# What I would like to see in a DERBY



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Since in the Derby Marking is "ALL" important.
First series Land, all dogs that did not _Handle or Pickup_ or have any other cause for elimination fault, would get to run the second series which would be water marks by _Mandate_ .
By doing so all dogs would have demonstrated their _Marking _ ability or lack thereof on both land and water.
At that point evaluate all of the dog work and drop any dog whose remaining work, if perfect, when compared to the rest of the field with similar work in the last two series, would not get a placement.
Do the third series , probably land, similarly evaluate then go on to a second water series.
john


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

1st series - triple with two retired, wipeout flyer.
2nd series - two down the shore where the short bird lands less than 20 ft from the long guns chair - out of order of course.

No need for any more - you are done.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> 1st series - triple with two retired, wipeout flyer.
> 2nd series - two down the shore where the short bird lands less than 20 ft from the long guns chair - out of order of course.
> 
> No need for any more - you are done.


That would cut derby numbers down a lot 'cause nobody'd want to play! :lol:


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> 1st series - triple with two retired, wipeout flyer.
> 2nd series - two down the shore where the short bird lands less than 20 ft from the long guns chair - out of order of course.
> 
> No need for any more - you are done.


That would only have to happen on Sunday, where the Open/Derby judges had just judged a 90+/ - dog Open and just wanted to get home.
john


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

The "dog can no longer place" theory does not apply to the derby.

1. You NEVER know who is going to completely blow up in the last series, so there is no way to say a dog can no longer place - in a derby where there is only marking and handling is not allowed, per the rules.
2. Every dog that gets all the chickens in a minor stake deserves a JAM - _handling in the last series of a Q may or may not warrant a JAM_

Shayne


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

John,
Come to riverking and watch. Next weekend Stan (judge in nationals) and myself are judging Should be fun. Thats the way all derbys should be. There is no need to be mean and the young dogs can goof up enough themselves. Besides jam ribbons are cheap.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> 1. You NEVER know who is going to completely blow up in the last series, so there is no way to say a dog can no longer place - in a derby where there is only marking and handling is not allowed, per the rules.
> 
> Shayne


Shayne, that would even be better if you had enough time .
Let them all run them all then sort it out at the end  :wink:

Steve wrote


> John,
> Come to riverking and watch. Next weekend Stan (judge in nationals) and myself are judging Should be fun. Thats the way all derbys should be. There is no need to be mean and the young dogs can goof up enough themselves. Besides jam ribbons are cheap.


Steve, I'm glad to hear that!
john


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> 1st series - triple with two retired, wipeout flyer.


What about running the blind off the backside of one of the retired guns? Simple enough for an older Derby pup! :wink:

And, lets do away with the land work and see who the real water dogs are!


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Let them all run them all then sort it out at the end  :wink:


Thats my take on how derbies should be.

Shayne


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

not sure everyone sees it this way.

a couple weeks ago my co- judge and i judged a derby with 40 or so dogs and called back every dog that got the chickens. then we awarded jams to all who completed the last series.(13 of 'em)

later that week i learned many were unhappy with the derby.

perhaps we were too generous. :roll: -paul


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

What I really want to say about what a Derby should be

Marty wrote: 

Quote: 
i havent been at this long, but seems to me like derby judges want everyone to get through the first series and 7 to get to the end. it gets however tough it has to be to get the other 25 dogs picked up. 


That sounds to me like a good derby. 

1. You want everyone to get to play a series or two. 

2. You want the dogs to eliminate themselves instead of dropping dogs with "two gun hooks" or "two hunts" like some derbys. 

3. Everyone in the last series SHOULD have the oppertunity to finish in the money, even win. 

4. In order for #3 to be true, the last should be tough enough to push every dog in the field - ie the leader has to earn his blue ribbon. And dogs that are bleeding got a shot at glory. 

5. You don't end up with 10 people that think they won and the results are a lottery - the winner and places are fairly obivious.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

What do you folks think of going to water in the 2nd series?
john


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Gerard Rozas wrote:



> 5. You don't end up with 10 people that think they won and the results are a lottery - the winner and places are fairly obivious.


Yes, I'd rather them be obvious than oblivious...like some judges I've known! :wink: (just playin', Gerard!)


john fallon wrote:



> What do you folks think of going to water in the 2nd?


I think it's great if it's readily available and makes sense logistically. In my perfect judging world, I'd love to be able to do land/water/land/water, with four separate setups, then to water again if necessary.

However, I'd _seriously_ consider not judging any more Derbies (one of my _favorite_ stakes to judge, by the way!  ) if it were mandated that water was to be run as a second series. 

If there were 10 new rules that needed to be written (and there _aren't_, IMHO), that one would be 11th, again IMHO.

