"Fast Lane"?

[Officially Retired]

You have to agree with that, and great point on their first grch was with that auntie/nephew breeding!

Why thank you

Time has shown us, the breeding of auntie/nephew and uncle/niece is when you really get to see a line root itself! Also that breeding way sometimes has a better out come then a father/daughter or mother/son breeding!

Yep. The Yellow/Breaker breeding produced Hardcore's best dog ever Ch Redman. (That is what he told me first hand: Redman was the finest fighting machine he ever had.). In breeding Ch Mystic (Redman/Snowball) back to Felony (Redman's sister), Mike essentially tightened up 3/4 on this best breeding combination ever (Yellow/Breaker) to create Nine Milli (5xW), his only Grand Champion.

Whether Aunt/Nephew or Uncle/Niece is "better" than either father/daughter or mother/son, I don't know about that.
It is similar, but I wouldn't say better, as there have been awesomely talented/prepotent father/daughter and mother/son dogs put out there ...

Bottom line is Hardcore started with a solid family of bulldogs! Maybe someone can tell us why it is that when you do that inbreeding there " if done with a solid family behind them" is when all the magic happens!

Exactly. There is no point on inbreeding on mediocrity

Now i pose the same question to all, Do you do a inbreeding on two very game bums who are outta a very solid family of chest dogs? Both bums are a all over dumb if you will game gotta snuff them out type. If i breed these two bums together will i get what the line is know for or will i have more crazy all over game bums?

I would never, ever, ever inbreed on bums.

You inbreed on GREAT dogs, PREPOTENT dogs, you never inbreed on bums.

You can "use" a bum that is inbred on great dogs ... and get greatness again in doing so ... but if you start inbreeding on "bumness" (lol) ... and you start solidifying those traits ... then pretty soon you will have a yardful of bums

People like Bulldog Historian correctly point out that you need to breed FOR match dogs.
But that doesn't necessarily mean you have to breed TO a match dog to GET a match dog.
A particular dog like Werdo, who is a bum inbred on a GREAT dog, and a great breeding combination, can oftentimes produce great dogs ... as Werdo did.

However, that doesn't mean you start inbreeding on Werdo
You just use him as a tool, but you never want to get sidetracked and start breeding for bums.
The more you start breeding TO bums, the more you start breeding FOR bums.

It's a delicate situation ... and therein lies the paradox ... use the tool, but use it sparingly

Jack your line is know to be tuff head dogs, but now you have a very tuff fight your toe dog and have a niece to this male who is very tuff but all she wants is the left leg. Is it a gamble or based on their family backing you pretty much know that your going to get a Head hunter?

I eventually got to the point I would get rid of dogs for not immediately fighting the head.
They don't have to be aces, but I do not want a leg dog.
I would overlook the first few rolls, as they're just learning, but after they had their bearings, if I saw "a front leg shaker" I would sell it cheap as a "dud" from my program.
It simply was NOT what I wanted.

Silverback never grabbed a front leg in his life. He was on the ear, on the muzzle, or in the throat. Period.
Icon never grabbed a front leg in his life. He was on the ear, or in the throat. Period.
U-Nhan-Rha, never grabbed a front leg in his life. He was on the face, in the mouth, on the ear, or in the throat. Period.

You get what you breed for

Jack

[STA8541]

I eventually got to the point I would get rid of dogs for not immediately fighting the head.
They don't have to be aces, but I do not want a leg dog.
I would overlook the first few rolls, as they're just learning, but after they had their bearings, if I saw "a front leg shaker" I would sell it cheap as a "dud" from my program.
It simply was NOT what I wanted.

Silverback never grabbed a front leg in his life. He was on the ear, on the muzzle, or in the throat. Period.
Icon never grabbed a front leg in his life. He was on the ear, or in the throat. Period.
U-Nhan-Rha, never grabbed a front leg in his life. He was on the face, in the mouth, on the ear, or in the throat. Period.

You get what you breed for

Jack

This was truly informative. I had no idea you could breed for style of battle. I have heard of breeding for mouth, so I guess breeding for a specific style makes sense. I always thought that if you chased teeth all the time, or stifles, or heads, or what have you, the gameness of your stock suffered. Maybe start w/really game dogs (of whatever style) & then "layer on" preferred style w/dogs that fight w/whatever style you're looking for as you go? I am obviously no breeder, lol.

U-Nhan-Rha is a good looking little dog.

[Officially Retired]

This was truly informative.

It was designed to be

I had no idea you could breed for style of battle.

