# Older Pedigrees/Sires - Has the game changed?



## birddogn_tc (Apr 24, 2015)

I often hear people talk about how the FT game has changed over the years and that the dogs are now better than ever, etc. I am certain that is true. So it got me thinking about some older sires from the 90's (and maybe even older). For you die hard FT guys and gals, would a litter sired by a dog that had the highest level of success in the 90's interest you just the same as one sired by a dog that has achieved the highest level of success today? What about the 70's or 80's? (Honcho, etc). All of these dogs were spectacular for their time. Do they hold up against today's competition (marking, blinds, etc). I would assume they would (esp proven producers like Lean Mac) but I have no idea so I would love to hear some opinions. 

Just thought this would be an interesting discussion and hearing from people who have been around the sport to see the evolution.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

I am going to sit this one out for awhile and let others express their opinions. I think I have a unique perspective for this discussion beginning in 1970 as a novice owner trainer progressing through a life which includes 2 National Champions, numerous National Finalists, many FC-AFC competitors, and some of the most productive dogs in field trial history both male and female.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

A good dog is a good dog.


----------



## tigerfan (Mar 13, 2019)

ErinsEdge said:


> A good dog is a good dog.


Agreed!
There is a huge positive difference in the training/technology of our dogs
There likely may be a slight positive difference in the genetics over 5 10 or 20 generations of selective breeding


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

birddogn_tc said:


> I often hear people talk about how the FT game has changed over the years and that the dogs are now better than ever, etc. I am certain that is true. So it got me thinking about some older sires from the 90's (and maybe even older). For you die hard FT guys and gals, would a litter sired by a dog that had the highest level of success in the 90's interest you just the same as one sired by a dog that has achieved the highest level of success today? What about the 70's or 80's? (Honcho, etc). All of these dogs were spectacular for their time. Do they hold up against today's competition (marking, blinds, etc). I would assume they would (esp proven producers like Lean Mac) but I have no idea so I would love to hear some opinions.
> 
> Just thought this would be an interesting discussion and hearing from people who have been around the sport to see the evolution.


The FT game has changed no doubt about that. However, I believe the dogs that were good/great back then would be good/great today. 

I think one of the biggest changes would be competition. I believe the competition today is greater than it was in years past. JMHO


----------



## taeicher (Jun 25, 2017)

There are several areas worth considering:
1) The Individual Dog itself - If you consider "human athlete" changes in the last 50 years we are obviously bigger, stronger, faster, jump higher etc. considering the medical, nutritional and training advances among others. In animals you can add selective breeding.
2) Training and tools have advanced, coupled with the information age has made it available to the masses, leveling the playing field.
3) Tests: What has changed in the last 50 years with regards to test setups? How does what you might find at the Nationals today, compare with 1970?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Reginald said:


> The FT game has changed no doubt about that. However, I believe the dogs that were good/great back then would be good/great today.
> 
> I think one of the biggest changes would be competition. *I believe the competition today is greater than it was in years past. JMHO*




are you talking dogs or Amateur handlers ?....IMO the point is moot, like comparing Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays to Mike Trout and Bryce Harper


----------



## taeicher (Jun 25, 2017)

If the dogs aren't better today than they were 50 years ago haven't we all collectively failed as breeders, owners, trainers and judges?


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

BonMallari said:


> [/B]
> 
> are you talking dogs or Amateur handlers ?....IMO the point is moot, like comparing Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays to Mike Trout and Bryce Harper


There are more talented handlers, trainers and dogs than in years past.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

1)


> The Individual Dog itself - If you consider "human athlete" changes in the last 50 years we are obviously bigger, stronger, faster, jump higher etc. considering the medical, nutritional and training advances among others. In animals you can add selective breeding.


We have many more cruciate injuries than there were years ago and they are at a much younger age. You usually only heard of them in older dogs, and we still don't know the actual cause, if infectious, conformation, or a combination of factors with some appearing to run in lines. This may or may not influence breeding.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

ErinsEdge said:


> 1)
> 
> We have many more cruciate injuries than there were years ago and they are at a much younger age. You usually only heard of them in older dogs, and we still don't know the actual cause, if infectious, conformation, or a combination of factors with some appearing to run in lines. This may or may not influence breeding.