Keith Griffith


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think it is easy to forget that judging is an art, not a science.

In science, there are laws which must be obeyed.

In art, there are guidelines, which mostly must be followed.

In my opinion, the more we establish rules for the manner in which tests must be conducted, the more mediocrity we are likely to encourage.


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Heres what I think should be in the rules for Derbies.....

"Hooking a gun should not be grounds for disquailification". 

And

If a dog handles, it is NOT automatically disqualified.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I believe that judges ought to do all they can - time permitting - to carry dogs in the minor stakes.

It has been several years since I have run the minor stakes. This year, with Mootsie, Fly, and Buffy, I have started running the Q and Derby again.

*High points*

Seeing all the fresh faces, excited about simply getting to the next series

Seeing all the fresh faces, rooting for everyone to succeed

Seeing all the young dogs, full of piss and vinegar, flying here and there

Running under judges who wanted to let everyone play

*Low points*

Running under judges who were clearly last minute decisions

Running under judges who thought that they were judging the AA stakes

Running under judges who knew nothing about the Rules (Mootsie got dropped once for running behind a gun. I was told that Fly had a Q won but that "because he hunted a blind," the judges couldn't even give him a Jam. Note: the water blind was 30 yards from the long retired bird, Fly winded the blind, checked it out and left and got the long bird. Hunted the blind?)

I think that - with sufficient time and terrain - good judges can find a way to separate dogs without eliminating them


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Ted Shih wrote:



> I think that - with sufficient time and terrain - good judges can find a way to separate dogs without eliminating them.


I agree wholeheartedly....but those are three variables that with a leak in _any_ of the three can throw that theory straight out the door... :roll: 

Keith Griffith


----------



## redline (Apr 19, 2003)

1st. make the first series do-able. Not the hardest test.
2nd If land make it pretty hard def harder than 1st.
If water make sure you have the time. Again naturally harder because
it's water. Leave room for the last series water which should be the hardest
test.
3rd Harder than 1 & 2. Like a water blind eliminate the weak dogs get the numbers down for the water.
4th Time for the big dogs to be to step up and take it.
Two long swims wide with an obstacle or a temptation. see who will stay in the water make the swim. We find out not who the pin point markers are but whose got the kahoonees(sp?) 
All doubles trying to do all possible configurations of throws and distances.
Of course using factors as much as possible.
My criticisms of some derbies are either they were too easy or they start way to hard. Unless your doing the derby at NORCO LA in Feb then all rules are off, start very hard get harder.
My 2 cents Jan


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Keith Griffith said:


> > .
> > However, I'd _seriously_ consider not judging any more Derbies (one of my _favorite_ stakes to judge, by the way!  ) if it were mandated that water was to be run as a second series.
> > Keith Griffith
> 
> ...


----------



## wutadog (Oct 21, 2003)

> I think that - with sufficient time and terrain - good judges can find a way to separate dogs without eliminating them


Aarrgghhhh! Keith...you beat me to this quote!
Most_ sensible _thing I've heard on this board in a long time....Ted....you're *HIRED!*
Dave

P.S. John, I think the second series in the water is a sound idea, but quite often, the logistics of the trial do not permit it. The downfall of a "minor" stake.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

Some good ideas so far.
I agree with letting the dogs DQ themselves.
Carrying all dogs to the second test is great, but if that test was water, the time limitations and mechanics would become a nightmare.
It's a competition. Everyone who pays their entry knows the risks.
I like the idea of Jamming every dog that picks up the chickens, in the last series.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

It all relates to # of entries, time available and good test setups. You can't set up a "gimmie" on land, then take all dogs to the water. "Time" available won't allow it.

Generally speaking, a certain percentage of the dogs will blow it, if the first series was a single, 100 yards on a golf course.

I would love to see a set of Judges set up one land double and one water double, then declare that they have a "Winner" and "no further testing is necessary". 

I have run a Derby which consisted of 2 land singles & 2 water singles. Jay walker judged it at East Texas RC in Lufkin.

There are many restrictions that come into play regarding the Derby.

Jerry


----------



## Polock (Jan 6, 2003)

What the Polock would like to see in the DERBY, is some of ya entering my NFRA Derby in June 2005 in NY.
Gives ya a chance to tune up on a Derby type test, with live birds, and Derby Quality Judges for 1/2 a C note and plenty of tailgate party to go with it.............................


----------



## Canman (Jan 24, 2003)

Water for the second series doesn't have to mean two long swims. That could be left for the last series like Jan mentioned. Just like the nationals, cutting small bodies of water still constitutes a water series and can quickly show water dogs like to cheat factors.

