Search forum
Back to German Shepherd Dog
Liked top 20
ForumsGerman Shepherd Dog > Best breeding dogs don't win big events (102 replies)
Best breeding dogs don't win big events by Nadeem6 on 15 April 2012 - 12:50 |
| The dogs you want to breed are not the ones that win the big events. They are ususally in 5 or 6th place. The winners are too compliant and biddable and won't produce what you want in a litter. Our TD at our club made this statement to someone that was looking at pedigree's and researching a new puppy. I was thnking about this and i think he is right. Since IPO/Schutzhund is dominated by obedience exercises. Tracking, obedience of course, and protection are all obedience based. The more compliant dogs will eek out a couple more points than the "harder" more dominant type dogs. But i see lot's of breeders wanting to breed to the top winners and sometimes even stating something to the effect of "i used him 'cause he is the top dog since he won nationals, etc." I am sure there are many exceptions since genetics is basically rolling the dice and just trying to get the odds in your favor, but seems like a good rule of thumb for the most part. But as always it's best to go and look at the dog you are considering breeding or getting a pup from if possible. |
Nadeem6 by Jenni78 on 15 April 2012 - 13:30 |
| I don't think biddable is a bad thing. I disagree that biddability is why they win. I think high high prey paired with a lack of initiative to think for themselves is closer to accurate, and I agree that the dogs you (I) want to breed to are not the top winners though. If you look at the "big names" (flavor the week types) you'll see that the don't always produce what you want. I will take the V Snoopy von der Fasaneries (failed SchH1 more than once I believe, for not outing), V Chico vom Inheidener Sees, etc. any day over the easily frustrated, hectic, more showy, less naturally aggressive types that make the big points. I don't see dominant as a positive trait- it is a nuisance I put up with because it is often paired with other traits I value very much. Take the good with the bad. This could be one of those semantics arguments, though, because what I call dominant is probably far different than what Mrs. Jones down the street calls dominant. |
Jenni78 by Hired Dog on 15 April 2012 - 13:40 |
| I believe that at any given time, there are about 5 dogs on the planet in each breed that are true producers and I assure you they are not on any ring. They live in someone's back yard, working sheep in some obscure place somewhere... Those are the dogs to breed to, but, unfortunately, for many reasons, these dogs do not get bred. Having said that, I want nothing to do with the top winning dog of any competition...someone else in here described why very well. In my area of interests, I would rather breed to someone like Nierlenders Egbert than the dog that won the Nationals. Breeding to any dog, of course, is playing the genetic lottery, but, once you find that one dog that will produce what you want litter after litter, with several females, that is the dog to breed to, regardless of titles. I am sure there are many serious dog people that can tell a good dog without needing a judge to point it out to them. |
by joanro on 15 April 2012 - 13:53 |
| Excellent post, Hired Dog. |
by Chaz Reinhold on 15 April 2012 - 14:00 |
| Well, sometimes those dogs don't reproduce themselves either. Depends on the dog that wins the trial. If mike Diehl wins next week in Columbus, is it because the dog is exactly how you described? I don't think so. If he takes 4th, does that mean he is breed worthy? Take a look at the dog, and cross your fingers. Your TDs theory isn't foolproof. Just like thinking that any dog that won't out is "tough". |
Chaz Reinhold by Jenni78 on 15 April 2012 - 14:06 |
| Hired dog- nice post. My sentiments exactly. My favorite dogs of all time (ones I actually know/knew) are not dogs that most of the sport world has ever even heard of. Much of who wins has to do with the handler, too. Chaz, is THAT what you thought I meant by mentioning why (if memory serves) Snoopy failed his SchH1??? Um, no. |
by Chaz Reinhold on 15 April 2012 - 14:26 |
| Jenni, I knew you would take that the way you did. I just happened to use you example. Dogs don't out for many reasons..nothing is exact. |
by Jenni78 on 15 April 2012 - 14:31 |
| Whatever. That doesn't really make any sense. "Just like thinking any dog who won't out is tough" was your statement, and it makes zero sense (since nobody said anything about a dog who won't out except my brief reference, as an aside) except if you assumed I was talking about dogs who won't out being tough. Hence, my question. I knew, posting on here that a dog failed, would mean someone would ask why he failed. So, I gave the reason I remembered being told. It was neither here nor there and certainly not central to WHY I would take ten of that dog over one million Javirs. |
by duke1965 on 15 April 2012 - 14:40 |
| nadeem, very much so , and even with todays training techniques there are more top sport dogs you dont want to use for breeding, unfortunately many breeders and puppybuyers think differently and run to the flavor of the day for breeding or to get a puppy from , furthermore the most sportdogs today are so much outcrossed that the chance of reproducing anything close to similar to themselves is almost 0 % and they depend on the quality bitches bred by them to have some good offspring, some of these guys need 1000plus offspring to have a few good ones running around |
by Chaz Reinhold on 15 April 2012 - 14:41 |
| Ok, let me slow it down for you. The point of my original post was that you need to still look at the individual dog. Whether he won a WUSV, etc. My analogy on outing had nothing to do with you. Most things don't, honey. Dogs don't out for various reasons. Look at each dog. Just like my point of looking at the dogs, not where they place. The difference between 1st and 10th place in a trial, can have zero to do with genetics, and all to do with training. |
by Chaz Reinhold on 15 April 2012 - 14:48 |
| 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. |
by Nadeem6 on 15 April 2012 - 14:53 |
| 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. |
by joanro on 15 April 2012 - 15:04 |
| 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. |
by joanro on 15 April 2012 - 15:14 |
| 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. |
by desert dog on 15 April 2012 - 16:01 |
| 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 |
by mfh27 on 15 April 2012 - 17:27 |
| 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. |
mfh27 by duke1965 on 15 April 2012 - 17:48 |
| mfh you point out the right thing , look at ellute and eros , who scored highest points and who is better producer |
by joanro on 15 April 2012 - 18:03 |
| 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. |
by Ace952 on 15 April 2012 - 18:10 |
Chaz, I couldn't agree more. Spot on. |
Ace952 by Jenni78 on 15 April 2012 - 18:31 |
| 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. |
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!