What is the biggest difference in RBJ families such as Termite, Waccamaw, & Tant?
Conversation starter.
Printable View
What is the biggest difference in RBJ families such as Termite, Waccamaw, & Tant?
Conversation starter.
This is where your Wright's Coefficient pedigree study would help. Sadly no one knows for sure how Red Boy was bred so throws the study off. If one wishes to go with what is shown.
In a 13 generation study the Termite dog hits the key dog Tudor's Dibo 171 times. Waccamaw's Big John in a 13 generation hits the key dog Colby's Dime 163 times. Tant's Yellow dog in the 13 generation hits the key dog Colby's Rifle 80 times.
So Tant and Waccamaw dogs are more similar bred dogs.
Termite is a little less similar due to more Dibo breeding from the Hank dog and Lonzo dogs. Powell bred more to the Hank side of the line with added Lonzo blood from Chavis Black Beauty and the other two dogs appear to carry more Red Boy.
In the end to me, they all look similar to the older big Jim Williams type dogs which carried a lot of Colby-Red Nose Lightner.
I got a similar question from Black Hand in a private P.M. I did mention to Black Hand that Mr. Teal & Mr. Mc Cloud had no problems with the pedigree given on Tramp Red Boy and his siblings. Seems some other dog persons did not.
Some dog persons did not like the first UKC breeding shown on J. Carver's Sachmo dog. I saw the original UKC papers on Jim William's Paladin Dog. Shown as Hunter's Sam & Hunter's Tana. M. Carver or R. Hyde did not like that, so later on the ADBA breeding showed something else that most peds show today. Unless one Satch dog was bred by J. Carver and the other Satch by M. Carver. Without a picture of both dogs. That mystery will remain as well.
Some dog persons do not like the original breeding on Bob Finley's Bo dog. So give out a pedigree that says Bo was a Bullet bred dog. I have been around met and spoke with Finley. Was a very nice dog man. He never said anything about Bo having a wrong pedigree. Not to me or V. Jackson.
So with all that said let's go with what we have. Red Boy and most of the Medlin dogs will key back on the Colby line. Powell's breedings on his first Termite dogs, bred more toward the Hank line with Chavis's Black Beauty. A Lonzo bred bitch dog in the line up. These dogs will key more toward the Tudor's Dibo dog.
Later Powell introduced more of the Medlin dogs through dogs, like Swinson's Carolina Rose. I am pretty sure the Medlin dogs will key more toward the Colby line. So his later dogs may lean more toward the Colby dogs like Tant's Yellow or Waccamaw's main stud dog. Am not sure which is the main dog bred around the Waccamaw dogs. Saw the Big John dog and went with him to use as a example.
Aggression
I can't comment on these lines in particular, but what I can give you are unimpeachable guidelines "in general" ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Reign Kennels
In general, the biggest difference in any group of dogs being bred by any individual kennel would be in selection: namely, what each breeder selects for when he makes a breeding :idea:
As the breeder of my own family of dogs, I always selected for fast, smart, athletic, longwinded HEAD DOGS for most of my breeding of the Poncho bloodline ... However, later on, I started breeding for super-fast, high-powered finishers in the throat when I bred Silverback dogs ... but I never worked with these dogs as long as I did Poncho dogs.
Anyway, the point is, many rockheads have got their hands on my dogs and bred any damned dogs of mine together ... without regard for TRAITS ... and so, over time, their dogs would not be like my dogs even if they had nearly identical backgrounds. Yet many other people have gotten their hands on them and made some fantastic breeding choices!
On the bad end of the scale, I know people who have slow, ponderous Poncho/Mayday dogs that work the chest. They call them "Poncho dogs," but in truth they're nothing like my best Poncho dogs ... let alone anything like my best Silverback dogs. Sure, these dogs may produce some good dogs out of the mediocre batch, but I don't think they're going to get the nearly-uniform style that I've been able to get using what I like best :idea:
Why? Because they're rolling dogs and breeding the ones "that scratch" ... even if their style sucks, or if they have no air, etc. ... all they gotta do is scratch. Meanwhile I will be rolling the dogs out, getting rid of dogs that hit the chest, getting rid of dogs that shake the front legs, etc. ... even if they're game ... and I will be keeping and going forward only with long-winded head/face dogs that finish. Repeated over time, one man is going to have a bunch of sloppy-fighing dogs, and no general style expectancy, while another man is going to have a uniform yard of badass head/face dogs that finish.
