HOLLINGSWORTH DOGS

hey jack im about half way thru the book i purchased and am loving it :) just a question , did hollingsworth ever match dogs himself or just bred dogs ?

I have the book and if I recall corect, just a breeder, never match any.

No, he never did match any dogs.

in all the years of breeding tight and using hollingsworths methods was there any confirmation faults that popped up ? i ask this questi0on in regards to his breeding methods only ..

Actually, physical structure and soundness were the hallmark of his bloodline!

I have never seen such uniform physical perfection in any other strain of dogs since then.

The only thing they lacked overall was speed and brains.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

Actually, physical structure and soundness were the hallmark of his bloodline!

I have never seen such uniform physical perfection in any other strain of dogs since then.

The only thing they lacked overall was speed and brains.

Jack

---

Which is why I love the 25% Gr.Ch.Buck for speed and brains, 25%Hollingsworth for physical soundness and durability,and 50% Redboy-Jocko for LUNGS that breathe underwater, add a bit of Tonka bear to the mix, and you get retardedly game, super fast and smart , durable athletic specimens that can win even when we shape them.

This is an interesting topic and one that I wanted to bring up. The Hollingsworth dogs were physical perfection, yet I have seen quite a few descendants of Hollingsworth/Buck dogs with terrible physical faults and deformities.

Here is only one of many:

http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...hp?dog_id=7143

Where are these deformities coming from?

I'm not sure. But this one has Buck and hollingsworth. http://home.comcast.net/~evolutionkn...hobear2974.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evolutionkennels

I'm not sure. But this one has Buck and hollingsworth. http://home.comcast.net/~evolutionkn...hobear2974.jpg

---

He is an awesome looking dog. I've noticed all your Buck/Hollingsworth dogs look like perfect specimens. Since these Gaston bred dogs have similar ancestors why does it seem to show up mostly in this line?

i didnt see any deformities??

So here's my question..if you have a dog that is everything you want in a dog but it has a physical genetic defect, do you breed it? My thought is to breed it, cull the defective offspring and move forward with the healthy ones. What does everyone else think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CRISIS

i didnt see any deformities??

---

Toby's shoulders are deformed. His elbows are further back then they are supposed to be. He walked a bit hunched over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scratchin dog

So here's my question..if you have a dog that is everything you want in a dog but it has a physical genetic defect, do you breed it? My thought is to breed it, cull the defective offspring and move forward with the healthy ones. What does everyone else think?

---

i believe the saying "form follows function" should always be applied. a physical defect (especially one that does not hinder performance) is something minor that can be corrected through selective breeding. all of the other traits and characteristics you are absolutely pleased with may be harder to find, or like-bred relatives may not be to your standard, and you could potentially "dispose" of a genetic goldmine of a dog.

i would look back at the dog's genetic make-up, starting with his littermates. do any of them have physical defects? if so, are they the same as your dog's, or found elsewhere? from there, i would analyze the parents, their littermates, and down the line.

and like you said, i too would breed the dog, cull the ones with the passed flaw, and continue on.

is that the same thin SC had?

** thing

no...shortycowby had chrondrodysplasia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by just_cory

i believe the saying "form follows function" should always be applied. a physical defect (especially one that does not hinder performance) is something minor that can be corrected through selective breeding. all of the other traits and characteristics you are absolutely pleased with may be harder to find, or like-bred relatives may not be to your standard, and you could potentially "dispose" of a genetic goldmine of a dog.

i would look back at the dog's genetic make-up, starting with his littermates. do any of them have physical defects? if so, are they the same as your dog's, or found elsewhere? from there, i would analyze the parents, their littermates, and down the line.

and like you said, i too would breed the dog, cull the ones with the passed flaw, and continue on.

---

Good post. I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by just_cory

i believe the saying "form follows function" should always be applied. a physical defect (especially one that does not hinder performance) is something minor that can be corrected through selective breeding. all of the other traits and characteristics you are absolutely pleased with may be harder to find, or like-bred relatives may not be to your standard, and you could potentially "dispose" of a genetic goldmine of a dog.

i would look back at the dog's genetic make-up, starting with his littermates. do any of them have physical defects? if so, are they the same as your dog's, or found elsewhere? from there, i would analyze the parents, their littermates, and down the line.

and like you said, i too would breed the dog, cull the ones with the passed flaw, and continue on.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scratchin dog

He is an awesome looking dog. I've noticed all your Buck/Hollingsworth dogs look like perfect specimens. Since these Gaston bred dogs have similar ancestors why does it seem to show up mostly in this line?

