No problem. I'll be waiting!Sorry, about the grammar in my previous posts, I was on my phone.. lol.
The guy who coldly goes through em and only wants the best?
The guy who really tries to bring out the best in each dog?
No problem. I'll be waiting!
I understand about not wanting to put out names, but the flipside to that is (without them) there is no claim of "beating the best."Originally Posted by ToTheDogs
I can believe you with the 19-0 record with "Bolio/Deadlift" dogs ... as that is similar to the 18-1 Record the Warlock/Ginger breeding had ... it just makes things a little more interesting and believable to have some names/pedigrees to look at.
I know you weren't referring to my dogs, as I have had less than 5 cold dogs in my life, but I was mainly referring to game bums.
My point is, Awesome Baby produced better than "well"; she was the best producing bitch in the history of dogs, save Honeybunch. From 3 breedings she produced Gr Ch Yellowbuck (6xW), Ch Nico (4xW, ROM), Ch Luger (4xW), Ch Miss Piggy (3xW), Dixie (2xW), etc. That is 19-1 also. Okay, so there may be some "cold dogs" in there too, but I can't help but notice the Champions and Grand Champions as well
This isn't Stone City claiming to have a 19-1 record, but giving no names, this is a verifiable record and list of winners. I don't see anything like this coming from hardly any other bitches, good peds or not, great ability or not. You seem to want to give credit to the studs Awesome Baby was bred to, but the fact is those studs were also bred to other bitches, yet didn't produce the same quality dogs as when bred to Awesome Baby. Something was clearly special about her, as an individual.
No one understands genetics perfectly, and I don't know who KAG is or what his record is as a breeder, but no one is perfect.
If you understood genetics perfectly, you wouldn't question the skipped generation or ask "why" breed to a dog that, itself, is less than perfect (provided it has truly excellent dogs up close in its ped). You would already know the answer why. You would also be aware that truly badass dogs sometimes can't produce well, and that many deeply-game, inbred dogs may not have match ability ... but can throw it better than most match dogs. This is indisputable.
I understand what you mean about cold dogs. I tried to keep and work with one, just to experiment, but (ultimately) I felt the same as you, that I was wasting my time, and it was very hard to want to go breed to "him" (even though I personally knew how game his parents were) ... when I could breed to some truly talented World Class dogs on my yard ... with parents that were just as good or better. Ironically, that "cold gene" also happened to come down from the most talented dog I ever had. No one can deny that many cold dogs (Loposay's Buster ROM, Sorrells' Bull ROM, Little Gator ROM, Awesome Baby ROM, Polly ROM, etc.) have produced some truly, game, truly great dogs.
I may not have pursued breeding to my own cold dog, but I do understand why (if the blood was there), someone would give it a shot, especially if they liked the results.
Anytime you breed dogs, you "risk" breeding a cold, cur, and/or no-talent dog. There is simply no way around this.
I absolutely agree that, through selection, you can minimize (or maximize) the "risk" of getting shitty dogs ... so it makes sense to minimize that risk by avoiding known pitfalls ... yet, ultimately, the "risk" is unavoidable no matter what you use. I absolutely agree that you should ALWAYS select the best performers you can use, as a rule; my point was in not killing the game littermates. We got thrown off track a bit with the cold Awesome Baby, but my main point of contention with you was saying you'd cull the game dogs with no ability. Killing game dogs is not cool (or too smart) IMO, even if they have better littermates.
Again, I completely agree with trying to breed the best that you can ... and there have been many, many "titled dogs" that have fallen to my dogs as well ... and a Who's-Who list of dogmen along with that. My point is, not every "title-winning" dog is off of a badass animal. Many (including Gr Ch Buck) were off of inbred, game bums. To say that every dog needs to be a badass match dog to "get bred" (or produce great dogs) is simply folly. Many of the greatest dogs in history were not sired by great dogs themselves, but rather by game bums inbred off great dogs.
