Just personal opinion from personal experiences. I won't give names of unsuccessful sires but.

Broodie 1
* Litter one to what turned out to be an average sire she produced a couple of city class dogs and a 30.30 tab winner
* Litter two to Kilty Lad (I like him but mixed opinion) she produced 4 group class ability, a city winner and tab winners (10/11 were tab or better winners. Other one broke down early)
* Litter 3 to what turned out to be a very average sire 2 out of 7 in the litter broke their maiden and the litter won 3 races combined

Broodie 2
* Litter one to Aston Dee Bee 3 had group class ability with 1 actually winning a group 1. 2 won city races and every dog in the litter to race made FFA/best 8 tab grade minimum (one passed as a pup due to cancer and another one broke down before starting)
*Litter two to an average sire 3/5 broke their maiden. Admittedly one had good ability but didn't try (won 3 buy could break 30.00 on trial day. So was tab class borderline city class) and one smashed her stopper her first start and she was definitely city class

If they were Up Hill Jill or elusive rebel they would produce to anything because they're just freaks. But overall the sires job is only to not mess things up for the broodie

That's cos I thought it was off topic as this topics about damlines, and I've been accused b4. lol.

My understanding is that each dog has 38 different types of chromosomes plus the sex pairing chromes. So no two dogs will be the same.
==================================================================

Matt, if you go to random sires without trying to match up their bloodlines isn't that what you shld expect ?

Thats a cop out

Dundee Osprey showed the power of it here in Australia 3 x 4. Youre now seeing Hooked On Scotch carrying it on in Postman Pat.

Its convenient to disregard Kinloch Brae, but he first produced a quality sire in Ballymac Vic and then Vic passed on the baton to Dorotas Wildcat.

Were never going to find common ground, because IMO, you must look at the entire pedigree. Not just the Aussie factor! Thorn Falcon has fireworks all over his pedigree and its in Kinloch Brae. as much as its in the x path Nobooth For Gary.

You have been talking about sires in this topic to prove your theory

You say its genetics but you are happy to hang your hat on replicating one set of chromosones by breeding back to it with different individuals containing the same remote set

Therefore, as there are 38 different types of chromosones, how does isolating a certain set of chromosones in a particular pattern actually guarantees, or at least improves your chances to get a superior animal

You appear to be ignoring the rest of the chromosones at your own discretion that actually could prove vital to the make up of the finished product and complement the genes that parent actually carries

There is no conclusive evidence in what you are doing because you are looking for individuals that suit your argument, what about the failures that meet your criteria?

Its easy to say its genetics but unless you can recreate what you are professing then its just hearsay

Your theory seems to fail to take into account the evolution of new branches of lines and new lines introduced to the gene pool, but because the gene pool is so narrow when you go back 20 generations, of course you will find individuals with the intensity to back your theory up... the reason is because they are everywhere even in what seems to be new lines introduced.

It really just looks like a fancy way of line-breeding because the further back you go, the more the greyhounds are bred with the same lines that the modern greyhound evolved from

In saying that, you still can't answer my question

Because if your theory held true then each brother and each sister would be producing identically by isolating the so called superior genes in the x- path and intensifying them with another individual bred virtually the same to give you the breeding parallel you desire

The question is, why doesn't this happen?

Nice Ryan , like I say interesting debate , obviously there is factual scientific proof a male to a male in breeding sons, there is no way of x passing on , so to me it says a son cannot receive his fathers full genetics and his grandfathers etc , so for any stud having his entire sire line canceled out is quite head scratching ! Thats all

Look at Stanley road

This theory says head honcho , Brett lee and awesome assassin all get canceled out due to father to a son cannot pass on his own genetics

Yet looking at the breeding and mating and percentages , it states these are the major common genetics being reinforced ?

I dont know Ryan , like I say , good debate

I will disagree with the Kc and all being the greatest outcross dog , to often he produces 1 dog in a litter and the rest are zeros ! Eg . Orson Allen , Too many of Kcs runners are cats also . Poeple will pay 25k for a straw , laughable

Bella infrared produced full litters, if there was another 200 straws he would produce another 10 sires like Aussie infrared that produce pups with hard chase !

Ps . Dont see too many superior panamas with week in week out hard chase !

Honestly I'm not really interested in common ground.

NFG is in x but I haven't even looked at what the primary linebreeding in that ped is in the x path thru litterm8's top and bottom. It may not involve even NFG. The most obvious response to your question was the one I gave.

I just try to create intensity and vigour within a ped thru either a recognised breeding theory that's logical or genetics. That's what I focus on. It's not that unreasonable to ask people to explain the specifics of what THEY claim and WHY it occurs, is it?

Everything you've claimed in this post I've quoted above you've just stated. Do you know either logically or genetically why that occurs?

If not that's fine. You run with it if you want but you won't be convincing me to do it because there's no logic or genetics in your facts that makes sense to me. You're just saying it's there.

Please, I'm not trying to be offensive. I'm just questioning. Cheers.

Im interested in putting my ideas well into practice. Not for one single pat on the back! Rather, to prove to myself and myself alone, whether what I think Im doing is correct or not. Even my much maligned MLadys Fool, I still bred a Group 1 class dog from her to a complete outcross. I used to go over and over that pedigree, when the pups were growing up, saying man Ive nailed that pedigree. But, obviously that was only me getting off on what I was looking at on paper. Until they hit the racetrack, I really didnt know what it might produce? It was a great sense of personal satisfaction watching him winning a heat of the National Derby running down Silent Guardian.

Which begs the question, absolutely no offence intended either, but do you breed or just theorise?? It would be good for us all to see what you actually sprout working in your own creation, especially at an elite level, isnt that logical??

