Quote Originally Posted by CA Jack View Post
Well, let's pretend for a moment that gameness is "absolute" (which it isn't), but to say talent doesn't matter is wrong IMO.

I have always selected for extreme gameness in my breeding choices (Hammer, the Hollingsworth dogs, No Regrets, etc.) ... but only when I also selected for a winning style did my win/loss record as a breeder begin to skyrocket.

Selecting for "gameness only" ... my win record for the first couple of years was just at 57% ...

When I begin to put some combat theory into the mix, and specifically select for a controlling head style, that would pace itself, then my record quickly went up over 75% ... and hasn't been below 80%, in any year, for well over 15 years now.

So Talent is definitely important too.

People who only breed to dogs they beat the hell out of, that "live and scratch" through their ordeals, will NEVER have a record much over 50%, I don't believe.
Fair enough. You can make any dog that ever lived quit, if you try hard enough. I've heard of all kinds of talented, frontrunning curs that are "just game enough" not to quit while they are ahead. Let them get a little fatigued, a little dominated, a little tired, a little thirsty, etc., & you see them sing a different tune. Jack, you are one of the breeders that, from what I have seen thus far, were definitely shooting for gameness (while ladling on all the other bits like controlling head style, etc.). TFX is definitely another guy who looks for gameness in his stock, based on his posts. And I can barely get my head out of your Hollingsworth book! Those pups seemed like (mostly) hella game beasts. But I know if you are looking for a match prospect, yes, having some level of ability can do nothing but increase your chances of winning, so long as he's got that deep gameness we (should) all treasure.

Incidentally, is that what you mean by the term "stupid game?" Just a no-talent plug that will keep scratching to a killing?