What dogman had the biggest impact on the game as a breeder?

[Officially Retired]

Theres alot of different breeds of dogs and they all have there own registries and yr.after yr. they give props to people who have made an impact on that particular breed.One award that has always bothered me more than the others is breeder of the yr. and it always goes to the guy that has sold the most pups for that yr. but has nothing to do with % points.It is about $ for this particular reg..Most people will think this person must have the best dogs because of this but in reality all he is doing is hurting his breed by sticking any dogs he has for the sole purpose of making a dollar.

By default, any time you're going to try to hand out the title, "Biggest IMPACT on the Breed," the individual is going to have to have put out a lot of puppies all over the world (or at least all over America). Otherwise, how in the hell is anyone going to have a "big impact" on the breed, if he keeps all his pups to himself?

So "biggest impact" doesn't necessarily = "best percentages" or anything like that.

Biggest impact means what it means, which is affecting the game more than any other breeder. It is my opinion that Tudor and Carver affected the game more than any other breeders ... with Boudreaux, Patrick, Chavis, etc. deserving honorable mention. That doesn't mean these guys could whip Ozzie Stevens 10-0 if they faced him, that means they had a bigger impact on the game AS BREEDERS (which is the question ), and that is all that it means.

Hollingsworth had a massive impact on the game, considering the little bit he bred dogs, and his percentages were legendary. He had the best "Patrick dogs" of his time, but not as big an overall impact as Patrick himself.

I did not have anywhere near the impact Patrick did overall, but most people who have run both lines prefer my dogs over his, and it is a matter of record that the 5 times "pure Patrick dogs" faced dogs directly from my yard, my dogs whipped Patrick's 5-0, with 4 of Pat's quitting in under the hour mark, with only 1 dog of his showing game, that was still picked up in less than 1 hour. For that matter, I would compare my own percentages (Wins versus Losses %) to any breeder who has ever put dogs out there, but that does not mean what small amount of dogs I put out there had the same "overall impact to the game."

So it helps if people learn to study the question

I can think of one breeder who has had a HUGE impact on the game, with many Champions produced, but for every dog that comes from him that "wins" ... 2 dozen never make it because they quit. So "impact" does not necessarily mean "quality across the board"; it only means put enough dogs out there to change the face of the game.

Surely Carver and Tudor both had a huge impact, and a lot of quality dogs, foundational to everyone else ... but that doesn't mean some small-time, local breeders couldn't and didn't have as good (or better) dogs on their yards. It only means that whatever these small-timers did, it didn't really have as big an impact as Carver or Tudor (though these men had superb dogs for themselves).

An example would be, and I can't remember the name of the man (Paul Sweeney, I think), but I believe he whipped Tudor 3-4 times in a row ... but he still didn't have as big an impact on the game as Tudor did.

Jack

[Eliman]

By default, any time you're going to try to hand out the title, "Biggest IMPACT on the Breed," the individual is going to have to have put out a lot of puppies all over the world (or at least all over America). Otherwise, how in the hell is anyone going to have a "big impact" on the breed, if he keeps all his pups to himself?

So "biggest impact" doesn't necessarily = "best percentages" or anything like that.

Biggest impact means what it means, which is affecting the game more than any other breeder. It is my opinion that Tudor and Carver affected the game more than any other breeders ... with Boudreaux, Patrick, Chavis, etc. deserving honorable mention. That doesn't mean these guys could whip Ozzie Stevens 10-0 if they faced him, that means they had a bigger impact on the game AS BREEDERS (which is the question ), and that is all that it means.

Hollingsworth had a massive impact on the game, considering the little bit he bred dogs, and his percentages were legendary. He had the best "Patrick dogs" of his time, but not as big an overall impact as Patrick himself.

I did not have anywhere near the impact Patrick did overall, but most people who have run both lines prefer my dogs over his, and it is a matter of record that the 5 times "pure Patrick dogs" faced dogs directly from my yard, my dogs whipped Patrick's 5-0, with 4 of Pat's quitting in under the hour mark, with only 1 dog of his showing game, that was still picked up in less than 1 hour. For that matter, I would compare my own percentages (Wins versus Losses %) to any breeder who has ever put dogs out there, but that does not mean what small amount of dogs I put out there had the same "overall impact to the game."

