Exactly right. A dog can either produce, or it can't, regardless of its talent.
Exactly right again. If you have a knowledge of what good dogs are (in deed, in a pedigree, how an animal should move, etc.), and if you have a gem of a young dog, then breed her and get the ball rolling.
Of course, at some point, all dogs need to be evaluated over several REASONABLE rolls.
NO DOG needs to be rolled within an inch of its life, ever.
On the flipside, NO ONE can keep breeding untested dogs, and keep themselves in the winner's circle over time.
You have to SEE what you're breeding at some point. (This should be obvious to anyone.)
Tested does NOT mean "beat all to hell," mutilated, or permanently-damaged.
Tested means rolled with a few dogs, after it's mature, with each successive roll being against progressively more-and-more talented individuals, until both are fairly tired, to see how the prospect does and behaves against a variety of styles.
Again, any fool should be able to distinguish between a breeder of dogs, and determine right away if this guy is a green bozo breeding puppies to sell (with no actual breeding record to stand on), or if he's a long-term breeder of excellence (meaning DOGS THAT WIN) who happens to be breeding a young, superbly-bred animal of his own time-proven bloodline.
Anyone with a pedigree full of untested dogs isn't winning consistently.
Anyone with a pedigree FULL of game/talented dogs, from generations of high-percentage litters top-and-bottom ... can happily breed his young dogs ... and not have to worry about what "The Peanut Gallery" has to say
Jack
One more thing: Just because "you" don't know what a dog did/didn't do in a pedigree doesn't mean "nothing's been done" with that dog