Pedro was never labeled a 9xw anywhere until pedigrees online. You can't take those pedigrees as truth. The Soo Evil dog that FB won 4 or 5 with was TVK's roll dog, and FB only ended up with the dog when TVK was going to cull him. There are all types of things happening with dogs.
"Believe what you see."
Totally agree. Especially given the seemingly-endless capacity for deception amongst (at least some) dogmen. Not judging them for their reasons, only that the practical end of things is that it makes it tough to sort out just what the heck is actually going on w/matches & match records, as well as breedings & pedigrees. What is the deal w/Deep Throat Dolly & B Line Kennels? I probably don't wanna know, given the context it can't be anything good!
Wow. Thank you for that information, this board has been extremely helpful. Like all performance animals, I suppose, there are truly all kinds of things going on w/the dogs.Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
I am not a breeder , although I have bred a couple of winners.
my limited experience is that performance and producing are not as closely related as one would think
although it is still my believe that in the end breeding performers the actual percentage of performing animals within your line will increase
but breeding 2 killers wont give you a bunch of killers
but at least breeding performers and some basic thinking can give a litter were a few are worth a small bet
To answer your original question, I am assuming they are the same dog.
As to whether people breed dogs before matching them, not usually, though I myself don't think it affects much. (You might want to read an experiment I personally did in the thread Does Breeding Affect Performance?.)
As far as breeding performance dogs goes, if you're LINEbreeding, then the dog you're linebreeding on should be one helluva good dog. If you linebreed on mediocrity, you'll get mediocrity. If you linebreed on greatness, you will get greatness. The twist (that throws so many people off) is that you won't ALWAYS get great dogs, but an average dog linebred on a great dog can and will produce great dogs ... especially if he's bred to relatives who have this same great dog in there ... whereas an average dog linebred on average dogs never will.
People who say linebred dogs can't fight only say this because the dogs they linebred on SUCK. I can assure you that dogs that are linebred CORRECTLY not only can fight, they can outproduce the daylights out of most mixed-bred mutts.
The key to keeping a family of dogs in the winner's circle is simply this: A GOOD EYE for a dog and GOOD TASTE in breeding decisions.
If you don't know what a good dog looks like, you will never breed good dogs consistently.
If you don't make intelligent breeding decisions, you will never breed good dogs consistently.
But if you know what a good dog looks like, and if you make intelligent breeding decisions ... which means MANAGING THE GENE POOL YOU HAVE ... and KEEPING the good in there ... then you can breed good dogs perpetually, for as long as you want.
But the "good" has to be IN THERE, genetically, in order to do this; you can't make "something" out of nothing.
That "something" has to be IN THERE, which (in our terms) means the genetic potential for a game, tough, talented, bad ass dog to come out.
If it's not maintained in your genetic management, then it's not coming out in your pups. Like a red nose, it doesn't have to show up every generation, but it's got to be IN THERE (up close is better), and KEPT in there, in order to come back out in another litter.
Jack
I figure they are the same dog as well. That was an interesting thread, thanks for the link. Also like your breeding ideas, they seem to be good, sound common sense. Which is not all that common, ironically enough!
The reason why no-talent dogs can produce great dogs with talent, is the no-talent dog was linebred on a great dog.
A no-talent dog, that is not linebred, and has no dogs with talent in his pedigree, simply canNOT produce talent.
Talent can't come from "nowhere" ... it has to come from somewhere.
However, some no-talent dogs (even if they are linebred on a talented dog) have simply lost their ability to produce talent.
Again, it's like a red/rednose.
Some buckskin dogs have a rednose gene in them. You can breed two such buckskin dogs (Aa) and produce a rednose (aa) dog with them.
In the same way, you can breed two no-talent plugs, with a common badass ancestor, and produce a badass dog with them.
But you can't keep doing that forever.
The reason is, some of the buckskin dogs will be pure AA buckskins and have LOST the rednose gene.