Now then, if you apply this thinking to Tant, HOE, and Wac, then you need to ask each man what he breeds for and keeps ... and go with the the one whose selection process suits your taste/goals. Obviously, all of these guys have produced winners (and 2 of 3 are no longer active), but in general this is how you narrow down your search with any line: based on the selection standards (or lack thereof) of the breeder.
Jack
We agree with Jack. Selection. But if you look closely at the foundation dogs of each line, they all come from the breedings of Fletcher Chavis. So, really, your questions should be related to why Mr. Chavis was doing the breedings he was doing and what those gentlemen (Tant, HOE, Wacc) saw in those dogs to want to use them.
We would always pick the Waccamaw branch of the Redboy/Jocko family tree. Mainly, because they have been so selective over the years and ONLY breed quality individuals from their program. Christ, I remember when Waccamaw didn't offer dogs to anyone.
I agree with Jack. With the machobuck dogs, I keep two separate strains, the throat from the start strain like machobuck himself, and the swap it out backend then front end ride the head if they have to Machobear strain.
As for our breeding program ,we breed total package dogs .ones that are smart and go from the front to the back of the hog ,and got to have power ,I love a dog that can run through a hog like a freight train.when looking for a good hog dog we look for smart ,speed ,power ,mouth ,and adaptability.
Love dogs that have plan b, c, d
You can catch just about any hog with them.
Breeding for "the total package" is an admirable goal, but most dogs simply are not the total package, but wind up having strengths and weaknesses. Naturally, the ones that get shown are going to have to have more strengths than weaknesses :mrgreen:
As a breeder, I quickly realized that I have to make my dogs possess strong points in areas that do not rely on human conditioning. For this reason, I have always bred for extreme speed, athleticism, and intelligence. Things you can't condition for. The reason is, when you sell dogs, you have to factor-in the possibility for owner error. No amount of conditioning (or human stupidity) can make a dog more intelligent or dumber; he is either smart or he is not. Therefore, if I create dogs that are much smarter than the average dog, then I am ahead of the game right there. Same with speed and natural reflexes, athleticism, etc. You canNOT condition for speed, timing, or reflexes. Sure, you can sharpen these things, but basic speed/timing etc. is either there or it's not. Now, you *can* condition for strength (and you *can* mess that up by bringing in a dog too light, etc.), but true freak strength is genetic and is what I used my Coca Cola dogs for (and later Silverback).
Anyway, the bottom line is this: a dog has to have the tools for the job ... and the intelligence to use those tools in the right way for the right opponent :idea:
I agree that watching super-strong dogs annihilate an opponent is an awesome thing to watch. However, not every dog can BE "annihilated." When you get in there and draw a bulldog, the contest isn't going to be over with in :20 to :30 min ... it's going to go awhile ... and your dog will have to be able to pace itself, to realize "he's drawn something" this time, and he's going to have to have the will, the plan b/c/d (as Evo said) + the staying power to prevail in the end. Part of staying power is going to be conditioning, but part of that is also going to be style, smarts, and willpower. Lotta intangibles come into play in the trenches ...
Anyway, I personally chose the alternate handle "SmileWiper" precisely because my dogs could nearly always be counted on to reverse an early lead and be victorious when the smoke cleared. Poncho dogs were 8.5x out of 10 able to assess the opponent, to systematically dismantle it as time progressed, and (most importantly) they were absolutely willing to go the full route ... slowly wiping that "early smile" off the other owner's face ... and leaving both standing in the corner on that last scratch.
