IMO "Hard Tested" means, I don't know what I'm looking at, OR what I'm looking for.

I don't believe you need to hard test an animal. The ONLY reason I could see it is in the case of a low talent individual. So if for some reason you're looking for a reason to keep that low talent individual, you test him hard and keep him based on "gameness".

I'm not interested in low talent individuals, no matter how game they are. I'm looking for an all around good dog, from a good gene pool. You should be able to see all you need about an animal rather quick IMO. Is the dog high ability? How does he work, does he blow his wad or pace himself. I think too many people don't know what it takes to truly be an athlete, and simplify it to Mouth vs Gameness. If he doesn't have "mouth" he has to be "game". Mouth isn't high on my list of priorities. It's in there, but much farther behind things like athletic ability, speed, wind, balance, intelligence. Honestly, those things I mentioned come before gameness to me. A dog possessing the traits I mentioned, against dogs his own weight, isn't going to NEED his gameness too often. It's nice to know its there if he needs it, but I want more of a "total Package".

So I think "Hard Tested" usually comes down to: I have this dog, he aint got much, but I can say he's hard tested...

Again, the biggest issue is "hard tested" against WHAT... As an example, I saw a dog that dog was supposed to be "hard tested" and deamed game by some big names. But when that dog couldn't get his mouth on his opponent, he packed it in rather fast. I think being totally controlled is going to cause a "hard tested" dog to stop, far more often than a hard mouth dog would cause one to stop. If the dog can get in there and mix it up, a lower level of gameness is going to keep him going, whereas if that same dog is being totally controlled, he has to be ONE GAME MOFO to keep on coming... but "Fatigue makes cowards of us all".

Ah I'm starting to ramble...

MinuteMan