I don't think any title alone makes a dog breedworthy.
Pongu's got buckets of titles. He's a terrible dog. He should never be bred (and, happily, never will be, since he got snipped when he was four months old. The shelter got that much right about him).
My dog is living proof of the fact that if you dump enough time and money and effort into the project, you can stick some pretty impressive titles on a complete nutbag of a dog. And I earned
those titles fair and square -- we are not talking about "midnight trials" or purchased titles here. Throw those into the equation, and titles on paper tell you even less.
On the other hand, if you can see and evaluate a dog in person, and if you know what you are looking for, you may not need titles at all. I met Nymeria vom Wildhaus and her owner at an obedience trial today. I had, and have, no idea what titles Nymeria has. Maybe she doesn't have any; I didn't ask. But she's a great
dog. In terms of intelligence and temperament, she is my ideal dog. I could tell that within two minutes of just seeing her in the trial environment.
The real value of titles is just that if the owner/breeder put those on the dog, then you can infer that the owner/breeder has worked with that dog and knows the dog's strengths and weaknesses really, really well. And if the dog has been on the circuit for a while, then other people (people who train at the same club, judges, and other competitors in the same sport) have also seen that dog, and you might be able to get outside feedback about whether that dog really is good.
If the dog has nothing,
then that tells you something too, and what it tells me is "I don't want one of those dogs."