Naturally, those dogs of mine that were "the total package" were my favorites ... but sometimes the unbelievably tough, come-from-behind-and-getcha dogs were too ... like Secretariat ... you thought you were ahead the whole time ... until you rounded the last stretch ... which is where he'd really pour it on :mrgreen:
Jack
That's funny. I always wondered how you chose the handle "Smilewiper".
personally i think that the jake the snake hounds are very excepitional when not to inbred, but crossed with another strain of rbj. and that goes for all termite stuff, i dont like it too inbred, but prefer it with an out.
some of the best tant stuff i seen, just from my experience where coming down from the toe jam dog. very all around, durbible dogs.
i have family with waccamaw stuff, so i know. i will say that the one that he had right off of bj was very game but that's about it. The dog he had off of the bj3 dogs was very good, all around great bulldog!. the ones he are working with as we speak are very game, with some average mouth, and some with above average mouth but he loves there style. and i can tell you if you dont kill them, you not coming out of there alive. cause i have NEVER! seen a wacc hound stand the line.
honestly the dogs from wacc are great dogs, but when crossed with a different strain of rbj just makes them that much better!
The burns hounds i seen where nothing special but i will say that because i feel that the burns dogs are bred so tight, and people are treating them as a preservation line only breeding them to other burns dogs, that they dont make them any better than what they were 10 years ago.
hope this helps you out.
theres some people having alot of success crossing the Burns line with boyles/bolio blood.Its workn,just gotta know whete to look.
thats what am saying. i know the ones i seen where pure burns top and bottom and to me they where nothing special. i supose that when u cross it to some working stock it should have great results and that goes for any line , but inbred they were not impressingQuote:
Originally Posted by swampdawg
Nothing impresses me about any line or family,but when cross'em out thats when it gets fun.Thats why were in dogs.
In the late 90 s had a lot of Redboy x Jocko and also had em crossed with Chinaman x Nigerino, they were durable well rounded with a lot of air and finish. Coming thru the AAA blood, good front to back hunters.
Best rbj families r the ones that have Crosses in them.Most pure today r foundation.
My own experience is exactly the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by swampdawg
The truth is, any bozo can "make a cross" with two linebred dogs he purchased from someone else's lifetime commitment to keeping a pure line competitive. That is why every beginner on earth "crosses" dogs, while most of the truly good, longstanding dogmen on earth are always busy maintaining a pure family bloodline ... which should be clue enough for a smart dogman to figure out, ultimately, what the best way to go is to get consistent results :idea:
Further, even though I recognize that there are dozens of great outcrossed matchdogs, mostly because that is what most folks breed-up (and which, by the way, even when produced by good dogman are typically matched precisely because they're not as valuable as the good family-bred dogs that are kept at home for breeding :idea:), I have seldom seen any outcross dogs I've sold that can whip the best of the inbred dogs I've kept at home.
As proof for this, when used as box dogs there are very few outcross individuals that have achieved the same success as family-bred individuals such as Gr Ch Buck (7xW), Gr Ch Zebo (7xW), Gr Ch Tornado (10xW), Gr Ch Happy Jack (5xW), Gr Ch Sir Dog (7xW), etc.
And, finally, even the best and most important outcrossed performance dogs, like Gr Ch Yellow (6xW), still required 2 inbred dogs to produce them ... and the very first thing a good dogman does, when he produced a badass outcross like Yellow, is to begin a family-breeding program around them :)
So you might want to re-think the value of family breeding ;)
Jack
From what little I saw of the Medlin dogs. Seems one trait was staying on the nose and head. Any of you that have heavy Medlin crossed into your Jocko/Red Boy dogs. Does your line of dogs have a preference to stay on the head and nose? Just curious.
Every line playsout sooner or later and has to be outcrossed.U cant keep inbreeding but so long.I have had yellow dogs close to 20 yrs. and do not see what I saw 10 yrs ago.maybe I dont know how to breed dogs but have been outcrossing to bolio/boyles blood the last few yrs and am getting more of what im looking for.Could also be my taste in qualities has changed as I get older.
