bum with no ability. Both have used what they have and logged a few wins. If one would want make long term strides and solidify a certain line it may not be the best plan to best to best breed these two. Since both of them carry basically the same traits it may be an idea to take them each to a game and talented partner with lots of ability. Then in time the 'complete packages' out of this litter would be second layer of the foundation to create a family with the ability to sustain itself with selective reproduction. EWO

On all of this "best" business, I'll tell you my thoughts. You could offer me to breed to the latest 5 time winner who has shown a lot of heart, and I really don't want any of it, even if he is the "best" dog around. You see, for me he is not the best. We have just worked way too hard for much too long to go willy-nilly breeding to any old great dog, even as rare as great dogs are.

I am a seed stock breeder, and I would breed to the very good dog of my line over the great outcross every time. If someone with my stock wants to make a cross and turns up with something extraordinary, then I would consider breeding that back and tolerating the outcrossed 1/4 as a means of improvement, but that would be about it for me. I still take the risk of what is behind that outcrossed quarter haunting me for generations. I have seen way too many "best" dogs; including CH, GR CH, and ROMS, throw garbage because nobody took the decades required to stabilize the gene pool behind them. Now that I have a gene pool I trust and believe in, nothing else is really appealing. It's not that I don't appreciate the great dog for what he is, but he doesn't appeal to me as a brood dog as a means to improve my personal breeding efforts.

That's a good post TFX. The only reason I would go outside my yard was for size. Then I'll hold back and realize if I do that, i would be starting all over again. At the end ill just have to breed my bigger dogs and hope to get bigger dogs, even if it'll take a couple more years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrostyPaws

I think this last paragraph sums up a lot. Best to best or Bulldog to Bulldog, within a certain family, is absolutely the way to go. That's if you're actually interested in breeding and/or maintaining a line of dogs. To the man that is only interested in showing dogs, it doesn't make any difference what the pedigree says a lot of the time.

---

I agree

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFX

On all of this "best" business, I'll tell you my thoughts. You could offer me to breed to the latest 5 time winner who has shown a lot of heart, and I really don't want any of it, even if he is the "best" dog around. You see, for me he is not the best. We have just worked way too hard for much too long to go willy-nilly breeding to any old great dog, even as rare as great dogs are.

I am a seed stock breeder, and I would breed to the very good dog of my line over the great outcross every time. If someone with my stock wants to make a cross and turns up with something extraordinary, then I would consider breeding that back and tolerating the outcrossed 1/4 as a means of improvement, but that would be about it for me. I still take the risk of what is behind that outcrossed quarter haunting me for generations. I have seen way too many "best" dogs; including CH, GR CH, and ROMS, throw garbage because nobody took the decades required to stabilize the gene pool behind them. Now that I have a gene pool I trust and believe in, nothing else is really appealing. It's not that I don't appreciate the great dog for what he is, but he doesn't appeal to me as a brood dog as a means to improve my personal breeding efforts.

---

THIS....THIS RIGHT HERE - THIS IS WHAT I"M TALKIN BOUT!

TFX, I've like a ton of your posts in the past, but this one is straight to the point and good stuff. Said a whole lot of stuff I wanted to say.....but better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OGDOGG

That's a good post TFX. The only reason I would go outside my yard was for size. Then I'll hold back and realize if I do that, i would be starting all over again. At the end ill just have to breed my bigger dogs and hope to get bigger dogs, even if it'll take a couple more years.

---

Just select for the larger size since you are losing it. You will get some big ones coming out of that stuff because there are big dogs in the ancestry 5 generations back. In the case of the Vise-Grip dogs you are running, you have some other options out there to choose from as well because the population of them is much larger. My stuff has about dwindled to a handful of dogs that I have control over, with some other random individuals in yards where they are being crossed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

THIS....THIS RIGHT HERE - THIS IS WHAT I"M TALKIN BOUT!

TFX, I've like a ton of your posts in the past, but this one is straight to the point and good stuff. Said a whole lot of stuff I wanted to say.....but better.

---

Thanks NQK, you're a real gentleman, and there aren't many of those left in the fancy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFX

On all of this "best" business, I'll tell you my thoughts. You could offer me to breed to the latest 5 time winner who has shown a lot of heart, and I really don't want any of it, even if he is the "best" dog around. You see, for me he is not the best. We have just worked way too hard for much too long to go willy-nilly breeding to any old great dog, even as rare as great dogs are.
I am a seed stock breeder, and I would breed to the very good dog of my line over the great outcross every time. If someone with my stock wants to make a cross and turns up with something extraordinary, then I would consider breeding that back and tolerating the outcrossed 1/4 as a means of improvement, but that would be about it for me. I still take the risk of what is behind that outcrossed quarter haunting me for generations. I have seen way too many "best" dogs; including CH, GR CH, and ROMS, throw garbage because nobody took the decades required to stabilize the gene pool behind them. Now that I have a gene pool I trust and believe in, nothing else is really appealing. It's not that I don't appreciate the great dog for what he is, but he doesn't appeal to me as a brood dog as a means to improve my personal breeding efforts.

---

Great post. That was my experience, time-and again, all throughout my breeding dogs: every time I made a cross, even though many of my "cross dog" efforts yielded great dogs, I always had highly-inbred(linebred) dogs on the yard that would whip them. And when I bred my core dogs back into the crosses, the 3/4-1/4 results were always better still than the original crosses.

Further, when I ran my core dogs into other people's crosses in school, those other people almost always picked up. When I sent my core dogs to all 4 corners of the earth, they would routinely (8-9x out of 10) whip just about every "badass cross" they ever faced in the pit, by out-smarting, out-gutting, and out-lasting them.

So I pretty much stopped bothering to make crosses.

Jack