New dogs, new people New stories.

[bossman311]

If you really want to spike up new intrest in an old breed than you new to get and stay fresh.

This means that people get tired and board of hearing about the same old dogs and same old dogmen.
Just as there are many new dogmen and women now since the 1970's so are there new dogs and new stories.
These are not the same dogs from the 2000's, just like they are not the same dogs as the 1990's and not like those of the 1970's and just like those are the same as the 50's and so n.
Just because you have some old dogs in your pedigrees in no way mean you have those old dogs or that bloodline when it has been crossed mixed and blended with other families.

The family are different. Those in the past are just ingredients in the new dogs. Allot of families of dogs today are more of the different breeders who put them together than the old head who get credit for them.
Don't be scared to be different. Dogs are based on the dogs you feed the old dogs from the past they come down from especially when it's many not just 1 or 2.
That's what we called peddlers talk. Claiming something in way in the back that's famous and ignoring those up close no one heard of.
I'm glad I came up with people who did not care about the old famous names and bloodlines in the back of the pedigrees but focused on the new dogs in the front of the pedigrees.

Their dogs were literally their dogs. And we had better conversations on dogs we seen and not stories about dogs we never seen.

Don't be scared to change with the times. You are tomorrow's history.

[EWO]

No doubts. Very well said.

The very dogs we speak of from 40+ years ago were crosses or 'something new' way back when.

I think your reference to peddlers totes a lot of weight. I'm a Red Boy guy at heart. The first pit bull I ever touched was a son of Red Boy when I was a 10-11 yea old kid. He and his sister were built very similar. Later there was another son of Red Boy and then some Red Boy dogs that were brother sister and father daughter Red Boy dogs. These dogs were similar in build, similar in approach, and one could look across the yard and see the dogs were closely related.

These dogs were stand alone dogs back then. They competed and won matches. At the time the RBJ dogs were in their infancy and at that time they were 'dumb ol' Jocko-Red Boy' dogs. Jeep-Red Boy dogs had not taken off and Bolio-Red Boy was in the future.

The popularity of Red Boy skyrocketed and is maybe the most popular dog in history. Today you could advertise a 2XW winning dog who has produced several winners for $1000 and a pure Red Boy dog with a family tree chock full of dogs who have done nothing/won nothing/produced nothing (other than more "pure red Boy" dogs). I would be willing to bet that same $1000 the pure Red Boy dog sells first. (That might be a slight exaggeration but I am sure most will get the point)

That popularity killed the Red Boy dogs as a stand alone family. It is just too easy to breed them pure and breed them tight and sell dogs who will not be tested off of dogs who have not been tested. That slippery slope destroyed a family of dogs as stand alone performers and regulated them to an ingredient to make another line of dogs "better".

Rewind 20-30 years ago and if the dollars were not so readily available and the family was not so wildly popular some people would have checked some dogs more, did some smaller crosses in and out, checked some dogs and been happy to stand on top of a predominantly bred Red Boy dog that can still compete. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

And to your point, don't be afraid to breed two good dogs and see what happens. Breeding pure dogs and using the pedigree as the guide is a slippery slope.

Maybe the best way to say it is to breed the dogs not breed the papers.

Scott

[bossman311]

Nice.

Although many of crosses were done in the past that were household names, many are still continuing in these present times.
I have Redboy along with many other families as a part of my family, but I also have dogs I put together from scratch before adding the already established families.
I don't think that people do less with the dogs these days but say less about doing dogs these days.
That's the way it should be.
Knowing is more than 1/2 the battle and knowing How to breed not just what the breed is the key factor of change.
It's not a guessing game what you know have seen each and every one in each and every generation. Hands on with each dog always out ways hearing about each one in every generation.

Building your own dogs is what makes them already better than buying them. Keeping whole litters shows and only letting out 1 or 2 at most is greater knowledge than only keeping 1 or 2 from each litter.
So much wrong is done than right IMO over the last few decades. If someone keeps what's left and let others pick 1st than I don't want what they feed. They have lower standards.
How can you use only the best to go back into your dog's when you don't know which is the best? You have to see each one to know that.
Whatever you are working on like that is not using the best of the best but what's left of the litter.

You can and still use only the best of dogs just dogs from your yard. No matter how they are bred on your yard they will all come together over time and your name will be dominant on the pedigrees.
So, this is why pure based on the breeder is far different than pure based on a single dog.

I have and will only add Pure dogs to the family 99% of the times and blend them as I see fit.
But the family as a whole will always be based on dogs that I have actually have my hands on.
Not papers and stories of others of other people dogs no matter how famous they may be.

Just a habit of always using my own pedigrees as my own examples when it comes to the statements I make,
Based on personal experiences http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...3&dam_id=93906

[bossman311]

Many have families of their own in these days that are far more theirs than the famous ones of the past were theirs.