Do you think the cruciate injuries are due to genetics or how much more we are putting these dogs through? I have thought it was as much of what we do with them as anything. You don’t tear a cruciate sitting on the couch. With that said, I do think there is a genetic tendency there. I don’t know if it is a strength or athletic positive gene that puts undo stress on joints or a weak ligament gene for lack of a better word.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

EdA said:


> I am going to sit this one out for awhile and let others express their opinions. I think I have a unique perspective for this discussion beginning in 1970 as a novice owner trainer progressing through a life which includes 2 National Champions, numerous National Finalists, many FC-AFC competitors, and some of the most productive dogs in field trial history both male and female.





Don't sit this one out Ed lets hear it. There are few if any on here that is more qualified to answer this question.
Training has definitely evolved and I am sure the dogs have also but I believe the great ones of the past would be great today. I say this because I believe that about 70% of the dogs success should be credited to the dog while only 30% to it's training. The dog has to have all the ingredients before even started in training. 
I certainly don't have the major league experience when it comes to trials but I have enough minor league experience to know that the difference in the level of dogs comes from what's between the ears. I recently have had the privilege of watching a very special dog in the making. He won the open and the derby on the same weekend. He is trained and handled by Amie Henninger. I have the greatest respect for Amie and husband John as people as well as trainers but you just don't accomplish that just by training. John's words were "he just gets it". Not many dogs "just get it". I believe great talent is born not made. You cant make a silk purse out of a sows ear.


----------



## David Maddox (Jan 12, 2004)

Dr.Ed????????
Come on now. I'm waiting in anticipation!!!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

bjoiner said:


> Do you think the cruciate injuries are due to genetics or how much more we are putting these dogs through? I have thought it was as much of what we do with them as anything. You don’t tear a cruciate sitting on the couch. With that said, I do think there is a genetic tendency there. I don’t know if it is a strength or athletic positive gene that puts undo stress on joints or a weak ligament gene for lack of a better word.


I don't know but it exists and it didn't exist when I started. I think since I started with JVE and Lardy, that training has been the same, but maybe owners start them a little a little earlier now before sending to a pro. What's different is there are more people training themselves. Dr Ed has commented on the younger aspect of it happening. However, cruciates are up not just in the Labrador, but all breeds, mixed breeds, spayed and neutered, and so yes, it also can happen in over-weight pets. Part of the puzzle may be early training, quick stops in young dogs, but it can't be that entirely. I know in a puppy I look at rear end angulation, something I learned from horses. Maybe some of those lines don't have good rear end angulation but are very talented???

I agree completely with the statement that the really good dogs "just get it". That's what I heard long time ago from pros. There are more good AA trainers and the wins are spread around now every weekend, it is very competitive so trials have gotten more difficult, collars have changed, some methods have changed, the the super greats have the brains and are shown stuff once, get it, and move on. That's still the same. What's also the same is with all the breeding, the innate ability to "get it" is still elusive.


----------



## big trax (Mar 31, 2015)

Dr. Ed- I'd love to read your perspective. Like many here, I have zero experience from the old days. Heck, I just started running some Q's last year. My meaningless, baseless assumption would be that the dogs of old, if they had been trained the same way folks train today and if the trainers had the same gear we have today- would be competitive. How many puppies out of great litters go to hunting or hunt test homes? Nothing wrong with that, but my point is- we will never know what many of them could have been. Obviously, if we listen to the kennel goggle wearing owners - they would have all been national champs in the right hands lol. While I don't believe that is true, i very much believe there are dogs who truly could have been great if said dog had landed in the right hands. Great dogs have desire, trainability etc. The truly great ones are only limited by their training. Today- dogs are trained for difficult concept marking scenarios. Is that talent or training? I know I know...it is a combination, but who knows what might have been.


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

*Secretariat* still holds the fastest times in The Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Belmont Stakes.....*45 years later*. Just sayin'.

This is an interesting look into animals over time....basically keeping one constant to measure them by, going around a track. Training methods I am sure are better, nutrition I am sure is better, genetics better? (maybe), medicine definately better....but the evidence is what it is.


----------



## Ken Barton (Jun 7, 2010)

birddogn_tc said:


> I often hear people talk about how the FT game has changed over the years and that the dogs are now better than ever, etc. I am certain that is true. So it got me thinking about some older sires from the 90's (and maybe even older). For you die hard FT guys and gals, would a litter sired by a dog that had the highest level of success in the 90's interest you just the same as one sired by a dog that has achieved the highest level of success today? What about the 70's or 80's? (Honcho, etc). All of these dogs were spectacular for their time. Do they hold up against today's competition (marking, blinds, etc). I would assume they would (esp proven producers like Lean Mac) but I have no idea so I would love to hear some opinions.
> 
> Just thought this would be an interesting discussion and hearing from people who have been around the sport to see the evolution.