thats a good crossQuote:
Originally Posted by swampdawg
Maybe you were breeding the wrong two.(yellow dogs) ours still hunt just as good as they did .but we had a strict plan.we do have a few that have a little out.i do like red boy jocko x eli,but no matter how the dog is bred a good dog is a good dog
I had a bitch some years back that was straight Medlins Charlie (out of Outlaw). She had some Bolio there as well. She was freak strong with freaky mouth. Just loved 'socializing' with other dogs, winning or losing, top or bottom, just loved being there. Dumb as a stump. If she wanted the rear she would not take anything but a beating til she got there but when she did it was pretty much over. She had five brothers that were face machines. None bit quite like her but would get between the eyes/top of the muzzle and grind right there all night if need be. These dogs were all face fighting game dogs. The one Ch. out of the litter was the one with the least amount of mouth of the litter. He would get the top of the muzzle, tuck his legs, suck in his chest and make his neck look like it was two feet long. He could not be touched but he was doing some touching. Real nice litter.
I can't give an opinion on the entire family but we had 6 of the 7 from this litter and five of 7 were face getters. EWO
Quote:
Originally Posted by CYJ
Lines do play out over time but the primary reason is not inbreeding or outcrossing. Lines play out because the wrong people are breeding the right dogs or the right people are breeding the wrong dogs, and the fastest way out is the wrong people breeding the wrong dogs. If I had bought Yellow dogs 20 years ago my dogs and your dogs would be "Yellow" dogs but because more than likely we would see different things we would have different strains of "Yellow". Waccamaw RBJ is not a cookie cutter version of Tant RBJ or Burns, etc..etc.. People add variables.
With that said, I am a fan of the Bolio/Boyles RBJ dogs. There is a cat around here that has a Boyles/Sin City male on top of AAA/Toe Jam/Chucky bitch and the litter looks top notch across the board at 20-22 months. So I can see where one is going with those dogs as well. EWO
That would be a nice subject on its own.
Many people call their dog a particular line ONLY based on the pedigree.
Guaranteed you're going to breed the wrong individuals if anything was left of it already.
I do try to learn if that what the pedigree is telling, is the truth.
Though truth is not always easy to find through all these moneymakers. Won't call any names ;)
Great sentence there.Quote:
Originally Posted by EWO
The key to maintaining a bloodline is simply SELECTION followed by DEDICATION. Period.
When trying to maintain a line, people who have no breeding ability breed all the ability out of their dogs, and so they tend to blame the line. They also quit and run to something else, or they try some new "crapshoot cross," never really sticking with anything.
Waccamaw is an example of someone who is the opposite. They have consistently bred game, winning dogs ... year-after-year ... using the same line ... and have been successful all the way. As he admits, some of his dogs come out goofy, but so what? You just breed a different way is all, you don't give up, and very soon you will breed in the RIGHT direction and move forward again with more badass dogs.
I too have been breeding the same line, down from the same core stock (that was already linebred for 35 year) for 23 years myself. My percentage win record when I started was 57% ... and when I finished last year it was in the upper-80th percentile ... which it has been kept at for over 10 years (since 2002) ... and I still have good news coming, even now, with wins from the last breedings I ever made, all of which were intense line- and inbreedings.
Honestly, I have bred deeper into my line of dogs than 99.999% of anyone who has ever owned a bulldog in the history of our sport, so I am not talking based on "theory," but based on actual experience and knowledge. Another thing is, damned near every dog my linebred dogs have whipped was an outcross, so NO ONE will convince me that inbreeding "ruins abiliy." That is pure, fabricated bullshit from people who don't know what they're talking about ... OR ... from people who inbred on the wrong dogs.
Sure, I have made inbreedings and gotten shitty dogs with no ability, but again so what? They still were game. The worst pieces of inconsistent, cur shit I have ever got were outcrosses. True, so too have some of the baddest dogs I have ever bred been outcrosses, but consistency-wise there is no substitute for in- and linebreeding on the right dogs :idea:
For those who might be interested, here is an example of how I managed to make some (initially) shitty inbreedings ... and some initially great inbreedings ... and kept re-directing the produced dogs back to excellence with new inbreedings ... and in so doing turned game, inbred retards back into fantastic dogs again ...
Okay, I inbred Poncho to his sister Missy and got this retard of a dog named Phoenix. Phoenix couldn't whip a puppy, but he was durable as hell. His skin was so thick he almost never got a hole put into him, even when rolled uphill several pounds. I sold him to Leon, and he stopped a lot of dogs on nothing but scratching, but was pretty much always bottom dog.
