Continued .......

4. Parentage of highly inbred and outcross champions.

Here we investigate the parentage of the two most extreme groups of champions so far as inbreeding is concerned, the most inbred group (over 10% inbreeding) and the total outcross group (0% inbreeding). The results are shown in Table 3 and can be combined in a variety of ways for assessment. However, surely the most striking finding is that 8 of the 33 inbred champions are double-champion bred (both parents champions) whereas the frequency of champions with this high calibre of parentage is almost absent from the outcross group. Among the latter there is only one of double-champion parentage among the total of 76.

Further investigation of the 8 inbred champions with double-champion parentage reveals other interesting facts. In all 8 cases the sires may be regarded as having been top sires of the breed, each having produced at least 3 champion progeny. Even more impressive is the fact that as a group the dams were exceptional producers; only 2 had not produced other champions or CC winners (1 case only) from other matings either with the same or different sires.

In effect, none of these 8 champions could be thought of as lucky or chance events. They were all derived from matings from which something good could essentially be expected; they all had exceptional breeding behind them on both sides of their pedigrees.

At the other end of the scale there were 9 inbred champions with non-champion parents (Table 3). This does not give a completely different picture because 6 of the 9 were produced by highly successful stud dogs (sires of at least 2 champions) that had not, for whatever reason, attained titles themselves. And both parents of another were RCC winners. Thus, only 2 of the 9 were progeny of relatively undistinguished parents.

Contrast this with the background of the 14 outcross champions with non-champion parents. Although 5 were again sired by top-producing males (mostly the same dogs as involved in the inbred group) and one had RCC winning parents, the remaining 8 were of undistinguished parentage. Certainly, therefore, in comparing the extremes we find a clear trend; the inbred champions do indeed tend to have a much higher calibre of parentage than those of outcross champions even though there is a high proportion of champion parents (Table 3) and top sires in the latter group.

So, what conclusions can be drawn from these findings? The principal conclusion would seem to be that for any reasonable chance of success with inbreeding, at least one and probably both parents should be excellent animals in their own right, and be good producers. So far as outcrossing is concerned, the chances of achieving success with unexceptional animals is higher than with inbreeding but it should be noted that even with this form of breeding, champions are still more likely to be produced by champions than by non-champions (see also sections 1 & 2).

5. The top sires

We have concerned ourselves so far with how the champions have been bred but in this section we investigate the background and breeding of the top producers, be they champions, non-champions, or imports. We confine this study to males, since only males have a reasonable chance of demonstrating their breeding ability, and we will consider only those dogs that have produced 3 or more champion progeny. This limitation keeps the list down to treasonable numbers and avoids the inclusion of most up and coming younger dogs.

In the near-40 years that this study spans a total of 31 dogs have sired 3 or more champions. They are identified in Table 4 and listed in order of the number of champions they have produced. Consider first the ‘quality’ of these dogs. The majority (19) were champions (including 1 imported champion), 6 others were imports and only 6 were British non-champions. We can add that 3 of these non-champions were CC winners. The findings therefore support the conclusions drawn from sections 1 & 2; the best specimens of the breed are the most likely to produce the best progeny.

Consider now the levels of inbreeding of these 31 top sires (Table 4). Here there is no consistent pattern; some dogs were highly inbred, others were moderately inbred and yet others derived from total outcrosses. The ability to produce is therefore not dependent upon the amount of inbreeding but it should be added that, as a group, these top sires were slightly more inbred than were the champions generally (compare with Table 2) and proportionally fewer were products of outcrossing.

Finally, consider the parentage of the top sires and give particular attention to the 9 uniquely successful dogs that have produced 6 or more champion progeny. Note that, of these, 5 were double-champion bred, only 3 had only one champion parent, and for one top sire with non-champion parents we can add that both his parents were CC winners. Such a consistent pattern of high quality parentage strongly suggests that this is one major contributory factor responsible for the exceptional breeding performance of these dogs.

Comments and Conclusions

In this article we have looked at some aspects of the background and breeding of past British Boxer champions and the top sires of the breed. This study cannot be regarded as complete or final and it is not as exact as one would like but we have asked a few pertinent questions and obtained some meaningful answers.

From sections 1 & 2 we found evidence to suggest that champions are liable to be better producers than non-champions. Perhaps this conclusion could be disputed but should it not be expected that the best dogs should on average produce the best progeny? Conversely, would anyone argue that excellence should be more commonly expected from mediocrity.

From section 4 we found that the major factor contributing to a dog's breeding worth beyond his own show quality is that of the show quality of his parents – both his parents. Again, is this not precisely what should be expected? The findings simply indicate that the best dogs with the best parentage are likely to be the best producers and, of course, this should apply equally well to bitches.

From section 3 we found that inbreeding is not the key to success it is often claimed to be. Despite the common practice of many breeders to inbreed as a matter of policy, or "blindly" tie-in to some perhaps unknown dog or blood-line, a very high proportion of the champions have been derived from outcrosses. Surely this too can be easily understood. Relatives are liable to have faults in common and therefore, by "blindly" following blood-lines or not selecting related stud dogs carefully enough, faults are reproduced, possibly made worse, and "fixed".

From section 4 we found how inbreeding can be employed successfully. The golden rule is that the parents should be excellent specimens of the breed… preferably both parents… and it should go without saying that they should not have faults in common. Inbreeding on excellence may therefore produce excellence.

Also from section 4 we found that champions can be produced from undistinguished parents more frequently with outcrossing than with inbreeding. Is this not understandable? With outcrossing the parents are far less likely to have faults in common. However, even with outcrossing we found that champions played a major role in producing champions.

Finally, from section 5 we found that inbreeding adds very little towards the ability to produce and this will apply equally to both sexes. Instead, we found the consistent repeating pattern: the best specimens, with the best parentage (and no doubt grand-parentage), are most likely to be the best producers.

Surely the above is the key message derived from this study of the champions, and is it not in accord with the philosophy of that great lady of Boxers, Dibbie Somerfield? Her recommendation for success was - "just keep putting the good ‘uns together and you can't go far wrong".