Gun Dog Forum

Do you think Red Water Rex. Riggin's White Knight. Susan Peters, etc could win today?

I have my opinions, but interested in your's.

Or have the top dogss improved substantially over the. Last 15 -20 years?

Neil

Dogs have improved --- Training has improved.
Genetically, the dogs of yesteryear aren't as good, but with modern training methods, they could be a lot better than they were back in the day.


.

I think that may be like comparing Sam Snead to Tiger Woods. The tools used and the competition is much different today than it once was, making it impossible to predict a fair comparison.

That said it's highly unlikely that there will ever be another national champion trained with old traditional methods.

Nate

http://www.thefieldtrialer.com/forum/vi ... =12&t=3821

I think the general consensus is they were better way back then. Wild birds and tougher dogs.

Those good dogs that are no longer with us, it seems like they keep getting better and better as time goes on. If you don't believe it, just ask the guys who owned 'em.

Here are my thoughts.

First as to selective breeding - look at race horses, nearly all track records were set more than 50 years ago. Then at humans with no seclection, who break records every year or so in track.

I do believe our breeding programs have raised the average considerably, there are more good dogs, many more.

I have watched most of the greats since 1963, and I have no doubt they would be competitive today. Not saying they would dominate, just hold their own.

At a trial today the competition runs deep, wins are by a small margin. 50 years ago Ray Charles could have judged, today it takes a lot of experience and knowledge of subtle differences to sort them out.

Neil

Of course some of these dogs would be competitive. Does anyone think that genetics can be transformed in 50 years. The overall "average" is probably higher but I doubt the greats of today are any greater than the greats of yesteryear.
Would they be competing under the same rules, with the same expectations ... and the same format? Were the greats of yesteryear expected to have the same run and range of today's elite? Are the dogs relly better or have we just pushed the physical parameters?

I think that in the all age arena, the greats of yesteryear would not only hold their own, but would give the very best of todays' dogs a real run for their money. I suspect that the best of today is not all that much different in the ways that matter, than the very best of days gone by.

I would also say that the "average" has been raised. With access to top stud dogs via air freight, chilled semen, etc. it has been possible, even borderline convenient, to breed your best bitch to the best stud, raising the bar for the breed as a whole.

As far as shooting dogs are concerned, I do not think the best dogs of yesteryear would be as competitive today, simply because there is so much emphasis today on style elements that simply were not considered fifty years ago. There really was no such thing as a shooting dog, fifty years ago so to compare, would indeed be apples to oranges. The dog's performances on game and in the field were, in the cases of the very best...near perfection fifty years ago. So there was, and still is, not a whole lot of room for improvement on near perfection.

The "improvements" if you will, in the shooting dog arena, came in the form of enhancements to pointing style, running style, pattern and handle. The dogs of fifty years ago are, in these terms, different dogs.

Just one man's opinion.

RayG

Wouldn't it be something to realize that 50 yrs of breeding hasn't really improved the dog's? I don't think there is an answer to this, today's training tools, grounds and birds change things. how about trainer's. Did trainer's 50 yrs ago have access to the tools we have today, how about the large strings of dog's some trainer's have today? I don't think so. Today we have the tracking collar; no longer have to be afraid to let a good dog roll for fear of losing him, Guard Rail was getting to big and they retired him to avoid the possibility of losing him. They can't be compared! And I think it's probably better that way. i suspect two things have changed and that is range and handle. I'm not sure what the ceiling is on range but it appears to be infinity. And I have rarely see and big running dog that handles at all. We prefer to claim it stays with us. Years ago when I started I was told the AA dog reeds to run off and be found on point. Reason, the judges can't judge what they can't see. And one bird only please; one bird can win a trial, two can get you picked up.

As to e-collars and trackers, they didn't need them they had black scouts!

John Rex Gates tells about his Dad sending him 5 miles down the road before break away to catch and turn Susan Peters on the prairies. The true All-Age dog of then could run.

A couple other things that have improved, veterinary care, nutrition, and conditioning.

I believe the very top athletes, human and animal are anomalies. they are not like the rest of their species, they are just on another level.

I have no idea how the pointers , setters etc. performed 50 years ago. I was just getting interested in labradors back then. I am pretty certain that the winning labs of yesteryear ....in Britain .... would also do well today.....if the handlers adjusted their training to what is now required in our trials ..... which is more and/or better handling.Our labs were expected to do a lot more of the work themselves back then.

Do you feel the same about American labs or have the trials there become so complicated that a different , perhaps tougher, mentality is needed in todays best labs ?

Bill T.

If War Storm was running today, the judges would be using him! Bet on that.

Rob

Neil wrote:I believe the very top athletes, human and animal are anomalies. they are not like the rest of their species, they are just on another level.

I have always thought the same. I feel like those top athletes always find a way, and could still be competitive.

There are a lot more dogs being bred today, perhaps to many, so it stands to reason that there will be more good ones. However an outstanding individual is still an outsranding individual now or 50 years ago. Being able to find the one that is capable to compete at Ames and have the desire to do so is a horse of a different color.

How many folks here were trialing 50 years ago? I would think those would be the people we should ask.

I think if you just time traveled the dog 50 years ahead in time, then no it would not even stand a chance. If that dog was born today, and had the same training then yes. Look at humans, If you watch the NBA, NFL, or MLB you will eventually start to notice some of the star players from ten years ago are having kids that are coming up into the college level, getting D-1 scholarships. Most of them will not be superstars like their father, but they will be competitive. Superstars are just as much an anomaly in humans as it is in dogs. Sure you can breed for it, but it really comes down to chance.

I think if you just time traveled the dog 50 years ahead in time, then no it would not even stand a chance. If that dog was born today, and had the same training then yes. Look at humans, If you watch the NBA, NFL, or MLB you will eventually start to notice some of the star players from ten years ago are having kids that are coming up into the college level, getting D-1 scholarships. Most of them will not be superstars like their father, but they will be competitive. Superstars are just as much an anomaly in humans as it is in dogs. Sure you can breed for it, but it really comes down to chance.

I wish I had an opinion on this, but I have no idea, I was not involved in competition young enough and missed some things I wish i could draw from...

I am fascinated by some of the comments and they make sense...the "average" would be higher with selective breeding, but the very best may be happenstance or the environment and prep the dog gets... This statement really interests me ...

Neil wrote:First as to selective breeding - look at race horses, nearly all track records were set more than 50 years ago. Then at humans with no seclection, who break records every year or so in track.

Are you suggesting that natural selection is reducing the chance of the anomaly in the species? Therefore, all the specimens are "closer" together in ability but without the extra that sets them apart, i.e, the "record breaker."

I have done some work with a couple of vets that are working in genetics and in particular with Mars, and if I understand them, and that is questionable...it seems they believe that genetic diversity may play a stronger role in peak performance...it is not to say that line breeding doesn't work, but they do suggest it will wash out the elite specimens...

Yes, that is what I would have said if I was smart enough.

Great dogs and horses rarely replicate themselves as sires/dams, but often in the second or even third and beyond generations an anomally reappears.

But what I have seen in the first generation is a lot of above average dogs.

Neil

Style standards have changed over the years. Look at HOF CH Pork Roll:



He didn't have that dead straight tail that so many are after today, yet he was one of the greatest shooting dogs ever.

I think the poker straight tail for trials is blown out of proportian on here. I highly doubt the tail in that picture would hurt a dog in any trial.

Some could, of course.

Neil wrote:Yes, that is what I would have said if I was smart enough.

Great dogs and horses rarely replicate themselves as sires/dams, but often in the second or even third and beyond generations an anomally reappears.

But what I have seen in the first generation is a lot of above average dogs.

Neil

Yeah well word selection aside it is interesting to me that many learned people lean this way, while others read "Snakefoot" and perceive that line breeding is the only way. It certainly makes me want to see more of what has been explained to me by the MARS people.

Bo is pretty diverse.

First as to selective breeding - look at race horses, nearly all track records were set more than 50 years ago

These records were set at a very different time on the track with a very different set of rules & laws comparing these horses to todays animals are like apples to oranges.Also you have alot different mind set of owners today its a business, a numbers game 2 yr olds have to show promise.In days past a average slower maturing horse had a chance to be a great 3 yr old. Could be said for the dogs also IMO

My only real experience in breeding dozens of generations of an animal was pigeons, competitive rolling pigeons. What I learned was that you take your best birds and line breed off of him/her for several generations to achieve consistent above average birds and then out cross that to another line bred unrelated line to produce your best competition birds. I guess all I did was concentrate the gene pool and then expand it to acquire the best of the best. Not sure I would do this with dogs since there was a lot of culling along the way.

Please what are some of those rules and laws that made the horses slower?

Many of the tracks are the faster synthetic now. Horseshoes are said to be lighter and better fitting allowing for more speed. Certainly nutrition, conditioning, and vet care have greatly improved. Yet the horses are just not faster today.

I have never researched it, but I wonder if greyhounds are faster today.

I think the more accurate question is with todays training methods (since we would train them differently) would the dogs then compete now.

I think no question they would do well.

Please what are some of those rules and laws that made the horses slower

Look it up Neil if you dont know of the modern day ban of things starting with the the permissive medications allowed in the 70s,but you know it im guessing.There was a reason Seabiscuit started what 38 times as a 2 yr old? Now days your lucky to get 6 starts on a good horse. But you know all this your just being grumpy

northern cajun wrote:I think the more accurate question is with todays training methods (since we would train them differently) would the dogs then compete now.

I think no question they would do well.

Always wondered if with new methods are we breedin softer dogs because they dont washout as easy?

Considered the fastest greyhound is P's Ramblig from the mid-80's. 30 years, not 50, but still it is telling.

From persoanal experience I have no doubt that drugs have improved within my lifetime. More effective and much harder to detect.

And all I know about greyhounds and race horses is what I have read.

JKP wrote:Of course some of these dogs would be competitive. Does anyone think that genetics can be transformed in 50 years. The overall "average" is probably higher but I doubt the greats of today are any greater than the greats of yesteryear.
Would they be competing under the same rules, with the same expectations ... and the same format? Were the greats of yesteryear expected to have the same run and range of today's elite? Are the dogs relly better or have we just pushed the physical parameters?

Well said

deke wrote:I think if you just time traveled the dog 50 years ahead in time, then no it would not even stand a chance. If that dog was born today, and had the same training then yes. Look at humans, If you watch the NBA, NFL, or MLB you will eventually start to notice some of the star players from ten years ago are having kids that are coming up into the college level, getting D-1 scholarships. Most of them will not be superstars like their father, but they will be competitive. Superstars are just as much an anomaly in humans as it is in dogs. Sure you can breed for it, but it really comes down to chance.

comparing dogs to humans doesnt work.. WHat if you breed the NBA player to his sister or his mother? Would they produce an allstar? We dont know becuase its not legal.

jasonw99 wrote:

deke wrote:I think if you just time traveled the dog 50 years ahead in time, then no it would not even stand a chance. If that dog was born today, and had the same training then yes. Look at humans, If you watch the NBA, NFL, or MLB you will eventually start to notice some of the star players from ten years ago are having kids that are coming up into the college level, getting D-1 scholarships. Most of them will not be superstars like their father, but they will be competitive. Superstars are just as much an anomaly in humans as it is in dogs. Sure you can breed for it, but it really comes down to chance.

comparing dogs to humans doesnt work.. WHat if you breed the NBA player to his sister or his mother? Would they produce an allstar? We dont know becuase its not legal.