No, I think the great dogs would hold up and would still, with the modern training separate themselves like they did before likewise for Secretariat, Ben Hogan, Mickey Mantle etc. Cosmo, Chopper, Corky, Lottie, Lean Mac, Honcho, Super Chief etc. . Great dogs are great dogs.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Those great dogs from the past are in the pedigrees of the great dogs of the present. The genes haven't somehow gotten better. The tests have changed and the training has changed, but the dogs are the same. Maybe through breeding there is a higher percentage of dogs with a better combination of attributes (marking, intelligence, nose, etc.) than there were in the past, but I have to believe that the best dogs of each era would be great dogs today if they received the same care and training that the best current dogs receive.


----------



## NateB (Sep 25, 2003)

I have seen trials change in the past 15 years. I ran some in the early 2000s and again in 2015-17. They are harder but the best dogs still nail them. I don’t know about anyone else but I would take a Lottie, Corky or a King Buck in a heartbeat.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

NateB said:


> I have seen trials change in the past 15 years. I ran some in the early 2000s and again in 2015-17. They are harder but the best dogs still nail them. I don’t know about anyone else but I would take a Lottie, Corky or a King Buck in a heartbeat.


Add Soupy, Ray’s Rascal, Dandy, Honcho, Cody and his mother Kannonball Kate, Tank, Cork, and the list goes on and on and on........


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

EdA said:


> Add Soupy, Ray’s Rascal, Dandy, Honcho, Cody and his mother Kannonball Kate, Tank, Cork, and the list goes on and on and on........


...throw in a few brown dogs like Tiger, Cub and Ch[p all who would be Hall of Famers in any decade.


----------



## birddogn_tc (Apr 24, 2015)

EdA said:


> NateB said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen trials change in the past 15 years. I ran some in the early 2000s and again in 2015-17. They are harder but the best dogs still nail them. I don’t know about anyone else but I would take a Lottie, Corky or a King Buck in a heartbeat.
> ...


Dr Ed...would love for you to discuss how you have seen marking or anything else change during your career as related to setups. 

Were you seeing 300+ yard marks when you started? 

Are marks just more technical now? 

What was different about blinds? 

Would love to know your perspective.


----------



## Zach Fisher (Jan 16, 2015)

This is in the manual for American Field bird dog trials and was written by Bill Brown. It's kind of interesting that the zenith of pointing dogs probably occurred some time between the 50's and 70's. Today's dogs don't have the birds, the grounds to flourish and as a result the sport has kind of gone backwards save a few oasis locations.

But, I think the sentiment is valid.
The Real Purpose of Field TrialsFundamentally, the real purpose of field trials is breed improvement, and the elevation of pointing dog performance in the hunting field…
Among the vast number of outdoorsman interested in bird dog competitions, there are some who do not seem to have the faintest conception of the true purpose of field trials. Therefore, it might be well to stress that field trials were not instituted for the purpose of bringing to the front a dog or class of dogs eminently suited to the wants of the average gunner whose primary object in using a dog afield is to swell the game bag, regardless of the manner that his dog performs. Rather it is for the purpose of bringing to the notice of the public a class of performers best suited to perpetuate the most desired qualities possessed by the high-class field dog.
These dogs are not at all times the most desirable to shoot over, for the reason that their individuality is such that it cannot be dominated by the handler’s use of “foot-rule” methods, whereby a dog of subservient temperament is forced to range so many yards to the front, to the right or to the left without consulting his inclination or judgement. In some instances, the really high class field trial performer verges on the edge of bolting, so great is his ambition to find birds. While it is by no means our wish to encourage the development of such an undesirable trait, we feel certain that more harm will attend breeding from sires of soft, deferential dispositions than will accrue from the use of those whose independence is so great that it is with some difficulty they are persuaded to work to the gun in a manner satisfactory to the average sportsman.
_Field Trials, History, Management and Judging Standards, _page 149. Used by permission."
"


----------



## J. Marti (May 2, 2014)

Access to information has changed. Think of having to take time off of work, take time and money to travel, to train with a Carr or D.L. Walters or whomever. Now, folks can get books, videos, DVDs without ever moving out of their chair. To be able to access the information without spending thousands of dollars in travel money and taking time off work has got to be a huge game changer for everyone.


