Hunting Dog Training & More    

Popular Searches: Garmin Astro | Dog Collars | Tri-Tronics | SPORTdog

2004 #1 GSP ?

2004 #1 GSP ?

Postby Dirtysteve » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:39 pm

Can somebody clear this up for me?
I was on a web site that was advertising some GSP pups and they stated the sire was the 2004 #1 AKC ranked All Age GSP Trueblu's Hud's Kickin Up Dust.
Then another site claimed that Showtime's Rollin Thunder was the 2004 #1 All Age GSP.
Which is it?
User avatar
Dirtysteve
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:06 pm
Location: Utah

Postby Greg Jennings » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:14 pm

I read something about it over on Uplandbirddog.com . Search the archives there.

My guess is it's a question of what measure one uses to make the claim or the point in time that it was made.

Best,
User avatar
Greg Jennings
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 5734
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:59 am
Location: Springboro, OH

Postby Dirtysteve » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:59 pm

Thanks Greg
I will see what I can find out
User avatar
Dirtysteve
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:06 pm
Location: Utah

Postby stlgsp » Tue Jul 05, 2005 5:41 pm

According to the April 2005 Shorthair Journal the #1 All Age GSP is FC Showtimes Rollin Thunder. (Events through Dec. 31, 2004)
User avatar
stlgsp
Rank: Master Hunter
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:45 pm
Location: MO

Postby Greg Jennings » Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:11 pm

#1 by what measure? Points, placements, wins, etc?

I've followed Showtimes Rollin Thunder, Hud and Sonny. At various times, they have all been "Number 1" by some measure.

Best,
User avatar
Greg Jennings
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 5734
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:59 am
Location: Springboro, OH

Postby QCBirddogs » Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:42 pm

AKC ratings go by amount of dogs beat.....I.E. total number fo dogs in the stakes.

Phil
REO
QCBirddogs
 
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Dog of the Year confusion

Postby Dave Quindt » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:24 pm

Steve,

You may end up regretting asking the question, but here goes……….

“Dog of the Year” in the GSP world is pretty similar to “#1 ranked NCAA football team”. We have the same problems as the NCAA does (especially pre-BCS); there are more than one group that awards such a title.

The GSPCA awards a Dog of the Year (a.k.a. DOY) to the dog with the most dogs defeated in AKC stakes of that particular type; Puppy/Derby, Open Gun, Amateur Gun and a combined All Age (both Open and Amateur). The DOY is calculated by total dogs defeated in all AKC field trials including AKC championships. The only qualification is that the owner of the dog must be a member of the GSPCA by 3/1 of that year. Your dog can win a stake every weekend all year long, but if you are not a GSPCA member your dog won't be DOY. Right or wrong (very wrong IMO), that’s the way it is. This is what is listed in the GSPCA magazine. The GSPCA DOY gets the most attention.

The Shorthair News, a private publication about the GSP breed also issues a DOY award. Their list is based on total number of dogs defeated (if I remember correctly) in AKC trials regardless of the owner. This gets some attention from the field folks and used to be a much bigger deal than it is today.

The NGSPA (the breed club on the American Field side) awards an NGSPA DOY for Open Shooting Dog, Amateur Shooting Dog and All Age. This is based on the number of placements, the number of entries and the type of championship (species, regional, national) in NGSPA sanctioned championships. This gets some attention among the trialers who prefer the AF over AKC events.

The AKC (not the GSPCA) publishes a Top Dogs list, which can be ordered through their website. Their formulas for calculation are not easily available; it pretty much has to do with the placement and number of starters. The Top Dogs reports are used by the show folks, and the I believe some of the sporting breed clubs may use them as well. I’ve never come across anyone in the GSP breed who really pays much attention to them; most don’t know they exist IMO. But…… you will find the occasional owner who finds the report and sees their dog on top and wants to use it as bragging rights. “To each their own.” This is NOT listed in the GSPCA magazine.

Clear as mud? Great, now lets make it even more complicated.

Most trialers, especially the AA ones, don’t really care much about half-hour wins and placements. Other than the GSPCA NFC and a handful of Limited stakes with monster entries, the dogs that get the most attention are the ones that win at the NGSPA regional, species and national championships.

The problem is we don’t have a central system that takes all of this into account. So, like the NCAA, we end up with multiple dogs claiming virtually the same title. Yes, Ricky was the ’04 AA GSPCA DOY. Yes, Hud was the AKC TopDogs #1 AA dog in ’04. Does that make them the best?

The two AA dogs that garnered the most attention last year were Sonny and Ben. Sonny won the NGSPA AA Nat. Ch at Booneville and took 3rd at the GSPCA AA NFC at Eureka. Two placements in clearly the biggest two trials of the year. Ben did virtually the same thing by winning at Eureka and taking 2nd at Booneville. Both had other hour championship wins that year. Someone else brought this up on one of the other boards as well.

In the end, we don’t have a single DOY. Right or wrong, that’s the way it is. The arguments involving the two dogs you mention have as much to do with the rivalry between their professional trainers as much as anything else.

IMO, until we get a system than takes into account both the quality and quantity of wins, across multiple organizations, the confusion will continue. Most trialers know who the dominant dogs are, and its generally reflected in futurity registrations.

FWIW,
Dave




Dave Quindt
Bolingbrook, IL
Dave Quindt
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Postby Dirtysteve » Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm

WOW :lol:
Thanks Dave for the great info.
I didn't know it involved so much.
User avatar
Dirtysteve
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:06 pm
Location: Utah

ouch

Postby ward myers » Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:26 pm

i got a headache from reading that!
User avatar
ward myers
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 12:22 pm
Location: lakeland FL

Postby Adam » Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:43 pm

i'm confused :lol: but thanks for kinda clearing it up dave
User avatar
Adam
Rank: Champion
 
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:32 pm
Location: Stickney, IL

Postby Dave Quindt » Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:07 pm

The important thing to remember is that there isn't one "Dog of the Year" title that trumps all the rest. Its the nature of the beast, when dealing with a breed that competes in multiple organizations. Heck, we have 3 different National Championships for GSPs alone.

For many decades, field trialing was very much an "insider sport". There has been a recent spike in interest in the sport. While that's good, we trialers have not organized the sport to make it very user-friendly for the newbie.

The sport will never be spectator-friendly; but for those willing to be active participants there isn't another dog game that gives you the ability to sit 3 feet away from the judges and watch everything that they see.

Great field trial dogs are not defined by having a great day, or even a great season. They are defined by having a great 4-8 year career, often in trials from one end of the country to another.

That's why to a lot of us, its the most fun you can have with your clothes on!

If you got questions, ask away.

Dave
Dave Quindt
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Postby larue » Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:29 am

dave, I myself have a slightly different view,that takes into account
more than just total wins.With total wins a consistant broke dog
will often end up high in the dog of year standings.My max is an example,he ended up 4th in the gsp news open gundog one year.
Max is a nice gundog,but he has never won an hour event,or
won a national.
The problem with total dogs defeated is it does not take into account the number of trials ran vs wins,or the competition
that a dog ran against to win the trials.
I myself was very impressed with dunfur's where you ben,
the year he took runner up at booneville, when a dog can win
all age stakes in oregon and then win runner up in booneville,
after being flown in,he is one smart dog who will go with.
Another dog I like is arkansas timberland criuser,when you look
at consistant wins,in hour stakes.He has been a tough dog to beat.and a dog who always finds multiple birds.
I enjoy reading about the dog of the year stats,but they are often more about numbers of trials ran,and quality of competition
than about the very best dogs out there.
larue
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:44 am
Location: southern wi

Postby Dave Quindt » Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:44 am

Dennis,

I agree with you - go back and look at my original post.

Top 10 lists don't tell the whole story. You have to look at the dog's career in total. When and where was he run, under what conditions and against what competition. There will never be a scoring system that can reflect that data.

Ben did have a great year, as did Sonny (virtually the same national placements). Timber has had a nice career, but in the Shooting Dog world you need to have multiple national wins/placements to stand out in the crowd. Not sure what he's produced either.
Dave Quindt
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Postby Wagonmaster » Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:33 am

Dave alluded to this in his original post, but the DOY's are more a quantity measure than a quality measure. To gain points to show up in the DOY standings, a dog needs to be campaigned alot. It is not a "closed circuit." In other words, there are hundreds of trials held around the country, and the top dogs do not all run in the same trials, or even in the same number of trials. So it takes a good dog capable of winning or placing, but it also requires competing that dog quite a bit, in order to show up in DOY rankings. Many people do not see the need to do that.

Quality is a little harder to measure, and most breeders look for big time wins in the main, for that purpose. From a breeder's standpoint, at least in my own view, a National Championship title, and/or a good track record in the NGSPA regional and specie events, counts for much more in evaluating a dog, than DOY.

The other thing worth mentioning is the difference between AKC stakes and NGSPA stakes. We need to set aside for a moment the National Championships run under either organizations banner, and talk just about the "bread and butter" trials. The National Championships are all of approximately the same caliber, but the "bread and butter" stakes are not necessarily so.

The AKC trials generally hold half hour stakes for broke dogs. Broke dog stakes are the stakes for adult dogs - Amateur Gun Dog, Open Gun Dog, and All Age. The dogs that run in those stakes do not need to meet any standard to enter (unless the stake is advertised as a Limited stake where they need one prior placement to enter). Owners and handlers tend to not enter dogs in AGD, OGD or even in AA, once they have earned their Field Championship title.

So a dog that wins an AKC broke dog stake may have defeated a number of dogs, but probably very few if any were FC's/AFC's, and a goodly number were probably dogs that are fairly young and have not been campaigned for very long. There is no rule about this, but it is the way it is.

Thus, the FC/AFC title is certainly an accomplishment, but if you are looking for a really topnotch dog, it is more of a starting point than an end in itself. In other words, it roughly says "OK, this is a good dog, now how good a dog is it?"

The NGSPA regional and specie stakes are all hour long stakes. Many if not most of the dogs entered will already be accomplished FC's. Again, there is no rule that requires this, but since the trials are mostly held during the week, and take alot longer to run at an hour per brace, they are more oriented towards pro handlers and dogs that are experienced.

For these reasons, some consider the NGSPA stakes to be tougher competition, and certainly they require a dog with more stamina than the AKC half hour stakes. Also, the NGSPA specie trials are run on wild birds (at least in theory), so winning there, requires a real bird dog.

To sum it up, most breeders look for stud dogs that have an FC title as a kind of minimum. Then they want to see either or both a National Championship, and/or a string of victories in the hour NGSPA stakes. When you see that, you know you are looking at a dog that has won against very high level competition, in high quality trials. More of an indicatore, in the view of some anyway, than DOY ratings.

One footnote to DOY though. By far, the largest stakes run in a given year are going to be the National Championships, where it is common to see 50 dogs in a single stake. In DOY terms, when you are counting dogs defeated, the winner of a National title is going to score alot of points, double or triple the next largest stakes that are commonly seen. So they have a natural tendency to show up in the standings.
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby Dirtysteve » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:18 pm

Wagonmaster
Is there a publication or somewhere one can find the out come of a NGSPCA stake?

I now understand how both could claim to be #1.
Someone said you have to look at a dogs career. So looking at the dogs (GSP) that are alive and competing now is there one dog that is dominating all the others?
Reeek reeek reeek (the sound of me opening a can of worms :D )
User avatar
Dirtysteve
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:06 pm
Location: Utah

Postby Wagonmaster » Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:26 pm

The outcome of all NGSPA stakes is published in the American Field.

No, there isn't a dominant dog, but there a limited number. First you have to decide which type of dog you are interested in. AKC uses the terminology Gun Dog and All Age dog. NGSPA/AF uses Shooting Dog and All Age dog. There is a little bit of a debate about whether an AKC Gun Dog is the same as an AF Shooting Dog, but that is off the subject. Assume they are the same. The Gun Dog/Shooting Dog is a somewhat closer ranging dog that has a better "handle," i.e. responds to the handler. The All Age dog is bigger running and independent. In theory, the All Age dog is considered the best breeding prospect, but there are an awful lot of nice GD/SD's out there.

So the first question is which type are you interested in?

Am primarily an AA person, and rather than step out too far on the ledge myself (creek, creek, creek), will quote a recent write-up of the NGSPA National Ch. by John Rabidou, which appeared in the Field:

" After a short deliberation the judges named Shoot The Moon the winner and Diamonds R S Stephanie runner-up. Could this be the end of an era? For the last few years the three females - Stephanie, Siren and Gabby - have dominated the all-age stakes across the coutry but all three are approaching the 10-year milestone and are beginning to show their age. It appears that Tonelli's Rising Sun and three-year-old white and liver male Shoot The Moon are the young lions anxious to step into the spotlight. Only time will tell... ."

The dogs he is talking about are:

Uodibar's Shoot The Moon
Diamonds R S Stephanie
Sin City Siren
Fully Automatic Gabby
Tonelli's Rising Sun

To this list you would have to add 2004 GSPCA NFC Dunfur's Where You Ben, 2003 GPSCA NFC NRC's Magnum's Touch of Gold, TrueBlu's Hud's Kickin Up Dust and a small number of others. Have not been able to be in the saddle myself much for the last couple years, so maybe others have some ideas. I would like to hear em too, since am looking long range at a breeding to a Rusty bred AA dog.

The fall season starts here shortly, and we will see.
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby Dave Quindt » Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:15 pm

John,

Your list is pretty good, and yes Ben and Magnum (along with Flash) should be on it.

The other dog I'd add is Dunfur's Latest Edition, the only GSP alive to have won a FDSB pointer/setter championship. Hunter is quite possibly the bigest going dog we've got in the breed right now.

Those are probably the most consistent championship-quality AA dogs we've got. Hud is an exceptional young dog; I've had the chance to watch him and his sister a number of times. I'd like to see him win the hour a few times before I'd put him on that list. I know of a young AA female who won the Region 4 AA this spring at 22 months, with Gabby taking RU. She too needs to put together a string of quality placements in order to be added to the list.

One other dog I'd add would be Spekk. He's struggled in the AKC stuff but he's got a ton of hour AA placements. I wish they could get his FC finished and run him at Eureka as I'd like to see him.

Dunfur's Hoosier LB is a solid up and coming AA dog with a number of quality AKC AA wins along with taking the RU CH at Region 12 this spring. Bud will be a solid contender at the national level in the next few years.

FWIW,
Dave
Dave Quindt
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Postby Rusti's Mom » Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:10 am

:wink:
Dave,

She's something else. She is with the right Trainer, so I am sure she will be right up there with the best.

Then her half sister is looking like she may work out also.

Pat
Rusti's Mom
 
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Postby Wagonmaster » Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:48 am

Someone said you have to look at a dogs career. So looking at the dogs (GSP) that are alive and competing now is there one dog that is dominating all the others?


Now to confuse things further, we answered your question assuming you were asking about dogs that dominate by winning in competition. And trialers do put alot of stock in that. But breeding prepotency - the ability of a dog to produce winning get - does not always correlate with winning titles. The number one prepotent GSP stud dog of all time by far was FC Dixieland's Rusty, and he never won a National Championship. I have read that he sired more titled dogs than any other dog of any kind in the AKC, trial or show or anything else. Some National Champions just do not produce winning get. So determining whether a stud dog was prepotent, is indeed something that cannot be determined until the dog is well down the road in its career. That is one reason it is said that you have to look at a dog's whole career, to judge its dominance.

The other is that you would like to see a dog that has consistently won, and not just had one super good day.
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby Dave Quindt » Sat Jul 09, 2005 2:57 pm

Wagonmaster wrote:

The number one prepotent GSP stud dog of all time by far was FC Dixieland's Rusty, and he never won a National Championship. I have read that he sired more titled dogs than any other dog of any kind in the AKC, trial or show or anything else


John,

Did you really mean "prolific" instead of "prepotent"? "By far" is a stretch. I don't have a FDSB pedigree handy, but I remember Dude having produced considerably more AF winners than did Rusty. I believe Dude produced more AF hour champions than Rusty. Look at how many of the great Rusty dogs are out of Dude daughters/granddaughters (like Koonas, Luke, etc).

Determining "prepotency" is tough unless you have data on how many times these dogs were bred.

Rusty was the "right dog at the right time" in so many ways, which is why he was bred so much.

I'm not knocking Rusty at all, but sometimes the discussions about the leading producers focus too much on him and forget the contributions of dogs like Boss Man, Dude and Brown L.

JMO,
Dave
Dave Quindt
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Prepotent Sires

Postby Fieldmaster » Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:44 pm

Gentleman,
You may disagree but I would have to say that 2 x NFC/FC Sanjo Sin City Slicker was one of the most prepotent Sires of all times considering the amount of times he was bred. He probably wasn't bred 1/10 of the amount of times as Rusty and Clown were bred and produced a slew of National Caliber dogs as well as FC and AFC and at least one Dual. Sure wish that they had some frozen seman on him. I would give at least $1500 or more to be able to breed directly back to him.Would love to be able to take something like a Granddaughter back to him. My opinion is he sure left his mark on the breed with very few breedings.


Robert
User avatar
Fieldmaster
Rank: 2X Champion
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:42 pm
Location: Hagerstown,MD

Postby TAK » Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:14 pm

"Rusty was the "right dog at the right time" in so many ways, which is why he was bred so much." ???
Tell more, sounds as if there is an opinion in this.....
User avatar
TAK
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 1:45 am
Location: Utah

Postby Wagonmaster » Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:57 am

Dave-

We may be getting away from Steve's original question here, but he can weigh in if we are.

I was just trying to make the point that prepotency - and National Championships, or DOY ratings, or any other measure of a dog's ability to win - are not necessarily the same thing. For genetic reasons, a dog can be a great individual but unable to pass those traits on in a reliable fashion.

Sure are alot of opinions about who is number one prepotent. Rusty is on the numbers, but is certainly fair to say that is because he was bred alot.

Would not compare FDSB wins to production of FC's. Rusty's rating is based on production of FC's, at least that is the way I understand it. An FDSB "win" is different from the use of that terminology in AKC. In AKC we tend to say that the first place dog has the "win." In FDSB a "win" is any placement, first through third. Alot of half hour weekend stakes are cross-registered both AKC and NGSPA so people can qualify their dogs for higher level NGSPA trials that require a current "win." So those FDSB pedigree win numbers include alot of second and third placements in weekend trials. Not bad, just different methods of counting.

But does not change your point, which is that "prepotency" really means impact on the breed - part quantity and part quality.

Brown L gets to play because he is Rusty's grandsire. In any event, you and I have been talking about dog's of the past. Rusty, Boss Man, Brown L, Dude, Slick had their impact, but show up in most pedigrees as grandsires or more nowadays.

So the question no one has addressed is who is that dog today? (creek, creek, creek)
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby Dave Quindt » Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:03 pm

Wagonmaster wrote:

Would not compare FDSB wins to production of FC's. Rusty's rating is based on production of FC's, at least that is the way I understand it. An FDSB "win" is different from the use of that terminology in AKC. In AKC we tend to say that the first place dog has the "win."


John, both Rusty and Dude ran under the same system. As Rusty's 70+ FCs racked up those placements, they would have counted towards his FDSB record as well. Rusty was great at producing AKF half-hour dogs, but when you look at his record producing regional, species and national champions you see a different picture.

If I had to guess, I'd say Rusty was bred twice as much as Dude. Rusty produced 1 AA NFC (Koonas), who is the only Rusty offspring in the Hall of Fame. Dude produced at least 5 AA NFCs, 4 HoF offspring and 2 HoF grandget.

Other than Rexx, what other Rusty offspring do you feel are HoF quality? Blitz is the only other one that comes to mind for me, and he's a grandson.


Brown L gets to play because he is Rusty's grandsire.
Really? Being Jig's Whitesmoke's Grandsire doesn't count for much? Lots of Brown-L stuff out there separate of Rusty. Take a look at most of the Gulledge stuff.


But does not change your point, which is that "prepotency" really means impact on the breed - part quantity and part quality.


To me, prepotency is simply the ability of a dog to throw his qualities to his offspring at a rate greater than 50%. A prepotent dog is one that "leaves his mark" on his offspring, much more than the dam, regardless of her breeding.

We hope the prepotent dogs are the good ones, unfortunately this isn't true. There is a very popular (40+ litters) sire in one of the non-trial dog games who is well known to consistently throw weak point. He is incredibly prepotent; even when bred to a female with an exceptionally intense natural point the pups still have intensity issues.

Now, IMO the prolific dogs (the ones with the greatest impacts) are a mix of the great performers and great producers. They are not always the same. So much of it has to do with what dogs are marketed the best, what areas of the country they reside and how interested the owners are in seeing their dogs get bred; some don't care very much.

Clown gets lots of attention for winning 3 NFCs. Many forget that Baron von Blitzkrieg was 1 dog short of the same feat, having won the AA at Booneville twice and taking RU a third time. Clown has yet to produce an AA NFC where Blitz has; the first DC NFC we've had in the breed in 15 years.

In any event, you and I have been talking about dog's of the past. Rusty, Boss Man, Brown L, Dude, Slick had their impact, but show up in most pedigrees as grandsires or more nowadays.


They may be the dogs of the past, but often they are the dogs being linebred to create the sires of today.

So the question no one has addressed is who is that dog today? (creek, creek, creek)


Well, that's an interesting question. It gets back to my comment about Rusty being "the right dog at the right time". When I talk to the guys who were active in the sport (whose opinion I trust), they talk about how Rusty came along at just the right time.

Rusty showed up at a time where trial breeders were looking for something new. Rusty brought a lot of run and power, and good looks at a time where we were struggling in that area. He was also clear of the crossbreeding rumors. He proved early on that he crossed well the popular lines that preceded him, especially the Dude, Boss Man and all of the dogs that came from the Dee Dee's Jackson x Big Oaks Bumper litters.

Rusty also came along at a time where pros were willing to breed to each others dogs, and pros tended to work together more than today.

IMO, I think the quality of breeding has slipped a bit since the days of Rusty and Dude. Too may people (both pros and amateurs) are breeding paper. I think we have way too may niches of dogs being bred amongst themselves but not to each other.

We've lost some professionalism and showmanship. Far too many dogs being run at the national championships who are not ready to be there. We've got pros who either are entering dogs to impress the owner, or who don't have any shame in running dogs they know will blow up on their first bird. I've been going to Eureka for 4 years. There are three pros who I've watched run probably a combined 35 runs. I've yet to see them get a single dog past their first bird contact.

