Search

Between 1939, when Ch. Horsa of Leith Hill became the first Boxer to gain his title in this country, and 1978, a total of 309 Boxer dogs and bitches have become British champions. A glance at their photographs in the British Boxer Club record book and later year book shows them to be a rather mixed group. They represent a wide range of types, they show the varying influences of successive importations of Dutch, German, American and other bloodlines and, of course, over the years they have changed considerably, as has the breed as a whole, from the thicker, stockier animals of the early days to the leggier, more elegant present-day versions. Clearly, too, at any point in time some champions have been much better than others, but despite all the diversity, it can probably be fairly claimed that within this select group of dogs are the best there have been in the breed, of whatever type, bloodline, or generation. In this article, we look at the background and breeding of these dogs with the object of finding out if there are any common patterns to the way they have been bred that could be applied in the future with some hope of similar success. We look for general rules or guidelines for successful breeding.

Let us begin with a study of the parentage of the champions. Table 1 lists 9 different categories of parentage, distinguished on the basis of champion, non-champion and imported sires and dams, and indicates how many of the 309 champions investigated fall within each category. It may be seen that the great majority, 198 (176 + 12 + 10), had at least one parent who was a champion; a total of 68 (46 + 12 + 10) had at least one parent who was an import; and finally, only 65 had British non-champion parents.

This last figure seems remarkably low when one considers that:

• There were no champions to breed from in the early days.
• The contribution of all such eminently successful show dogs as CC and RCC winners are included in the non-champion parent category.
• A very small number of top-producing males who were neither champions nor CC winners produced quite a large number of champions, and
• The numbers of non-champions in the breed has always vastly exceeded the numbers of champions.

Therefore, what do these results mean? Two interpretations can be offered:

1. The champions represent the best of the British-bred Boxers in the country, the imports – historically, at least – have been superior to the British-breds, and therefore, the results show that the best specimens of the breed are the most likely to produce the best progeny.
2. Or, since the biggest influence of the champions and imports as parents has been achieved through dogs rather than through bitches (Table 1), the results only mean that champions and imported dogs get most of the stud work.

Which of these interpretations is the most likely to be correct? Short of access to a suitably programmed Kennel Club computer to check on the distribution of stud work, there is no good, direct way of finding the answer. However, we can approach the problem in another way by restricting our study to bitches. A champion bitch is surely unlikely to produce more pups than a non-champion bitch. Therefore, we can investigate how successful the champion bitches have been in producing champions.

Referring again to Table 1, we can see that 39 (20 + 7 + 12) of the 309 champions had champion dams, a total of 17 (4 + 3 + 10) had imported dams, and the great majority, 253 (149 + 39 + 65), have been the progeny of non-champion British dams. Does the small contribution by the champions and imports mean that they are generally poor producers? Surely not! Rather the opposite must be true since there have only been 150 champion bitches in the breed compared with perhaps thousands of non-champion bitches who have produced pups destined for the championship show ring. Despite being a tiny minority of the breeding population, the champion bitches have produced more than one-in-ten of the champions. As a group they have therefore been far better producers than the non-champions and it should be expected that this performance should be at least matched by champion dogs. The predominance of champions with at least one champion parent observed in the parentage study (section 1, Table 1) can therefore most reasonably be interpreted to mean that generally, the best specimens of the breed produce the best progeny, but a greater use of champion dogs for stud is surely also partly responsible.

Our inbreeding investigation is limited to the 195 champions that have been made up over the years 1960 – 1978, because only for these dogs have we been able to obtain complete 4-generation pedigrees. Inbreeding levels have been calculated for each dog using a formula developed for farm animal breeding, and so that the values can be appreciated in conventional dog breeding terms, the following may be used for reference:

Inbreeding coefficients with close breeding

brother x sister                  -          25%

half-brother x half-sister      -         12.5%

son x g’daughter                -           6.25%

g’son x g’dauther                -           3.13%

g’ g’son x g’ g’daughter        -           1.56%

The advantage of the calculated values is that they allow quantification of the inbreeding in complex situations such as when animals are multiply inbred to a number of different ancestors.

The results are shown in Table 2, from which we can see that almost half of the champions (87/195) were derived from matings which were effectively complete outcrosses. A rather smaller proportion (75/195) show some moderate degree of inbreeding, but relatively few of the champions can be considered as closely inbred. Generally, there is a clear trend toward fewer champions as inbreeding increases.

What do these results mean? Does the high proportion of outcross champions simply mean that inbreeding is avoided by breeders? Well, we all know that this is far from the case and that the reverse is true; the standard practice is to inbreed. Therefore, could the imports be responsible for the high number of outcross champions? Again, this is not true: Of the 76 total outcross champions (i.e. those with 0% inbreeding), only 21 have been progeny of imports. Most of the progeny of imports show some degree of inbreeding because of the custom of mating daughters of Dutch imports to other Dutch imports, daughters of American imports to other American imports, etc. It would therefore seem that inbreeding as commonly used is not the key to success that it is claimed to be. So why are so many of the champions derived from outcrosses? Why does inbreeding sometimes work, yet presumably most times does not? Some answers are provided by the results of the following study.

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). 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 caliber of parentage is almost absent from the outcross group. Among the latter, there is only one of double-champion parentage among the total of 75.

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 in the breed, each having produced at least 3 champion progeny. Even more impressive is the fact that as a group, the dams also 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 inbred champions could be thought of as lucky or chance events. They were all derived from matings from which something good could seriously have been 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 or the 9 were produced by highly successful stud dogs (sires of at least 2 champions), who 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.

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 and 2).

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 will confine this study to males, since only males really have a reasonable chance of demonstrating their breeding ability, and we will consider only those dogs which have produced 3 or more champion progeny. This limitation keeps the list down to reasonable 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 those dogs. The majority (19) were champions (including one imported champion), 6 others were imports, and only 6 were British non-champions. We can add that 3 of the non-champions were CC winners. The findings therefore support the conclusions drawn from sections 1 and 2: The best specimens of the breed are most likely to produce the best progeny.

Imported dogs which have gained their titles in this country are shown as Champions.

Consider now the levels of inbreeding of these 31 top sires (Table 3). 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 proportionately fewer of them were products of outcrossing.

Finally, consider the parentage of the top sires and give particular attention to the 9 uniquely successful dogs who have produced 6 or more champion progeny. Note that of the 9, 5 were double-champion bred, only 3 had only one champion parent, and for the 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 and 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 more commonly be 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: Bothhis 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 by 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 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 consistently 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 good ‘uns together and you can’t go far wrong."