As a matter of fact, the derby tomorrow will likely go land-water-land-water. We will see how it plays out.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

john fallon wrote:



> Just curious why you feel so strongly, since if left on your own and the opportunity availed itself, you would do it that way anyhow.


Because I like having choices when I judge, John. 

By the rulebook, minor stakes get third and fourth consideration. I have yet, however, to judge for a club that didn't try to do right by them. Forcing judges to run a water test second may totally screw up the club's ability to finish the Derby on time or run the Derby _right_, since there might not be enough water available at that time to properly test Derby dogs with....or it might be logistically unsound to move 10-12 miles away from the major stakes where other Derby dog handlers might be running all-age dogs because that's the only Derby water that's available to run right now as a second series. 

I'm not gonna sacrifice young dogs because someone needs more rules to judge by. 

Keith Griffith


----------



## redline (Apr 19, 2003)

Theoretically the derby should have the best land and water at least some times if they start on Saturday and can follow the Open around . It doesn't always work that way but it can. Derbys should grab the water when it's available.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Keith Griffith said:


> john fallon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Keith,
Your point is well taken.
For obvious reasons. I think "some", judging the minor stake, need a guideline on the matter. 
A _Should_ in the _Recs_ would work for me.
john


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

In the last 2 derbys I judged the first one started out easy and with breaking and pick ups from switching and I know what you thinking they were almost 90 degrees apart. The field was cut in 1/2 the second series did not go well, almost the same result. Took around 13 to water and the work got worse. had to quit at 3 with 4 places and a jam. the dogs could not find a duck if it was the size of a Buick. The second trial we could not make the test hard enough were worried to have to go 5 series. The derby trial is a fine line when judging between killing them and a easy pass.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I now have a 15 MO so I am thinking more about this.

john


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

I had this song pop into my head when I read your post Paul, I think it fits


paul young said:


> not sure everyone sees it this way.
> a couple weeks ago my co- judge and i judged a derby with 40 or so dogs and called back every dog that got the chickens. then we awarded jams to all who completed the last series.(13 of 'em)
> later that week i learned many were unhappy with the derby.
> perhaps we were too generous. :roll: -paul


I went to a Garden Party
To reminisce with my old friends
A chance to share old memories
and play our songs again.

When I got to the Garden Party
They all knew my name
But no one recognized me
I didn’t look the same. 

But it’s all right now.
I learned my lesson well.
You see you can’t please everyone
So you got to please yourself.

Rick Nelson, “Garden Party” (1971)


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

John, I hvae really enjoyed this thread. Good discussion.

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Some folk's best work is 2 1/2 years old........  

Not scotch, though, regards, :wink: 

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> *High points*
> 
> Seeing all the fresh faces, excited about simply getting to the next series
> 
> ...


Well Said TED.

When judging a Derby you should look at the ages of the entries - 18 months & under are a different group of dogs than 18 months & older.
Tests should be progressively harder in each series. Always be sure you have more tests of varying difficulty set up if the test you have is laying an egg. Time allowing - all dogs should be carried until severely wounded. Derby dogs generally don't have the savvy to recover during a test like a more mature dog may. It should be fun - as Ted pointed out, the fresh faces, the hard going young dogs (some who don't know where they are going but are happy to be going) are the thrill of watching, running & judging a Derby.

There may be a reason that Derby entries went from 21 in the 60's to 41 in the 70's & back to 21 today. Could it be that the individuals judging don't have a clue about what should be expected of young dogs?

Marvin Sundstrom


----------



## txrancher (Aug 19, 2004)

What I'd like to see in a derby is, MY DOG TAKING A FIRST!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> There may be a reason that Derby entries went from 21 in the 60's to 41 in the 70's & back to 21 today. Could it be that the individuals judging don't have a clue about what should be expected of young dogs?


Interesting thing about statistics....they can tell pretty much _any_ story, depending on how _deeply_ into them one wants to go. :wink: For example:

In 1966, there were 119 Derbies with 3157 starters, creating an average of 26.5 entries per Derby.

In 1976, there were 170 Derbies with 6915 starters, creating an average of 40.7 entries per Derby.

In 1986, there were 209 Derbies with 6230 starters, creating an average of 29.9 entries per Derby.

In 1996, there were 227 Derbies with 5371 starters, creating an average of 23.7 entries per Derby.

In 2006, there were 255 Derbies with 4951 starters, creating an average of 20.2 entries per Derby.

Over the last 40 years, the number of available Derbies to run as increased by 136, or 114%; the number of starters has increased by 57%. Simple math tells you more trials = fewer starters per trial. Good trial competition keeps the numbers more manageable and, in theory at least, lets dogs play longer. That's a *good* thing, right? Sure it is, but does it tell the "rest of the story?" Take a look at what's happened with Qual numbers since 1966: :wink: 

In 1966, there were 108 Quals with 2267 starters, creating an average of 20.9 entries per Qual.