We've had some nice growth in the sport, but it has resulted in a lot of "regionalization". Pros and Amateur who almost never leave their region; never see other dogs from other breeders/handlers. It's disappointing and surprising to see how few people at a national championship actually go out to watch dogs other than their own and the handful of "superstars".

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are very scattered right now. Everyone is looking for the next Rusty, but are focused on finding him on their own string. I think we have too many males being bred; out of the 96 dogs run in the Open Gun at Eureka last year, there were at least 54 different sires. How as a breeder are you supposed to evaluate dogs with so many being bred?

The question I ask the most often among the top breeders/trainers/handlers is:

"If you had to start over, and couldn't use the lines/dogs you've got today, where would you start?"

Now, you have to know the biases of some of the people out there. Certain people won't recommend a dog or a pro due to personal issues. But, ask that question enough and you'll get a good idea of who's got what. Look at the breeder like Rabidou; the ones who take chances and have bred out to a lot of different stuff. Look at who they've bred to and who they've stayed away from.

Due to may factors, I don't think we'll ever see a dominant sire ever again. Because so many males are being bred, so few ever get enough pups on the ground to gain enough attention. The ability to use the frozen stuff has virtually ended the "most in-demand sire" like Rusty was because the owners of the frozen stuff generally want to keep it for themselves.

If I had a few extra bucks to spend, I'd start buying frozen stuff from a bunch of the hot males; dogs like Spekk, Ben, Moon, etc. I'd sit on it until those males breeding careers are over; by then I'd have a good idea of what they throw. Then I could make an educated decision on who to use, and probably sell the rest. Just an idea I've been kicking around.

I guess the best thing I can tell you is to get in the saddle at some national events and watch a ton of dogs. I've spent hours putting together a pedigree database, and reading through the American Field. The more data I collect, the less I find it meaningful.

Sorry for rambling on.

JMO,
Dave
Dave Quindt
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Consistency

Postby RCB » Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:46 pm

Even though I have only been following the field trial game for less than ten years and only enter dogs when they are pups or derbys, I have to agree that their is not a current living dog that is head and shoulders above the rest.

However, a recent dog that had great success producing national caliber dogs was Heide's Mighty City Slicker. His get was winning almost ever stake at the GSPCA nationals for several years. I remember one year his get placed in three of the top four spots in one stake.

I also understand that he was not bred that much which would make him prepotent to some extent. Most of his national get was out of one particular bitch but he has produced national champions out of at least three different females. It was too bad that he was hit by a car when all this was starting to happen.

I am going to start following Ben's and Moon's get because these two are very nice dogs. Moon is still pretty young, and a good looking dog to boot, and probably has a lot of winning ahead of him.

ANother big running dog out in California is Sonny which is producing some nice derby dogs that are also good looking. His pups look like they might have what it takes to win at the national level but we will have to see how they look as finished dogs.

Hopefully the sport will have an AA dog that starts producing early on so all of us can recognize the potential before it is too late.
RCB
 
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Postby Wagonmaster » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:34 am

Steve-

To sum this up and try to answer your question, there is no clear, dominant, number one at this point in time, on which everyone would agree. There is a changing of the guard going on, as I am sure you can tell from the posts. There are some good young dogs that are clearly in the running. There are some more young dogs just behind those. The picture may be clearer in two or three years. That Hud dog that you started your post with is a good dog. Are others as well.

RCB-

Nice first post. I would agree with you that Slick has produced an awful lot of good dogs in recent years. We were wrongly kind of overlooking him in our discussion, although I think Dave mentioned him.

Dave-

Many things. You posted a lot to digest.

On the FDSB numbers, my point was that it is not possible to tell from the pedigree numbers, what kind of winners a dog has produced. The second and third numbers in the FDSB pedigree are winners produced and total wins of winners produced. "Wins" include any first, second or third place regardless of length or type of stake. "Winners produced" are only direct get, not grand get, etc. I have a dog with both Rusty and Dude in it, and so am looking at the numbers. Rusty's numbers are 64 winners produced and 565 total wins by those winners. Dude's are 55 and 670. So you can't tell from these numbers, how many of the wins were 2d's and 3d's in half hour stakes, or even in derbies, vs. how many were hour stakes and/or Championships. I don't know of any database where that is kept, except maybe in the difficult-to-dig-up records of the NGSPA. If you have it, I would love to see it, and I don't mean that in a "put up or shut up" sense at all, I would find it very useful myself, it is available in some way other than sifting through every dog on the Internet. Would say it is a draw between Rusty and Dude on the FDSB numbers, with Rusty producing more winners with fewer total wins, and Dude fewer winners with more total wins.

I have read your posts on the "versatiles" v. trial dogs and think that debate has one thing in common with this one. Everyone wants to pick on the Big Dog. The BD does/did not do this, couldn't do that, another dog was/is better at such and such, etc., but you can tell just by the number of people with opinions about it, that it is the Big Dog. That is the way it is with trialing in that other debate, and that is the way it is with Rusty.

But also think it is a point not worth debating much. All these dogs are gone. As you correctly point out, their value currently is linebreeding, and even in the tightest of lines you are not going to produce get at this point that are much more than approx. 30% of the "old" dog you are trying to breed on, whether Rusty, Dude, Brown L, PJ Wildfire, or any of the great old producers. Meaning that current dogs are going to have much more to say about what you produce in the line, than the foundation.

Have been doing some research myself, using CompuPed. I have their GSP data file, and a bunch of dogs I have input myself. They are in the process of updating their software, and until that gets done at the end of the summer, it is not possible to "merge" files, but if you have data you would be willing to share, so do I - when the software gets straightened out. I am looking to breed a female next spring, and am looking for all the data I can get. Plus, as you point out, seeing the dogs run.

The dog in my avatar has an awful lot of the dogs you mentioned in your post. Dee Dees Jackson, Dude, Big Oaks breeding (Spotter and a dog called Lady Blue) plus PJ Wildfire and a couple of other notables, and a bunch of Rusty of course. (Ben and Latest Edition, who you mentioned, are also Rusty line-bred dogs.) All I can say from the vantage point of someone who saw them years ago, in the state the shorthair breed was in then, and sees them today, is that those old dogs and old breeders really did a great job. Compared to the dogs that were near their original German ancestors, there have been great improvements in nose, range, overall looks, but the single most important one in my book has been temperment. Just don't see the taggers, bumpers and alligators alot anymore.

Have mentioned this on other posts, but the mother of that dog is out of pure trial stock. Yet she was our house dog and my personal foot hunting dog. She was also the self-appointed care dog for my youngest son, who is high functioning autistic. She is now gone, and her daughter, who was sired by Ruth Blank's Timmy, is the next generation care dog. The Avatar dog is a young AA. So I just kind of smile when I hear that stuff about "mental stability" from people who don't know, never tried it, but sure have alot to say about it.

On the general state of FT compared to years ago, I have a somewhat unique perspective in that I trialed for about ten years in the 80's, when all these old dogs and those "old line" handlers were around. Then got out of it, and am back into it. From my perspective, GSP trialing and trialing in general always was kind of balkanized or regionalized, and is not much different today. It is partly the result of different types of grounds and terrain. I am in MN, and we have, and have always had, post stamps up here. The west and south Midwest (like KS, NB, even SD and ND) are a totally different type of cover. So different dogs here and in WI, IL, IA than out there, and different covers yet in TX, OK, out on the East Coast.