Most people don't, which is why most people never get consistency: they don't breed for it.

I have heard of breeding for mouth, so I guess breeding for a specific style makes sense. I always thought that if you chased teeth all the time, or stifles, or heads, or what have you, the gameness of your stock suffered.

I don't chase anything; I started with an absolutely game, primo head dog ... from absolutely game stock ... that absolutely threw extreme percentages of gameness.

So I stuck with that

The gameness only "suffers" if (say) I have a head dog that isn't game ... and decide to keep using him. (Or a mouthy dog that isn't game, but keep using them.)

But I have always had an eye for extreme gameness, and I have always kept only those dogs that I felt in my bones were extremely game.

This doesn't mean I beat my dogs half to death by doing crazy horrible things to them; it means I gave them reasonable and controlled tests and never saw a bad move.

That, combined with the style I selected, has kept them in the winner's circle for 2+ decades straight.

Maybe start w/really game dogs (of whatever style) & then "layer on" preferred style w/dogs that fight w/whatever style you're looking for as you go? I am obviously no breeder, lol

That is exactly right: I started with extremely game stock (Ch Hammer x Hollingsworth's only true 3/4 Lady In Red bitch, Trinx) that exhibited the style I liked.
Poncho had an all-controlling ear style; his two sisters Missy and Ruby had devastating face styles.
I have always kept and bred for this ever since.

Only with The Gorilla did I start to breed for killer finish ... but I never spent the time refining it.

I am 100% positive I could have, had I kept a large yard, and kept selecting for it.

U-Nhan-Rha is a good looking little dog.

Thank you.

[STA8541]

I started with an absolutely game, primo head dog ... from absolutely game stock ... that absolutely threw extreme percentages of gameness.

So I stuck with that

Good job, lol. You're talking about Poncho, right?

I have always kept only those dogs that I felt in my bones were extremely game.

This doesn't mean I beat my dogs half to death by doing crazy horrible things to them; it means I gave them reasonable and controlled tests and never saw a bad move.

It has been said that a seasoned dogman who says he "never saw a bad move" speaks volumes w/the phrase. Far more so than some amateur who bought a dog b/c it was the color of his wife's hair! And so I shall take you at your word. Hard-nosed selectivity is key w/any breeding program.

That is exactly right: I started with extremely game stock (Ch Hammer x Hollingsworth's only true 3/4 Lady In Red bitch, Trinx) that exhibited the style I liked.
Poncho had an all-controlling ear style; his two sisters Missy and Ruby had devastating face styles.
I have always kept and bred for this ever since.

I got it right! And knowing what you wanted, & that you could breed for it, w/out losing gameness, is obviously why you've gotten long-term consistency: you bred for it. Question: if a fellow preferred a hard-driving chest or shoulder dog as his favored combatant, could that guy breed for it? Using the exact same formula of always starting w/good game stock w/that style, then selecting for it as you go (using only the game dogs that come down)? It stands to reason that you could, but I was wondering what your thoughts were on it.

Only with The Gorilla did I start to breed for killer finish ... but I never spent the time refining it.

I am 100% positive I could have, had I kept a large yard, and kept selecting for it.

You like a head dog to finish in the throat, correct? Given your track record, I'm sure you could have bred that finish into them too.

Thank you.

Anytime.

[Macker]

I've heared it said Norman Kemmer culled anything that didn't start up by 12 or 13 months and anything that fought the head, he wanted balls out chest dogs with loads of mouth and I think he achieved that. I believe he had a super record of 27 straight wins with 1 loss and then another 10 or 11 on the trot.

Just another example of knowing your line and what to look for.
We had/have some kemmer dogs and in there pure form they seriously lack durability, they were thick winded, they have paper skin and they're very hard to save after a show, nearly like they lack the will to keep going. I've heard stories of them dying from the cold in other countries.

When we crossed them back into our own stuff we started getting more durable types of dogs, we quickly learned how to tell as a young pup which ones would turn out like the kemmer type mainly by the fine skin. When you get to know your dogs and your line you get to know what to look out for in your pups.

My point being Mr Kemmer wanted a dog that got the job done fast but I think the line may have suffered in other areas, well the ones we had did anyway.

[Officially Retired]

Well said Macker.

I have heard of Kemmer culling for the things you mentioned, which always struck me as bizarre. (Especially if they lacked durability.)

To breed dogs that go balls-out with no durability would be like breeding boxers who "go apeshit" in there, with no chin.
Fun to watch, and I could see them winning in numbers like that in the bushleagues, but I don't see how they could ever win (or last) against the best.