----------



## Ken Barton (Jun 7, 2010)

J. Marti said:


> Access to information has changed. Think of having to take time off of work, take time and money to travel, to train with a Carr or D.L. Walters or whomever. Now, folks can get books, videos, DVDs without ever moving out of their chair. To be able to access the information without spending thousands of dollars in travel money and taking time off work has got to be a huge game changer for everyone.


Ok, that aspect certainly has changed, not everyone can take the time to spend weeks or months with a Rex Carr but at the same time it’s easier to obtain the information. Look back at the 1957 National Amateur you saw a lot of woody sided station wagons and small pickups with people wearing LL Bean and Orvis with neck ties performing the tomahawk send and the tests resembling more of a hunt test than today’s field trials. So again it’s all relative, the same dogs would do well and the same chance of a single handler with a single dog beating an Olin with multiple dogs and a Cotton P albeit not likely so it’s still all relative but just on a much larger scale. Today you can have a single dog/ handler team in a pickup competing with an amateur with a 100 grand dog truck and a Lear and the former can still win. I guess that is why the majority of us still love and compete in this silly game.


----------



## Cooper (Jul 9, 2012)

Where do you think the good dogs today came from? Every once in a while this same question comes up. The good dogs of the past would not have a bit of trouble holding there own with today's dogs, period.


----------



## Cooper (Jul 9, 2012)

We have many more cruciate injuries than there were years ago and they are at a much younger age. You usually only heard of them in older dogs, and we still don't know the actual cause, if infectious, conformation, or a combination of factors with some appearing to run in lines. This may or may not influence breeding.

The reason for the injuries are that Field Trials today throw marks and blinds that are ridiculously long. Years ago the English coined the American field trials as like running in a circus. It is worse today. I will take the trials of the 70's over the cartoons of today.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Cooper said:


> We have many more cruciate injuries than there were years ago and they are at a much younger age. You usually only heard of them in older dogs, and we still don't know the actual cause, if infectious, conformation, or a combination of factors with some appearing to run in lines. This may or may not influence breeding.
> 
> The reason for the injuries are that Field Trials today throw marks and blinds that are ridiculously long. Years ago the English coined the American field trials as like running in a circus. It is worse today. I will take the trials of the 70's over the cartoons of today.


I received an email from a study of cruciate ruptures from the U of Wisconsin. "While many breeds are predisposedto develop ACL rupture, the disease is
particularly common in the Rottweiler" The dogs are usually not running those lengths of marks and blinds at the age they are getting the early cruciate injuries plus they are increasingly happening to breeds that aren't running FT.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Cooper said:


> . Years ago the English coined the American field trials as like running in a circus. It is worse today. I will take the trials of the 70's over the cartoons of today.



Nothing like nostalgia. No doubt you would prefer that the trainers still engaged in boot, shoot, and electocute. The training equipment is better. The dogs are more compliant. The training methodology is better. If you want separation, then the game must become harder. And so it is.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I received an email from a study of cruciate ruptures from the U of Wisconsin. "While many breeds are predisposedto develop ACL rupture, the disease is
> particularly common in the Rottweiler" The dogs are usually not running those lengths of marks and blinds at the age they are getting the early cruciate injuries plus they are increasingly happening to breeds that aren't running FT.


I have attempted to dispel the notion with logic that the increased incidence of cruciate injuries is related to work load when in fact the opposite would be true, conditioning makes muscles, tendons, and ligaments stronger not weaker. Many of these juvenile tears occur in dogs who have not even had repetitive basic training. I would also add that CCL injuries began to become increasingly common in the early 1990s when popularly used sires were used significantly more with the widespread use of frozen semen. There is no question in my mind that there is a significant genetic component and workload including distance is not a factor. When I first met NFC San Joaquin Honcho he was regularly roared 5 miles at least 5 days a week. If workload was an issue the problem would be epidemic in field trial Pointers.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Another point in the brochure they made 
"• Most ACL ruptures are associated with a
chronic inflammatory process in the knee
joint that causes progressive fraying of the
ACL until a complete rupture occurs.

• Lameness in one or both hind limbs is often
the first sign of ACL rupture. Onset may be
gradual or sudden.

• Surgery stabilizes the knee to limit further
joint damage. It does not cure the process
that caused the cruciate ligament to rupture." 

I actually live in a pocket where we don't have many ticks but I do use Seresto collars on my dogs now. I haven't had cruciate repairs except in 2 older dogs attempting to leap off and over hazards, trying to act like 2 year olds. Neither tore the other cruciate. The other process that has increased in a similar time period is tick borne disease. Any comments Dr Ed? What about rear angulation in that/those frequently used sires in offspring?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

The anatomical relationship has not been proved or disproved. For that factor I am skeptical. More important to me is family history. If an individual is normal but has a multigenerational history of CCL tears presents a dilemma for me when selecting a breeding. I know of breedings when that produced multiple CCL tears but when the individuals were bred to others no such relationship seems to exist. Risk versus reward has always presented a conundrum for me and I was wrong once but the ultimate goal is performance so a risk worth taking for me. Recognize your goals, recognize your level of risk taking, and make informed decisions.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

As this discussion has veered off course I would like to make what I consider an important observation. For me there is no question that great dogs from decades past would be great dogs today. The traits that made them great have not changed. What has changed is that we have a large number of very good talented dogs today but very few what I consider great dogs. When my field trial awareness began almost 50 years ago and for about 20 years after there were (percentage wise) more great dogs and fewer very good dogs. Maybe that was the result of extrinsic factors maybe not but undeniable.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

EdA said:


> As this discussion has veered off course I would like to make what I consider an important observation. For me there is no question that great dogs from decades past would be great dogs today. The traits that made them great have not changed. What has changed is that we have a large number of very good talented dogs today but very few what I consider great dogs. When my field trial awareness began almost 50 years ago and for about 20 years after there were (percentage wise) more great dogs and fewer very good dogs. Maybe that was the result of extrinsic factors maybe not but undeniable.



Bravo !!!!!!!! Dr A, spot on assessment


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

EdA said:


> The anatomical relationship has not been proved or disproved. For that factor I am skeptical. More important to me is family history. If an individual is normal but has a multigenerational history of CCL tears presents a dilemma for me when selecting a breeding. I know of breedings when that produced multiple CCL tears but when the individuals were bred to others no such relationship seems to exist. Risk versus reward has always presented a conundrum for me and I was wrong once but the ultimate goal is performance so a risk worth taking for me. Recognize your goals, recognize your level of risk taking, and make informed decisions.


We had a local who bought some really nice pups & would time & again end up with the only 1 in the litter 
not being able to pass OFA. That individual worked the puppies very hard over some rough terrain. It's my 
belief that young dogs need to mature some before really being worked hard. 



EdA said:


> As this discussion has veered off course I would like to make what I consider an important observation. For me there is no question that great dogs from decades past would be great dogs today. The traits that made them great have not changed. What has changed is that we have a large number of very good talented dogs today but very few what I consider great dogs. When my field trial awareness began almost 50 years ago and for about 20 years after there were (percentage wise) more great dogs and fewer very good dogs. Maybe that was the result of extrinsic factors maybe not but undeniable.


Agree!

I started in the early 60's when it was more fun. A dog out of a good breeding rarely went for over $200 as a pup.
People bred to the local stud & the best local bitches were in high demand. IMO, overusing prolific sires does nothing 
to forward the breed as they are bred too much & ends up homogenizing the gene pool. 

Transport was harder as the Interstate system was not available so entries in out of the way places could tend to be 
small. With the homes on wheels aspect today one can do a circuit in a lot of comfort & with the demographic that 
retires young with a good & assured income there is no risk that one can overdo. 

Training aids are readily available & if you are lucky there are some very knowledgeable people available to assist one 
on their dog journey. Many people are willing to share what they know to the receptive. But even the veteran trainers 
can learn a thing or two about dog behavior from folks who have seen different setups on unique grounds. 

I could have bought Butte's Blue Moon for $300 at the State trial when he was a little over a year old. Had I not had 
another dog I would have. Would he have been a NFC @ 4 1/2, definitely not, as my goal was to have a good hunting 
dog with good manners. A month later after winning his 1st Derby, all that changed. It's a lot of circumstance. If you 
don't have at least $20K to spend yearly, good accessible grounds & quality help from others you won't get there as 
even the great ones need to be trained. 

There is a difference between a star & a superstar dog, most will never understand that nor have the ability to make 
the superstars show their wares. Long is not necessarily as big a challenge as well placed shorter birds, which we saw 
a lot of when I started. 

Judging is the one aspect of the sport that has not kept up! Does one want to put the effort into making a quality 
performer when the folks holding the book are in many case, unqualified.