In 1976, there were 158 Quals with 5213 starters, creating an average of 33 entries per Qual.

In 1986, there were 201 Quals with 5662 starters, creating an average of 28.2 entries per Qual.

In 1996, there were 225 Quals with 5106 starters, creating an average of 22.7 entries per Qual. 

In 2006, there were 252 Quals with 7908 starters (a NEW HIGH), creating an average of 32.7 entries per Qual.

Between 1966 and 2006, the number of Quals increased by 133% with the number of starters going up by _*248%!! :shock: :shock: *_ Between 1976 and 2006, the difference in the number of TOTAL entries in the minor stakes went up a _whopping_ 6%....12,128 vs. 12, 859..... :? 

The "rest of the story" is the change in emphasis from making a big splash in the Derby to starting earlier in the dog's life to extend its all-age potential by training for and entering in the Qual while still eligible for the Derby. Many folks today quit running Derbies all together when the dog "makes the list," since THAT is the real feather in a young dog's "cap." Some move to the Qual after they get a Derby win or just a handful of points, enough to know that they have a marking dog. Becoming QAA before or near two is the REAL accomplishment, much more so than making the Derby list by all appearances.

Mark Twain is attributed with saying: "There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." :wink: 

Quantitative regards,

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

K G said:


> > There may be a reason that Derby entries went from 21 in the 60's to 41 in the 70's & back to 21 today. Could it be that the individuals judging don't have a clue about what should be expected of young dogs?
> 
> 
> The "rest of the story" is the change in emphasis from making a big splash in the Derby to starting earlier in the dog's life to extend its all-age potential by training for and entering in the Qual while still eligible for the Derby. Many folks today quit running Derbies all together when the dog "makes the list," since THAT is the real feather in a young dog's "cap." Some move to the Qual after they get a Derby win or just a handful of points, enough to know that they have a marking dog. Becoming QAA before or near two is the REAL accomplishment, kg


I've run 2 Q's this spring, 32 & 41 entries - 2 more on the next 2 weekends - 46 & somewhere in the 30's for entries. Very few dogs under 2 running. I'll post the number on this thread from the 46 dog Q this weekend! What I do notice in the Q is more HT'ers running & I think that's beneficial to all. Most people in this part of the country run a dog when it's ready to do something in an advanced stake, until then they stay in their age bracket. I've seen these dog pushed past their maturity level & they are usually somebody's Gun Dog by 4 years of age, sometimes quicker. Very few dogs are in the I'm the GREATEST bracket. Most do the Derby, in & out of the Q by 4 & usually place in an ALL-AGE stake shortly thereafter. 

As long as we are quoting statistics, I believe my personal experience training Derby to All-Age dogs is a little more statistically advanced than yours. I have never finished a Derby campaign feeling good about the judging, while in the Q the only thing that can happen to you bad is winning 2 before you are ready to be a BIG DOG. 

Marvin Sundstrom


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

The fact remains that in the last 30 years, there's been only a 6% increase in the TOTAL number of minor stake entries. The hunting test game has been around since 1985; only recently (last 5 years, +/-) have their numbers begun to impact Q entries. The O/H Qual will help that somewhat, but not to a much greater extent than has already occurred.



> I have never finished a Derby campaign feeling good about the judging, while in the Q the only thing that can happen to you bad is winning 2 before you are ready to be a BIG DOG.


So how can you automatically qualify someone's ability to _judge_ by the number of times they've been _at the line_ in the stake? Maybe you live in the wrong part of the country relative to not feeling good about the Derby campaigns you run. Where else do you have to compare it to? It's still fair to say, and you affirmed in your first paragraph, that the emphasis is more on the Q now, especially at the entry level.



> As long as we are quoting *statistics*, I believe my personal experience training Derby to All-Age dogs is a little more *statistically* advanced than yours.


Yet you haven't sat in judgement of a Derby dog since the last millenium. Why are you depriving the sport of your "personal training experience" in evaluating dogs? As Ted opined elsewhere, there are _plenty_ of people with dog training experience (which itself is _hardly_ quantifiable UNLESS they've had _multiple_ SUCCESSES with dogs) who don't know which end is up when they sit in the chair. That they are successful at the running line doesn't necessarily mean BEANS when it comes to sitting in judgement of dogs.

When people tell me they have a lot of experience...say, 30 years (could be 10...10 years is a _long_ time), I always wonder if they have 30 years of _experience_, or a year of experience _30 times_. 

_Qualitative_ regards, :wink: 

kg


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

A test set up to show what the dogs can/should be able to do. Instead of what they can't. For example:

I was at a test last week. Dogs were back dooring the gunners on the first two land series. