Hmm, I'm sniffing eau du troll, at this point--correct use of an anglicized word, but misspelled...syntax changes, hot buttons, yep, this one is fishy.
I dunno. Much of the world is different from the U.S., and English as a second language is difficult.
I have re-read this post a lot of times. It is possible that I mis-interpretted some of it.
The morphology part I did not, but might be willing to concede a bit, anyway. This after remembering an article I read some time ago by a very old-time Saluki guy who was one of the last true dogmen. In the article, he talked about many individual animals with glaring conformational faults who nonetheless in many cases would outperform more correct animals. He theorized some about the reasons for this, and what some of the individual faults may have leant to certain aspects of performance. It was a fascinating article, and almost guaranteed to give conformation folks nightmares LOL!
The part about unseen dogs being superior to champion dogs I think I may have misunderstood. If it is true in the part of Southern Europe where he lives that a breeder is willing to sell the best pup in the litter without any obligation to get that pup out and seen, then I am wondering if this is what was meant. In the U.S., at least, such pups tend to come with contractual obligation to show and title them... if such pups end up in European backyards of folks who can afford them but are content to keep them as pets, then what was written could be a valid point, and I misunderstood.
