Dogs in the 1990 edition that no longer have offspring that are winnig are deleted from this ranking for this edition.

Only dogs with ten or more litters are included. Also, the above data represents only January, 1992 through December, 1994. Some litters whelped during that time were not registered until after December, 1994 or have not been registered at all.

The Major Circuit Index addresses a consideration not reflected in the Prepotency Index nor in Winability. Neither the addresses the quality of wins. The MCI was formulated to specifically address that. It reflects only wins on the major circuit (derby and all-age). It is weighted by both the number of entries and the placement (first place given more points than second, etc.). Those factors are combined and then related to the number of individual registrations with the registrations of those whelped in 1993 and 1994 not counting because of their lack of opportunity. In the commentary in the supplements to earlier editions the possibility of using litter registrations was raised. The decision to not use those was made because of the low numbers involved. These have been published in The American Field only since 1992. Although Miller's Silver Bullett had 163 litters registered during that period, all others had fewer than 50 - most, in fact, had fewer than 10. Such low numbers renders quantitative measures very questionable. All of the individuals listed above had more than 100 individual registrations during this time frame (1990-1994). Only major circuit events occuring during that time frame are reflected in this statistic. Miller's Chief was excluded from this because of the substantial amount of winning by his get occuring prior to 1990. His inclusion would have reflected an unwarranted negative bias against him.

A comparison of the top ten in each of the indices is given below. Each column is listed in rank order. Names italicized and bold-faced occur in all three columns. Those italicized occur in two columns, and those in normal print occur once.

That four of the above are listed thrice is ample evidence for the claim that a good stud is a good stud is a good stud. Most of Evolution's offspring that captured major circuit stakes won the stakes prior to 1990; had they been included he would likely be listed thrice also (and probably close to the top). Double Rebel Jack just missed being listed in the MCI column. Given the smaller numbers involved and the larger influence of ownership and luck, the MCI might be the least valid of the three indices. Bloodlines apparently do count; practically all of the dogs listed above have connection to the top studs listed fifteen years ago in the original Pointer Breeders' Almanac. If production of field trial winners is a goal, then to use any dog listed in the Most Popular section that is not listed above would have to be seriously questioned.

No information on brood bitches is readily available. It is known that Wine List and Nell's Rambling On are the two top producing brood bitches of all time in terms of number of winners produced. From the same data base containing information used in the MCI calculation data on the dams of the winners was extracted, and the data listed below was calculated. Regrettably quantitative data on registrations of individuals and litters is not readily available so no statistics with the power of the PI, MCI and Winability are possible at the present. The statisitic developed is labeled Brood Bitch Productivity (BBP). It reflects the number of placements of the offspring of the brood bitches and is weighted by the number of entries in the stake and the actual placement (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). Neither the number of offspring registered nor the number of litters registered is reflected in the BBP so, therefore, it is of limited value. It may be of interest to some, however. The list might be useful to consider in combination with the stud dog information; this is particularly relevant in light of the fact that most of the top studs in this publication are deceased. One might look for descendents of the top stud dogs that are also descendents of these brood bitches. Hopefully someone will have the interest to make a study of what dogs produced these top brood bitches. If so, it would certainly warrant consideration for inclusion in the 2000 edition of this publication.

Caution is needed in the interpretation of the above in light of the fact that pre- 1990 data is excluded. Inclusion of such females as Wine List can be questioned in light of that because her score would be much higher had the results of her pre-90 get not been excluded. Perhaps there are others in the same situation.

• Ac= accuracy (percentage of points producing game)
• Pi= Prepotency Index
• Wn= Winability
• RF= Run Factor

*Black Crude appeared to be inconsistent in this trait. Although he received 17 positive comments on his range during the period covered, he also received 7 negative comments. **Twelve comments of praise were recorded for Go Boy's Shadow with respect to his pattern, but during the same period of time he was criticized five times.

Dogs in the 1990 edition that no longer have offspring that are winning are deleted from this ranking for this edition.

Only dogs with ten or more litters are included. Also, the above data represents only January, 1992 through December, 1994. Some litters whelped during that time were not registered until after December, 1994 or have not been registered at all.

The problems mentioned a few years ago are still with us. The reportage by "green" reporters problem appears to have no solution at the present. The PI problem might be solved by ignoring PIs reported after the dog deceases. The most valid one might the one reported during the year of his death. It is hypothesized that a truly great stud appears only rarely - perhaps only several times in a century. "Great" is defined by not only having an outstanding Prepotency Index, etc., but it also includes actually having a long term positive impact on the breed by being bred enough to make a lasting difference. Over the past quarter of a century this has happened only once ( 1980 Pointer Breeders' Almanac)! Through a tragic recent development it appears that a stud with such a potential has been rendered unavailable. It is reported that Black Crude is sterile. All that was said of him in the past few "Supplements" continued to appear warranted. Although he was not ranked in this edition in terms of the PI because fewer than 100 of his pups had been registered as of 12/95, a good case was developing for hypothesizing that he might be one of those once per quarter century appearances of a great stud. Had this continued to unfold as predicted he would have been the fifth in an unbroken chain of top sires. His sire, Barshoe Brute, although still alive at this writing, is reported to be too old to continue breeding. Brute was a top sire (perhaps the best of his era) during the short period of time he was utilized. All may not lost. There are several Crude dogs successfully competing on the major circuit, and any one of them might have inherited his prepotency. Serious breeders should watch their litter registrations like a hawk and observe the results in field trial reports. The future of the PBA is unclear at the present. Under ideal conditions The American Field would aggressively pursue the collection and dissemination of information of the likes of that are presented here and render the PBA unnecessary. There appears to be little likelihood of this in the immediate future. A final edition for the PBA is being considered for the year 2000 - perhaps a hard-back version. An electronic bulletin board is being considered also. It hoped that someone would undertake some studies to give breeders more information. Several unanswered questions are: 1. What about the question raised above under brood bitches concerning the breeding of the brood bitches? 2. What explains the descrepancies between the rankings of number of individuals registered and the number of litters registered? Readers might be interested in the fact that Elhew Mr. McGoo has a significantly higher proportion of his get registered than does any other sire that is being tracked. 3. Is there a relationship between who judges a trial and who wins? Do certain trainers win more under certain judges?