When I do a mating plan for my broods, I dont allow any outside influence to cloud my judgement. I.E I dont copy as youve mentioned elsewhere. I dissect and analyse the entire pedigree and then go look for proof of what I think works, actually works. Im all about proving things to myself. So not just stating, as your saying.

I thought by showing Larkhill Jo reinforced back into Droopys Kewell was giving logical examples? In three separate countries - UK, Aus, NZ.

Yes but the dams of those sires nicking with sires previously successful with those damlines. On topic.

Sandro Bechini wrote:

You say its genetics but you are happy to hang your hat on replicating one set of chromosones by breeding back to it with different individuals containing the same remote set

You'll have to be more specific.
If you're talking about x path that's not the only thing I try to include in a ped.

Sandro Bechini wrote:

Therefore, as there are 38 different types of chromosones, how does isolating a certain set of chromosones in a particular pattern actually guarantees, or at least improves your chances to get a superior animal You appear to be ignoring the rest of the chromosones at your own discretion that actually could prove vital to the make up of the finished product and complement the genes that parent actually carries

This distinctly sounds like Graeme but I'll answer it in good faith.

They are the chromes that are evident to the eye in a ped. I've listed the conerstone broods in Aus breeding history many times. They are in the Tranquil Flame topic.

Sandro Bechini wrote:

There is no conclusive evidence in what you are doing because you are looking for individuals that suit your argument, what about the failures that meet your criteria?

No I looked at household names in Aus greyhound history.

Sandro Bechini wrote:

Its easy to say its genetics but unless you can recreate what you are professing then its just hearsay

My clients have

Sandro Bechini wrote:

Your theory seems to fail to take into account the evolution of new branches of lines and new lines introduced to the gene pool, but because the gene pool is so narrow when you go back 20 generations, of course you will find individuals with the intensity to back your theory up... the reason is because they are everywhere even in what seems to be new lines introduced. It really just looks like a fancy way of line-breeding because the further back you go, the more the greyhounds are bred with the same lines that the modern greyhound evolved from

I just look at what's there

Sandro Bechini wrote:

In saying that, you still can't answer my question Because if your theory held true then each brother and each sister would be producing identically by isolating the so called superior genes in the x- path and intensifying them with another individual bred virtually the same to give you the breeding parallel you desire The question is, why doesn't this happen?

I have answered your question but you don't appear to want to accept my answer.
You seem to be hung up on x path. The evidence is in the Tranquil Flame topic as previously stated and all those household name dogs are linebred in x. That's a valid genetic reason. If you don't want to accept it, that's up to you Sandro. Cheers.

I hide from no matings Ive done. Its the only way you can be truthful to yourself. I even put my latest success up after being challenged, before the brood came in season! When I had my pedigree service. I used to keep a strike rate of mating plans implemented. I wasnt interested in taking peoples money, without delivering!

P.s I didnt enter this topic to look to pick on you! Rather, found it interesting the disregard for the importance of outcross to a pedigree. In particular the Trojan Tears dam line. I would never have put Droopys Hope to Barcia Bale without the outcrossed dam line! The result an extremely fast dog, that no one got to see just how fast he was - instead he did his toe, hock and died of a twisted bowel.

No, I don't breed anymore as I dont train. Just too hard when they comeback injured and got nowhere to put them. I only have 7 acres but a license to keep only 5 dogs.

Brent was kind enuf to give me public credit for the National Distance Champion on this site https:/ CLICK HERE He's the best. There have been other top city types whose peds I've been involved with in my business, so can't state publicly, as at the end of the day the owner makes the final sire choice.
There was an interesting case whereby I didn't do the ped but liked the linebreeding that much I talked his owner into not selling the dog at 10 mths of age. It almost won $250k.

As I said re the copying, call it replicating if you want, I really wasn't trying to be insulting. It's just a term if the result looks like the ped of another dog, as I said I've done it myself with success and I take your point re a way of cross checking.

Re Larkhill, I look at it as just being a stat, again I need a logical or genetic reason. I suppose it's genetics to some extent. Cheers.

PS. Just saw you post above. Not into pissing contests Darren. As I said take it or leave it. Many examples listed in the 'Trends in Breeding' topic

They were thought out and far from just random sires

It's only more recently after getting more nonnies than you'd expect considering the broodies chase that I've gone away from what I think matches best on paper and more towards a small handful of dogs that won a Melbourne cup or Australia cup (blood tested) or I know could gallop on merits. Then find which one looks best bloodline wise out of the dogs I'd trust

Thats pretty ordinary not to credit someone elses knowledge! Only had one that resented me publishing my mating plan. That was my best result G1 winning track record holder Romeo Expert. Got the breeder his first ever G1 winner, after years from trying. What I found interesting, thanks to all the negative talk about Collision on Greyhound-Data, it took a lot of convincing for the breeder to do the mating. Why I gave it away. Its a thankless and time consuming job! Why breeding my own, will do me just fine!

For sure, totally agree. You need to pick the right type of brood. btw open to suggestions there.lol. My best advice was to use a no nonsense well conformed brood.

I use the sires dam to create intensity with a sire that's previously nicked with the damline. The sire is only a vehicle to get me what I want from his dam(s).

When I look back at Romeo Expert and a host of Group class dogs in the litter. It was the broods second mating and my only involvement with the brood. After a failed first litter to Droopys Kewell and then the breeder went to Droopys Maldini for again an ordinary 3rd litter. Im only guessing, but I suspect after the Collision success. It might have prompted the breeder to stick to Australian sires thereafter???? Either way, as good as a brood might potentially be. The term shed throw to a cattle dog, is BS! And I make no apologies for publishing, the success of Romeo Expert.