Similarly, some no-talent dogs off of talented dogs, have simply LOST gameness and ability somewhere.
Therefore, if you keep breeding no-talent pieces of shit together, even if they're linebred on a highly-talented dog, you will LOSE gameness and ability if you're not specifically looking at your dogs and SELECTING FOR gameness and talent.
You can't just keep breeding no-talent dogs together and KEEP gameness and talent; you have to keep breeding to the dogs that exhibit gameness and talent.
You have to breed for performance.
Sure, you can sometimes "get by" by breeding no-talent, inbred plugs ... that have some super-duper dog back there ... but you don't want to make a perpetual habit of this.
Like anything, a little common horse sense goes a long way ...
Jack
This is excellent. I can't imagine why anybody would be regularly breeding no talent plugs, inbred or no: my understanding is gameness will be irretrievably lost if you are not constantly selecting for it. That means breeding to game dogs as, like you say, it can't come from nowhere. It has to come from somewhere.
It's funny you mention horse sense since a lot of this is as true for thoroughbred racehorses as it is for dogs. They breed winners to winners & game losers. I can only dream of a day when matching game dogs is legal like horse racing. The very same thing is happening: you're watching a living laboratory that tests which animals to breed. And some people make some coin off of it. The practical difference? Thoroughbred ownership tends to be much more wealthy & more organized than game dog ownership. I've heard it said about fighting cocks as well, but I know almost nothing about that sport; my understanding is that it's legal in at least a few states. It's really sad that they discriminate against the dogs like that.
Sorry for the run on. Question: do you define "talent" as gameness, or ability, or both?
Talent has nothing to do with gameness ... and gameness has nothing to do with talent.
This is why you have highly-talented dogs that quit the moment they get tired (or fall behind, if against another talented dog) ... and it's also why we have the term game plug (a dog that will never quit but is ineffective).
An entire book can be written on the subject of "talent" and what that means.
(I have a chapter of my own book describing talent.)
Some people confuse brute force for "talent" ... some people confuse "hard mouth" for talent ... but talent/power and talent/mouth are completely different things also.
IMO, talent is best described as, "A dog that is able to do what it wants, while preventing the other dog from doing what it wants."
The dog that is able to bite without being bitten; the dog that is able to establish control without being controlled, etc.
That is talent.
Talent = some kind of nebulous combination of intelligence + the athletic ability to execute the desired moves.
You attempt to build on talent (increase stamina, add mouth, power, gameness, etc.)
But talent itself has to do with the intelligence/savvy of knowing what to do + having the athletic ability to do it.
Jack
OK, that's what I thought, gameness & talent are not the same. They call the highly talented dog that only stays in the fight so long as he's ahead or not winded a front-running cur, don't they? He's game enough not to quit so long as things are going his way. Would seem like the game plug is the opposite of that (won't quit no matter how tired &/or beaten he is). Is a game plug worth breeding to? My guess would be no as there are probably many as game or more game dogs out there w/a ton more ability. Why reach for the mediocre when the excellent lies before us!
I always thought talent, or "ability" if you like, was more than just mouth. Aren't there components to talent? At least, that's what some have said. Beyond gameness, things like stamina, durability, bite, wrestling ability, driving power, ring savvy, pacing, intelligence...I have seen lists of these types of attributes, sometimes rank-ordered as to their importance (which obviously vary depending on who is being asked). I like that definition of talent, as it seems to neatly sum up all those factors. Intelligence + athleticism. I did cheat ahead in your terrific book, I must confess (couldn't help myself, reading out of order like that! I've always loved "fight dynamics"), & saw that you express a very definite preference in your dogs for the game, methodical dismantler as opposed to the hard-charging barnstormer. I guess if you could combine both sets of attributes or styles in one dog you would have the proverbial "ace of aces." The Holy Grail of game dogs. I'm pretty sure most guys don't even get one in a lifetime like that.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to the pesky questions/ramblings of a neophyte. It's appreciated.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote