# Could the double T, be a “Used to be”?



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

I heard a rumor. I was at a field trial last month for a day. I was doing some task near a gallery. Folk were chatting amongst themselves, not to me. A feller was running a dog, and they were talking about him. Not really paying attention, it went blah blah blah he doesn’t put his dogs through the TT anymore. Blah blah he has a different method, different yard drills. Blah blah random piles and patterns. 
And I had to walk away lugging some dripping or stinky or dripping and stinky item needed in another place.
Could it be?
Could there be competitive all age dogs running under a very successful amateur trainer, that have never seen the “Classic Double T” ? Not to be confused with the “Mini-T” that is in one fellows training book sequence. But the great big, set in one place, marked pile, long, wide, done for days on end, attitude eating, Chesapeake grinding ( I have had a couple that hated all drill work, I mean ALL until our own Atkinson drew walking baseball for me over the phone) Double T?????

What do you all know? 
What do you all think? 
Is it possible? 

I am not going to tell you whom they were talking about, even if you guess. But everyone knows his name.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Tell me his name,,, and then I'll tell you what kind of "T" I run with my chessies. 

Well actually all my dogs..

Angie


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Tell me his name,,, and then I'll tell you what kind of "T" I run with my chessies.
> 
> Well actually all my dogs..
> 
> Angie


Why make it conditional? 

Do you want to share your method?

Chris


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

During one of my visits to the US, a similar discussion was held. My ears flapped of course!!
ESPECIALLY when it is strongly suggested not to return to the double T. WHY!!


After pondering (and giving myself a headache LOL), I thought of fixed action patterns (some we want, some we don't), possibly created while on double T. Slow goes, popping and short distance learning problems.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

From the advice of one I respect and admire, never did double T. I seriously doubt the lack of it has a thing do to with other issues.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

I know what a Wing T offense is about, a Double T would be Texas Tech, so would would the mini T be Lane Kiffin and the guys that sing Rocky Top all day and night 

because the real UT are my Longhorns...Hook em Horns


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

I heard a pro at a field trial last weekend telling folks that he doesn't do the TT. I know of at least two others that don't. Only 1 of my 3 dogs have done TT. They seem to handle ok...


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

ahhh, the "popping drill". 

i say R.I.P.-Paul


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

Never use the TT.


----------



## Mike Boufford (Sep 28, 2004)

Angie B said:


> Tell me his name,,, and then I'll tell you what kind of "T" I run with my chessies.
> 
> Well actually all my dogs..
> 
> Angie


Aw come on Angie, you're killing me.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

paul young said:


> ahhh, the "popping drill".
> 
> i say R.I.P.-Paul


When I think back on different dogs I have had with different problems along the way I wonder how many of those problems I caused by my use of/mind set NEED to use, the double T? Like it is the holy grail of handling. The popping drill, I like that. Is that yours Paul or have you heard it from others?


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

There are quite a few successful trainers in both FT and HT that no longer do double T. Some use a program that uses a "5-leg pattern" to accomplish the same thing as the double T.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Hookset said:


> There are quite a few successful trainers in both FT and HT that no longer do double T. Some use a program that uses a "5-leg pattern" to accomplish the same thing as the double T.


I think that 5 legged pattern came from D. L. Walters. If I recall he had it in his book: "Training Retrievers to Handle."

http://www.gundogsupply.com/trainrettoha.html


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

as far as i know, that's a term i coined.....

i think any intelligent dog will pop on this drill. then we have to apply some sort of pressure to change that behavior.

we put enough pressure on them to perform WANTED behaviors reliably that i can't see setting them up for more when it's an UNWANTED behavior we engineered. just my opinion.
probably because of how i train.-Paul


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> But the great big, set in one place, marked pile, long, wide, done for days on end, attitude eating, Chesapeake grinding Double T?????
> 
> What do you all know?
> What do you all think?
> Is it possible?


Ken,

There have been many FC's trained by trainers who didn't use the classic double T. Is it possible? Sure. There have been FC's made all sorts of ways.

Double T has been a standard among what I believe is still majority of trainers, though. Some have done it simply because it's what they were taught to do. Some actually understand why, and therefore get more out of it. That could be said of many techniques and drills.

