Breeding to Winners vs. Breeding on Your Yard

[Officially Retired]

Some good points are being made by both sides of the discussion. I have noticed that there tends to be a difference between a breeder and a competitor/breeder. Most competitor/breeders I know or can think of, did or do breed to their "winning" or "losing game" stock. They bred what they used, and used what they bred.

I agree, and I would breed to my winning or losing game stock too, if I were competing. Because I am not competing, but still want to have a topnotch yard, I have to make sure that I know what I am feeding, that it meets my style/quality preferences and demands, and that it comes from a consistent enough background so that I have a reasonable expectation that what I keep will "produce more of the same." From that point, it's just a matter of a few breeding tweaks/experiments forever trying to steer the course of my bloodline in the direction I want it to go. I am sure it is like that for all dedicated breeders trying to produce quality stock and trying to maintain "what they like" in their program.

I can see a breeder keeping his "best" stock, to continue breedings, and as long as the dogs that are being sold are quality and are satisfying their new owners, then all parties involved are happy.

That is the way it is supposed to be.

People tend to assume the dog that wins is "the best," or that what the breeder keeps is "unproven," but neither of these assumptions is remotely accurate. (Not with a serious and good breeder anyway.) Sometimes the breeder may well sell his best; or sometimes the dog he sold is equally-good as what he kept; and even in cases where what the breeder sold in "x dog" proves to be better than what he kept ... that doesn't mean said winning dog is better than other dogs the breeder has, from other breedings. It just means that a particular customer has a particular good doggie from one of the breeder's breedings

Reminds me of a quote I was told by my mentor, "Never, ever, sell your best dog". Then he followed that up with "None of my dogs are for sale, but EVERY ONE of them has a price"

LOL, that is breeder-speak if I ever heard it

But it's true! If you're breeding dogs for a living, but you really love and value your stock, you aren't really falling all over yourself to "give away" what you got ... but if someone comes up with enough dinero, why then so long to ol' rover, and you'll just clear out his space for a new bulldog you got coming up 8-)

Out of curiosity, who are some of the breeders since the 90's does the board think were topnotch? I have my opinions, just wondering what everyone else thinks, then we can look and see who, what, and how they bred their animals and compare.

I would have to say getting a foundation dog from Hollingsworth in 1990 would have benefitted anyone ... and helped some pretty major breeders get to some pretty good places

Jack

[TFX]

In keeping with this, would you say that your Roto bitch is what gave you your true consistency, almost in line with "The X Factor" theory Stone City shared with us?

Jack

Yes and no. Roto bred to Homer III was not nearly as good as Roto bred to the CH Costello blood. There was just more synergy between those two than either of them bred any other way. Breeding those dogs amonsgt themselves is a very stable recipe. When I got too far removed from CH Cos, the heavy Roto dogs did not hold together well, they had traits that I did not care for. They were very rough and wild type of dogs, but not as game and smart. The CH Cos dogs bred other ways were far less consistent, and a lot of cold females came forth from the Kudo bitch in the pedigree. We even turned out the occasional cold, potlicker male. During the prime of his life we abandoned breeding him for a season because of some mild disappointment in some of his offspring, and the acquisiton of Homer III and some other key dogs. It took some time to recognize his value as a sire, and then it was almost too late to go back to him. His best litter may have been to Cerrita who was by Cates' Cujo to Hooten's Miss Bolero (CH Chinaman x CH Bolero). There were 3 winners out of that litter of 6, and the other 2 that made it to maturity were very good dogs in their own right. CH Cos did not produce great to everything, but he certainly did produce when bred to quality bitches, and even produced some good dogs when bred to a cur Rocca's Stonewall bitch. The men in Italy had a daughter of CH Cos and also a half brother, and they have pretty much based a line on them mixed with some Nigerino stock they imported. They are very happy with them still some 15 years later.

I got a call past weekend from a fanicer who lamented that I didn't have that blood "pure" anymore. The fact is the dogs today down from him blended with the Roto stock are so much better than the "pure stuff" that there is simply no comparison. I know for a novelty you might like to have a "pure" Hollingsworth dog, but also I know that you wouldn't give up where you have come with the Vise Grip line to go back to "pure" Hollingsworth dogs. Same with my CH Cos blood, they carry the good traits he had without the lack of consistency we got when scatterbreeding him, or even when directly inbreeding on him. Roto was definitely an improver, and as I said on the CH Rebel Yell thread, in my judgment that is a direct result of the extreme prepotency of Garner's Coal Cat (1XW).

[gilamonster]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it,but IMPO my intention when breeding was never to breed CH,GRCH. It was to breed dogs Better or at least equal to the parents or grandparents so on. I remember when BDB was at my place ,and he said of one of my dogs "You should let me get that one. I will make him famous".My answer was" I did'nt breed him to be famous. I bred him to replace his father". I think in my minds eye somewhere is me trying to perpetuate a line of animals that someone has intrusted and been kind enough to let me be blessed with. Who can be what he should be and have everything that we find noble, true, inigmatic in a bulldog. Like jack stated " same-quality dogs by knowing the formula to produce them". It takes a certain intangible something to recognize the great quality in this process of life long comitment and love for the bulldog.Just my thoughts.

[Dillinger]

Great thread. For the guys that have been breeding and doing it very well for a while, what to your way of thinking makes a successful breeding? Without question, we would all like to make a breeding that made both parents ROM from that breeding alone. With that being said, what is the next goal or goals? An all game litter? 50% game? Half the litter makes it to the squared circle? The pups become more complete dogs than the parents? I'm just trying to see inside of the brains of the guys that have made breedings that turned out well and continue to do it consistently. And then how do you incorporate these pups into your breeding program? Especially with the "X-factor" now being consideration? Thanks

[Officially Retired]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it,but IMPO my intention when breeding was never to breed CH,GRCH. It was to breed dogs Better or at least equal to the parents or grandparents so on.

Perhaps I can simplify this even more by saying, "The purpose of breeding these dogs is to breed what you like in a bulldog." If you're only breeding for yourself, only you have to be satisfied. However, I do think if you're selling dogs, that there has to be some qualities about them that make winning possible, if not probable.

I remember when BDB was at my place ,and he said of one of my dogs "You should let me get that one. I will make him famous".My answer was" I did'nt breed him to be famous. I bred him to replace his father". I think in my minds eye somewhere is me trying to perpetuate a line of animals that someone has intrusted and been kind enough to let me be blessed with. Who can be what he should be and have everything that we find noble, true, inigmatic in a bulldog.

If you are breeding for yourself, I agree. Even if the dog is capable of making Gr Ch, while "the public" may want to see it, if you know in your bones he's a good dog that is all that matters.

If you're selling dogs, however, there is a certain performance expectation that has to be met by the public, and at least some fraction of your dogs have to be out there competing and winning in open competition ... otherwise serious fanciers won't be interested. Of course, if you're privately stomping mudholes in serious fancier's stock in little schooling sessions (without actually competing), the word will get out on your dogs like that also.

Like jack stated " same-quality dogs by knowing the formula to produce them". It takes a certain intangible something to recognize the great quality in this process of life long comitment and love for the bulldog.Just my thoughts.

Yep, once you know your own line you can "just see" the ones who carry the best traits of their ancestors. The way they move, their expressions, everything. It is hard to explain this to people who haven't really run their own line, but to those who have fed the same line through multiple generations, you "just know" which ones are special.

Jack

[Earl Tudor]

I remember when BDB was at my place ,and he said of one of my dogs "You should let me get that one. I will make him famous".My answer was" I did'nt breed him to be famous. I bred him to replace his father".

Care to share with us the dog he tried to buy? He sounds like a good one. BDB sure has bought quite a few good ones in his time.

[Officially Retired]

Great thread. For the guys that have been breeding and doing it very well for a while, what to your way of thinking makes a successful breeding?

Wow, that little sentence could properly contain enough opinion to write a whole book (or at least a chapter)

To keep it short, a truly successful breeding to me is where no dog in the litter ever so much as makes a bad move in any roll or match, and at least 50% or greater of the individuals have above-average ability.

By contrast, if I have a Champion, a couple bums, and 3 quits I think the breeding pretty much sucked ... but one good dog came out of it.

Without question, we would all like to make a breeding that made both parents ROM from that breeding alone.

The acquisition of "public titles" is good for sales, but in reality there are many Champions I wouldn't feed and many "ROMs" that produce dogs with traits or a style I don't like. Any winning dog deserves respect for winning, but to me the most important thing is that I LIKE the dogs I produce ... not just whether they 'can' win, but how they win as well as how enjoyable they are in other respects

For example, if one of my dogs "makes Champion" by shaking the front legs ... but turned 3x, was out of holds a lot, and trotted his scratches ... but he made my bitch an "ROM" ... I will not be as happy with that dog (or his litter) as I would if another dog from another litter performed exactly like I love a dog to perform, controlling the hog and then diving in for the close when the time's right, even if he never "officially wins."

The public may want to breed to "the Champion" ... but I will be breeding to the dog on my yard who performed like I wanted him to perform. So it really isn't just about "titles" and "winning" ... it's about perpetuating the specific traits you want. Sometimes you luck out and get everything in one dog, and that's where you have a yard-baser. Other times, a winner won't have the traits you like, while sometimes the game loser (or dog that never got shown) will. I always breed toward what I like ... win, lose, or "not shown."

With that being said, what is the next goal or goals? An all game litter? 50% game? Half the litter makes it to the squared circle? The pups become more complete dogs than the parents?

Every breeding I do, I hope for an all-game litter ... with the idea to breed the most talented end of it. If I get that, I am extremely happy. More often though, a few quit and if it isn't too rank, I can live with it, but of course will breed to the game littermates. If too many dogs in the litter quit (50% or more), I want no part of even the good dogs in the litter.

And finally, whether they actually make it to the square isn't as important to me as if, in my judgement, they could prevail in there ... and if I think they could do so decisively ... over all but the very best dogs ... and give even those a helluva run for their money, regardless of which way it goes.

I'm just trying to see inside of the brains of the guys that have made breedings that turned out well and continue to do it consistently. And then how do you incorporate these pups into your breeding program? Especially with the "X-factor" now being consideration? Thanks

I kind of just do it the ol' Maurice Carver way as told to Gary Hammonds. I remember reading an article Gary wrote where Carver was about to tell him "why" he was going to do a particular breeding, and Hammonds was ready with pen-in-hand to jot down the big secret ... and Carver said, "Well hell, son, I just thought it would be good!"

Cheers,

Jack

[Dillinger]

Jack - thanks for the response! Appreciate the honesty. Your forum is a huge breath of fresh air!

[Officially Retired]

Well thanks ... and I appreciate the thoughtful questions and enthusiasm!

The questions you're asking, and the other members here are discussion, really get right down to the heart of the matter as to "why" we're in this thing and "what" we're trying to breed for exactly.

Don't see how it can get down to more basics than that :ugeek:

Jack

[Crofab]

This invariably brings us right back to the evaluation process before the show. I always wanted to know we were taking a fairly game dog in with us. I didn't want to end up with a dog who won in short order that I was not comfortable breeding to later. Therefore, they were evaluated very thorughly and very deeply at home before they were ever shown. I think it was a double edged sword in some respects. It absolutely limited the amount of dogs we exhibited. We stopped a good number of dogs that may have been deemed "show worthy". Sure, they were only pit game dogs, but some of those pit game dogs could have undoubtedly won some shows, and some would have quit as they did at home. The other thing evaluating them completely at home did is allow dogs from our yard that were shown to have a win % of over 80% with over 90% total showing game. It also set gameness as a core trait of this little family.

I believe this sums up my way of a breeding strategy. While I'm not all that far along in my breeding strategies, this is definitely the same path I'm taking for my journey.