What dogman had the biggest impact on the game as a breeder?

[BRICKFACE]

This is a topic I have seen many times and it is too broad of a statement to narrow it down to 1 or just even a few. It's all matter of facts and opinion and depends on what timeline in these great dogs history you would like to give the men credit. Here are some facts: from the beginning you have to credit gents like Colby(JP & Lou), Heinzl(who is often over looked), and Tudor for their stamp on the game. Then follow suit with Boudreaux, Patrick, Crenshaw, Carver because their dogs are the foundation for a lot of the dogs of today. Now I will credit Boyles and the dogs based off his breedings. In my short time in the dogs 10yrs, I have seen many fads come and go but those Boyles and crosses are still on the scene and are consistently being sought after IMO. But if just one I say Colby, from JP in the beginning to Lou who had a run longer than anyone, the Colby family has stood the test of time.

[grindhard]

correct if i am wrong, carver bred boilo, honeybunch, rascal , bomerang, and the list goes on. however he sold more dogs then he showed again correct me if am wrong. where as men like floyd, and ozzie, and mayfeild, and crenshaw were more hands on. but hell, crenshaw ran carvers blood.

[Officially Retired]

People need to read the question.

Ozzie was a great conditioner/handler/breeder for himself ... but he had a minimal impact on the game as a breeder (in other words, how many yards are actually Ozzie-based?).

Likewise with Colby. Someone said that blood has "stood the test of time," but how many top, competitive yards are Colby-based these days (or 10 years ago ... or 20 years ago)? Yeah, Colby sold a lot of dogs, but these dogs really haven't been the mainstay of top, competitive yards for decades.

IMO, even today, the Lion's share of today's competitive dogs are still Carver/Boudreaux/Patrick-based ... with a huge amount of more recent Chavis influence as well.

Any time you say, "Boyles" you have to remember he got his two main foundation dogs from Patrick, as well as mentioning anything with Buck or Hollingsworth.

There are a lot of great minor players along the way (Clouse, Hemphill, E. Crenshaw, Heinzl, etc.), but none of these guys, important as they were, had overall HUGE impacts across the board. They pretty much only get an asterisk (*) somewhere in a more important breeder's pedigree. Sure Heinzl had Dibo, but Tudor made the important breedings with him. Sure again, Heinzl made the breedings that created the parents to Boudreaux' foundation dog Scrub (but, here again,Tudor made the actual breeding that produced him). True again, Heinzl also bred Bolio's grandsire Ch Goldie ... but it was actually Boudreaux and Patrick who bred and marketed their dogs widely enough to have the huge impact overall, while Heinzl's own involvement was incidental.

In other words, more important actual yards got started with dogs bred by Patrick and Boudreaux than by Heinzl (even though Heinzl gets a footnote in there). Same with Carver, even more than Patrick and Boudreaux, which is why I would say Carver is behind more modern dogs still competing today than anyone, and that is because more of these dogs trace to a larger Carver-foundation-base than anything else. (Him and Tudor.)

Of course this is just an opinion; nothing is set in stone. To get the absolute facts, a person would have to create a powerful program (with the majority of dogs in history in it) to come up with a tangible answer. Actually, if enough people entered their dogs in this database, correctly, and if they included the true breeder info in EVERY dog, with no duplicate pedigrees, our database could be programmed to make determinations like that in the statistics feature. We could actually add a "Breeder" feature, totalling the number of Champions/ROMs, etc. each breeder has produced ... down 15 generations ... and we could actually come up with some hard numbers

So the more you guys take the time to do so, the more truly useful data we ALL can harvest from all of our input

Just something to think about as this resource grows: we ALL are responsible for its usefulness (or lack thereof) by virtue of how diligent we are in our data entry when we add dogs (or by how much we prevent its usefulness by our sloppy/incomplete data entry) ...

Just sayin ...

Jack

[evolutionkennels]

People need to read the question.

Ozzie was a great conditioner/handler/breeder for himself ... but he had a minimal impact on the game as a breeder (in other words, how many yards are actually Ozzie-based?).

Likewise with Colby. Someone said that blood has "stood the test of time," but how many top, competitive yards are Colby-based these days (or 10 years ago ... or 20 years ago)? Yeah, Colby sold a lot of dogs, but these dogs really haven't been the mainstay of top, competitive yards for decades.

IMO, even today, the Lion's share of today's competitive dogs are still Carver/Boudreaux/Patrick-based ... with a huge amount of more recent Chavis influence as well.

Any time you say, "Boyles" you have to remember he got his two main foundation dogs from Patrick, as well as mentioning anything with Buck or Hollingsworth.