TT provides some worthwhile benefits that, in my opinion, make it worthy of the time spent. More repetition of going, stopping, casting, en route forcing, de-popping, de-flaring, opportunities to illicit and work through no-go's, etc. Every benefit a trainer gets from Single T, they get more of in TT.

Each trainer decides what they believe is worth spendiing their time on. Time is at a premium for most of us, and more so for pros. If they don't have a vision of TT's benefits, I doubt they'll stick with it.

I absolutely do not see the necessity of it negatively affecting any dog's attitude, though.

Evan


----------



## GG (Jan 29, 2006)

WOW Evan, what a great post. As we know, there is more than one right way to train a dog. However, if i have a dog in training that refuses or simply cannot learn or handle a particular drill or skill, it's doubtful that dog will be a competitive retriever; gun dog sure. Drills like the TT will reveal the true character of dogs, good or bad. Read Evan's post carefully fellow trainers, the TT can pull your inexperienced behind out of a bunch of trouble. 
HAVE FUN TRAINING
GG


----------



## Mike Boufford (Sep 28, 2004)

I didn't feel the need to spend a great deal of time on double T, but I have used double T to teach the dogs to carry long angle backs.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Evan said:


> Ken,
> ............
> TT provides some worthwhile benefits that, in my opinion, make it worthy of the time spent. More repetition of going, stopping, casting, en route forcing, de-popping, de-flaring, opportunities to illicit and work through no-go's, etc. Every benefit a trainer gets from Single T, they get more of in TT.........
> 
> Evan


Not trying to be a smart ass, and am being respectful of the body of work. But just speculating and thinking about big picture crap. Wondering what personal benefit I have seen in the dogs I personally laid hands on. Would a dog have never ever popped or slowed at an intersection in anticipation of a whistle or ran wide of an intersection going out if…………………………… I had not taught the dog to do so, in the double T? Just speculating on what I have put dogs through and the why behind it. And then to hear whispers in the wind that some rockin’ and I do mean ROCKIN’ Dogs, never did it. It just makes me go hmmmmm? Do you get the way I’m drifting here Evan?
Have you worked dogs (Chesapeakes) through TT that truly hated drill work?


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

My dog never popped in single T or TT...ever...we spent a couple weeks on TT, at the most...

I have been wondering the same though, about whether TT is really necessary, or if the same end can be attained through different, and perhaps more meaningful, means....


Juli


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

Just a thought thrown out there for everyone to ponder about - do you think amateurs (and I mean those of us that work and probably can only train 2-3 days a week) end up with more difficulties from this drill than pros or pro-ams (those that aren't pros but can virtually train every day and have great grounds to do so)?? 

The TT and swim by are 2 drills that IMHO require frequent, consistent work in order to make sense to the dog. Running TT drill for 2 days, then getting back to it 5-6 days later and running for 2 days, etc, just never seemed to make much progress with any of my dogs. I never did TT with last dog, just walking baseball and 5 leg pattern and he was handling smartly by 2 yrs. Same with swim by, except I have found no good alternative for teaching the "stay in the water" concept, so I generally do this drill when I have vacation where I can work at it for 7-10 days straight and then as much as possible after that until completed. 

I would be interested in hearing from both ams and pros on this.

regards
dawn


----------



## greyghost (Jun 11, 2004)

Interesting thread! 

Ken, I've had popping problems with my young dog and this started during the Double T as I'm sure many others have experienced also. 

I can see that possibly running the Double T as maybe a "random structured drill", stopping and handling the dog at different random locations may work and reduce the popping problems caused by a dog's anticipation or being honest or unsure. 

Interesting.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> Just speculating on what I have put dogs through and the why behind it. And then to hear whispers in the wind that some rockin’ and I do mean ROCKIN’ Dogs, never did it. It just makes me go hmmmmm? Do you get the way I’m drifting here Evan?
> Have you worked dogs (Chesapeakes) through TT that truly hated drill work?


I think any dog may have been even better, even though he has a terrrific record. But for one or two small things, a fine record may have been mind boggling. Some of the little things acquired during a well applied TT may, for certain dogs, have made that kind of difference. It's hard to know, either in advance or in the rearview mirror, which dog.