Gas costs alot, and driving is down time. Some of the hops the pros take, to get to the next trial, are two and three day drives, with stops to rest the dogs and horses. Some regionalization is going to result, no matter what. Also, most pros start with a local clientele, so need to work in the area their clients are from to keep up the support. Are not any truly national pros that I know of, that are willing to make the hop from the Region 1 or 2, all the way to Region 10. For one thing, the schedule is tight enough that they have to bypass good trials along the way, so why do it? Even the biggest of the guns only are willing to cover about half the country.

If anything, pros are better are more cooperative today, than the one's I remember. Lots of near fist fights in those "great old days." Today, it seems a little more like the high end pointer pros, more gentlemanly and cooperative. In a couple of weeks am going to Eldon Hongo's summer camp, and I am told that Ronnie Sale is up there, Gulledges will be visiting, and a bunch of other people you would recognize. Not so bad, I don't think.

You are right, trialing is bigger, and there are more good dogs. Makes it more of a parity situation - "on any given weekend" to quote the NFL.

I think you are right that there are dogs and handlers at the Nationals, and at all Nationals, who are not ready. The question is whether they come and learn, or just keeping coming anyway. In the meantime, let em come, and we will all find out what they are made of. We will also find out what our own dogs are made of. A person can overlook alot of wholes in their own dog until they have to put them on the ground and subject them to judgment.
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby Greg Jennings » Mon Jul 11, 2005 10:48 am

John,

You sound like you might be a fellow member of the left-brained club....

I look forward to hoisting a <insert your favorite beverage> with you sometime.

Best regards,
User avatar
Greg Jennings
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 5734
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:59 am
Location: Springboro, OH

Postby Wagonmaster » Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:19 pm

Greg,

More like the "no brain left" club, but can still do a mean rum and coke when the guns are up for the day. also single malt, not because it is "hoity toity," but because you drink it slow. too expensive to drink fast.

you're not so bad yourself.
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby Dirtysteve » Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:21 pm

Thanks Guys

I was hesitant when I first asked this because I thought this might turn into a pissing match. I'm glad it didn't because some very good information came out of this.
User avatar
Dirtysteve
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:06 pm
Location: Utah

Postby Wagonmaster » Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:41 pm

Well that is because we are typical field trialers, won't help another guy, can't get along, nothing but arguments and no sense of humor.

Just ask the wife!
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby Dave Quindt » Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:07 pm

John,

Rusty certainly is the "Big Dog" when it comes to producing AKC Field Champions. When you start talking about producing national champions, and start comparing Rusty to his peers, you see a different picture.

I disagree though with your suggestion that this isn't worth debating much. How we judge the dogs of the past will play a role in determining the current group of stud dogs.

You are correct; Hunter is linebred Rusty. Ben is slightly different; he is really linebred on the on the Bumper x Jackson dogs as much as Rusty. Buddy's double connection to the Bumper x Jackson stuff is something that Rexx does not have.

If you look back 20 years ago, you see more pros handling other pro's dogs in order to get the dogs run in championships. Both Blitz and Koonas won championships with someone other than John handing.

We've got 3 National Championships, and certain groups who won't attend certain ones because of who runs them. We've got an East Coast contigent that's pretty much left the AKC fold completely. This isn't healthy for the sport.

The differences between the regions, the cover and how the dogs handle it are not nearly as much as most people want to believe. The "pretenders" always complain about it, but the contenders seems to always get it done.

Ben won at Booneville without ever being there before, and there's a night and day difference between Booneville and Spokane. Siren has won championships at Booneville, Wye Island in Maryland, the Quail CH in OK and up in North Dakota and Montana at the Sharptail. Heck, Ruger took RU at Region 17 OSD a couple of years ago after spending a grand total of 2 weeks of his life in the prairies. He had never seen a prairie chicken before the trial, yet managed to handle them correctly.

The fist fights still exist somewhat. Heck, the 50 year olds can't fight like they did when they were 25.

Rusty certainly is the "Big Dog" when it comes to producing AKC Field Champions. When you start talking about producing national champions, and start comparing Rusty to his peers, you see a different picture.

I disagree though with your suggestion that this isn't worth debating much. How we judge the dogs of the past will play a role in determining the current group of stud dogs.

You are correct; Hunter is linebred Rusty. Ben is slightly different; he is really linebred on the on the Bumper x Jackson dogs as much as Rusty. Buddy's double connection to the Bumper x Jackson stuff is something that Rexx does not have.

If you look back 20 years ago, you see more pros handling other pro's dogs in order to get the dogs run in championships. Both Blitz and Koonas won championships with someone other than John handing.

Having the "pretenders" full up our nationals isn't a good thing. I don't agree with the "let 'um all come" attitude because its driving the length of the trial so long to the point where they are becoming unmanageable. It also drives up the cost for the clients, as they are paying for additional travel expenses. For the breeder, its always better to watch a potential sire running against a quality dog instead of some sub-par dog. Looking at the Open Gundog braces from last year at Eureka, its hard to find more than maybe 12-15 quality braces, where both dogs are national caliber or dogs that are capable of laying down a competitive run. That's out of 48 braces!

As to pedigrees, databases, COI and the like, let me say this. I've spent years building my own database, focusing on the dogs that interest me the most. The more data I collect, the less it means to me and the less I feel its important in finding good dogs. Us amateurs are spending WAY too much time worrying about 6 generation pedigree and COIs, and internet chat about certain dogs then we need to be, and its not helping the breed. I see WAY too many litter announcements that make absolutely no sense. Guys jumping from popular dog to popular dog.

With as scattered as the breed is right now, and with some national-caliber dogs coming from "less than national caliber pedigrees" it’s more important than ever to either spend time in the saddle, or find the folks who've seen the same dog run a dozen or so times. That info will tell you more than any pedigree ever will. Sometimes I think us amateurs (me included) feel guilty about not being able to spend time in the saddle so we overcompensate by obsessing about the information we can find. I’m as guilty as anyone; I’m the first to admit it.

FWIW,
Dave
Dave Quindt
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Postby larue » Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:46 am

dave a couple of thoughts on your post.First off I would hesitate
to call hunter a line bred rusty dog.Rusty shows up twice in his pedigree once on each side with rusty being a grandfather on rex's side,and a great grandfather on morticia's side.
but is it not interesting to look at the pedigree and see it is not full of big name dogs,yet morticia's records are impressive.
As far as trials being too full of uncompetitive dogs,I put the blame on this right on the pro's who run dogs to help with the trial costs.
I have run noncompetitive dogs,but it is one in a stake,not 8 or
more.I find it interesting when two pro's run 17 or 18 dogs in a
stake at pine island and only get one or two placements between
the two strings.
larue
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:44 am
Location: southern wi

Postby Wagonmaster » Tue Jul 12, 2005 7:42 am

larue-

it is getting harder to call anything line bred rusty, or dude, or brown l, or any of those dogs, because they have been gone so long. the tightest current rusty linebreeds (or any of these others) are going to have rusty as a grandsire maybe a couple of times, so you are right, becomes less accurate to call them rusty line breeds at all. the tightest rusty line bred living dog I can think of is Ruth Blank's Timmy, and he has rusty only twice as grandsire. maybe also one of Hoke's dogs. Rexx was rusty line bred, but is gone also.

which is my point to dave that it is not worth debating that much, which of those old 80's dogs were the king, because they are so long gone that their impact on the breed begins to diffuse no matter how you breed.

only partly agree on the subject of running noncompetitive dogs. there are surely a gifted few that you can stick in their first broke dog stake at 18 mo's or whatever, and they will perform and win. but most dogs need to have some failures to figure out trials. maybe are some that should not be there at all, but they get burned out of the crucible eventually, if they do not have the talent or the ability to adapt to the game. pros i have dealt with have been very honest people, and they do not have the easiest or most profitable lives. they ain't going to retire to the island they bought in the caribbean with your dough, or have a million in their 401-K, so my approach is to support em. there are always a small number of notable exceptions. and as far as that pine island trial is concerned, shoot, unless things have changed an awful lot in the last few years, that thing is so competitive, with so many good dogs, it is a wonder that a pro can come away from there with one win out of a string on a regular basis.