Again, I completely understand the "small yard" thing. My point was most small yards shoot themselves in the foot, sooner or later, because what they keep will not produce as well as the game dog they got rid of. They also don't have enough breeding experience to understand how things work. All large-scale breeding operations would agree with what I am saying, because they have the large-scale perspective to see the whole picture.
Your college football example is only valid from a superficial perspective. If you want to take a closer look, not every Heisman player was sired by another Heisman father; most, in fact, were not ... so upon closer inspection your argument here supports mine, not yours. I never suggested giving "game bums" a scholarship ... or betting heavy on them in a match ... what I am saying is not to kill them. What you're counseling is killing the players who try hard, but aren't selected for the Heisman, and that my friend is borderline retarded. I would never kill anything for showing heart, for trying its best, never quitting at any time, whether it had ability or not. The willingness to try as hard as possible, even in the face of death, is something special to me ... and it should be to all dogmen.
We do not call these dogs "ability dogs" ... we call them GAME DOGS ... and, when they're game, they deserve to be honored and respected, not killed off. In fact, Frank Fitzwater summed it up best when he said, "Boys, breed your game dogs and you're get your fighting dogs."
I can understand what you're saying about the cold dog thing, but yet I can also see why it can be worth a shot for some.
I will never understand, or agree, with killing ANY truly game dog, ever, so long as it is in good health and has a decent temperament. Truly game dogs, especially if they're inbred on some truly great dog, are oftentimes THE most valuable dog on the yard ... the proverbial Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs
Jack
.
I understand about not wanting to put out names, but the flipside to that is (without them) there is no claim of "beating the best."
I can believe you with the 19-0 record with "Bolio/Deadlift" dogs ... as that is similar to the 18-1 Record the Warlock/Ginger breeding had ... it just makes things a little more interesting and believable to have some names/pedigrees to look at.
I know you weren't referring to my dogs, as I have had less than 5 cold dogs in my life, but I was mainly referring to game bums.
My point is, Awesome Baby produced better than "well"; she was the best producing bitch in the history of dogs, save Honeybunch. From 3 breedings she produced Gr Ch Yellowbuck (6xW), Ch Nico (4xW, ROM), Ch Luger (4xW), Ch Miss Piggy (3xW), Dixie (2xW), etc. That is 19-1 also. Okay, so there may be some "cold dogs" in there too, but I can't help but notice the Champions and Grand Champions as well
This isn't Stone City claiming to have a 19-1 record, but giving no names, this is a verifiable record and list of winners. I don't see anything like this coming from hardly any other bitches, good peds or not, great ability or not. You seem to want to give credit to the studs Awesome Baby was bred to, but the fact is those studs were also bred to other bitches, yet didn't produce the same quality dogs as when bred to Awesome Baby. Something was clearly special about her, as an individual.
No one understands genetics perfectly, and I don't know who KAG is or what his record is as a breeder, but no one is perfect.
If you understood genetics perfectly, you wouldn't question the skipped generation or ask "why" breed to a dog that, itself, is less than perfect (provided it has truly excellent dogs up close in its ped). You would already know the answer why. You would also be aware that truly badass dogs sometimes can't produce well, and that many deeply-game, inbred dogs may not have match ability ... but can throw it better than most match dogs. This is indisputable.
I understand what you mean about cold dogs. I tried to keep and work with one, just to experiment, but (ultimately) I felt the same as you, that I was wasting my time, and it was very hard to want to go breed to "him" (even though I personally knew how game his parents were) ... when I could breed to some truly talented World Class dogs on my yard ... with parents that were just as good or better. Ironically, that "cold gene" also happened to come down from the most talented dog I ever had. No one can deny that many cold dogs (Loposay's Buster ROM, Sorrells' Bull ROM, Little Gator ROM, Awesome Baby ROM, Polly ROM, etc.) have produced some truly, game, truly great dogs.
I may not have pursued breeding to my own cold dog, but I do understand why (if the blood was there), someone would give it a shot, especially if they liked the results.
Anytime you breed dogs, you "risk" breeding a cold, cur, and/or no-talent dog. There is simply no way around this.
I absolutely agree that, through selection, you can minimize (or maximize
Again, I completely agree with trying to breed the best that you can ... and there have been many, many "titled dogs" that have fallen to my dogs as well ... and a Who's-Who list of dogmen along with that. My point is, not every "title-winning" dog is off of a badass animal. Many (including Gr Ch Buck) were off of inbred, game bums. To say that every dog needs to be a badass match dog to "get bred" (or produce great dogs) is simply folly. Many of the greatest dogs in history were not sired by great dogs themselves, but rather by game bums inbred off great dogs.
Again, I completely understand the "small yard" thing. My point was most small yards shoot themselves in the foot, sooner or later, because what they keep will not produce as well as the game dog they got rid of. They also don't have enough breeding experience to understand how things work. All large-scale breeding operations would agree with what I am saying, because they have the large-scale perspective to see the whole picture.
Your college football example is only valid from a superficial perspective. If you want to take a closer look, not every Heisman player was sired by another Heisman father; most, in fact, were not ... so upon closer inspection your argument here supports mine, not yours. I never suggested giving "game bums" a scholarship ... or betting heavy on them in a match ... what I am saying is not to kill them. What you're counseling is killing the players who try hard, but aren't selected for the Heisman, and that my friend is borderline retarded. I would never kill anything for showing heart, for trying its best, never quitting at any time, whether it had ability or not. The willingness to try as hard as possible, even in the face of death, is something special to me ... and it should be to all dogmen.
We do not call these dogs "ability dogs" ... we call them GAME DOGS ... and, when they're game, they deserve to be honored and respected, not killed off. In fact, Frank Fitzwater summed it up best when he said, "Boys, breed your game dogs and you're get your fighting dogs."
I can understand what you're saying about the cold dog thing, but yet I can also see why it can be worth a shot for some.
I will never understand, or agree, with killing ANY truly game dog, ever, so long as it is in good health and has a decent temperament. Truly game dogs, especially if they're inbred on some truly great dog, are oftentimes THE most valuable dog on the yard ... the proverbial Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs
Jack
.
Great reply!
Thank you ... and thank you for the PM as well.
Very nice pedigree on that sensational breeding ... and totally respect the desire for privacy
Cheers,
Jack
Great exchange. Kudos to the board itself. On the other boards by now someone's Mom would be wearing combat boots. or would be so fat....
I can see both sides. Both have valid points. I do not have the breeder background but I can see why placing a well bred game bum for future use elsewhere is a far better option than culling. At the same time I can see where if one's litters were of high percentages of match dogs, a couple of game yet talentless bums, and an occasional cur the couple of game but talentless bums would add up in time taking many chain spaces. It can cut both ways.
The guy with the smaller yard would have to find a few trustworthy people to farm out those dogs to save his chain spots for the match dogs. Another variable that would not be all that comfortable to some. I have met people who pretty much decided if it did not make it here it would not be allowed to make it elsewhere. This is a 'limiting' way of thinking but I think it is acceptable for smaller, competitive yards.
I too am not a fan of names. This was discussed in another thread as well. I understand it can provide validity, credibility and even the chance to offer insight or a difference of opinion by some one who knows them as well. I just choose not to do it. I use 'the guy' as an identifier by choice. For me if a person wants to put his business out there then he/she should be the one doing it. Once they do that his/her name and record can be discussed in an open forum. I use Jack as an example lots of times when making a point. Those examples are what he has put out himself so I do not feel I am infringing upon his privacy. At the same time I can see both sides.
I think the hardest thing to dog is to split the 'dogs' into groups and then expect people to stay within their own set. The breeders over here, the matchers over there, the conditioners and handlers over there and the peddlers over here. As long as people were identified and did not stray the dogs would be much simpler. When the same guy can belong to multiple sets and moves back and forth amongst them those lines get blurry. Then there are differences of opinion. Those differences are what makes the dogs great. At the end of the day there are multiple right ways as well as multiple wrong ways. If not it would be a cookie-cutter dog world. Boring to say the least.
Again, great exchanges. EWO
I always believed the saying "the man that wins the most with the least amount of dogs is the better dogman." Dogman is really a complicated term. Some lines produce a lot of culls, but true monsters can come from there breedings. While other lines may produce alot of good dogs, but very rarely a true monster.
I agree with this: and that is why I always followed percentages, not raw numbers.
If one breeder has 250 dogs, and has been in the game for 40 years, he should have producde more great dogs than another breeder who only has 30 dogs and has only been in for 15 years.
Yet what people don't realize is that, if the guy with 30 dogs is producing 3 Champions a year ... while the guy with 250 dogs is producing 15 Champions a year ... then the guy producing the 3 Champions a year is producing more Champions percentage-wise (10%) than the guy who's producing 15 Champions (6%). Most people are only going to be counting the number of Champions produced, completely oblivious to the fact it took 17x as many dogs to produce only 5x as many Champions.
Worse, if the guy with only 30 dogs only has 3 quits a year (10%), while the guy with 250 dogs has 60 quits a year (24%), then you're really dealing with a disparity in true quality here
This is very true.
The thing about it is, a "true monster" is a relative term. And even if you get a so-called monster, if you have to cull dozens of dogs to get one then you're dealing with mostly-garbage bloodline. There are some people who don't mind killing lots of dogs, so I guess they might be into such a "needle-in-a-haystack" proposition. However, as a dog breeder, this would be a losing proposition, because you'd be replacing more dogs than getting happy customers. In fact, you'd likely be replacing the replacements at some point.
As a breeder, I wanted to be in the "Damn, I need another one of those!" business not the "Can you replace this piece of shit?" business. I liked thinking I was creating mostly good dogs, not mostly lousy dogs
Jack
.
I agree with this: and that is why I always followed percentages, not raw numbers.
If one breeder has 250 dogs, and has been in the game for 40 years, he should have producde more great dogs than another breeder who only has 30 dogs and has only been in for 15 years.
Yet what people don't realize is that, if the guy with 30 dogs is producing 3 Champions a year ... while the guy with 250 dogs is producing 15 Champions a year ... then the guy producing the 3 Champions a year is producing more Champions percentage-wise (10%) than the guy who's producing 15 Champions (6%). Most people are only going to be counting the number of Champions produced, completely oblivious to the fact it took 17x as many dogs to produce only 5x as many Champions.
Worse, if the guy with only 30 dogs only has 3 quits a year (10%), while the guy with 250 dogs has 60 quits a year (24%), then you're really dealing with a disparity in true quality here
This is very true.
The thing about it is, a "true monster" is a relative term. And even if you get a so-called monster, if you have to cull dozens of dogs to get one then you're dealing with mostly-garbage bloodline. There are some people who don't mind killing lots of dogs, so I guess they might be into such a "needle-in-a-haystack" proposition. However, as a dog breeder, this would be a losing proposition, because you'd be replacing more dogs than getting happy customers. In fact, you'd likely be replacing the replacements at some point.
As a breeder, I wanted to be in the "Damn, I need another one of those!" business not the "Can you replace this piece of shit?" business. I liked thinking I was creating mostly good dogs, not mostly lousy dogs
Jack
.
Great topic and some great responses
First I want to say putting 100% into providing a quality life for your hounds should be an effort based on your love for the breed and your livelihood for the lifestyle.
I do not believe that the best housing, the best food, and optimal time spent with a individual hound will change the fact it could be a cur.
I do believe the best housing, the best food, and optimal time spent with a individual hound influences it's overall health, physical ability's and intelligence on a day to day basis. Personally I keep my hounds active so they stay familiar with the tools I use to work them and what I expect of them when I use them also familiarizes them with things that can spook a hound who has never left its chain spot for 18 months. Developing this understanding saves critical time when it's time to hunt so they benefit as much as they can when in a keep not waisting time trying to figure out how to get them to work them or them being distracted on the date by unfamiliar surroundings and sounds . The obvious bond that develops IMO can help pull a hound through a tuff spot NOT STOP HIM FROM QUITTING but when behind and opportunity shows itself to gain some ground a encouraging 'WORK' from its master can move mountains.
RoughNeck
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
