Breeding to Winners vs. Breeding on Your Yard

[TFX]

That being said I wonder when you all discuss percentages which percentages are you actually discussing? Game dogs in a litter? Show quality dogs in a litter? Winners in a litter? Championship level dogs in a litter? Because not all lines inspire the same type of philosophies from their adherents.

That is an excellent question. All I have ever looked for as a bare minimum are dogs that will stay. That is the only way I can really identify a "good litter". From there I try to select the brood stock from the high end of a good litter, and preferably by breeding the show dogs that can take a keep, and win or survive a show. Too many dogs that look good at home show something far different when going through the whole process of being exhibited.


Admin Note: I created this new thread topic, and merged all relevant posts that first digressed from the original Boyles thread topic to here, for two reasons: 1) because this really is a whole topic unto itself, and 2) it allows me to experiment with the "Move Posts" administrative feature

[drz]

That being said I wonder when you all discuss percentages which percentages are you actually discussing? Game dogs in a litter? Show quality dogs in a litter? Winners in a litter? Championship level dogs in a litter? Because not all lines inspire the same type of philosophies from their adherents.

That is an excellent question. All I have ever looked for as a bare minimum are dogs that will stay. That is the only way I can really identify a "good litter". From there I try to select the brood stock from the high end of a good litter, and preferably by breeding the show dogs that can take a keep, and win or survive a show. Too many dogs that look good at home show something far different when going through the whole process of being exhibited.

Excellent response, I'd be curious to see what philosophies are applied by others who run different lines or strains.

and preferably by breeding the show dogs that can take a keep, and win or survive a show. Too many dogs that look good at home show something far different when going through the whole process of being exhibited.

Now that would make a great thread on it's own, because in my opinion too many breeders are not putting their winning dogs back into their programs. It's as if the show itself isn't being used to elevate breeding programs.

[Officially Retired]

That being said I wonder when you all discuss percentages which percentages are you actually discussing? Game dogs in a litter? Show quality dogs in a litter? Winners in a litter? Championship level dogs in a litter? Because not all lines inspire the same type of philosophies from their adherents.

That is an excellent question. All I have ever looked for as a bare minimum are dogs that will stay. That is the only way I can really identify a "good litter". From there I try to select the brood stock from the high end of a good litter, and preferably by breeding the show dogs that can take a keep, and win or survive a show. Too many dogs that look good at home show something far different when going through the whole process of being exhibited.

Excellent response, I'd be curious to see what philosophies are applied by others who run different lines or strains.
and preferably by breeding the show dogs that can take a keep, and win or survive a show. Too many dogs that look good at home show something far different when going through the whole process of being exhibited.
Now that would make a great thread on it's own, because in my opinion too many breeders are not putting their winning dogs back into their programs. It's as if the show itself isn't being used to elevate breeding programs.

If I may be allowed to put my "breeder input here," seeing as I have actually bred winning dogs for two decades ... and interestingly enough most of these winners were bred by using dogs (and combinations of dogs) that were never shown ... and yet the dogs produced from these breedings have repeatedly and consistently beat the bolts off dogs that were "sired by Champions" ... it would be my opinion that too many people talk about breeding theories without actually having a successful, multi-generational breeding program of their own.

I do believe there is some truth to the matter of dogs that look good at home, but don't win out on the track, but alot of times a dog not looking good on the track is due to human error and is not the dog's fault (i.e., the dog might be over-worked, drugged-up with dex etc. before the deal, not brought in at the best weight, fallen victim to foul play somewhere along the line, etc.) It is here where learning the details from credible sources helps the breeder decide what to think about the situation ... and sometimes the breeder may learn that the losing dog simply didn't cut it.