Yes, I've had Chessies, Labs, Goldens and others that appeared to hate drill work. Just about every one of them was started by someone else. No dog I started came to hate drills, other than a handful that just didn't like the game in general. I believe that is a result of two things.

The way I ran them
The fact that I kept their training in balance
I've read and heard many times of trainers complaining about dogs that hate drill work. Although that may be so in some cases, I think in most cases it's a result of poor application and lack of overall balance.

EvanG


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

mostlygold said:


> The TT and swim by are 2 drills that IMHO require frequent, consistent work in order to make sense to the dog. Running TT drill for 2 days, then getting back to it 5-6 days later and running for 2 days, etc, just never seemed to make much progress with any of my dogs. .
> 
> regards
> dawn


I find this statement to be true to my _own_ experiences...I think it is extremely important to train every day (5-6 days a week) on these drills, otherwise it is like taking two steps forward and one step back...consistency helps the training sink in.

Juli


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Listen to what Evan and CC said with regards to Double TT.
As far as "popping", what lead up to it rather than summarizing that "It" was caused by doing Double TT.
Discipline casting comes to mind when I think of Double TT which leads my dogs to Swim-by.
Training built in baby steps done" Fairly "AND (like Evan said) with "Balance".
And hey if it works for your dogs to NOT do Double TT go for it.
Sue


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I look at the doube T as the end point of force fetch. We force to the pile and then send them through the burn on subsequent sends. We stop them at the intersections and cast them. It's confusing to the dog, no wonder they bug, flare, pop and no go. This is where we develop the tools to work on these. How can you work on popping or no goes if you've never had a pop or a no go? The double T is so difficult to the dogs that if you're going to get popping or no going problems they'll happen here. If you don't get no goes and flaring off the hot spots, I'd think you haven't forced your dog very well or the dog is not the type to get confused about what he's supposed to do. In advanced retriever work I'll guarantee you that the dog will be confused and at times will be looking for the easy way. We convince him in the double T and the entire force program that the easy way is our way. They'll try you at times but they have the tools built into them during the double T and the force program to take that cast into cover or off that point.

What are the trainers who don't use the double T using to ensure the dog doesn't no go, flare, bug, sit crooked, or pop? How are they training? What are they substituting for the doube T?

The double T is hard on a dog many of them wash out in this phase of training. I'm all in favor of an easier on the dog method.


----------



## Poodlegirl (Dec 19, 2007)

We did double T on our dogs - that's three of them. Some probably confuse the popping with autocasting as the smart dogs can memorize the patterns pretty quickly -- but we use the Double T for a multiple number of things ...

One - we teach diversions on it -- as in throwing the bumper over the dogs head, out to the pile while the dog is coming back.

We teach remote sits on it as well. This has worked two times, the third time I actually had to go back to the yard as my obedience work hadn't clicked in.

We teach handling on the return there and do FTP there.

Four us, Double T is a whole process...not just an exercise. DT is the evolution from FTP - through the complete double T exercise with 9 bumpers in the program we use.

This last time around, I did three handed casting before I started the process -- and I liked the results. I also didn't try to rush through it, rarely used collar corrections and am coming through with a very happy dog who understands where and what she is supposed to go.

Lately I have heard people saying they don't do swim by either...that their dogs just carry the concept of handling on land to water. That is hard for me to grasp - because I think as a handling team that my dog and I get familiar with each others behaviors during the process - that's where we learn each others timing and cues.

But for folks that have trained multiple dogs - perhaps it works - I consider myself a true novice in the process so perhaps I need the drill as much as I feel the dogs do.

Out of curiousity - would one go to "blind drills" from the single T then?


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

I asked Paul Sletten recently, do you wash because of yard? He said, no, it's my job to get them through the best I can. He then told me about a dog he had in training that he was struggling with. Said that dog was one of the worst he had ever seen. Dog hated yard, tried every trick in the book to get out of doing it.
I asked, why did you keep going? He said, because I liked what I was seeing* in the field. *Dog could mark, and not afraid of a big swim.

I believe that same dog is about 4 now, is an FC, and a consistent AA performer.
It's not about being a star in yard, it's about being a star in the field.

A for TT causing popping, maybe. But maybe, that dog would have a tendency to pop anyway when uncertain. Maybe TT teaches the dog to deal with the fix. I think it's better to do this in a drill than in the field.
I'm sure there are good trainers who don't do TT. I'm equally sure there are many good ones who do.
I don't think TT teaches handling, only cold blinds really do that. We do it because it gives us the tools to start cold blinds, is good for specific problem solving, ( popping, flaring, no-goes, bugging, etc. ) and teaches FOCUS.

I think there are dogs that don't enjoy yard work. They know there is a high likelyhood of a correction. So, they are cautious, trying not to make a mistake. 
I don't believe this attitude necessarily carries over to the real stuff.


----------



## Mike Boufford (Sep 28, 2004)

greyghost said:


> I can see that possibly running the Double T as maybe a "random structured drill", stopping and handling the dog at different random locations may work and reduce the popping problems caused by a dog's anticipation or being honest or unsure.


This is the way it should be run and the way I was taught to use the drill. Mostly backs with a few overs or angles thrown in at irregular intervals should avoid the popping.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Poodlegirl said:


> We did double T on our dogs - that's three of them. Some probably confuse the popping with autocasting as the smart dogs can memorize the patterns pretty quickly -- but we use the Double T for a multiple number of things ...
> 
> One - we teach diversions on it -- as in throwing the bumper over the dogs head, out to the pile while the dog is coming back.


Why?


Poodlegirl said:


> *We teach remote sits on it as well.* This has worked two times, the third time I actually had to go back to the yard as my obedience work hadn't clicked in.


Why? Why not teach basic casts and remote sit prior to TT?


Poodlegirl said:


> We teach handling on the return there and do FTP there.


Some do, some don't. I don't find "run-by's" time efficient, but it's a matter of taste, more than good or bad.


Poodlegirl said:


> This last time around, I did three handed casting before I started the process -- and I liked the results.


That's good. To me, that's a more logical approach. I imagine your dogs found it easier to understand, too.


Poodlegirl said:


> Lately I have heard people saying they don't do swim by either...that their dogs just carry the concept of handling on land to water. That is hard for me to grasp - because I think as a handling team that my dog and I get familiar with each others behaviors during the process - that's where we learn each others timing and cues.


There are a wide variety of opinions about what Swim-by is, what its goals and purposes are, and what it achieves. That will certainly influence such decisions. For me...I do for each of them.


Poodlegirl said:


> Out of curiousity - would one go to "blind drills" from the single T then?


If a trainer feels their dog has solid fundamentals, and the trainer has adequate experience, perhaps they feel that's enough. I don't, but that's me.

Evan


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Will someone jot down their Basica Flow Chart that does *not* include the TT ?

John


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Will someone jot down their Basica Flow Chart that does *not* include the TT ?
> 
> John


Good question, John. I'm sure it's out there, but it would be nice to see it. A bit of rationale wouldn't be bad either.

Evan


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

I do both the TT and the swim by. I find both of them very valuable as foundation work for transitioning into advanced work, utlimately ending up with a dog that takes casts well and doesn't cheat the water, even on tight down the shore marks or blinds.


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

So if you don't do the TT what do you do?

I did the TT with no popping. I like to think it is because I was very careful about how many free sends I gave without handling or burning. I did get a little flaring,.made that center line a little hot, but we worked through it. I have a dog that knows what the hand signals are for and eventually I'll have one that takes em all. We are in swimby now. I get some confused looks, mostly when I ought to leave the danged whistle in my pocket...

If somebody came up with a better way to do it I'd sure like to hear a description, see some diagrams, would like to buy the video, etc.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

I'm with Charlotte on why dogs are washed out. I also heard said many times during workshops that "Dogs aren't washed out of his program because of the yardwork. It's because they can't mark well enough to take them into all-age."
Sue


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

john fallon said:


> Will someone jot down their Basica Flow Chart that does *not* include the TT ?
> 
> John


See my post #13. Surely you have seen D. L. Walters 3-leg pattern, 3-leg pattern with casts, and his 5-leg pattern with casts. I have heard some pros use T and don't go to TT. I have heard of a couple of others that use the 5-leg pattern with casts. Why should it be a surprise that there is more than one way to skin a cat? It wouldn't be hard with a little imagination to come up with something that didn't use TT.


