What do you look for!???

Chances are, I'd keep him matched another time or two. That would be first. Then, if I thought the competition he made it look easy with was GOOD competition, I MIGHT breed him if he is solid all around and behind him. And if he is bred here within my family of scruffy tails, I would already know that part.

What I have done before with an easy winner or two is put them under a little more duress than they've encountered to date. Then, if he is much more than just a front runner, I'd entertain breeding him.

Normally, as far as breeding goes, I have what I call my gray area...................whereby not enough of a look is not going to work, and too much then you don't have a dog. That gray area should be rather close to the latter of those two. Experience is your friend in these deep looks as much as it is with your winability looks. So is being honest with yourself.

 

I've never bred to curs cause I had good game proven winning studs, but the most important thing was family,who bred the dog and what family did it come from.
I didn't mind breeding a bitch based on her pedigree only, at least once to see if she could produce but she had to be from a very good female family and her daddy had to be a good producing bulldog and even more a winning bulldog who threw winners.
But in my experience the best studs were most often also the best performers, that's how you get and keep ability in your dogs, performance in your sire and in your brood sire.

 

Aaah good. Not just me. I wasn't sure if Poor meant a rough dog, strong dog, or literally, a horse. LMAO

 

Ok. Take thoroughbred racehorses for instance. Seattle Slew, very modest yearling with an good but not great pedigree, sold for $17,000 dollars which ain't much even in his day. His performance was incredible not just winning the triple crown but proving his 'gameness' and displaying an incredible will to dominate his competition.
He in turn didn't just become a great stud he became the greatest stud in his day.
Why???
He had the will. It's all about the will that a stud can pass to his offspring, that's the truth and its proven in performance. He threw horses that not only had the ability to run they had the will and they in turn could reproduce it in their offspring.
That's the bottom line in performance breeds don't matter if its horses, dogs etc its the will to win you look for, without it you're second place.

 

Depends, PFK. I've known large dogs that were the only large dogs in their nucleus of dogs, and didn't throw "horses". I'd want that more than one from a family of traditionally large dogs.

 

Can't be said any better. A winning dog and a breeding dog can be one in the same, but at the same time can be miles apart. If I am standing on top of an all out freak that nothing has stayed with for any amount of time. We are going on a ride together. Maybe he has only waded out to knee-deep water and maybe I am not so sure he is my new foundation dog, but we ride the same. And like BB said, once we decide to take that ride the goal is to ride back together. S

 

"A winning dog and a breeding dog can be one in the same, but at the same time, be miles apart."

My point exactly.

 

2:40 is a long time. That is why personal knowledge is important in these dogs. Perceptions can be deceiving...

2:40 on a stud advertisement pretty much indicates a game dog. Desirable.

2:40 of swapping spit (as you indicated) not so desirable.

A 2:40 win on a resume looks good as the overwhelming majority of the people who see it in a pedigree or a stud service never actually see the dog.