There are a lot of great minor players along the way (Clouse, Hemphill, E. Crenshaw, Heinzl, etc.), but none of these guys, important as they were, had overall HUGE impacts across the board. They pretty much only get an asterisk (*) somewhere in a more important breeder's pedigree. Sure Heinzl had Dibo, but Tudor made the important breedings with him. Sure again, Heinzl made the breedings that created the parents to Boudreaux' foundation dog Scrub (but, here again,Tudor made the actual breeding that produced him). True again, Heinzl also bred Bolio's grandsire Ch Goldie ... but it was actually Boudreaux and Patrick who bred and marketed their dogs widely enough to have the huge impact overall, while Heinzl's own involvement was incidental.

In other words, more important actual yards got started with dogs bred by Patrick and Boudreaux than by Heinzl (even though Heinzl gets a footnote in there). Same with Carver, even more than Patrick and Boudreaux, which is why I would say Carver is behind more modern dogs still competing today than anyone, and that is because more of these dogs trace to a larger Carver-foundation-base than anything else. (Him and Tudor.)

Of course this is just an opinion; nothing is set in stone. To get the absolute facts, a person would have to create a powerful program (with the majority of dogs in history in it) to come up with a tangible answer. Actually, if enough people entered their dogs in this database, correctly, and if they included the true breeder info in EVERY dog, with no duplicate pedigrees, our database could be programmed to make determinations like that in the statistics feature. We could actually add a "Breeder" feature, totalling the number of Champions/ROMs, etc. each breeder has produced ... down 15 generations ... and we could actually come up with some hard numbers

So the more you guys take the time to do so, the more truly useful data we ALL can harvest from all of our input

Just something to think about as this resource grows: we ALL are responsible for its usefulness (or lack thereof) by virtue of how diligent we are in our data entry when we add dogs (or by how much we prevent its usefulness by our sloppy/incomplete data entry) ...

Just sayin ...

Jack

Well stated, you gotta give credit to southern kennels victor Aycarts, yourself, and David Tant. . The mayday dog's are everywhere and did very well.

[Officially Retired]

Thank you. Myself, I have made a lil ripple in the game with my breedings ... and hurt some well-known, well-established feelings in many shows along the way ... lol ... but overall my breeding influence has been modest compared to the all-time greats. However, I think I have been a pretty big influence with my books and website over the years ... I see tons and tons of people basically quoting my book every day, which is great.

As a breeder, I would have to agree that Victor Aycart is probably the most influential breeder of modern times, no doubt about that, but I do not think of all time. Tant would be right there with him.

Jack

[SteelyDan]

I can't really speak on this breed as a whole as my concerns lie with my dogs and no one else's. That being said I'd have to say the breeder with the biggest impact on this yard before the current breeder was probly Jim Williams or Lightner.

[swampdawg]

The Lightner strain that Mr. Eagan Skinner had bred up was off some of the brindle Bill Lightner dogs blended to some of Edward's/Plemmon's Red Nose Lightner dogs. This cross came Fawn buckskin with black mask, light and dark brindle and some red nose ones as well. When crossed to the Cotton's Bullet dog that pretty well set the strain of dogs he was going to use.
Mostly came in dark and light brindles and Fawn. Had those lappy Lightner ears. Very good acting dogs in the lower 45 to 30 pound weight class.

Thanks for the info. CYJ,most people today have never heard of MrSkinner.I grew up hearing about him and his dogs but never got the chance to meet him.

[Wise]

I started this thread so I may as well put my two cent in it! I've only been in these dogs for 14 years and when I came on the scene the game was at its peak, it was no longer a regional or national thing it had reached global status. You had American dogs competing in all corners of the globe. Even though they came from over seas in the first place I hope you get my drift.
With that said if the game had stayed "local" I'd say carver or Boudreaux. But since it didn't and from what I've seen as far as many different yards based off of one breeder it'd have to be Pat Patrick for me.

[Black Hand]

It is a very interesting topic and kind of difficult to come up with a real answer. The smaller the group of men that keep a certain breed, the bigger impact those will have as a whole on the population of animals. The more people, more studs available, more families, subfamilies or extended families that there are makes it much harder for an individual and his dogs to really impact the rest like in the past.

My own opinion is that Carver was the best and most influential straight across the board. This is mostly attributed to the man not needing any particular dog and didn't stumble on success. Bolio, Midnight cowboy, Stompanato, Boomerang, Snooty, Missy, Honeybunch, Rascal and more. Its hard to deny the impact of those animals and the lines they gave birth to that we see and talk about today. That's one hell of a line up and I know im leaving a lot out.

The cold part about it is, some of the guys who had those dogs probably didn't know how they were really bred but that never stopped the dogs from having awesome production careers. Basically, they produced without any real blueprint to look at.

[Wise]

Carver was motherfucker I mean he really really did his thang, it's so hard to pick one. Hell I said Patrick and that may even seem contradicting to my thread because he sold a bunch o dogs but man them same dogs worked out in good n good percentage and that impact is still being felt through today's crosses.