That said, I absolutely do believe what TFX said, namely that the breeder should breed back to "the high end" of his litters; what I disagree with is the idea that the dog who "won a show" necessarily represents that "high end." Sometimes that is the case, but sometimes the dog who won "out there" is merely what the breeder sold ... while the best dog in that litter might just be the one the breeder kept

Furthermore, even in cases were a particular dog that won really is the best out of the bunch in his litter, that doesn't necessarily mean the dog will out-produce similar dogs the breeder himself already has (nor does it even mean that said winner is even a better dog than other dogs the breeder still has at home). That is the assumption too many people make, but it is by no means necessarily even close to the the truth. The truth is, if most of the dogs in any given litter were also good, all those good dogs did while they were "out there" being good is prove to the breeder that what he's breeding back at home is still going strong.

To my way of thinking, a really good breeder is not the guy who produces "a" good dog ... or "a" good litter ... he is the guy who actually knows how to produce top-shelf dogs all the time ... while the average dogman comes and goes from this earth without ever producing a single notable animal. I believe this is why so many dogmen find the ability to produce winners "such a great mystery," and is also why they desperately try to follow "only winners" ... and to breed only to them ... because essentially they're bandwagon-jumpers ... and they do this because they lack the confidence to breed winners at home with what they've got.

Honestly, IMHO, breeding superior dogs really is as simple as this: 1) know what a good dog really is; 2) make sure you've got legitimately-good dogs at home; 3) use only legitimately-good dogs in your program that come from good, high-percentage litters & families; 4) and then learn to manage those good genetics properly through proven breeding techniques. And that really is all there is to it.

This is not some "theory" I have as to what people "should" be doing, while I sit here scratching my head trying to figure out how to breed a winner. It is simply what I have been doing and proving with the same basic family ... and have been doing for a longer time than 99.99% of anyone breeding dogs today. 99.99% of people feeding dogs today are NOT looking at the sum and substance of 20+ years of their own breedings: they're either looking at a dog somebody else bred, or that is sired/whelped by a dog somebody else bred. And the minority of dogmen who actually have produced winning dogs for decades, continuously using dogs of their own breedings, will agree with me. In fact, drz, I think even TFX himself sees it both ways, as the stud he is advertising has not been hooked (to the best of my knowledge), nor was his other well-known, excellent producing stud dog Homer III. Dogs can simply be really good dogs, and really good producers, regardless if they are matched or not.

Jack

[TFX]

Sometimes that is the case, but sometimes the dog who won "out there" is merely what the breeder sold ... while the best dog in that litter might just be the one the breeder kept

Jack

That is very possible. If you see something in my breeding program that did not win or lose an actual show, you can be 100% certain that particular individual showed to be the higher end of the line in some form or fashion. On the flipside of that, I would never breed a 2X winner that won in :17 and :24 that we had never seen anything else from just because he won.

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.

As Jack stated, many breeder has held back the best dog or an nearly equal dog while "risking" the littermate to the show.

[Officially Retired]

Great post.

[drz]

I had just about finished a very detailed response to Jack's dissertation there when the board seemed to refresh and 30 minutes worth of typing disappeared. I really don't have the time to do it all over but some quick points.

No where did I state a dog has to win to produce or to be considered the best in his litter. Nor did I state that a breeder who doesn't incorporate his winning dogs back into his bloodline cannot be successful. But just as someone can get 80% on tests his whole life that doesn't mean there's no way to get 90%.

That was a lot of typing by Jack on something that didn't even speak to what I was speaking of, at least not entirely.

[Officially Retired]

I had just about finished a very detailed response to Jack's dissertation there when the board seemed to refresh and 30 minutes worth of typing disappeared. I really don't have the time to do it all over but some quick points.

LOL, that is the most infuriating thing in the world, to type a detailed response ... only to have it disappear. Believe me, I know the feeling, but it's not "the board" doing this, LOL, it is just the way the ball rolls sometimes. It can also be your browser. For example, when I have used IE, every time my post didn't go through ... if I back-spaced ... it would automatically "refresh" and give me a clean slate (thereby removing all of my work). Makes you want to kill something I know

That said, since I switched to Mozilla Firefox, aside from being better in other ways, if I hit "post" .... and my post doesn't go through ... when I hit "backspace" my work is NOT destroyed because Firefox does NOT "refresh" automatically. Something to think about anyway. At the very least, copying your hard work to your clipboard is always a good habit to get into before you hit the "post" button

No where did I state a dog has to win to produce or to be considered the best in his litter. Nor did I state that a breeder who doesn't incorporate his winning dogs back into his bloodline cannot be successful.