Dave-

is, always has been, and always will be politics in the sport. i agree it is distasteful, but in the long run, IMHO, the only politics that are truely bad for the sport are attempts to dumb it down, so that dogs that could not win, can now collect a title. the effect over the long run is going to be to depreciate the genetics. you are right the 50's - probably closer to 57 or 58 now - do not have the taste for a full blown fist fight. good reason to have a bunch of them around a trial, to gentle things down when they start to blow up.

would surely not disagree with you that lessons from the past must be learned in order to guide the future. my point about the value of debating who the dominant sire was in the past is more in response to dirtysteve's original question - who is that dog today. the genetic influence of those old dogs is pretty diffuse and does not answer that question much. however, no debate the dogs we have talked about here had a dramatic impact on the sport and the breed generally, and what was done to create them is good lessons for the future. you are right, the question is where do things go from here?

i agree with you that there was some good cooperation in the past. among pointer people, it used to be fairly common for one pro to have another break a dog, so it was not the handling pros hand that did it. but honestly, those are things that the pros did not talk about much when they did them, we only know later that is what happened. are alot of groups of pros working together and cooperating today. i mentioned that sale is at hongo's camp this summer. i read on another board that lou gleber (who I do not know) got to his camp and then got a midnight call to pull another guy out of a ditch, so he could get to Timber Lake. from what i see, it is still going on, it is just like it always was, at least some pros working among themselves, jsut not necessarily making a big deal of it or letting on to the world that they are doing it. would like to think so anyway.

you are right the nationals are so long that people are discouraged from coming. GSPCA is really three or four distinct, week long trials. NGSPA is almost the same.

now to your most important point, which is pedigrees, COI, and paper. absolutely agree that a computer is not ever going to do a better breeding for you than judgment, based on seeing the dogs, talking to people who know the dogs, knowing your own dog and what you would like to improve about it. if you are doing a linebreeding, you know you are doing a linebreeding. you are breeding uncle to niece, or whatever. COI just puts a number to it and says yes this is a linebreeding, but a COI is not every going to substitute for judgment. it does occasional surprise, who you are line breeding on, when the COI runs.

i do find the process of paper research helps narrow down the field of candidates, and helps refine your strategy, but better go watch em run. for example, to take one trait, i see three distinct kinds of gaits in dogs, setting aside the gaits that just do not work in the field or trials. i see a two-beat, erect, animated gait that is a quick step step. i see a jackrabbit gait which is close to a one beat gait - all four hit the ground in close timing and then all four are off the ground. and i see what i call a hound type, which to me is a low slung rear end. the hound types are faster than blazes - probably the fastest of the three, but their tail and whole body usually drops to do it. the animated, erect, step step is the one that catches the eye, to me, so if you can find a dog with that gait that can run speed-wise with the low slung dogs, you are going to get a dog that judges will watch. would like to breed for that, partly because i just find it pretty. personal choice maybe. but not going to find it in any COI or database.

every decent breeder has an "eye" for what they want. no computer or database does.

also, really love a dog that stands well off its birds, and is high through point, flush and shot. just kind of lofts in its point on the flush. don't really have the words for it. but it is not in any COI either.

COI's don't tell you if a sire does not have swimmers, or caves in the heat, or lacks a going away finish.

so no quarrel with you on the need to watch them.

here is my personal deal. have a three year old male and a female that are Timmy on top and a Rob Creaney female on the bottom, that has Rusty background, so my two are fairly strong rusty. also many of those other dogs you mentioned in your post. the male seems to be a good one, is young but wins at AA. thinking of the future, i am considering breeding the female to a AA sire in the spring. so which one? well, have tried enough breeding to believe that wild outcrosses can produce outstanding individuals, but also can be a genetic dead end. the outstanding product may carry such diverse genes it cannot reproduce itself dependably. so am pretty sure i want a strong AA sire with some rusty background. actually are several around if you understand that you are not going to find one with rusty closer than a grandsire or great grandsire. candidates would include Sonny, Ben, that Latest Edition dog, a couple others. also understand that Rusty produced alot of good dogs, but many more in the shooting/gun dog class than AA, so looking for a dog that is strong AA itself.

theoretically, if I find this sire and breed it, I then have candidates for line breeding to the male, again, theoretically, if he works out.

so i do what you have been doing, and research everything, picking candidates, waiting for the fall trials to start up again when the real part will begin - watching the dogs and applying the "eye." that part is more fun anyway.
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby volraider » Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:34 am

This is a great topic with a great discussion. I have learned a lot from this topic and I enjoyed reading it, but I do have a question.

How come no one brings up Hillhaven Hustler or other Dual champion dogs?
volraider
Rank: 3X Champion
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: Tn

Postby Wagonmaster » Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:16 am

volraider-

we were talking producers of AA dogs, and i started that in response to dirtysteve's question, more out of a desire on my part to limit the discussion to a manageable piece of the universe. although many SD/GD's leaked in to the conversation anyway. we have not talked about whether "predominant" should mean producers just of aa's, or of sd/gd's, or of dc's, although dave brought the gun dog issue up with rusty a little bit.

so you brought him up, so what about him? or them?

just to spark the conversation, i will tell you that i have thought about showing my trial dogs, but when i see the sheer size of the show dogs of today, i lose interest real quick.
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby snips » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:25 pm

Vol, that might be more my area of expertise :roll: I don`t think Hustler was ever known much in the "trial" venue. Hustler is more known for producing great natural ability, biddability, and nice looking dogs. It is pretty well known that he produced a softer dog (not what trial people probably care for). The Duals he produced, in my opinion, did not produce much in consistancy, as they were all products of an outcross, (as is my Hustler son) but passed the same natural trainable pups. I think when Hustler was crossed with some tougher stuff, as Wildburg, Lancer, Beires Evolution, you really got a better product. I hear the Pros of the circuit talking about loosing much of the biddability and hunt the shorthairs of old had, but no one looks to these lines to cross back to.
User avatar
snips
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 5558
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 7:26 am
Location: n.ga.

Postby Greg Jennings » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:40 pm

Brenda,

Is that what makes the Hustler x Enztrand line popular?

Baroque was that cross and wasn't Rick's Gretta?

Hustler x Wildburg must work because Rip is the coolest dog ever.

Best,
User avatar
Greg Jennings
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 5734
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:59 am
Location: Springboro, OH

Postby Dave Quindt » Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:29 pm

Dennis wrote:

dave a couple of thoughts on your post.First off I would hesitate to call hunter a line bred rusty dog.Rusty shows up twice in his pedigree once on each side with rusty being a grandfather on rex's side,and a great grandfather on morticia's side.


Dennis, when you look at the genetic contribution that each dog in Hunter's pedigree brings to the mating, the sire and dam each bring 25%. Rusty is the 3rd most influential dog in that breeding with 18%. Rusty's influence (according to the mathmatics of genetics) is greater than Mort's, Mia's or Hazel's. Is it a tight Rusty breeding? No, its not an extremely tight breeding on any dog. But, the only real linebreeding there is on Rusty. Certainly breeding a Hunter (or Simon) dog to another strong Rusty dog won't be an outcross, would it?

but is it not interesting to look at the pedigree and see it is not full of big name dogs,yet morticia's records are impressive.


