Quote:
American gamefowl do not have any set standard. And strains don't either, they are not exactly show fowl. THOUGH THEY ARE BECOMING SHOW FOWL, right now since only a couple years ago they were pit fowl they come in a variety of colors, shapes, and forms. You can look at a bird and say "It looks like a warhorse." But even then, often times a bonanza black will look similar too, or a sid, etc.. They are just black fowl pretty much, strain names are just ancestral tags.
There is a American gamefowl standard, written by the American gamefowl society.. But even then there is a lot of controversy over that, it was created by one guy pretty much so therefore has only his opinion in it. Even if he is a long time breeder, his likes may differ from mine, and just because my birds may have a roach back (not all of them, but two do I believe) doesn't make them any less of a American game than the other man. A lot of my birds may have a typical American gamecock tail, but doesn't make them anymore American game than someone who is breeding the Herman Pinion (longtailed) Yellow legged hatches.
Call me crazy, but isn't the roach back pretty much muscle? Never examined it closely, but almost all of the Oriental's have it. I have never noticed a roach back rooster to be effected in a negative way either, it is just window dressing I suppose.
-Daniel
This brings up an important debate among those of us showing American Games. Before I say anything, let me say that I am only presenting the following as food for thought, not in any way attempting to slander anyone.
As Daniel stated the AGFS standards were basically written by one man. I had been a member of this organization and while I can respect what they are trying to accomplish longterm I wasn't too keen on how it was run. It appeared to be a one man show: one man wrote the book, there were no club officers, just him, and he was the original judge (though I believe he's trained some other folks as well). The standards were written based on what he knew: Oxford Old English, and they even use the old prints from the Oxford club's standard. The color names are also from the Oxfords. As such it can make it difficult for the American cocker, who knew the pit name colors and may have been vaguely familiar with the color names in American bred Old English Game bantams. (A grey is a Gold Duckwing is a Golden Birchen Duckwing). Further, this standard excludes some traits which are prominent some lines of American gamefowl simply because they were not proper for the Oxfords. Among these are white earlobes, multiple spur genes (I know of a line of Murphys that had this, and I have a line of muffs that have this as well), naked necks (I point out that the Purple Devil bloodline was advertised prior to the ban on the sport, and therefore was a "working" bloodline, white "streamers" in the tail and birds with multiple leg colors.
The UGBA has a standard as well - their standard focuses primarily on the build of a bird and how it stands, allotting only 10 points overall to the coloration of the bird. Personally I haven't a problem with this however if too vague in the color descriptions it can make deciding how to enter your birds tricky. They also employ a different naming system. In this case, the Grey who is a Gold Duckwing who is also a Gold Birchen Duckwing may be a Light Legged Grey or Dark Legged Grey, depending.
Both standards allow too much wiggle room in the description of the colors, build and variations for the APA to accept. Personally I haven't a problem with this, as these clubs are trying to preserve the breed as they are, not make them into something that came out of a cookie cutter. Also the APA would I bet want us to change our birds to fit with the description for the American Game bantam that is currently recognized. That breed was made just for the shows and contains the blood of Red Junglefowl and in some cases Old English Game bantams. Though some breeders breed miniaturized American Games as American Game bantams.
So there you have it folks, multiple variations; themes on themes. We've got multiple looks to our fowl, multiple standards, multiple names for the colors, and multiple schools of though on how it ought to be. In closing I'd like to present an idea to the other gamefowl breeders: In the UK they have two types of Old English - the Carlisle and the Oxford. Not withstanding the origins of each I believe that if a country that small had to break their gamefowl into sub categories it may do us well to do the same. Think about it, if there was a class set up for breeds that had traditionally been short heel fowl, a class for long heel, and a class for the fowl favored in the islands. Afterall, an old Whitehackle from Connecticut is going to be very different than a southern bred Brown Red or a Sweater - Dom cross from Guam.
As I said, just putting out some food for thought.