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

> I've read and heard many times of trainers complaining about dogs that hate drill work. Although that may be so in some cases, I think in most cases it's a result of poor application and lack of overall balance.


1+ although people don't like to hear that.

Ken, New news rarely is. I was working with a FT pro 15 years ago that didn't do the TT with all his dogs.


----------



## Poodlegirl (Dec 19, 2007)

Evan: Thanks for your attention to my post here are some basic responses...



Evan said:


> Why?Why? Why not teach basic casts and remote sit prior to TT?
> 
> Umm, because that is how I first learned it? I think as I have progressed as a trainer, I've learned to value the momentum I can keep by introducing concepts more slowly and in unique sets - as in three handed casting etc. I can see the difference in my third dogs' response versus 1 and 2.
> 
> ...


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

It was my understanding that the biggest value embedded in the Double T was to build upon teaching the dog to handle pressure (corrections) and working through them?.so those who say they never correct in teaching the double T are quite possibly just teaching their dogs ?a nice set of tricks? and missing the real value of the T. Just saying?.
________
Ios Games


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

I believe that a dog that has had thorough TT is still not a handling dog - pretty much as C Kaiser said. The only have a solid set of tools to go learn how to become handling dogs. They come off T's with only basic handling skills, but they don't know handling sends them anywhere yet. That's part of what occurs during transition.

Evan


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Evan said:


> I think any dog may have been even better, even though he has a terrrific record. But for one or two small things, a fine record may have been mind boggling. Some of the little things acquired during a well applied TT may, for certain dogs, have made that kind of difference. It's hard to know, either in advance or in the rearview mirror, which dog.
> 
> Yes, I've had Chessies, Labs, Goldens and others that appeared to hate drill work. Just about every one of them was started by someone else. No dog I started came to hate drills
> EvanG


Evan, my original question was about whispers heard at a field trial. The person being talked about is running 3 dogs right now. One has an FC an other has an FC/AFC and the last is running Q’s A glance at entry express shows the person has 2 second place 2 third place and a fist full of Jams in 09 alone. I am truly puzzled how you can make such a blanket statement on how those dogs could be even better had they been through the double T

Now those problem dogs who you did not start, but finished. Did any of them go on to run trials or were they just solid meat dogs?


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

I know of muti FC AFC's that never went through the TT.


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

Mark Sehon said:


> I know of muti FC AFC's that never went through the TT.


Mark, did these same dogs go through swim-by?

fp


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> Evan,
> 
> I am truly puzzled how you can make such a blanket statement on how those dogs could be even better had they been through the double T
> 
> Now those problem dogs who you did not start, but finished. Did any of them go on to run trials or were they just solid meat dogs?


Ken,

Here is the long, but definitive answer. The summer at Carr's was the most meaningful of my dog training history. I sat as close to him as I could when not running a dog or out throwing birds. There was always a group, and one day they began discussing the "great's" of the past. Of course, sooner or later the topic was bound to include Saint Corky.

Eventually, someone asked, "Rex, what did you think of Corky?" As he remained fixed on the dog currently working in the field, he said "He was one of the greatest talents ever. But what might he have been?" Of course that wasn't the response they had anticipated, so he was asked to elaborate. He pointed out some things lacking in his work that most who now only know Corky by is point totals don't know about.

My impression was that no matter what a dog's record was, or what great things he may have done, he could always have been better. Rex Carr was a pure trainer - a dog man with a different way of looking at it than most. I don't believe he was in awe of any of them. He loved and respected them, but also understood their nature.

The hottest dog running at any level today could still be better. If that isn't our challenge, how can we continue to improve?

Some of the dogs you're asking about became good competitors. Some didn't. All were good gundogs that I recall. I don't remember any of them not hunting, and being very good at it. But, BOY...some of them needed lots of work to restore to a useful form!

Evan


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

Frank, yes the dogs I spoke of did go through swim-by and single T.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

ReedCreek said:


> It was my understanding that the biggest value embedded in the Double T was to build upon teaching the dog to handle pressure (corrections) and working through them….


My thoughts exactly


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Evan said:


> Ken,
> .......My impression was that no matter what a dog's record was, or what great things he may have done, he could always have been better. Rex Carr was a pure trainer - a dog man with a different way of looking at it than most. I don't believe he was in awe of any of them. He loved and respected them, but also understood their nature.......
> Evan


 
So am I wrong, in your opinion, to sit and speculate about these things? Is it wrong to, while having used the tried and true. To observe and ask questions of those who have used that in the past and have tweaked and evolved and gone past what they did with other dogs? Do you feel Mr. Carr would have stayed static? Or would he be changing, thinking, advancing himself as time ticked on?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

So Ken the short answer is this.

It doesn't matter if they run the TT. They could always be better so why worry about it.




/Paul


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> So am I wrong, in your opinion, to sit and speculate about these things? Is it wrong to, while having used the tried and true. To observe and ask questions of those who have used that in the past and have tweaked and evolved and gone past what they did with other dogs? Do you feel Mr. Carr would have stayed static? Or would he be changing, thinking, advancing himself as time ticked on?


Absolutely not! Speculate, inquire, fish for ideas...and most of all, experiment with your ideas in a fair and reasoned way to see how you view the results. I believe he was changing and evolving his method all the time. I think he would have been the last person to stifle anyone's wanting to think outside the box.

I also think he was good enough at reading and understanding dogs to know what worked best, and to adhere to that until he, or someone else provided evidence that a different path was a better one overall.

Evan


----------



## hrkplabs (Apr 26, 2006)

I would rather have a dog starting cold blinds with the confidence to take a line and dig deep then one who casts well and make that my focus so I blow thru TT with focus on the back pile prior to going to a 4 leg or 5 leg pattern field and buckling down. I do believe this builds a dog up rather then beating them down. I also believe the pattern field puts more focus on the intial line which I value more then casting with young dogs(In fact I value my intial line over casting in all dogs of any age). I can easily go back to casting drills later and tighten up my overs and angle backs) and know along the way doing things like swim by will improve my casting.(in fact I am often doing swim by right after the pattern field on the same day )
My friend Paco has something in his signature which may be a quote from Rex Carr
'train for total confidence not total compliance' and I think the pattern field is a better tool for this then TT and my guess alot of other trainers believe this as well.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

hrkplabs said:


> I would rather have a dog starting cold blinds with the confidence to take a line and dig deep then one who casts well and make that my focus so I blow thru TT with focus on the back pile prior to going to a 4 leg or 5 leg pattern field and buckling down. I do believe this builds a dog up rather then beating them down. I also believe the pattern field puts more focus on the intial line which I value more then casting with young dogs(In fact I value my intial line over casting in all dogs of any age). I can easily go back to casting drills later and tighten up my overs and angle backs) and know along the way doing things like swim by will improve my casting.(in fact I am often doing swim by right after the pattern field on the same day )
> My friend Paco has something in his signature which may be a quote from Rex Carr
> *'train for total confidence not total compliance'* and I think the pattern field is a better tool for this then TT and my guess alot of other trainers believe this as well.


thats a great line, and a nice post. thank you


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

hrkplabs said:


> ...Rex Carr
> 'train for total confidence not total compliance' and I think the pattern field is a better tool for this then TT and my guess alot of other trainers believe this as well.


They may. But, having trained with Rex, I would have an easier time accepting him actually having said something more like "Train for optimal compliance _and_ confidence". I didn't get the impression it was an "either/or" proposition for him. Sure isn't with me. 

Evan


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

hrkp,
But why not do TT and pattern field? 
Wouldn't having *more* education make for a more confident dog???

Are you implying that momentum is the same as confidence??
Don't think so....
Confidence comes from a dog knowing the rules, what is expected of him, and a MENTOR relationship with his handler.

I fail to understand your point why TT undermines that.


----------



## msdaisey (May 13, 2004)

Ken -

Think I know who you are talking about , and this person has not done a TT for the past 12 or so years. There are no formal drills, no pattern blinds, and the yardwork is different than any I have seen elsewhere.

Does it work for his dogs? Did it work for mine? I'd say so. Call me or email me. I can take you through the entire process.


----------



## hrkplabs (Apr 26, 2006)

cakaiser said:


> hrkp,
> But why not do TT and pattern field?
> Wouldn't having *more* education make for a more confident dog???
> 
> ...


When a dog is learning the rules momentum is confidence- don't think so watch a young dog throttle up when he knows he is on the right line and you are not about to erode it by blowing a sit whistle. That dog is sure he is right and therefore he gains speed or momentum and in my simple mind that equates to success which in turn equates to a good attitude and confidence. So although the Webster definition is different of these two words in the dog sense yes momentum =confidence at this point in training.
I am in know way applying that TT is bad because I still do it, (with less emphasis then most ) just my dogs get more out of pattern blinds


----------



## hrkplabs (Apr 26, 2006)

Evan said:


> They may. But, having trained with Rex, I would have an easier time accepting him actually having said something more like "Train for optimal compliance _and_ confidence". I didn't get the impression it was an "either/or" proposition for him. Sure isn't with me.
> 
> Evan


of course its not an either/or my point is simply in TT too many people are looking for total compliance, the pattern field for me is succesfull at building confidence to take a good line and to go deep, which Is seen quickly when kicking dogs off on cold blinds.


----------



## MIDTNGRNHEAD (Jun 17, 2004)

We are in the process of taking a 4 year old through the program. She has had little to no training in the last 2.5 years. She went through basics up through 3HC. Going back and revisiting several areas to be sure she remembers what's expected of her and understands her job. This idea of forcing to the back pile and then starting pattern(learned) blinds sounds intriguing. But TT has worked in the past. Makes you think though.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

MIDTNGRNHEAD said:


> We are in the process of taking a 4 year old through the program. She has had little to no training in the last 2.5 years. She went through basics up through 3HC. Going back and revisiting several areas to be sure she remembers what's expected of her and understands her job. This idea of forcing to the back pile and then starting pattern(learned) blinds sounds intriguing. But TT has worked in the past. Makes you think though.


Actually, force to pile being a component of my force fetch program, I go to patter blinds as soon as the dog is competent at pile work. During that same time, we begin handling work:

3-handed casting
Mini-T
Single T
Double T
Water Force & Swim-by

Evan


----------



## MIDTNGRNHEAD (Jun 17, 2004)

Evan-in my limited past experience, the dogs were solid on TT before we started what I considered pattern blinds(white staked blinds away from the pattern field). Maybe I'm missing something or my terminology is not correct.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

No, I'm sure you're thinking correctly. I've just done some dove tailing by starting short, easy PB's right after FTP, and during the same period of TT. They work fine together. We make the PB's so easy and well separated that there is no handling on them. 

Evan


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

hrkplabs said:


> of course its not an either/or my point is simply in TT *too many people are looking for total compliance*, the pattern field for me is succesfull at building confidence to take a good line and to go deep, which Is seen quickly when kicking dogs off on cold blinds.


I think you're making assumptions about people, and generalizing a bit. I understand it's your perception, and it's easy to make such assumptions. But any drill or exercise can be done badly and cause problems.

Many trainers run TT's with none of that issue. Lots! That is only one reason why it remains a standard. I think will continue to be for some time to come. Nothing wrong with keeping an open mind for better things.

Evan


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Evan said:


> No, I'm sure you're thinking correctly. I've just done some dove tailing by starting short, easy PB's right after FTP, and during the same period of TT. They work fine together. We make the PB's so easy and well separated that there is no handling on them.
> 
> Evan


Wow, your process is much different than mine. Pattern blinds are where I take the taught skills from T/TT to a field situation and continue to teach the dog working with me by running the pattern. My pattern blind field ranges from 100 to 300 yards and are mostly about running with good momemtum and basic casting. Lines are that important, just work with me to go where I want.

/Paul


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Wow,* your process is much different than mine*. Pattern blinds are where *I take the taught skills from T/TT to a field situation* and continue to teach the dog working with me by running the pattern. My pattern blind field ranges from 100 to 300 yards and are mostly about running with good momemtum and basic casting. Lines are that important, just work with me to go where I want.
> 
> /Paul


...... when you wrote T/TT does this mean you do either, or both, with the TT following the T but prior to any other casting drills _per se_

john


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

john fallon said:


> ...... when you wrote T/TT does this mean you do either, or both, with the TT following the T but prior to any other casting drills _per se_
> 
> john


Both

/Paul

How far is mars from the moon.......