Actually it does, we are all mamals. And as far as breeding to your sister, I have two hillbilly "bleep" cousins who popped out a kid, and the kid is just as retarded as they are.

tn red wrote:Please what are some of those rules and laws that made the horses slower

Look it up Neil if you dont know of the modern day ban of things starting with the the permissive medications allowed in the 70s,but you know it im guessing.There was a reason Seabiscuit started what 38 times as a 2 yr old? Now days your lucky to get 6 starts on a good horse. But you know all this your just being grumpy

are we intentionally not taking into account that race horses of early years werent pumped full of steroids????????

I think the more accurate way to put it is if you had all of the modern "luxuries" put into early year horses that horse would absolutely DOMINATE todays horses.

tn red wrote:

northern cajun wrote:I think the more accurate question is with todays training methods (since we would train them differently) would the dogs then compete now.

I think no question they would do well.

Always wondered if with new methods are we breedin softer dogs because they dont washout as easy?

absolutely! gone are the days of dogs being bred to suit a way of life. Now its moreso about social standing within certain communities.

the sad thing from my perspective is we arent even seeing dogs bred to what the original standard was. look at labs. todays lab most often than not doesnt even come close to displaying what a lab was first brought to work as. and unfortunately too much emphasis is put on trialing ability.....not enough on real world field practicality and toughness.

I asked this question of someone today thats been around dogs for a long time. Asked as it relates to AA prairie trials, they said with the right judges and the old time AA dog would be competitive, but most of today's dogs would not be competitive with them. They emphasized that judges typically use a different type of dog today than they used to and overall the average dogs today are superior than old dogs.

are we intentionally not taking into account that race horses of early years werent pumped full of steroids????????

I think the more accurate way to put it is if you had all of the modern "luxuries" put into early year horses that horse would absolutely DOMINATE todays horses.

Winstrol,lasixs have been around a long time its more regulated today than ever.

People prefer to believe that baseball players and race horses in the "good old days" weren't doping or in the case of horses being doped... ignorance is bliss.

I don't know about horses, but in the early 60's all we had for human athletes was speed and pain killers, it was not until 1966 that I even heard about steroids for muscle growth, and I was in a position where I should have known. We were given amphedimines and cortizone like they were vitamins.

I really am interested in any documentation you all might have of horse trainers being fined or suspended for steroids prior to mid-60's. I heard, but don't know for sure, that they had real problems getting the speed doses right for horses, the ones they could get in the gate and headed in the right direct, suffered severe physical harm, like death.

But all this is an aside and does not change the dog argument.

I have'nt been involved with race horses for over 15 years. At the time I was there were several steroids that were legal to use. Testerone and equipoise to name a couple. We also used B12 and other stuff that was legal. An animal can only do what it's body allows no matter what you shoot into it. There are more consistantly good horses now days than in the past. As far as the dog question, Yes. There are more good dogs to go through to find that one world beater, numbers may be the difference.

With all the technology coming available, it would be pretty neat to clone some of the old greats and put them with trainers like Shawn Kinkelaar or Mike Tracy and see how they could do. I know we have the technology to clone dogs because we're doing it consistently now and I know we have the DNA because Count Noble's stuffed body is in the Field Trial Hall of Fame.

Stoneface wrote:With all the technology coming available, it would be pretty neat to clone some of the old greats and put them with trainers like Shawn Kinkelaar or Mike Tracy and see how they could do. I know we have the technology to clone dogs because we're doing it consistently now and I know we have the DNA because Count Noble's stuffed body is in the Field Trial Hall of Fame.

It wouldn't tell you much unless you clone the breeders, trainers, handlers, and environment. There are way too many variables to try and duplicate if the answer was to be accurate.

I have no doubt the greats in the past were very capable of performing with the greats of today even though we have changed what we are looking for over the years. The best Britt I ever saw was Bandee who was back in that time frame. Red Water Rex & Riggins White Knight plus a few others would still be winning as long as we look for the characteristics of their day. That is the biggest variable that would have to be addressed.

Ezzy

I think they could, reason being in my opinion Dogs and horses are softer now.