Meanwhile I again inbred Poncho, this time to his daughter Screamer, and got the best bitch I ever bred in my life named Jezebel. If you bit Jezebel once, you did a good job. If you bit her twice you were something. She was strong as hell, fast as hell, smart as hell, and she could bite. Well, I did a super-tight inbreeding of Phoenix to Jezebel and I got another inbred retard named Perfect. Perfect was worse than Phoenix, and a lot of people would have given up there and cut their losses ... but not me. Why? Because Perfect also had some badass littermates (Stone Cold and Zephyr) who were matchworthy, badass dogs. And, even though Perfect was a retard, she was built like a Brick Shit House.
So what did I do?
Okay, meanwhile, Poncho and Missy had another sister named Ruby, and she was bred back to her son Roy Jones Jr. to get my inbred bitch Tuffy. Tuffy was a fierce, nasty bitch ... but she had the worst air I have ever seen so I bred Tuffy to Jezebel's super-game, super-longwinded brother Duke Nukem ... and I got the all-around excellent, longwinded, hardmouthed stud dog U-Nhan-Rha.
Well, because the ace Jezebel and the longwinded Duke were out of an all-game litter, where every dog had great air and perfect conformation, I doubled-up on these dogs by doing yet another inbreeding, this time of U-Nhan-Rha to Perfect ... and the result was an all-game litter of match-worthy dogs, including Ch Red Bull and Iceman (3xW, 1xGL) ... representing possibly the tightest breeding I have ever done ... and a culmination of multiple generations of tight breedings, all on the same 3 littermates (Poncho/Missy/Ruby).
The last dog matched off of one of my breedings, which happened earlier this year, was another intensely linebred dog Wildchild's 007 (off U-Nhan-Rha's sister Twilight, a double-inbred Poncho/Ruby bitch, bred to Silverback triple-bred on their daddy Ch Hammer, and right off Missy, the sister to Poncho/Ruby) ... and 007 came off the floor to peel the face off his opponent in :27. His brother Prime Ape has spotted weight and finished bigger dogs in :12.
So, please, don't anyone tell me that "inbreeding ruins ability" ... because it simply does not :exclamation:
What people do is GIVE UP TOO EASY.
Another thing they do is expect aces in every litter. That just doesn't happen.
Sometimes, yes, you will get game retards, but as long as your dogs stay deeply game, and retain conformation, you can re-direct them back to athletic excellence once again with subsequent breeding steps.
The trouble is most people keep thinking "the grass is greener" somewhere else. They don't have the confidence to realize that (provided you start out with truly good stock), if you really get to know what you're working with, you can create solid, respectable (and sometimes fabulous) dogs for as long as you're alive and never need to outcross one time.
Jack
RightQuote:
Originally Posted by waccamaw
Jack said, "The key to maintaining a bloodline is simply SELECTION followed by DEDICATION". "Period".
...I'll ride to the bank with that statement. make your mind up, strap it up an in.
I think maintaining a line today is harder to do as it takes alot of dogs to have that selection of traits ur looking for,but alot of dogs will get attention from the wrong people.Times have changed and u have to adapt to them.I have given alot of my stock to 2 other people that are doing the same thing im doing as far as outcrossing goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampdawg
I will agree to that. It's very hard to maintain a line without 1) a lot of individuals to select from, and 2) enough land/space to keep them.
Sometimes maintaining a line takes a few breeding steps, where you have to keep individuals from a few different matings, and you have to have the room to keep the dogs of each generation ... which (I agree) is not feasable for most folks in this day and age. So well said.
Very true. It would be really difficult if not impossible to maintain a family with 6-8-10 chain spaces over long periods of time. The key is personal selection over multiple breedings over periods of time. Without space for many dogs a lot of dogs will be passed over and the re-direction within the line can't happen. Lack of space can most definitely inhibit one's efforts to maintain a line. EWO
Very well put ,Jack .my old man once said you have to know where you been to know where you are going ,that is something my great grandpa told him.
You have to know your blood ,have a plan and patience and above all common sense.