breeding theory

[Officially Retired]

Well, let's pretend for a moment that gameness is "absolute" (which it isn't), but to say talent doesn't matter is wrong IMO.

I have always selected for extreme gameness in my breeding choices (Hammer, the Hollingsworth dogs, No Regrets, etc.) ... but only when I also selected for a winning style did my win/loss record as a breeder begin to skyrocket.

Selecting for "gameness only" ... my win record for the first couple of years was just at 57% ...

When I begin to put some combat theory into the mix, and specifically select for a controlling head style, that would pace itself, then my record quickly went up over 75% ... and hasn't been below 80%, in any year, for well over 15 years now.

So Talent is definitely important too.

People who only breed to dogs they beat the hell out of, that "live and scratch" through their ordeals, will NEVER have a record much over 50%, I don't believe.

[STA8541]

Well, let's pretend for a moment that gameness is "absolute" (which it isn't), but to say talent doesn't matter is wrong IMO.

I have always selected for extreme gameness in my breeding choices (Hammer, the Hollingsworth dogs, No Regrets, etc.) ... but only when I also selected for a winning style did my win/loss record as a breeder begin to skyrocket.

Selecting for "gameness only" ... my win record for the first couple of years was just at 57% ...

When I begin to put some combat theory into the mix, and specifically select for a controlling head style, that would pace itself, then my record quickly went up over 75% ... and hasn't been below 80%, in any year, for well over 15 years now.

So Talent is definitely important too.

People who only breed to dogs they beat the hell out of, that "live and scratch" through their ordeals, will NEVER have a record much over 50%, I don't believe.

Fair enough. You can make any dog that ever lived quit, if you try hard enough. I've heard of all kinds of talented, frontrunning curs that are "just game enough" not to quit while they are ahead. Let them get a little fatigued, a little dominated, a little tired, a little thirsty, etc., & you see them sing a different tune. Jack, you are one of the breeders that, from what I have seen thus far, were definitely shooting for gameness (while ladling on all the other bits like controlling head style, etc.). TFX is definitely another guy who looks for gameness in his stock, based on his posts. And I can barely get my head out of your Hollingsworth book! Those pups seemed like (mostly) hella game beasts. But I know if you are looking for a match prospect, yes, having some level of ability can do nothing but increase your chances of winning, so long as he's got that deep gameness we (should) all treasure.

Incidentally, is that what you mean by the term "stupid game?" Just a no-talent plug that will keep scratching to a killing?

[Officially Retired]

Fair enough. You can make any dog that ever lived quit, if you try hard enough. I've heard of all kinds of talented, frontrunning curs that are "just game enough" not to quit while they are ahead. Let them get a little fatigued, a little dominated, a little tired, a little thirsty, etc., & you see them sing a different tune. Jack, you are one of the breeders that, from what I have seen thus far, were definitely shooting for gameness (while ladling on all the other bits like controlling head style, etc.). TFX is definitely another guy who looks for gameness in his stock, based on his posts. And I can barely get my head out of your Hollingsworth book! Those pups seemed like (mostly) hella game beasts. But I know if you are looking for a match prospect, yes, having some level of ability can do nothing but increase your chances of winning, so long as he's got that deep gameness we (should) all treasure.
Incidentally, is that what you mean by the term "stupid game?" Just a no-talent plug that will keep scratching to a killing?

I don't want to breed to "front running curs" ether.

Basically, I look for a dog that never makes a bad move while he's doing the things I like to see dogs do.

If the dog gets that far away look in his eye, or in any way loses his focus or intensity, then I don't trust that dog anymore.

I stopped "game testing" my dogs in the mid-90s. By that I mean, beating the dogshit out of them and then seeing "if they scratch" to a total asswhipping.

To me this is stupid and abusive.

What I do is just see how my dogs look and perform and act while having a legitimate tussle with something GOOD their weight.

If they can go and go and go, and either win (or get picked up in a close one) still having total focus, then to me they are game enough to be competitive with whatever is out there.

The first shitty sign I see, I no longer have any interest in that dog. I don't need to beat the quit out of him.

Once I see any lack of total focus, I no longer trust or want that animal.

I don't have to beat up any dog to the point of disfigurement or whatnot to "see" gameness in him (or shit in him). All I have to do is roll him out with what I know is a damned good dog ... and watch that dog's performance like a hawk ... to see if that dog is competitive, and seriously focused enough, to be in open competition.

The rest is intangibles, shape, health, etc. that no one can plan for.

Jack

[STA8541]

I don't want to breed to "front running curs" ether.

Basically, I look for a dog that never makes a bad move while he's doing the things I like to see dogs do.

If the dog gets that far away look in his eye, or in any way loses his focus or intensity, then I don't trust that dog anymore.

What I do is just see how my dogs look and perform and act while having a legitimate tussle with something GOOD their weight.

If they can go and go and go, and either win (or get picked up in a close one) still having total focus, then to me they are game enough to be competitive with whatever is out there.

The first shitty sign I see, I no longer have any interest in that dog. I don't need to beat the quit out of him.

Once I see any lack of total focus, I no longer trust or want that animal.

Good post, thanks Jack. Seems like common sense which, as I know, is not all that common.