I don't quite see it the same way. There are a lot of "big name" dogs in that pedigree; just names people here in the midwest don't see much of. Much of those dogs are more regional than national types, but its probably as strong a pedigree as most trial dogs have.

Hazel was a FT dam of the year and when bred to Big Foot produced Oscar, who threw Scott's Boomer. As you know, there are a ton of Rusty to Bumper/Jackson daughters.

The topside goes back to a lot of legandary dogs including many HoF dogs. They are not just dogs that we don't know much about here in the midwest.

The "magic" is easy to see when you look for it. Look at the girls that came out of the Rusty x Bumper Jackson. Then look at Buddy's pedigree, Cecil's pedigree, CJ's pedigree.

As far as trials being too full of uncompetitive dogs,I put the blame on this right on the pro's who run dogs to help with the trial costs.
I have run noncompetitive dogs,but it is one in a stake,not 8 or
more.I find it interesting when two pro's run 17 or 18 dogs in a
stake at pine island and only get one or two placements between
the two strings.


My issue isn't with local trials, its at the nationals, and Eureka specifically. Judging pros by their individual local trial results can be misleading. Local trials and their judging are so inconsistent that its hard to gleam much meaning from many of them.

JMO,
Dave
Dave Quindt
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Postby larue » Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:43 am

dave,I guess it comes down to what a " linebred" dog is.
I guess in my eyes a dog showing up twice in a pedigree
did not constitute a line bred dog.
I looked at cecil's pedigree again,I find bumper/jackson
once,and rusty once in his 5 generation pedigree,I also find saddle
who is much closer to cecil,and is a known producer of very recent times.
Dave take a look at my website,at graceys pedigree,I consider her pedigree a line bred dog.
I used to be completetly hung up on pedigree's,but I am less so now, but I have a question.
When you look at my gracey's pedigree and see several mulitple
dogs in it,how do you know the dogs that influience the final traits of the dog?
Which takes precidance,the closer dogs in the pedigree or
the more common but farther back dogs?
For example,gracey is one heck of a little dog,yet she is the softess dog I have ever owned,yet max and chelsea are both bold,strong minded dogs.So where did the mental softness come from?
The breeding and pedigree questions are very interesting,
and the more questions I ask,the less I seem to understand.
I am now back to the individual dogs performance,with
much less importance on a pedigree.
larue
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:44 am
Location: southern wi

Postby snips » Wed Jul 13, 2005 6:24 am

Greg, the Enzstrand was soft, that is probably here Hustler got it. The Wildburg behind Rip and Baroque and Erick were probably a great influence.
User avatar
snips
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 5558
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 7:26 am
Location: n.ga.

Postby Wagonmaster » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:43 am

I am now back to the individual dogs performance,with
much less importance on a pedigree.


am not sure I completely agree. correct me if i am wrong, but i read this as saying outcross to outstanding individuals, forget linebreeding. do not consider myself a genetics expert, but from past breeding experience with wirehairs, crossing two high performing dogs does not necessarily get you anywhere, unless there are some linebred genes behind one or both. in fact, it gets you dead end dogs that have such an unpredictable mixture of genes that you can go pretty much nowhere with a breeding program. you just get wild hare outcrosses with all kinds of things showing up that were not there in the parents.

also, looked at that gracey pedigree on your website, and do not mean any disrespect to your work here, but would call that the start of linebreeding, not a line. You have done one half-brother to half-sister breeding, but it does not appear, to me anyway (and I have to confess I don't know many of the background dogs), that there was any significant prior line breeding to build on.

my preferred method of working is to take an existing line, build on it with further line breeding, and then bring in outcrosses to add something to the line. But have to confess, am just at the start of that so do not have any multi-generation results to offer up. Just know what the results are if you do nothing but outcross based on performance.
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby Dave Quindt » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:51 am

Dennis/John,

As to Dennis' Gracie dog, you obviously have the half-brother x half-sister breeding on Cecil. That's a linebreeding that if done right you can usually take to the bank all on its own.

There's a strong linebreed on Dude in Brandy but it gets pushed back too far once you get to Gracie.

She's an ok linebreed on the Bumper/Jackson litter, both through your linebreeding on Cecil, and through what Mike-He brings.

The problem with "judging" linebreeding is that everyone sees a different thing. The dog that shows up the most in her pedigree is Moesgaard's Ruffy (21 times). You need to see a 10 generation pedigree to see that though :wink:

Dennis,

Unless you know that the softness thing was a problem in the litter as a whole, its hard to say it just wasn't a natural variation. The rest of the litter could be hard heads for all we know. If I had to guess, I'd say its coming out of Brandy as we've seen similiar things coming out of closely related dogs. There are some traits that Cecil doesn't counteract in those dogs. There is a record of softness coming out of tightly-bred Dude dogs as well.

Just off the top of my head, you could take her to one of the Buddy x Girdy crosses, like Cooper. That would line up real well. It would strengthen the linebreeding on Cecil. We know the Cecil x Buddy cross worked extremely well. Buddy's connection to Rusty and Bumper/Jackson would help as well.

I've been watching some dogs out of Duke (Buddy x Girdy) bred to a triple Cecil daughter of Dennis' (Cecil bred to Beine). Great style, and the legendary Buddy nose.

John

As weird as it is to hear it from me (as the pro I'm connected to linebreeds tighter than almost anyone) but here goes?

am not sure I completely agree. correct me if i am wrong, but i read this as saying outcross to outstanding individuals, forget linebreeding. do not consider myself a genetics expert, but from past breeding experience with wirehairs, crossing two high performing dogs does not necessarily get you anywhere, unless there are some linebred genes behind one or both. in fact, it gets you dead end dogs that have such an unpredictable mixture of genes that you can go pretty much nowhere with a breeding program. you just get wild hare outcrosses with all kinds of things showing up that were not there in the parents.


Name me a top producer who was tightly bred?

As it related to your previous posts, IMO the best way to get QUALITY litters that contain AA dogs is to NOT breed for them. Breed great birddogs to great birddogs. Don't fall into the pointer trap of looking for the one great dog out of a subpar litter; that's a big mistake we see today.

JMO,
Dave
Dave Quindt
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Postby Wagonmaster » Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:51 pm

Ch. Miller's Chief is the one that jumps to mind and the most well known example, was line bred Miller's Happy Choice or Riggins White Knight (sire of Miller's Happy Choice), take your "choice." Was the most popular pointer stud dog of the 80's, and the biggest producer of AA winners by a big margin. Miller's Happy Choice was rated the number one prepotent sire, but like my wisecrack about Brown L, Happy Choice gets to play because he was the sire of Miller's Chief.

Many would say that Rusty is linebred Moesgaard. Would be true there are no close breedings in the last five generations (have the long one at home but not on this computer, don't remember any though in the longer ped.), but was selection for that spotted white coat as well as other traits such as run. I know some call that Moesgaard's Ib, to Fieldacres IB, to Fieldacres Ib's Dek, to Brown L a "line." But certainly open to other opinions whether it is linebreeding in a genetic sense.

My thinking on this (which I am throwing out for comment and criticism before I breed on it) is that with athletic traits (run, style, stamina, nose, etc.) it is very important to outcross, but would want to outcross into an established line, to have a baseline of genetic stability. Do not like the process of culling pups myself, which results from too much wild hare breeding. I think what I am saying here, Dave, is similar to your comments about finding it weird to be saying that outcrossing is the way to do, when you like a pro that line breeds. I think the artful outcross to a high quality line is where you are likely to develop the dominant competitor. But no, I can't think of any great examples of that in the flesh.

Agree that with linebreeding, especially with a ped with three or four famous names in it, what the line is, can be subjective, different people see different things.
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

It would be nice to see some info

Postby RCB » Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:24 pm

I have always believed that a tightly bred dog would produce more consistent offspring and that a cross of two different tightly bred dogs could produce that one great dog that would have difficult producing consistently. It seems that others on this board have the same thoughts.

I came to my conclusion based upon my experience with another performace breed and by breeding roller pigeons. I know bird dogs have a lot more going than a bird spinning in the air but you could breed many generations with different parents in a very short time span. Also, line breeding has worked for cattle and other livestock industries.

I would find it interesting if someone could come up with, say the last five years, a list of national champions and/or other national caliber dogs and see if they were linebred or an outcross and what type of breeding their parents had. Maybe too much work but if someone came up with a list we could all take a stab at it.
RCB
 
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Postby Wagonmaster » Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:48 pm

RCB-

What breed? GSP?

Dave-

Looked at Ben again, and that is a pretty tight breeding. Could sure raise a question of what dog to name the line for. But two grand dams were full sisters out of Willoways Deejay's Jessie by Rusty, and a Moesgaard's Dee Dees Jackson to Big Oak Bumper product shows up as the dams of those two grand dams, plus the same breeding produced Buddy, the sire of Ben. So whether we were to call it a Rusty line, or a Big Oak line, or a Moesgaard line is just a matter of credit. It is a linebred, AA Nat Ch.
Last edited by Wagonmaster on Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

?

Postby RCB » Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:58 pm

I thought there was only one worth doing :lol: . GSP of course.
RCB
 
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Postby Wagonmaster » Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:13 pm

We got into pointers there briefly. Also, I assume we are talking about AA, since that has been what most of this thread has been about, with deference to Dennis and his DC thoughts.
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Postby Dave Quindt » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:34 pm

Wagonmaster wrote:

Ch. Miller's Chief is the one that jumps to mind and the most well known example, was line bred Miller's Happy Choice or Riggins White Knight (sire of Miller's Happy Choice), take your "choice."


You're quoting a Miller pedigree? Once they get enough generations of DNA on those dogs to prove what they claim, I'll start to pay attention. The pointer boys have never been too focused on keeping the paper and the dogs in order.



Looked at Ben again, and that is a pretty tight breeding.


That Gracie dog that Dennis mentioned is somewhat tighter, by inbreeding coefficient. The 6 generation COI on Ben is 10% and 13% on Gracie. That's a 25% difference.

So whether we were to call it a Rusty line, or a Big Oak line, or a Moesgaard line is just a matter of credit.


Its a linebreeding on the Bumper x Jackson more than anything else. Its also a linebreeding on Rusty x Bumper/Jackson.
I'm very good friends with the guy who owned Buddy; he and I have spend countless hours talking about the Bumper x Jackson dogs and their impact on so many dogs of today. Its especially strong when you look at the females who came out of the Rusty x Bumper/Jackson stuff. Its also why I tried to get my female bred to Buddy but couldn't ever make it happen.

That's why I brought up dogs like Cecil; one of the most productive sires of the last decade. While his sire (Saddle) gets a lot of attention, the more we see and learn, the more I believe that he was influenced as much, if not more, by his dam than his sire. His dam? A Rusty son bred to a Bumper/Jackson female.

Cecil's most well known offspring is CJ (the first FC/AFC/VC/MH GSP). CJ is the product of Cecil bred to a Uodibar's Whiteman, a Bumper/Jackson male.

Back to Ben.

His COI is 13%; not overly tight. Timmy's 18%, Spekk is 18%. Ben's probably tighter than the average dog we've got out there right now, but a lot of that has to do with the fact that we are so scattered. I do know of a litter of pups right now that’s 21% inbred.

Here's a few pedigrees "of old" that put it into comparison:
http://worldpedigrees.com/Pedigree.asp?id=14183
http://worldpedigrees.com/Pedigree.asp?id=22435
http://worldpedigrees.com/Pedigree.asp?id=14751
http://worldpedigrees.com/Pedigree.asp?id=3560
http://worldpedigrees.com/Pedigree.asp?id=2555

The FC dog sitting on my bed right now was sired by a male who was out of Voglein's Billy (Koonas x Gypsy Lee) bred to a full sister.
If you learn too much about some of these dogs, it can keep you up at night!


It is a linebred, AA Nat Ch.


The Buddy x Morticia litter was a success even without Ben. It produced some awesome dogs; Peeler won the Canadian National CH and sired the RU CH at the national amateur at Eureka in '04. Annie won a Canadian National CH as well, along with taking 4th in the Open Gun in '03 ( I rode that brace, along with Ben's in '04 :lol: ). There was another FC in that litter as well. The only dog in that litter that didn't finish has her puppy/derbies and has sired a national caliber AA dog. T

You see, I take it back one generation. Because of Ben, everyone looks at the Buddy x Morticia pups. Most don't know that Buddy got bred to two other full sisters to Morticia and produced FC gundog/shooting dogs out of each of those girls. Most don't also know that one of those sisters took an AA 4th at Eureka.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Ben is the most visible dog from an exceptional breeding of Buddy to a Mort/Hazel daughter. The breeding was a great success far before Ben won his NFC.

Ben so far is a great performer; we've yet to see if he is as good as a producer as either of his parents.

All of this is a mute point, because no one yet has named me a leading GSP sire who is tightly linebred. I agree with you and RCB about how its "supposed" to work.

JMO,
Dave
Dave Quindt
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Please ADD LOCATION

Postby larue » Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:31 am

dave, I agree with you on buddy/morticia produceing great dogs such as ben,but what about rexx/morticia?
hunter the dog you spoke of is an example.How does the fact that
morticia bred to rexx also produced some outstanding dogs
affect the mix.It is interesting to wonder if morticia herself
was the biggest factor in produceing these dogs.
We talk about prepotent males all the time,what about prepotent bitches?
I have one other question, I was not trialing when cj was running,
did cj win or run in any regionals,and what was the ratio of walking trials vs horseback trials that he was campainged in?
I did get to see him run a ut test.But that was after he was retired
from trials.
larue
Rank: 5X Champion
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:44 am
Location: southern wi

Postby Wagonmaster » Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:49 am

RCB-

Here as is as far as I have gotten with GSPCA only. Have not looked at NGSPA and a little harder to do, but would bring in Stephanie, Siren and others worth looking at, especially on the point someone made about prepotent dams. Maybe someone else can fill out the one's I have missed because running out of time here. Don't know how we get the peds up to look at. Maybe Grant can help. Post to album?

2000

3rd NRC's Magnum's Touch of Gold

2001 1st EE Rockin Rollin Jane
(I believe other placements were withheld)

2002 FC Heide Ho's MRT
FC/AFC CC Cheyanne Annie
FC Showtimes Rollin Thunder
JimKaths SinCity Siren

2003 NRC's Magnum's Touch of Gold
DC Cherry Creek Rocky
FC BMK's Cease Fire
NFC Heide Ho's MRT

2004 FC/AFC Dunfur's Where You Ben
FC Strike's Flash of Gold
Tonelli's Rising Sun
Rockin Ruby
Last edited by Wagonmaster on Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wagonmaster
GDF Junkie
 
Posts: 3372
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:22 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Next

Return to GDF "Hall of Fame" Posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

| Pedigrees

THIS POST : 2004 #1 GSP ? brought to you by Gun Dog Supply: Dog Training Collars & Hunting Dog Supplies

Click here to tweet this post

  • NOT logged in
  • 2004 #1 GSP ?
  • ./viewtopic.php?f=100&t=1538&start=0&sid=1c6bda66ba8fbd7d6c8bf54587e47ff1