Question on buying dogs.

[bulldoghistorian]

Cmon, you're telling me you have no idea which pups are going to be the best?

You're telling me you get it wrong more than right?

That damned sure isn't the case when I breed dogs.

IMO, anyone who really knows dogs knows which pups are superior, and at a very early age.

And anyone who knows how to breed dogs, does so in a way that he repeatedly gets litters with high-percentages of at least pretty good dogs, some really good.

In fact, the person who CAN'T tell which pups are going to be superior, and who CAN'T reliably produce above-average litters is NOT a good breeder (or dogman) IMO.

Seriously, how can you call such a man "good" at breeding ... he's basically an average, clueless retard?

Jack

Honestly I can't I have bred 6 litters (6th coming up) , this year I have known this breed for 30 years , bred my first litter in 2000
I have never been able to tell which one will turn out, If I have to pick , I just pick on looks.
I like the bulldog types and I love the color brindle

Come to think of it , I am not a breeder , the choice to start breeding came out of necessity ( I figured I could not do worse than the ones I was buying) , I am just down to the third generation and I only breed when I need something.

to give you a picture of where I stand
I have a litter on the way because I have 4 empty spaces ( the dam is almost 5 and is her first litter , might even be her last)
my last litter was 4 years ago
I hope to get 4 males and if there more I get rid of the rest

So and this an assumption
I think if you breed quite a lot and see a lot of those pups than you might develop some sense of which may turn out
so I breed far less to actually develop that sense

[bamaman]

I don't have a big yard myself..But I think the advantage of getting the better dogs goes to a bigger yard that's just my opinion and doesn't mean I'm right by any means..I'll admit when I did go to buy stock I liked the bigger yards.its very hard to have a big yard these days unless you own a bunch of land..Too many nosey people these days.

[Officially Retired]

LOL yeah true. I would probably not send you to mediate peace in the middle east. But there are other things you're obviously good at.

[Officially Retired]

Honestly I can't I have bred 6 litters (6th coming up) , this year I have known this breed for 30 years , bred my first litter in 2000
I have never been able to tell which one will turn out, If I have to pick , I just pick on looks.
I like the bulldog types and I love the color brindle

Honestly, I would never make a breeding if I thought I would only have 1 turn out.

I make breedings that (I believe) the average dog in the litter will simply be gamer and smarter than the average dogs in other people's litters.

The "type" I look for is smart, athletic, and sure of itself.

The gameness has to be there genetically (you can't "see" it in a dog). But you can spot an athlete (not from a pic, but by watching it move).

They have a certain stance I like, a certain way they do things; it's almost like a "stamp" I can see in them that they bred "true to type."

Come to think of it , I am not a breeder , the choice to start breeding came out of necessity ( I figured I could not do worse than the ones I was buying) , I am just down to the third generation and I only breed when I need something.
to give you a picture of where I stand
I have a litter on the way because I have 4 empty spaces ( the dam is almost 5 and is her first litter , might even be her last)
my last litter was 4 years ago
I hope to get 4 males and if there more I get rid of the rest

Well, what I think you are doing, really, is making sure you keep the best one, rather than "hoping you choose" the best one, and letting the rest go.

There is always a risk of being wrong, so what you're doing is just ensuring you get what you want.

So and this an assumption
I think if you breed quite a lot and see a lot of those pups than you might develop some sense of which may turn out
so I breed far less to actually develop that sense

Which is understandable and the way it works in pretty much everything.

I have bred the same line for basically the entire time I have been in dogs. While all of the dogs are individuals, when you linebreed, you should be breeding for a TYPE, and almost invariably when I see that "type" I am looking at a true Poncho dog: fast, smart, game, pit savvy, tough, gets better the longer it goes, etc. That is just their "type."

All throughout the entirety of my breeding, I selected game dogs that came from entire litters of game dogs, not just "the one" game individual in a litter of curs. That right there set me apart from most.

People who breed to "the one" game individual in a litter are basically breeding to have ONE (or no) game individuals in their litters. (They don't think of it like that, but in essence that's what they're doing.) Such people can never believe in high-percentage litters because they have never experienced them. (Nor will they ever, until they move on to dogs that come from them.) That doesn't mean they can't have great individual dogs; but it does mean they will never have high-percentage turnouts, unless and until they start to breed for them.

I assume gameness in my line, because I have always made sure that most of the pups (or all) turn out game in the litters I produce. The foundation dogs I used (Hammer, Trinx, No Regrets, etc.) were absolutely game dogs who came from an entire litter of absolutely game dogs. That kind of selectivity makes all the difference in the world. People say "all-game litters don't exist," but they do. Such people may have never seen one, but that is because they're looking in the wrong lines (or wrong individuals).

Only if a person really looks for, finds, and then sticks with dogs that come from percentages like that, can he then produce percentages like that.
If you don't breed to such dogs, you surely won't get such dogs. Again, this should be common sense, but most don't think of things like this.
There is nothing about breeding that is 100% certainty, but can surely increase (or decrease) your odds, dramatically (one way or the other) through your selection

So if I can't get high percentages down, then I am not even at the point of breeding bulldogs yet IMO; I am breeding something else.

Further, I have always bred for a type of dog that "prevails in the end," more so than prevails right off the bat. A lot of times my dogs may establish control right away, on the head, but they seldom blow other dogs out of the water (unless there's a Coca Cola influence). What they do is pace themselves, conserve their strength, systematically dismantle, and save themselves for later. My dogs tend to get stronger and more serious the longer it goes ... while most people's stuff burns themselves out early, and starts fading out after :30-1:00. It is a recipe that has worked for a very long time ...

A lot of people call my dogs "low ability" because they don't kill everything early, but they do have "the ability" to win in the end, which is the most important kind of ability there is. What happens "at first" or "starting out," ultimately, is meaningless. Silverback was a rare exception to my usual dog, by his ability to just steamroll a dog and finish right away, but yet he threw dogs that could go 2+ hours, even though he himself could DOA a dog in :10. That is *not* typical of my line, but it is typical that they can beat dogs who can do this ...

Jack

[bulldoghistorian]

wouldn't you say that from a performance aspect the quicker the better.
I mean the quicker you get out of there , the lest dents on the dog, more chances to have him ready for a next one.

[Bullman]

For me it is quicker the better also. Have had some dogs like Jack described who get stronger as it goes on but while I admire them they take too much punishment. I like a dog who has the ability and mouth to get the damage done early and get out with out taking too much stick.

[S_B]

LOL yeah true. I would probably not send you to mediate peace in the middle east. But there are other things you're obviously good at.

I disagree completely!

[Black Hand]

wouldn't you say that from a performance aspect the quicker the better.
I mean the quicker you get out of there , the lest dents on the dog, more chances to have him ready for a next one.

actually, it is the exact opposite. If my dog is taking your killer into deep waters, that obviously means your dog is not inflicting as much damage as you anticipated he would. Most likely your one hitter quitter blew his wad and you are about to find out what he is made of. Good for me, bad for you.

[Black Hand]

For me it is quicker the better also. Have had some dogs like Jack described who get stronger as it goes on but while I admire them they take too much punishment. I like a dog who has the ability and mouth to get the damage done early and get out with out taking too much stick.

That previous answer was in reference to bringing a dog like Jack described. Yes, it is better to be on the winning end as fast as possible. I know guys who will only bring one out if it's a sure bet, if they think they can win easy with him. Going into something like that, the longer the better for me. Everyone wants to bring and breed mouth monsters. If he has enough mouth to beat you in :20 and you're still there at :40 then you're doing pretty good. But yeah, fast win is best. Last answer was misleading.

[Officially Retired]

wouldn't you say that from a performance aspect the quicker the better.
I mean the quicker you get out of there , the lest dents on the dog, more chances to have him ready for a next one.

This is a whole other can of worms, but I hear you, and I agree with you ... in a sense.

If you're looking to produce a multi-winning animal, many of them are the type to "blow things out of the water" ... however many of the greatest ever were NOT.

Robert T (a 9xW who beat two 4xWs and two Grand Champions) was a steady, distance animal.
Gr Ch Buck (a 7xW, who beat two Champions and a Gr Ch) was a steady, distance animal.
Gr Ch MelonHead (a 14xW, which is the most wins of any modern animal) was a steady, distance animal.

Oftentimes, the dog that CAN run over a lesser dog early canNOT do that to a truly tough, truly rounded animal ... and so winds up losing in the end.

To give you an idea of what I am talking about, when compared to humans, I prefer to breed a dog like Marvin Hagler, Julio Cesar Chavez, or Muhammad Ali.

None of these guys was known as a 1-punch KO artist. None of these guys swarmed their opponents.
And none of the awesome punchers in their weight class could just run out there and KO these guys either.
Hagler, Chavez, and Ali were too tough, too smart, and too good to let ANYone do that to them. Ever.

In fact (in their primes) ALL of these guys beat fighters who hit harder than they did by being superior ALL AROUND fighters, by pacing themselves, and by gradually INcreasing the pressure as the fight wore on ... rather than burning themselves up early. And they were ALL considered superior fighters to the heavier one-punch KO artists of their day. And they beat virtually all of them too.

That is the kind of dog I try to breed ... a dog you "can't" just blow out of the water, one that is too tough to do that to, and who has A LOT of skills to draw from, and the intelligence and absolute determination to get you at some point.

Jack