What was Jack Kelly's requirements for ROM?
If I remember it went like this
Male need 5 points females need 3
a champion gets you 1 point and a Grand Champion gets you 2
this sound about right?
Printable View
What was Jack Kelly's requirements for ROM?
If I remember it went like this
Male need 5 points females need 3
a champion gets you 1 point and a Grand Champion gets you 2
this sound about right?
I am fairly certain it was 4 pts. for males and 3 for females, but I could be wrong, Brother.
Males need 4 points. Females needed 3.
You weren't allotted 2 points for Gr Ch until your dog was already a ROM producer. So, if your male produced 1 champion and 1 grand champion, he only had 2 points.
Thanks frosty
That is correctQuote:
Originally Posted by FrostyPaws
We need to ad , That the shows registerd with the SDJ would have a* behind it if your uponend was a known fansier and ore when a known referee was used!!!!. This would ad up to the merrit of your dog and ore your dogs producing quality.
Today every swinning dick in the field has a un reconized own self proclaimed rom ore por dog.
compleat worthless (to me anyway)..
In a ideal world the nr of breedings/ofspring should be used ore taken in acound to detirmin the qualty/% of a producer.However This was never used and nearly imposible to do so.. But its never to late for the genuine breeders to do so, like register peds on line ore on this forum..... lots of so called super producers where and are just hypt up . starting a ofspring/litters nrs acound would show a compleat diferend view on who real good producer are ore would be..
This is about ROM but I once read a nice formula which was something like a producer had to have 50% points at least from the amount of pups one had produced to be POR. Im not sure. Than i found out one just need 15 points, no matter how many litters. I think that's not a nice display for a name like PRODUCER OF RECORD
This is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Limey Kennels
Our Bulldog Statistics Page is going to address this very soon. We will juxtapose the number of winners/Champions next to the number of pups actually produced.
It will be the best system of evaluation ever.
Jack
Since, this post was on the topic of making ROM...what's the requirements to make POR?
Male = 15 wins
Female = 10 wins
They're both stupid systems, really, because they don't take into account # of breedings, etc.
A dog that was bred 85x and produced 2 Grand Champions and 10 Champions is flyshit compared to a dog that was bred 6x and produced 2 Grand Champions and 4 Champions.
All systems are flawed, ultimately, and no system can replace your own genuine knowledge (or lack) and a deep understanding of that you're working with.
However, a good system of percentages and statistics (while it may not be perfect and does not tell the whole story) can give you relevant trends, percentages, and likelihoods ... but absolutely nothing will replace firsthand, hand-on experience.
For example, I remember when Ed Faron first started using the CompUPed system and charging people for "breeding data" that his pedigree program would generate. He told me that (in a 10-generation search) more Champions etc. traced back to Eli than any other dog, and that Bolio was second. I remember telling this to Pat Patrick, who said, "I don't need some pedigree program to tell me that Bolio could produce ... all I had to do was roll his pups out to see that." :lol:
And there is a lot of truth to this. I feel the same way with Poncho. I don't "need" this database to tell me that Poncho was the best damned dog and producer I knew of around me ... all I had to do was stomp dog-after-dog-after dog in rolls with his pups ... and add the win-after-win-after-win (and 100% DG losses) that his pups immediately started racking up ... to know that his pups were reliably and consistently kicking ass ... and that I had one helluva stud dog on my hands.
My ability to "see this" finally in my Production Statistics Page ... as a sire and grandsire ... to actually see Poncho compare favorably to the greatest producers that have ever lived ... beating most ... and comparing favorably any way you want to slice it ... is "satisfying to see" ... but I damned sure didn't need this program to tell me that Poncho could produce his ass off.
I could see that in how badly his pups dominated "other lines," far more often than not, before I ever owned a computer ;)
Jack
I don't believe there can ever be a system that can tell you how well a dog produced most in part to what jack said and additionally there is no way for you to account for the dogmen who had the offspring. You can only track a dogs achievements in these systems and it only tells part of the story as i'm probably willing to bet that most of the truly baddest dogs to set foot on soil probably didn't achieve anything in life and never left their yard.
I do think all these dogs on the rom list deserve to be there though. I agree that it cannot tell you who the best producer is based on numbers.... but lets not forget the fact that there is dogs out there who produced a hundred litters and they were all shit eaters. So the list may not be compiled of the greatest producers number wise but they still produced and that's all I see those systems/lists as. Dogs that did infact produce dogs with achievements.