----------



## birddogn_tc (Apr 24, 2015)

EdA said:


> What has changed is that we have a *large number of very good talented dogs today* *but very few what I consider great dogs*. When my field trial awareness began almost 50 years ago and for about 20 years after there were (percentage wise) more great dogs and fewer very good dogs. Maybe that was the result of extrinsic factors maybe not but undeniable.



A few questions: 

1: You said you believe that many years ago, there were more GREAT dogs and fewer just "very good dogs" (percentage wise). Could this be due to more breeding's occurring now than 20 years ago? Maybe watered down? However, it still seems the best litters still go to the hard core Field Trial homes, so from that standpoint, those dogs would be on pro trucks and/or with the best Am's and running trials so maybe the watered down pedigree theory might not hold true for this venue? 

2. What, in your opinion, classifies a dog as GREAT vs VERY GOOD. I clearly understand the obvious (superior marking, consistency, etc)...I am also looking for you to elaborate on...Age. Does that factor into your greatness equation? Also, how early do you know or not know that a dog may be truly GREAT. What other things might make you believe a dog is GREAT that might not be so obvious? Or is it as simple as how many trials they are winning vs entering? etc?


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Ed - do you think the fact that training has improved so much in the last 30 yrs that we are now able to take 'very good dogs' much further than they might have gone in previous years has some to do with your above statement? 30 plus yrs ago, I would imagine it took a very naturally gifted animal to be highly successful..... Perhaps back then, if today's training methods were available, there would also have been more 'very good dogs' ???


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Tobias said:


> Ed - do you think the fact that training has improved so much in the last 30 yrs that we are now able to take 'very good dogs' much further than they might have gone in previous years has some to do with your above statement? 30 plus yrs ago, I would imagine it took a very naturally gifted animal to be highly successful..... Perhaps back then, if today's training methods were available, there would also have been more 'very good dogs' ???


And with the fact there are more 'very good dogs', are the trials each weekend are tougher to win/place? A great dog will win when they're at the top of their game, but can be had by some very good dogs when they have a B performance. I would say there are few dogs running right now that are on their way to being 'great'. Look at the consistency of Robby Bickley's Mickey. You just don't have the performance record he's had for the last year without being something special.


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

Well another "Older Pedigree" just gives us another data point.

_NAFC FC Kirkwoods Ace of Lonestar._...out of *Aces High*...doesn't get much more old school than that.


----------



## birddogn_tc (Apr 24, 2015)

Mike W. said:


> Well another "Older Pedigree" just gives us another data point.
> 
> _NAFC FC Kirkwoods Ace of Lonestar._...out of *Aces High*...doesn't get much more old school than that.


Very cool stuff!


----------



## jforqueran (Apr 12, 2015)

Mike W. said:


> Well another "Older Pedigree" just gives us another data point.
> 
> _NAFC FC Kirkwoods Ace of Lonestar._...out of *Aces High*...doesn't get much more old school than that.


She would be out of Mad Rivers Super Nova and by Aces High!


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

jforqueran said:


> She would be out of Mad Rivers Super Nova and by Aces High!


Post a pedigree please.


----------



## jforqueran (Apr 12, 2015)

Marvin S said:


> Post a pedigree please.



https://huntinglabpedigree.com/pedigree.asp?id=63001


----------



## Tom O (Jan 22, 2015)

*The Game Changers*



EdA said:


> I am going to sit this one out for awhile and let others express their opinions. I think I have a unique perspective for this discussion beginning in 1970 as a novice owner trainer progressing through a life which includes 2 National Champions, numerous National Finalists, many FC-AFC competitors, and some of the most productive dogs in field trial history both male and female.


I am certainly not as knowledgeable or experienced as Dr. Aycock, but I have been running retrievers for over 50 years and my first mentor was a great one, Dottie Metcalf. I have trained my own dogs, used pros, and employed a hybrid of both ways. I noticed some analogies to sports in the Forum, but I think the best comparison is to golf. 50 or so years ago, a bunch of competitors of both these pursuits would show up, but realistically few had the talent and skill to win. Think- Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Sam Sneed and Soupy, King Buck, and Corky. Then the techniques, equipment, and conditioning all changed dramatically and we got Tiger Woods and Lottie. Have you noticed that many of today's PGA pros are the children of Club/PGA pros? Now it seems that on any weekend any one of 20 or so PGA pros might win and at a weekend Trial the same 20 dogs, more or less, are usually the ones that get called back to the water blind and ultimately win. Genes/Training???


----------

