Brittany Champions 
Since 9/19/98
| Visitor Statistics |
|
|
|
|
The Hall of Fame: An Opinion In voting on the The Hall of Fame over the past decade or so it seems as if, by omission & lack of emphasis, that voters have chosen to ignore the primary purpose of field trials : i.e. THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE BREED! The HOF criteria for dogs includes both their performance and their production. Something to think about is which of these two criteria contribute the most to long term improvement of the breed. Certainly for most of the inductees for the past few years (with one exception) one could hypothesize that most folks think that the former is more important than the latter. Perhaps that (along with the same opinions for the past couple of decades) is why the breed hasn't improved more than it has. The data base for The Pointer Breeders' Almanac tracks over a hundred dogs which are perceived to be top dogs. The standards for the Hall of Fame should be much higher than those required for inclusion in The Pointer Breeders' Almanac. Only two per year are selected for that honor and not all are Pointers. It will be noted that dogs that do not even meet minimal standards for inclusion in the PBA are being elected to the HOF. What follows is a direct quote from the original PBA. The names can be changed, but the concepts are same today. Why not have such standards required of the HOF? Data in the original edition of this document (1980) included only the top open all-age major circuit dogs. The reason for this was simply to keep the lid on Pandora's box, which would be open if all pointers were included. At any rate, most interest should center around the top open all-age major circuit dogs. The reason for confining the data to all-age was an elementary tenet of modern genetics (i. e. Galton's law of filial regression). Those who continually use champion shooting dogs as studs demonstrate a lack of comprehension of the principle of regression if they are trying to produce field trial dogs. Such individuals are referred to any good biology book to address themselves to this subject. "Major circuit" has different connotations to different people. "Major circuit" in the context of this document means those trials which attract representatives of the best strings of dogs in the country (best according to the record). To qualify as "major circuit" under this definition a stake would not be called major circuit unless two or three of the following strings were represented: Builder's Free Boy and his kennel mates, Flatwood Hank and his kennel mates, Bisco Big Jack and his kennel mates, Whippoorwill's Rebel and his kennel mates, and Barshoe Buzzsaw and his kennel mates (today the Patterson, Roper, Downs strings would also, of course, be included). Needless to say, a stake might be major circuit one year and not major circuit another year according to this definition. Some trials that fall into this category (some, but not all, years major circuit) are the Tarheel Open All Age Stake, Texas Championship, All-American Championships (both Chicken and Quail). Some trials that, at least recently, have always been major circuit are the Border International, Oklahoma, and Continental Championships. A dog can't be faulted because his major competition isn't entered, but he can't be given the same credit that he would have been given if he had beaten them. "Top" is defined as those dogs which have competed against and defeated such dogs as Rebel Wrangler, Whippoorwill's Rebel, and Redemption's Reward. For example, in year 1985, any dog on the major circuit which had never been placed over Whippoorwill's Rebel was not included. Some dogs have been excluded from this document because they have not won certain kinds of major circuit stakes. To be included in this document dogs must have won on the major circuit in Canada and in the South. The reason for the Canadian stake is that the required boldness and range in them represents the ultimate of all-age standards. The major circuit win in the South is required because of the bidability required in them. Also the stamina required in the South, because of briars, terrain, humidity, and temperature, represents the desideratum in a potential stud dog. One hour at Quitman or Albany, in some cases, requires more stamina than three hours at Grand Junction. Any dog, with exceptions, not meeting the forementioned qualifications is not included in this document. Exceptions were granted non systematically. Possible major impact on the breed was the bottom line for inclusion for otherwise unqualified individuals. Possible major impact was hypothesized in the following types of cases: (1) winning the Purina Award, (2) winning the National Championship, (3) media blitz via stud dog ads in "The Field," (4) actually having a current major impact. Builder's Addition would be an example of #1 & #2; Mississippi Rifle and Pike Creek Mike would exemplify #3; My Main Man and Understatement would be examples of #4. Knowledgeable readers will recognize other dogs in