---

In a word: Selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scratchin dog

So here's my question..if you have a dog that is everything you want in a dog but it has a physical genetic defect, do you breed it? My thought is to breed it, cull the defective offspring and move forward with the healthy ones. What does everyone else think?

---

Culling for physical defects "visually" is only a show-breeder's mentality, and it generally weakens a line of dogs. (OFRN Hemphill dogs are the classic example of a "visually-pleasing" line that has been rendered almost useless by breeding for pedigree and "looks.")

Some of the baddest dogs in history had structural defects, and (in my experience) some of my own very best dogs had structural defects: Stormbringer was too stocky; Icon was undershot and had straight stifles. Yet these dogs would utterly trash any "conformationally-flawless" animal they met. Sure, it is nice to get both great structure as well as great performance in one dog, but if one is to sacrifice one for the other, then the sacrifice should be of "looks" in favor of keeping optimal performance alive.

Therefore, to cull through a litter based on conformation alone would be essentially to turn the Hollingsworth dogs into another sad Hemphill story, which (unfortunately) a lot of people have done. I had the RTK's Ali dog, for example, and although he had a "tight pedigree," and was outwardly pretty, he was essentially a caricature of a true Hollingsworth dog (which themselves needed help in certain aspects). Athletically, Ali was mush-bodied and weak (rather than powerful and strong), and he had a congenital heart defect. I honestly think my 32-lb Icon dog could have spotted him the 14 lb and whipped his ass. (Don't laugh, when he was 9 months old, Icon got into a kennel accident with Phoenix, spotted him the same amount of weight, and whipped his ass!)

I never rolled Ali, because I found out he had a hole in his heart, but he clearly was not a world class athlete. In fact, he would labor in his breathing because of his heart defect, and after he got bit by a brown recluse spider, he died. I had other dogs get bit by these spiders that recovered without a problem.

Anyway, sorry for digressing, but I would caution you to put your show background in check when making breeding decisions, and based such decisions solely on gameness and ability. For example, on my yard, although Duke Nukem won the ADBA Nationals for his class, and although Stormbringer didn't have Duke's perfect physique, Stormy would kill 3 of Duke Nukem looking for a fight ... so if I could magically make only one of them re-appear on my yard again, I can promise you it wouldn't be Duke Nukem :)

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by just_cory

i believe the saying "form follows function" should always be applied. a physical defect (especially one that does not hinder performance) is something minor that can be corrected through selective breeding. all of the other traits and characteristics you are absolutely pleased with may be harder to find, or like-bred relatives may not be to your standard, and you could potentially "dispose" of a genetic goldmine of a dog.
i would look back at the dog's genetic make-up, starting with his littermates. do any of them have physical defects? if so, are they the same as your dog's, or found elsewhere? from there, i would analyze the parents, their littermates, and down the line.
and like you said, i too would breed the dog, cull the ones with the passed flaw, and continue on.

---

Good post, except the highlighted part.

What if the dogs "with the flaw" could whip the asses of the dogs without the flaw?

Who do you cull then?

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

In a word: Selection.

---

Exactly. I believe Gaston did well with the Buck dogs he had around him, but I liked the confirmation on grand champion yellowbuck better and went and bought a dog out of mayday bred to yellowbuck cold sister Blondie rom. I then bred Macha to champion 357 who was a perfect confirmation as well as killing deadgame throat dog. What did I get... Machobuck, a mayday bodied Buck ability assassin in the throat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

Good post, except the highlighted part.

What if the dogs "with the flaw" could whip the asses of the dogs without the flaw?

Who do you cull then?

Jack

---

id probaly cull the lot , do a repeat breeding and do so untill that one your looking for is bred .. ? hoping that that dog will breed on the better confirmation and gameness ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

In a word: Selection.

---

I totally agree. I would say the dogs are being selected on their performance, not their looks. But the defects seem to be typical with these dogs and not nearly as prevalent in other lines. I was wondering where it started from since the base of this line is well structured Hollingsworth and Buck dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

Good post, except the highlighted part.

What if the dogs "with the flaw" could whip the asses of the dogs without the flaw?

Who do you cull then?

Jack

---

it's always performance > conformation for me, hence the "form follows function" line.

if the one with the "flaw" is your best performer, it's without a doubt a keeper. if the breeder's plan is to correct that physical flaw, i would think he/she should continue with smart breeding with the true standards in mind first followed with selective individuals (that are of his/her liking performance and structure-wise) to get a complete package.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

Culling for physical defects "visually" is only a show-breeder's mentality, and it generally weakens a line of dogs. (OFRN Hemphill dogs are the classic example of a "visually-pleasing" line that has been rendered almost useless by breeding for pedigree and "looks.")

