Best breeding dogs don't win big events - Page 2

I don't totally disagree, and I wouldn't discount a dog because it doesn't out. But in the end, this is only half the equation.

It's not a theory, more a rule of thumb for him.  He knows most of the competitors and their dogs, so of course it depends on the dog.  So he has his many years of reading dogs and handling experience to use when he judges what a dog has in him.

But the point is more about breed worthy...... and champion dogs are not necesarrily going to give you what you might think they will.  And like i said, genetics is a roll of the dice so anything is possible. 

Just check out the lower placing dogs too at the big events 'cause the diamond in the rough for your breeding program is sitting away from the podium a lot of times.  Like Hired Dog stated about just being able to read a good dog and what he can offer.

Training can hide sooo many shortcomings, that unless you can at least get reliable first hand evaluation of a dog, placements in a competition are only numbers. Also, how can a dog reproduce up to expectation if bred to a bitch with nothing to contribute but a uterus.

If Secretariat was bred to a donkey, you'd still only get a mule ( technically, a " hinny" ). So detractors could legitimately complain that he didn't reproduce himself. To accomplish that, one would need a mate of at least comparable quality.

I think alot of people breed names, titles, and hype thinking this dog is going to change my world. Usually it don't work that well. I think you have to look for the bloodlines that are strong in producing what is lacking in your line, or hopefully bring improvement to what you have, without sacrificing what you already have and desire.

I know over the years people that have had good dogs and they start breeding for stardom that after a few years there is no characteristics at all of the original dogs, only to see what they once had and desired were cast away and then end up with dogs that are totally different than what they had.

I believe breeding is blending traits or characteristics to improve, no matter what the name or who has them. JMO

Hank

The flaw in the logic is that there is only one first place, and hundreds of placements behind that.  Much more likely for a dog not to be the winner than it is for him/her to win.

Which "latest craze" or "flavor of the day" studs are not producing?  In the US, many want to breed to Irmus.  I see in Europe, Pike is getting a large amount of breedings.  Ellute also had many breedings and pups. 

mfh  you point out the right thing , look at ellute and eros , who scored highest points and who is better producer

What would your odds be of producing great progeny, if you took ALL of the females used in "flavor of the week " breeding, to the best producer known. Duke, this is a serious question that I believe you are qualified to answer. I have an idea what the answer might be.

Chaz, I couldn't agree more.  Spot on.

I used Javir as an example of a dog who was said to be "all that" but I haven't heard good things about progeny...actually, I haven't heard much of anything about them. What little I have heard about imported progeny was not spectacular. People breed to winning dogs because the names sell pups, much of the time. As a stud owner, I would be careful of this because breeding your male to a mediocre bitch with strong genetics is not going to be in the best interest of your dog's reputation.