The Hall of Fame:  An Opinion

In voting on the  The Hall of Fame over the past decade or so it seems as if, by omission & lack of emphasis, that voters have chosen to ignore the primary purpose of field trials : i.e. THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE BREED!  The HF criteria for dogs includes both their performance and their production. Something to think about is which of these two criteria contribute the most to long term improvement of the breed.  Certainly for most of the inductees for the past few years (with very few exceptions) one could hypothesize that most folks think that the former is more important than the latter.  Perhaps that (along with the same opinions for the past couple of decades) is why the breed hasn't improved more than it has.

It would seem that in terms of improvement of the breed (purpose of field trials) that the production record of candidates should carry more weight that their performance record.  Those articles and ads in The Field that report names and numbers of winners without reference to frequency of breeding are reporting only half truths - something, perhaps, worse than even just  stating something that is false. Any such reference should be totally ignored. A case might be made that such ads and reports might even support a dog that actually hurt the breed.   Three measures that might be considered are Winability, Prepotency Index (PI)  and the Major Circuit Index. All three are significantly influenced by the frequency of breeding of the individual. Of the three the PI might be given greatest emphasis for the following reasons.  Winability includes Puppy and Derby wins which are relatively meaningless because of dishonest registrations (whelping dates).  The MCI is very heavily influenced by ownership, and the small sample (only major circuit trials considered) also raises statistical questions;  another negative on it is the fact that it includes derby wins including some of those four year old derbies.  All three of these are explained in the Pointer Breeders Almanac.

 

It seems a shame that some other dogs from the past that may meet the both criteria are consistently overlooked.    One of them has a record as producer eclipses all other dogs elected and all others considered by a very wide margin.  What does this indicate about the Hall of Fame? 


Frank Thompson