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Wow, your process is much different than mine. Pattern blinds are where I take the taught skills from T/TT to a field situation and continue to teach the dog working with me by running the pattern. My pattern blind field ranges from 100 to 300 yards and are mostly about running with good momemtum and basic casting. Lines are that important, just work with me to go where I want.
> 
> /Paul


Perhaps. Assuming (I hate doing that) that you FTP just prior to T work, your dogs have that skill to take into the full scale T's. Mine too. I just don't take them to full scale PB's at first. Ours are only 30-40 yards, set in a 3 legged pattern with legs 90 degrees apart. Super simple.

At this stage I am mostly using them to introduce the cues and movements they'll use later on longer PB's. They're getting ready to go run to a pre-identified pile 100 yards away on T work, so running 30-40 yards to well separated PB's is a snap. As soon as they're really comfortable with that, we set up a new pattern somewhere else with legs 75 yards each, and later to 150. All during this time we're going through the progression from 3HC, to Mini-T, to T, to TT - all balanced with daily marks. It isn't the only way, it's just how I do it, and have for many years.

Evan


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> How far is mars from the moon.......


It's about 80 million km when it's at its closest point
I hope that this helps you with your dog training. Or are you planing a trip ............


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Alec Sparks said:


> Ken, New news rarely is. I was working with a FT pro 15 years ago that didn't do the TT with all his dogs.


 
Yup I am learning that as well as no new fields ether. Like pointing out a “new field” freshly mowed by the state to board members and having Betsy say it was used as a training field for a national or nat. am. Back in 97!! Oh well, this is a bump today for Marc.

.


----------



## Paco (Feb 14, 2007)

hrkplabs said:


> My friend Paco has something in his signature which may be a quote from Rex Carr
> 'train for total confidence not total compliance' and I think the pattern field is a better tool for this then TT and my guess alot of other trainers believe this as well.


For what it's worth that "signature line" is a play off this quote:

If you train for total confidence,your program will be successful.
If you train for total compliance,your program will ultimately fail.

Author;Mike Gould-The Labrador Shooting dog.

He would not be happy that it was associated with Rex Carr,take my word on that.

Another FWIW,, I have used mostly the methods from - Training Retrievers to Handle by D.L. and Ann Walters.

But the retriever work is only half at best of what I want from my Labrador gundogs.Lots of good to great training info on that end,more limited on the upland end.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Paco said:


> For what it's worth that "signature line" is a play off this quote:
> 
> If you train for total confidence,your program will be successful.
> If you train for total compliance,your program will ultimately fail.
> ...


Happily! It would be mutual; bank on that!!!

Evan


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Watch out, Evan--Gould might challenge you to a poetry slam;-)

(But never heeling sticks at 20 paces...)

MG


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

hrkplabs said:


> My friend Paco has something in his signature which may be a quote from Rex Carr
> 'train for total confidence not total compliance' and I think the pattern field is a better tool for this then TT and my guess a lot of other trainers believe this as well.


Hmm.... I think that TT, when done properly (over time and in steps), instills confidence (read "momentum"). Confidence in himself. Confidence in the job. Confidence in me and my direction. Confidence in us as a team. It is one of the chief reasons I look forward to doing it. :?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> Hmm.... I think that TT, when done properly (over time and in steps), instills confidence (read "momentum"). Confidence in himself. Confidence in the job. Confidence in me and my direction. Confidence in us as a team. It is *one of the chief reasons I look forward to doing it.* :?


A man after my own heart! I enjoy T work. In fact, I enjoy Basics for those same reasons.

Evan


----------



## Paco (Feb 14, 2007)

Evan said:


> Happily! It would be mutual; bank on that!!!
> 
> Evan


YEP ! I gathered that,from the reaction to one post on another forum,not to be named.

Not restricted to any one method,,,,,Signed commitment deficient,Paco


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Does that one still exist? 

Evan


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

crackerd said:


> Watch out, Evan--Gould might challenge you to a poetry slam;-)
> 
> (But never heeling sticks at 20 paces...)
> 
> MG


There on a field they stood, 
One, in his hand a stick to heel
the other a bar with power to wield
each confident his tool was good
their dogs they did not ask 
for each was confident in its task


----------



## pgdavies (Dec 18, 2014)

Double TT is the way to go.


----------

