Too many people breed "paper tigers:" they breed dogs who are relatives of a famous dog as if they were somehow magic or just as good, they breed to a dog's popularity, it's show record, it's fame, or even to their best friend's dog or the closest, most convenient dog. It's astounding as much as has been written in the last century about the perils of breeding "paper" that it is still done so often. A sire is only as good as his get & his get will equally reflect the bitches taken to him. It's no use to hope the one (or ten) good pup(s) you saw out of him will happen to you when your bitch isn't like the dams of those pups. It's even worse to think that his fame will arise in his litters; one cannot take the parents' show records into the ring to convince the judge of the merits of their offspring. Nor can you honestly think that a dog having "famous" grandparents gives you a reason to breed. Further, when certain sires are overused in a breed, these popular sires become a potential danger to the breed. If their influence is too widespread, then it becomes hard to breed away from them. Diversity of style as well as genes is lost in a breed. If said popular sire turns out to have a damaging genetic flaw, the Popular Sire Syndrome has now spawned a Matador--a dog whose late-recognised fault is now widespread enough in the breed to "kill" it. This is all bad practice. Selection is lost when a pedigree or fame is the deciding factor for the choice of breeding partner. It's ill-educated to breed to an ad or a reputation. It's a doomed effort (except for sales) to breed for convenience or to "see what happens." And terrible dogs are made by blind line-breeding: faults are fixed in & a good line is eroded over time. Each breeding musts be done seeing the sire and dam as crowded in by their respective families when it comes to flaws, but standing alone when it comes to what virtues they can even potentially offer. There is, again, no recipe for breeding dogs & no substitute for a well-trained eye.