[quote=Platz]Lee "The reason you feel this way is because of how you defined performance." No I feel this way because...[/quote] If you look at your reply (no offense intended) you will indeed see you defined that dog as a performance dog. I myself (again no offense to your dog) I do not define that dog as a dog that would perform. [blockquote]I have my retired Ch. Catahuola lying by my side, high point dog in hog bay trials & coon trials, comformation ch titled in 4 registerys. He has bi-lateral dysplacia. in his 1st 3 years no one knew it but my vet & myself. You could not see him limp or gate poorly, he could walk 3-4 miles w/o fatuge. Now in his last years my eye tear up watching him struggle walking. All because I bought into the "working is everything BS" years ago. I'll discuse the topic at lenght but ,don't tell my what my reasoning is.[/blockquote] Did you not just define that dog as a working dog? The truth of it is, even though the dog scored good in some trial...you say "in his first 3 years no one knew it by my vet and myself. You could not see him limp or gate pooly, he could walk for 3-4 miles w/o fatige." News flash...walking for 3-4 miles does NOT test a dog's soundness. I have a 9 year old 150+# bitch that will still walk 3-4 miles. If you want to use a workout to measure soundness...real soundness...you will have to really WORK the dog and MEASURE its recovery time. You obviously never did that. Instead, you assumed the scores in some trials was sufficient work to measure performance. It wasn't performance testing or working that failed your dog's selection measure...it was your knowledge of what real working is consisted of. I do not wish to offend you, but to attack performance testing as flawed when it isn't is erroneous on your part. Again, I am not wishing to offend you, but you must accept the source of the problem was you didn't know how to work a dog in such a way to test performance. It was your knowledge at the time that failed, and to say otherwise I believe (as is proven by history) is to deny the reality of what real performance testing accomplishes. This simply isn't fair. We need to accept the truth in order to produce the best. History has shown...the most sound breeds in existence are the real working breeds and this is no historically proven (working breed after working breed) repeated coincidence that shows working breeds to be the most sound. (When I refer to a "working breed" I am not referring to the "working class" of k9s, but to breeds developed on the basis of actually physically doing taxing activities...such as a husky, greyhound, APBT, etc). Working a dog isn't something we can just speak or be affirmed (patted on the back) in some well-fare based "title" earning game of a "competition." Working a dog, if you are going to use it as a selection measure of soundness, must encompass a real test of soundess. It is something we have to really do. Titles typically are not really working events. The training field however may be. As the dog's owner it becomes YOUR responsibility to know your dog and its limitations. To do this, you have to work the dog. A lot of people make claims about things they never test, and they shouldn't. I see prey driven game playing dogs claimed to be "protection dogs" because the dog got some title somewhere or played some tug game on some field...but these same people would panic if someone ever stressed their dog...and many of these "protection dogs" would honestly run in fear if they criminal ever whopped them a good one, and only then would these people/handlers begin to then realize they never trained their dog in protection work in any of their "protection training days." But, it isn't my responsiblity to go around wacking these dogs on the head to wake the owners up on what real training or working is. Also, I like games too...so I can understand why a person might wish to do such things...but we have to FIRST be honest with ourselves and accept the limitation of what we do instead of pretending what we do is more than it really is. What I mean is this. If you want to know if a dog is physically sound, you will have to build them up, push them to the limits of a true athlete, and see how well they do. If you don't do this, then you don't know if you have a sound athlete or not. We can't pretend to be gods and speak things into existence simply because we desire them. We have to see what is there. Again, we will only produce what we select for. [blockquote]"When we breed the best performing animals to the best performing animals, in time all weaknesses will be removed while at the same time all strengths will be passed on. " That premise is flawed. Without the aide of medical evaluation one is just rolling the dice. [/blockquote] On the contrary, that premise is accurate and proven by history. Why are the most sound dogs in existence dogs that were developed not from lab tests, but by developed by working in the field...real "no well fare programs or affirmation" programs, but work where a dog literally has lives on the line or puts money on the table to earn his keep or right to breed. In fact...I would state history has PROVEN that without performance testing one is just rolling the dice.