Interesting thoughts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Just consider this. What was the original purpose of the Show? Keep in mind bit everyone the participates in Showing should be. The original purpose in showing a dog was to evaluate your stock in order to make sure that dog meets the standards for breeding. The standards are created not by AKC, UKC, CJC, etc. They are created by the parent clubs. There parent club for the doberman all had working dogs. Every line was a working line. The came up with the standard saying a dog should not be too tall, small, eye color, eye shape, hocks, tails etc in order to have a specific look and function. If the dog doesn't meet the criteria it is supposed to be removed from the breeding stock. It may still be a great dog. It just shouldn't be bred.
Since we are talking about working dogs you should also know that the Schutzhund competition originally had a purpose too. It was a temperament test. It was used to evaluate the dog to see if it had the correct temperament to perform the work that it was bred to do. Therefore, breeds like the GSD, Rottweiler, and Doberman that all came from Germany had to have both a working title and Conformation title before it could be bred and have pups registered.
Of course AKC and others don't have such requirements. Anyone with a dog can put two dogs together with no knowledge of how genetics work. They foolishly believe that if I put a oversized dog with an average undersized dog it will balance out the litter. I've heard that far too often. The truth is genetics don't work like that. There is a scientific way the genetics work to produce dominant and recessive genes. There is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict which genetic traits will be passed in the next litter.
If it were true that a working line would produce generations after generations of working dogs the every dog from a working line would produce Working champions. The same would be true of Show dogs. The truth is that neither litter will produce every pup in the litter that have the qualities to become champion of record. In fact science has proved through many studies that temperament in dogs are nit 100% genetics. It is affected by environmental stimuli. It's called training. The training can come from knowledgeable trainers or from learning from other dogs.
It's a falicy to blame people who show dogs for ruining a breed by inbreeding. Inbreeding is not only used by a single group of people. I'm not alone here as the only person that has seeds ads and or pedigrees of dogs that are inbred. Many claim to be double bred back to the dam. It is used as a selling point. I line bred too closely will become extinct. Eventually it will produce dogs that can't reproduce. There are 3 types of breeding. Inbreeding which is breeding dogs that are related. Line breeding which is also inbreeding, but not using dogs so closely related that the line becomes extinct. Then there's out crossing. That is simply breeding dogs that aren't related. Most knowledgeable breeders that line breed follow a formula to know when they should add a dog from outside of the line with similar qualities in order to preserve the line. Out crossing is not adding a dog from a different breed. That doesn't improve or preserve a breed. You no longer have a purebred dig. You are just producing mongers, mixed breeds, mutts or our nice new term bandogs. There's nothing wrong with mixed breeds. But why should I pay $1000 or more for one when I can get one from a pound or shelter for a couple of hundreds. When I buy a purebred dog I'm looking for a dog that has a record. It has been evaluated by unbiased 3rd parties that it had the correct temperament, conformation and the at it has been tested for genetic health faults. Unfortunately since anyone can be called a breeder this can't always be found in certain breeds.
Of the three methods that I've listed above one is the preferred or ideal. I'm not going to talk too much about which is preferred and why. I believe that deserves a thread of its own.
There's ignorance in both those that show or work. There's ignorance in those that do both. I've been doing this for over 20 years. I'm able to admit that I was ignorant. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge. It is not an offensive word. The important thing is that I didn't stay ignorant. I've learned mire. I've done research. Before I only knew what the older guys before me said and did. There experiences became mines. They had limited knowledge and limited resources. I no longer have those excuses. Now that learned more and no better it's up to me to do better.
If you are truly a breeder of a specific breed or line your goal is not to improve it. I know that people make that statement all of the time. I've done it too. I hope that I've removed that from every place that I put online. The goal or objective should be to preserve the breed or line. We should want the breed or line to retain the qualities that it was originally bred to have.
I've learned a lot from the old guys before me. Those were my mentors. I have a lot of respect for them. They knew dogs and how to train them. They didn't go to school and learn about genetics. They never had learning theory. They never heard of the 4 quadrants. They didn't know what classical conditioning or operant conditioning was or is. They couldn't pass that knowledge on to the next generation.