Breeding to Winners vs. Breeding on Your Yard

[TFX]

That being said I wonder when you all discuss percentages which percentages are you actually discussing? Game dogs in a litter? Show quality dogs in a litter? Winners in a litter? Championship level dogs in a litter? Because not all lines inspire the same type of philosophies from their adherents.

That is an excellent question. All I have ever looked for as a bare minimum are dogs that will stay. That is the only way I can really identify a "good litter". From there I try to select the brood stock from the high end of a good litter, and preferably by breeding the show dogs that can take a keep, and win or survive a show. Too many dogs that look good at home show something far different when going through the whole process of being exhibited.


Admin Note: I created this new thread topic, and merged all relevant posts that first digressed from the original Boyles thread topic to here, for two reasons: 1) because this really is a whole topic unto itself, and 2) it allows me to experiment with the "Move Posts" administrative feature

[bolero]

while the dog the breeder kept may have looked better or been better than the actual winning dog during his schooling and test does not actually mean he is better. he may have looked better against the same dogs that the breeder used or even against said winning dog, but if that winning dog say is a gr ch he proved 5 times how good he is hopefully against quality dogmen and dogs while the dog the breeder kept has not proved that and might have not made it past those five dogs, so while the one at home appeared to be better those few tomes in all actuality has not proven what the gr ch did

[Officially Retired]

while the dog the breeder kept may have looked better or been better than the actual winning dog during his schooling and test does not actually mean he is better. he may have looked better against the same dogs that the breeder used or even against said winning dog, but if that winning dog say is a gr ch he proved 5 times how good he is hopefully against quality dogmen and dogs while the dog the breeder kept has not proved that and might have not made it past those five dogs, so while the one at home appeared to be better those few tomes in all actuality has not proven what the gr ch did

Good post.

Very oftentimes we make assumptions based on things we see with our own eyes ... and so we feel very justified in our opinions ... yet (as you point out) we can still be wrong. In other words, there is really no way to say who "better" sometimes.

For example, the whole boxing world watched Muhammad Ali really struggle to beat Ken Norton ... yet George Foreman KO'd Norton easily. Same thing with Joe Frazier: the whole world saw Frazier give Ali pure hell, and yet Foreman KO'd Frazier easy as well.

For this reason, most people in the world ... including virtually ALL the "experts" ... figured George Foreman would destroy Ali as well ... based on this "performance disparity among common opponents." Yet a quick review of the actual fight between Ali and Foreman proves that, in fact, Mohammed Ali whipped George Foreman, even though Foreman easily defeated men who really gave Ali trouble.

In the end, because styles make fights ... we can't always be sure of the accuracy even of our own first-hand judgments in watching our own dogs, regardless of how "justified" these opinions are

So, again, good post.

Jack

[apeman]

Bump up for 2020...

[Frank43]

I love reading this. This is a consistent arguement.