Well, your exact words were, "... in my opinion too many breeders are not putting their winning dogs back into their programs. It's as if the show itself isn't being used to elevate breeding programs." Well, as a breeder, it would be MHO that too many people question successful breeding programs without really knowing all the facts of a breeder's own private yard ... in other words what's-what, and who's-who, on the breeder's own private yard.

Nor did I state that a breeder who doesn't incorporate his winning dogs back into his bloodline cannot be successful. But just as someone can get 80% on tests his whole life that doesn't mean there's no way to get 90%.
That was a lot of typing by Jack on something that didn't even speak to what I was speaking of, at least not entirely.

Well, actually, I *have* gone and bred to winning dogs of my own line. For example, I got Stormbringer back and bred the balls off the dog. Unfortunately, Stormy was virtually infertile, and while most of his breedings did not take, honestly of the ones that did take these pups were nothing more special than any of my other pups. There were a couple of *really* good dogs off of him, true, but there were also more cold dogs off him than I ever had before, while most were just average dogs. Percentage-wise, however, I have had *many* dogs produce better than Stormy did, and in fact his own un-talented brother Warlock out-produced the daylights out of him. I also bred to Mr. Serious a few times, and while I did get some good, game dogs off of him ... here again, these game winning dogs were not any better than what many of my other dogs produced. In fact, I don't think either Stormbringer or Mr. Serious produced dogs at the same level of consistency as (say) U-Nhan-Rha, Icon, or Silverback have. I also got the "winning/game-losing" Pretty Boy back, and he basically got his ass kicked by every single dog his weight that I had here at home ... and then PB couldn't sire a single litter for me. So, actually, I have made the effort to breed to winning dogs ... and it has never produced anything more special or consistent than what I already keep and breed here at home, and in many cases what was produced by these winners couldn't even stand up to it percentage-wise.

This is my actual experience getting back, or breeding to, some of the greatest/gamest dogs I have ever bred in my life ... and, of the lot of them, I only consider Stormbringer to be "better" than my other "very best" dogs that I just kept and bred. Although I never saw Mr. Serious go, and I know he had a great mouth and was a very game dog, athletically I do not think he was a cream-of-the-crop among my most athletic dogs. From everything I have been able to gather, Mr Serious just a rough, tough, cagey and exceptionally game animal ... but I can get these traits pretty easily through many different breeding combinations. And after seeing Pretty Boy, game as he was, he wasn't even in the ballpark of being anywhere near a "good" dog ... let alone among my best athletes ... yet he was "an official winner" to the viewing public

What I am trying to get at, drz, that what the breeder knows of his own stock (if he really knows what he's feeding) tells him all he needs to know to make good breeding decisions. If he has a legitimately good yard, he does not have to reach out and breed to his winners. Most of the time, he can keep breeding the same-quality dogs by knowing the formula to produce them.

I am not trying to be argumentative, I am just stating the absolute truth as I know it and have lived it.

Cheers,

Jack

[TFX]

Well, actually, I *have* gone and bred to winning dogs of my own line. For example, I got Stormbringer back and bred the balls off the dog. Unfortunately, Stormy was virtually infertile, and while most of his breedings did not take, honestly of the ones that did take these pups were nothing more special than any of my other pups. There were a couple of *really* good dogs off of him, true, but there were also more cold dogs off him than I ever had before, while most were just average dogs.

