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.
Unfortunately, the same thing has and can be said about GSP breeding records. Lots of talk about who put pointer in what dogs when. At least with pointers, the only motivation was to redshirt a dog into a later litter, so it could be run as a three or four year old futurity. Or maybe to cheat a customer into thinking he was buying a high ped breeding, when was just two dogs put together. But with GSP's there were these motivations, plus the additional motivation of making a more competitive dog by putting pointer in. Is a matter I really don't care about, because I like the current state of the breed, however it was put together. And don't want to open another can of worms (creek, creek, creek). But GSP's have only required DNA as a condition of competing in the Nationals last two years - maybe it was just last year - as I recall, not any longer than pointers, so a little early to be saying we are holier than them.
Was alot less motivation to corrupt Miller breedings 20 years ago, when the line was young, than when the On-Line incident happened, with lots of pressure to show the line continues to perform, and make back the investment in it. Dumb anyway, when you read the accounts of it. All that can be said is that one was stupid enough to get caught, not that others were not doing, esp. before DNA.
Fact is, one of the holes in ped. and computer anal. is that you have to sort of blythely assume all the breedings were as shown on the ped., and that holds regardless of breed. You can calculate a COI to 1/1,000ths of a percent, which is 1/100,000ths of the whole pie, but if one ped is wrong the computer does not know or care. Which calls to mind your comments about learning from history, and about spending alot of time looking at peds. and data and knowing less than when you started. At least until DNA has been around for awhile, cannot use the results as anything more than a rough guide, not something accurate to a decimal or even to a percent in some cases.
Your question about what top producing AA was tight linebred, I think was prompted by me, or maybe someone else's comments about linebreeding. Maybe need to articulate what I mean a little more clearly. I think the point of your challenge to everyone to find that dog, is that there is not one out there. I would agree that the probability is that there is not. But my view of linebreeding is not that the tight linebreed will produce that champion producer. Don't think that. My thoughts are more along the lines of those expressed by you and others about crossing two tight lines or outcrossing a tight line to a wild hare.
OK, this is all pure sophistry, and do not have a background in genetics, but a little experience with dogs, so here goes.
I think you need to do that tight linebreed (half-brother/half-sister, uncle/niece, etc.) to establish a base line. In fact, I think that a couple three generations of line breeding might be necessary. Say tight line breed (COI of say15 or up), then loose line breed in same general type of dog (COI of say 6 to eight) or line cross of two established lines, then tight line again. Then you have a line you can go somewhere with. Some risk with this that the third gen. litter would produce some defects, and you would have to be prepared to cull, an idea I do not like (see below), but could do once. The likelihood of a top winner/producer coming from the tight linebreeds would not be high. They would come from the line crosses, or the outcross to an outstanding individual.
You could go the route of just crossing outstanding individuals, but I personally cannot. Reason is that it from my observation it involves too much culling, as you pointed out. Have 7, kill 6 keep one. That is one way to go, and frankly is the route the German breeders took to establish many of the versatiles, including the GSP. Talked to one many years ago who was a founder of one of the breeds, who mentioned regretting putting down entire litters at 12 weeks or so, because they would shy from water when brought down to the lakeshore - discovered years later that it was only windy days and the sound that caused this. Point is, it is how they worked. If pup did not have coat, or retrieve, or whatever, it went down. Some people can do that, I am not good at it. Same thing was true of pointers, 100 would go on the string to the prairie, a bunch would encounter "speargrass" and not make the return trip.
Prefer to work with a line where 6 of 7 will be SD/GD, or classy hunting dogs for good families, and maybe 1 will be the AA. Kind of think the hard work has been done in the past, leave it there. That is why I favor the linebreed, then outcross route, as much as any belief that it is genetically or result-wise any better than outcross, outcross, outcross. Linebreed may actually be slower, I think.
I think you said this in different words, maybe with a different slant on them taily-dogs, and maybe without the detail about culling.
Also, saw the comment about cattle breeding and have heard it before. I think cattle breeding, and perhaps show dog breeding, is different from trial dog breeding. The reason is that trial dogs need to be bred for athleticism. Cattle are bred for what I would call "sedentary" characteristics, without meaning to be disparaging. That is, they are bred for physical characteristics not connected to athleticism or survival. In cattle, number one is how fast will they put on weight, how prolifically they will breed. Sometimes, how well will they withstand the climate. Whether they can run, etc. etc. is not relevant. You have fewer, and a more manageable number of characteristics to breed for, and more to ignore. Thus, linebreed, linebreed, linebreed would be more likely to work.
Athleticism relies on a much greater number of characteristics, and also relies on the system that wires them together. So many, you cannot breed, for example, just for a strong heart/lung, and forget speed, gait, nose, balance, reaction time, etc., etc. Also, athletic characteristics are more like the survival characteristics that mother nature creates, which are very complicated.
So my view is that you try to create that line, but the linebreeds will be a kind of baseline. In other words, the producers of SD/GD's, etc., and of a solid set of classy characteristics and sound athleticism. Possible, but not likely to get the "survivor" out of that. Probably need to throw in some energy, like a cross to another line, or a wild hare top of the food chain type, to get that ultimate competitor out of the line.
Breeding is games of chance anyway. Which genes will pop out and be expressed in a given dog, so surely the top dog can pop out anywhere, but probability I think is greater in this scenario.
Probably full of it. Just my own personal theory, and maybe that of some others.
But to go back to the start, it is a little difficult to look at history to determine if a particular way of breeding is better than another way, unless you were around, knew the dogs, and have a degree of confidence about which breedings were actually as shown on the ped. and which were not. Can't hold a candle to you there.