My Coca Cola dogs were like that: they would decimate almost everything they went into.
Balls out, never took a backward step, always hunting for your guts or kidneys.
Other people would pick up in :05 to :10, with their garden-variety trash getting totally overwhelmed ...
However, Coca Cola dogs ALWAYS came up short against my top shelf Poncho dogs ... which were head specialists, with extreme air, smarts, and durability.
It would always be the same ... fun to watch for :15 - :20 ... and then a tired, helpess Coki dog being figured-out, rendered-ineffective, and starting to run out of gas and finding itself helpless ...

The very best dogs I had were a mix of Coki dogs and Poncho dogs: dogs with extreme body strength that "could" go for kill spots, but who would first grab the head, feel you out, and then go right for your weakness ... when you exposed it. They were awesome, all around animals.

IMO, those relentless, high-pressure dogs only look good at a certain level ... but they set themselves up to lose against top shelf dogs by wasting too much energy.

Jack

[evolutionkennels]

I've heared it said Norman Kemmer culled anything that didn't start up by 12 or 13 months and anything that fought the head, he wanted balls out chest dogs with loads of mouth and I think he achieved that. I believe he had a super record of 27 straight wins with 1 loss and then another 10 or 11 on the trot.

Just another example of knowing your line and what to look for.
We had/have some kemmer dogs and in there pure form they seriously lack durability, they were thick winded, they have paper skin and they're very hard to save after a show, nearly like they lack the will to keep going. I've heard stories of them dying from the cold in other countries.

When we crossed them back into our own stuff we started getting more durable types of dogs, we quickly learned how to tell as a young pup which ones would turn out like the kemmer type mainly by the fine skin. When you get to know your dogs and your line you get to know what to look out for in your pups.

My point being Mr Kemmer wanted a dog that got the job done fast but I think the line may have suffered in other areas, well the ones we had did anyway.

absolutely not. . You couldn't be farther from the truth. the Kemmer were much more stupid than that. Norman and later Mitch were complete sociopaths. they were the stupidest dogmen to grace our planet. They lied on pedigrees, they culled anything from 6 weeks and up that ram away from the pen when you approached it. From the first roll.. if it went ONE time to the ear or head or muzzle.. . They would cull it. if the dog was overpowered in the actual match, and went to the head to recover, and came back to win in the throat or backend.. They would cull it after the show for having gone to the head. they weren't dogmen, they were fucking idiots that read the confederate Bible every night before bed and hunted African Americans for sport. Mitch had a shirt that had a pictureoof MLK on the front that said.. He had a dream, the back had the same picture but with crosshairs.. Said.. ours came true. Anyhow.. even after years of culling anything that went to the head... They still got half head dogs.. at the end Mitch was disgusted and sold all to a guy in northern California who still has them today. And the record was complete bullshit.. They lost more than they won because of the quality of dogs and decision making of Mitch, they did bring them right, and they were prepared with a written plan for anythingtthat could happen, but the judgement on dogs and confederate madness mixed in with dog ideology was their undoing.

Macker... Send me a what's app message. I'll send you audio

[Macker]

Lol they sound like a couple of villains from a dukes of hazzord show hahaha, you have a way with words evolution.

[Macker]

It's hard to describe how these dogs would go in a show, they where one track mind, to stupid to take a head hold. But the worst part was that they wouldn't be bet for wind, they're body's would just give up on them. They where 20 minute dogs, we once had one go 40 and have it all his own way, and after the show we where lucky to save him, you'd swear he'd just had a 2 hour war.

[Officially Retired]

I never saw a Kemmer dog go, but heard about their philosophy.

I didn't understand how, conceptually, they could ever hope to succeed against a truly good dog with their game plan.

To cull any dog for wanting to control the head is retarded. Literally.
Any smart dog will do that if he's in there with a good dog that can hurt him back.

Best I can tell, the Cajun Rules is a NO TIME LIMIT contest.
Best I can tell, you have to keep going, and you have to keep scratching, if you're in there with an equal.

Sure, it's nice to have super-strong, powerful dogs... but other people have super-strong, powerful dogs too sometimes

So you also have to have some tricks, some savvy, and some staying power to outlast an otherwise physical equal ... you can't just think you can mow everybody down.
And so to breed for a style (and lack of durability) that GUARANTEES you can't last is pretty stupid IMO ... for a no-time-limit contest.

Jack

(Didn't want to be so blunt, but since Evo went there, I figured why not? )