That's a good addendum, Macker.

I did not mean to imply that people should breed to talented curs, I meant to say that a dog should be way above average in at least TWO of the above categories, and "acceptable" in all the others.

For example, I never checked Silverback's oil to the extent I could say he was "way above average" in his gameness.
There was simply nothing his size that could stay with him, that I saw anyway.

All I can say is, Silverback was absolutely intense, absolutely dangerous, and absolutely determined TO WIN
He never turned, and he never hesitated to make any scratch at any time ... to a pretty fair degree of exhaustion ...
And the only dogs he ever had to scratch into were 4-lb bigger than he was ... while everything else his size was picked up to save its life between :06 - :12.

Therefore, I would rate Silverback WAY, WAY above average in Athleticism, Intelligence, and Finish ... with the other marks either being at least average (or unknown).

As a producer, Silverback produced legitimately dead game dogs, winners that had to come from way behind to win, as well as dogs that absolutely decimated their opponents.
(In fact, no dog off Silverback, that's been matched, has ever lost.)

I think that any dog should be rated at least an "average/acceptable" level, across the board, with at least 2 traits being way, way above average, to make that dog stand a chance at producing something that can decisively beat something in open competition.

I would place intelligence, air, and athleticism at the head of those things that, beyond gameness, will ensure a victory.
With some dogs it's going to be mouth/finish, with others it'll be stamina/brains, with others durability/unbelievable gameness, etc.

In the early days, I always made extreme gameness the backbone of my line ...
But later on I made intelligence/air/athleticism/style the "extras," which (IMO) elevated my line from a 57% win record (in 1997) to an 87% win record (by 2001) ... to present.

Jack