So it helps if people learn to study the question

I can think of one breeder who has had a HUGE impact on the game, with many Champions produced, but for every dog that comes from him that "wins" ... 2 dozen never make it because they quit. So "impact" does not necessarily mean "quality across the board"; it only means put enough dogs out there to change the face of the game.

Surely Carver and Tudor both had a huge impact, and a lot of quality dogs, foundational to everyone else ... but that doesn't mean some small-time, local breeders couldn't and didn't have as good (or better) dogs on their yards. It only means that whatever these small-timers did, it didn't really have as big an impact as Carver or Tudor (though these men had superb dogs for themselves).

An example would be, and I can't remember the name of the man (Paul Sweeney, I think), but I believe he whipped Tudor 3-4 times in a row ... but he still didn't have as big an impact on the game as Tudor did.

Jack

Awsome post Jack.

But i do feel the % should play a factor, i understand your point a breeder must affect the bulldog world with large number of his stock to make such a impact. But IMO the quality of that stock should be reasonable to be able to leave a dynasty of dogs in its wake.

RoughNeck

[CYJ]

Well thought out and well spoken Ca. Jack, I too concur. You missed your calling as a Lawyer. You have a great mind for analytical reasoning. I at times can not see the tree for the forest. LOL

Carver built his yard of dogs from smaller dog yards around Texas, Mexico etc. and even Tudor himself. Many of these Dog men with smaller yards had some cream of the crop breeding stock. K. Marlowe told me and V. J. one time that M. Carver called her too get some info about her Red Boy dogs.

M. Carver was good friends with Leo Kinard and many others. One writer stated Tudor did not like Carver, Carver still made that Black Widow breeding. He brought something Tudor had a weakness for to help get the deal sealed. If a true story, was no need for Tudor to start not liking someone, after the preconceived fun was over with. LOL

[grindhard]

i agree swampdog thats how i feel

[Eliman]

Tudor, Caver, Boudreaux

[Black Hand]

Numbers go both ways. it's like when someone says well he was bound to produce good dogs sooner or later. same can be said about a dog with good numbers who's only had two litters. That dog is bound to produce bad ones if you breed him enough. that's just the way it goes, and you can't really grasp how someone's producing based on looking at peds online pages of offspring compared to number of champions lol. Today you have to think about how many of those offspring really went to Dogmen, really went to good Dogmen, n how many were just pets. this obviously plays major role in a breeders %. A lot of it has to do with the luck of a good dog going to a good dogman. A breeder has no control once that animal leaves his yard.

[evolutionkennels]

Numbers go both ways. it's like when someone says well he was bound to produce good dogs sooner or later. same can be said about a dog with good numbers who's only had two litters. That dog is bound to produce bad ones if you breed him enough. that's just the way it goes, and you can't really grasp how someone's producing based on looking at peds online pages of offspring compared to number of champions lol. Today you have to think about how many of those offspring really went to Dogmen, really went to good Dogmen, n how many were just pets. this obviously plays major role in a breeders %. A lot of it has to do with the luck of a good dog going to a good dogman. A breeder has no control once that animal leaves his yard.

Well stated

[grindhard]

i dont look as patrick or carver as men who just bred for papers. they paved the way for all dogmen. unfortunately in todas world of dogs are generation lacks hard work. as anything else in 2013 we live in a microwave society we wont it now. and it has damaged the work that the patricks and carvers has done

yet and still they birthed this generation of dogmen and the roosters have came home roost.

[grindhard]

i dont look as patrick or carver as men who just bred for papers. they paved the way for all dogmen and work speaks for it self. unfortunately in todays world of dogs are generation lacks hard work. as anything else in 2013 we live in a microwave society we wont it now. and it has damaged the work that the patricks and carvers has done

yet and still they birthed this generation of dogmen and the roosters have came home roost.

[Down_on_the_bayou]

Boudreaux hands down for me almost all of carvers success can be attributed to dogs bred by or down from Floyd's dogs. its funny that everyone says tudor when every old timer that knew him that I spoke to never considered him much of a breeder he had some great dogs yes indeed. Carver was out of this world with the dogs he produced. those two for mw are 1A and 1B. from there id go with guys like Patrick, garner, tant , Hollingsworth, thibadeaux and a few others im surely missing