Hmmmm this got a bit heated in a hurry. Personally I am not a breeder but would not take an inbred SV.
To be honest, it sounds crazy to hear someone claiming inbred kittens are somehow better and that finaling in shows isn't a good way to tell if you have quality kittens.... The whole inbreeding argument just sounds crazy to me, and something I would never advocate but that's just me!
As they say, opinions are like a**holes, we all have them! And this is mine
I am thankful however that that is not a common practice in our breed.
Let me explain why I said that winning shows is not always a good measure of breeding success, as I can see why on its face it may seem like an off comment. I will keep my comments vague so they can be applied across numerous animals (horses, cows, dogs, cats, etc.) as it is generally the same tom foolery, when such tom foolery occurs, across species:
1. If I show my animal 100 times and you show yours 5 times, I may get 15 wins and you may get 3. If you go 3/5 and I go 15/100 who has the better animal? But my animal will have more wins and therefore higher status. Having time/money to consistently show your animal results in a higher ranked animal. Breeders with more money can show their animals more.
2. Shows are highly political. Certain animals/kennels are "expected" to win and so, often times, they do. A great many judges in a great many breeds are exceedingly biased towards their preference so a certain "type" wins every time that judge evaluates the animal. Careful selection of the right judge often happens a lot to boost wins.
3. Shows are highly limited in what they evaluate. Simply judging aesthetic merit in the hopes that it will give you a clue as to the animal's functional value gives you an exceedingly vague picture of the animal's quality. To use bullmastiffs (my background) as an example - a longer backed dog often has a superior aesthetic and can usually carry more weight and better show off second thigh development/angulation (important for drive), but a short backed dog is a superior animal when it comes to guarding estates + downing, and holding a man as the short back increases agility and rear leg drive. One animal LOOKS like it's better equipped to do its job, but it in actuality it is not. The breed standard does not call for the short back, and it's not going to be amended because too many breeders have long backed dogs and they know their ability to make $$ selling pups is impacted by Johnny Public's false belief that being a champion isn't just the result of putting the dog in enough shows. If I had my way, I would put every bullmastiff through a weight pull, a timed sprint, an agility course, a temperament test to assess a calm assertive demeanor that is appropriately docile around children/strangers, and a courage test because just looking at an animal tells you very little.
4. MOST importantly, as a consumer you are not buying the animal that wins championships. You're buying the champion's genes and the statistical odds that the kitten/pup/foal you get will be like the sire/dam, king/queen, stallion/mare in the ways that make the animal desirable. The problem is that when you are buying an outcross you're getting very low statistical odds that the offspring will be like the parents in the desirable ways. Sure, it's better than random, but it isn't really much better. So, yes, if I have a low inbred coefficient maybe one out of 9 offspring will be fantastic. But what about the other 8? What am I selling the public if I know there is a ~90% chance that any of the given offspring that I have produced are just going to be randomly selected back to the median via chromosomal crossover during meiosis? With a linebred animal, you not only have the chance to ELIMINATE deleterious genetic conditions that are otherwise hidden, but you are also creating predictability in your line (without a line you basically don't have a cattery/kennel/stable you just have random cats being bred together with your fingers crossed) and what the young offspring you are selling to the public will be. A champion ribbon says I have an animal that looks like it physically conforms to a breed standard, or more accurately, that it was the best example of conformation at a given show on a given day. You can finish (obtain a championship) an animal just by being the least stinky turd in the punchbowl - and enter enough shows and eventually it will pan out that way. But, again, you are not buying an animal. You are buying GENETICS.
THAT is why I say a show ribbon doesn't mean that much. I don't know if the animal is a champion because it is a fantastic representation of a breed, or if it's a decent animal that has simply been entered into enough shows to eventually win, or if there are political favors at work. And if the championship is a result of the animal being a superior representation of the breed, it still doesn't tell me if any its positive qualities are likely to be genetically reproducible (homozygous vs heterozygous - though it's in reality more complicated than that) and as a pet consumer I am buying genetic probabilities, not grown champions.