Jack

This takes us right back to a belief that I stated elsewhere since joining this forum, which is that traits directly linked to individual dogs seem to skip about 4 generations or so on average. Therefore, your new "Stormbringers" probably showed up when he is in the 3rd or 4th generation on a pedigree, and generally traits are not attributed back to individuals that far in the pedigree. Case in point, if he was producing cold, look 3-5 generations back in his ancestry and determine who the cold dogs were. I can nearly promise you they are there, and I feel comfortable in stating that ancestor(s) is where the cold trait came from. By stacking good ones in as many places in a pedigree as possible, or better yet limiting the gene pool by inbreeding on said good individuals, the whole idea from my vantage point is that in time, more and more traits are coming from good individuals. By doing so, the average of the line for all desireable characteristics should be improved. Clearly, there are different approaches, different philosphies, different experiences, but there are a few of mine, as half-cocked and corny as they may be. I know when I started out with these dogs seriously in 1988, I couldn't go buy 10 dogs and get the quality of animals that I can today by producing 10 pups from my little family of dogs. To me, having that predictability is great progress. I have had direct offspring of GR CH's, CH's and ROM dogs from several different lines of that era, and I wouldn't trade a hair on the ass of any dog from the gene pool I have today for any of that old stuff.

[Earl Tudor]

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 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. 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" . 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.

[Officially Retired]

This takes us right back to a belief that I stated elsewhere since joining this forum, which is that traits directly linked to individual dogs seem to skip about 4 generations or so on average. Therefore, your new "Stormbringers" probably showed up when he is in the 3rd or 4th generation on a pedigree, and generally traits are not attributed back to individuals that far in the pedigree. Case in point, if he was producing cold, look 3-5 generations back in his ancestry and determine who the cold dogs were. I can nearly promise you they are there, and I feel comfortable in stating that ancestor(s) is where the cold trait came from. By stacking good ones in as many places in a pedigree as possible, or better yet limiting the gene pool by inbreeding on said good individuals, the whole idea from my vantage point is that in time, more and more traits are coming from good individuals. By doing so, the average of the line for all desireable characteristics should be improved. Clearly, there are different approaches, different philosphies, different experiences, but there are a few of mine, as half-cocked and corny as they may be.

I couldn't agree with you more. This is why tightening-up on a gene pool can bring-out both bad traits (which you discard) as well as good traits (which you keep and try to perpetuate). If I would have been able to get enough dogs to form a linebreeding program around Stormbringer, it is very possible that, through selective breeding, more-and-more truly awesome dogs would have come from the effort. But it just didn't work out that way. Still, in linebreeding around other good dogs, I got plenty more good dogs. That is just how it works.

What I am hoping to do is form a small linebreeding pool around Silverback, who though he may not be as all-around awesome as Stormy was, The Gorilla is actually a faster better athlete, with a better body, and is just as capable a finisher. He may not have that freak body strength Stormy had, but he is much stronger and more capable than most. Which brings me to another point, the futility of worrying about "the best" ... there is no such thing! Styles make deals, some traits are better than others, and breeding good dogs is just a matter of lining-up good trait correctly to get competitive animals. Whether any dog is "the single best dog in the universe" or not doesn't make a bit of difference. The only thing that really matters is if, in an experienced man's opinion, a given dog is better than most dogs he's ever seen at that weight. That, really, is all you can ask of a dog (or of a program!).

Isolated, extreme fluctuations in individual variance, to one way or another, aren't what you measure your yard by ... it's the consistent yardstick that matters.

I know when I started out with these dogs seriously in 1988, I couldn't go buy 10 dogs and get the quality of animals that I can today by producing 10 pups from my little family of dogs. To me, having that predictability is great progress. I have had direct offspring of GR CH's, CH's and ROM dogs from several different lines of that era, and I wouldn't trade a hair on the ass of any dog from the gene pool I have today for any of that old stuff.

Consistency and predictability are everything IMO. Without it, you're shooting in the dark (which is what all beginners and too many people, who should know better, do). It is only through consistency that any breeder can "know where he's at," so he can make reasonable and intelligent choices to progress incrementally in the direction he wants to go.

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