the above categories without their names being mentioned. The reader may judge for himself if any of these exceptions warrants the popularity of those dogs as studs; that is part of what this document is about. Let's apply the previously presented yardstick to recent inductees (last 6 years) and also to other recent top finishers. Inductees over the past six years meeting the performance standard were Barshoe Brute, Flatwood Hank, Native Tango, Rebel Wrangler and Mac’s Reelfoot Chief. Inductees failing to meet the performance standards (both were unable to win major circuit all-age trials in Canada) were recent inductees Fiddler and Bisco Big Jack. Why were they selected over dogs which were able to meet a standard that they were unable to meet (for example War Storm, Double Rebel Jack, Greenwood Bill and Susan Peters)? Other top five dogs last year failing to meet the standard were Great Notion (no major circuit Canadian all-age win) and Bonafide (no major circuit all-age wins). This is not to say that they are not worthy candidates as some of the critics of these ideas claim I asserted! In spite of their unsupported inferences this writer has never said that such and such dog(s) are unworthy. All that has been said is that if one applies this yardstick, then such as such does not meet these criteria...this does not say they are unworthy. Many of those that don't meet the criteria are still worthy. The point here is that like a top notch championship there may be a have dozen or more that are very worthy of the championship title, but the title (runner-up) can only be bestowed on two. The judges must weigh which factors are most important and which competitors best accomplish this. All that is said here is that one applies the yardstick advocated here then such and such dogs do or do not meet them. There are, indeed, very worthy candidates that don't meet these particular criteria; my position is that using these yardsticks certain ones are most worthy. It would seem that in terms of improvement of the breed (purpose of field trials) that the production record of candidates should carry more weight that their performance record. Those articles and ads in The Field that report names and numbers of winners without reference to frequency of breeding are reporting only half truths - something, perhaps, worse than even just stating something that is false. Any such reference should be totally ignored. A case might be made that such ads and reports might even support a dog that actually hurt the breed. Three measures that might be considered are Winability, Prepotency Index (PI) and the Major Circuit Index - all available in The Pointer Breeders' Almanac. All three are significantly influenced by the frequency of breeding of the individual. Of the three the PI might be given greatest emphasis for the following reasons. Winability includes Puppy and Derby wins which are relatively meaningless because of dishonest registrations (whelping dates). The MCI is very heavily influenced by ownership, and the small sample (only major circuit trials considered) also raises statistical questions; another negative on it is the fact that it includes derby wins including some of those four year old derbies. By examining past editions of the PBA & plotting a frequency distribution one can observe a valley in the low .80s which may serve as a boundary area between the truly top producers and the also rans. Applying this yard stick to recent inductees reveals that Barshoe Brute, Fiddler, Bisco Big Jack, and Mac's Reelfoot Chief measure up Rebel Wrangler did not make the grade and was chosen in spite of being a proven mediocre producer. Great Notion is being seriously considered was unproven as a stud. One can observe that only two males elected recently met the performance and production criteria - Barshoe Brute and Mac’s Reelfoot Chief (Chief’s production could be questioned because of the limited sample size). Although the setter elected and the one being promoted met the performance criterion no production data with reference to frequency of breeding has been presented. Bonafide and Great Notion meet neither of the two criteria. (The latter might have meet the production criteria had he been bred more....evidence available suggest this). One not even mentioned from the last decade that met both criteria is Double Rebel Jack...one of the top stud dogs of the nineties. It seems a shame that dogs from the past that may meet the criteria are consistently overlooked. Possibilities include such past greats as Spunky Creek Joann, Titan, Greenwood Bill, War Storm and Susan Peters. Likewise it seems to be a shame to over look top flight producers such Wine List, Sierra June, Evolution’s Diamond Liz, Hendrick’s First Lady, My Main Man, and most of all Black Crude. The latter's record as producer eclipses all other dogs elected and all others considered by a very wide margin. What does this indicate about the Hall of Fame? Great females should have equal access to the Hall-of-Fame.
Their circumstance, in most cases, dictates
|