---

I should have clarified. When I said "if you have a dog that is everything you want in a dog", I meant gameness, ability, mouth, wind, etc., the total package. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

Some of the baddest dogs in history had structural defects, and (in my experience) some of my own very best dogs had structural defects: Stormbringer was too stocky; Icon was undershot and had straight stifles. Yet these dogs would utterly trash any "conformationally-flawless" animal they met. Sure, it is nice to get both great structure as well as great performance in one dog, but if one is to sacrifice one for the other, then the sacrifice should be of "looks" in favor of keeping optimal performance alive.

---

I agree, but I think the goal of the breeder is to breed for both structure and performance. Like just_cory said, form follows function. How can a dog have the power to drive forward if his drive train is compromised from luxating patellas. He would tire out or end up crippled way before the dog with a correct and healthy hind end. If there has to be a sacrifice then i agree, let it be with structure. But i sure wouldn't want to look around my yard and see all the dogs hobbling and gimping around. :lol: Some defects are not as bad as others and don't affect performance as much. For instance, an under bite is not nearly as bad as hip dysplasia. A stocky dog is not as bad off as one with luxating patellas. What if a conformationally-flawless ace of a dog that was every bit as good as Stormbringer or Icon, met? Wouldn't the conformation then be one of the deciding factors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

Therefore, to cull through a litter based on conformation alone would be essentially to turn the Hollingsworth dogs into another sad Hemphill story, which (unfortunately) a lot of people have done. I had the RTK's Ali dog, for example, and although he had a "tight pedigree," and was outwardly pretty, he was essentially a caricature of a true Hollingsworth dog (which themselves needed help in certain aspects). Athletically, Ali was mush-bodied and weak (rather than powerful and strong), and he had a congenital heart defect. I honestly think my 32-lb Icon dog could have spotted him the 14 lb and whipped his ass. (Don't laugh, when he was 9 months old, Icon got into a kennel accident with Phoenix, spotted him the same amount of weight, and whipped his ass!)

I never rolled Ali, because I found out he had a hole in his heart, but he clearly was not a world class athlete. In fact, he would labor in his breathing because of his heart defect, and after he got bit by a brown recluse spider, he died. I had other dogs get bit by these spiders that recovered without a problem.

Anyway, sorry for digressing, but I would caution you to put your show background in check when making breeding decisions, and based such decisions solely on gameness and ability. For example, on my yard, although Duke Nukem won the ADBA Nationals for his class, and although Stormbringer didn't have Duke's perfect physique, Stormy would kill 3 of Duke Nukem looking for a fight ... so if I could magically make only one of them re-appear on my yard again, I can promise you it wouldn't be Duke Nukem :)

Jack

---

You are preaching to the choir here, I don't believe in making breedings based solely on conformation. There is more to breeding than gameness and ability as well, but you already know that. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by just_cory

it's always performance > conformation for me, hence the "form follows function" line.

if the one with the "flaw" is your best performer, it's without a doubt a keeper. if the breeder's plan is to correct that physical flaw, i would think he/she should continue with smart breeding with the true standards in mind first followed with selective individuals (that are of his/her liking performance and structure-wise) to get a complete package.

---

True, in order to correct the flaw, the dog with the flaw should be bred to one that does not have the same flaw. But that dog should also be a great performer as well as structurally correct.

Jack , of what i can gather you never bred poncho to any of his sisters ? any reason why ? i noticed hollingsworth never done too many matings like that "bro/sis"..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bianchi

Jack , of what i can gather you never bred poncho to any of his sisters ? any reason why ? i noticed hollingsworth never done too many matings like that "bro/sis"..

---

Jack bred Poncho to his sister Missy.

no worries ,, ive got WSK yard dvd 90/91 which has alot of the hollingsworth dogs in it as well WSK dogs .the hollingworths definetly stand out in the crowd ,very uniformed and powerfull looking , impresive dogs for sure !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

In a word: Selection.

---

That was going to be my one word answer too.:appl:

Does anybody know what the traits of the Hollingsworth dogs were as far as combat style? I know they were hella game, bulletproof durable, & very good looking, but did they like the head, the leg, the stifle, etc.? Did they bite hard? Or were they a bunch of different styles depending on the individual dog? I know E.J. didn't match his animals, so I was just curious if anybody knew what those dogs were like in the box.

Had a son and grandson off Hollingsworth s crash amazing dogs