Best to Best
(Internet Published) Aug 2000
Mating best to best? This sounds very logical but opens up a field of
conjecture. The best that a man has may not be "the best." All too often,
the best is like the worst. A man may spend many years without ever having
the best. For example, take the ideal Tipplers--supposed to be bred for time
flying--the USA record is 18 hours 5 mins. The British record is 22 hrs 5
mins. Before year 1900 tipplers were known occasionally to do 18 hours in
Sheffield notwithstanding the fact that very often they failed to drop at
the loft, after such a feat.
One may think that such specimens as these were the best too good, in fact.
I put it to you that if a kit of Tipplers does a really fantastic time, but
then fails to drop at the loft, there is something radically wrong. The
tipplers may be too highly strung and too nervous, or their training has
been at fault. The clearance signals which include droppers maybe
inadequate. I put it to you, that such Tipplers as these are "potentially
the best" but they also may have a very serious fault, a fault that cannot
be controlled EVEN by ace management.
Take the cases of Mr. Brian White of Sheffield England, who lost 60 young
Tipplers in one year. Mr. Martin Lewis of Sheffield also lost 60 during the
same year. Mr. Ton Dilks lost 70 in one year, and he, as a very close friend
of the famous Gordon Hughes told me that Gordon Hughes of Derby England,
also lost a lot of birds. All 4 men flew the so-called Gordon Hughes strain
which flew 20 hours for White, Dilks and for Hughes with Lewis exceeding 19
hours several times. A clear case of 4 men who had the best, but this BEST
certainly had a control failure which resulted in unacceptable losses and
disqualifications with times in excess of 20 hours. Dilks was disqualified
at 22:05, the world record time if he could have only been able to drop
them. A clear case of the best being the worst--unless--some system of
control could be adopted.
Now, one may believe that these men would breed best to best, if they still
had any left, but I know that these men produced culls, which simply failed
to respond to training, nevertheless such as these very often, produced some
excellent specimens when mated.
Therefore one breeds from the best that one has, in the hopes of something
turning up. Without ace management the very best will fail and even with ace
management inferior specimens will fail. When a fancier becomes too pedigree
minded and too faithful to a particular strain, I believe that he will get
nowhere--very very slowly.
I know very well that the strain makers of England used to accept birds from
other successful fanciers as long as they liked such specimens and such
specimens came up tom their own expectations. So you see, there never were
any Pure strains. Gordon Hughes for example exchanged birds with Arthur
Newton and another man in Wales whose name escapes me at this moment. This
is the way it was in England. So the idea of a pure strain--retained in the
USA--is unsafe at foundation level. The bottom line surely is that pedigree
alone is no key to success. One has the likeliest RAW MATERIAL to work with
and that is all.
If these "bests" or "ideals" result in losses of outrageous proportions such
as stated by White, Lewis, Dilks and Hughes--plus a lot of these soul
destroying disqualifications, then a declare that something is radically
wrong. (1) The birds have a serious fault (2) the training imprinting and
general management is at serious fault. MAYBE BOTH. As I said "This opens up
a field of conjecture" and I am certainly available for debate. What I've
said, is a matter of logic not intended to offend.
The old timers of England exported their birds, not their dedication and
selective pressures.