HOLLINGSWORTH DOGS

[scratchin dog]

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.

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. 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?

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.