Jack I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you. This is your board to state the obvious with regard. You broke the original post down fine as did others and IMO and that alone the rest was reaching to find a point. You all gave good info and examples. I said nothing more than you already eluded to. As a dog man we know size has no correlation with gameness. That doesn't take genius. Some things are what they are and others are merely a pondering. The poster said in the original post he didnt believe in general that smaller dogs were gamer than larger dogs. He was just throwing this out for convo sake. Well what is the convo about if you don't believe in general yourself. It seemed exertion, stress levels or energy use related to body composition, size and how this chemically effects a showing of gameness do to stress was the real subject. If a dog uses less energy in theory then it goes longer or is more active but this is not a show of gameness. The battle is the measure of gameness and perseverance of the individual. This in itself is to large of a variable to be measured. It is no more than an experience that varies case to case. You clearly said he said the same thing differently in his rebuttal and to me that was reaching. Then even more so the subject veered because it was over thought reaching. And, maybe I could have added this input before my prior statement of over thinking and reaching but I figured it was covered well by all and too obvious . If I offended you it wasn't my intent but so be it. I'll reserve my opinion any further from this post and move on.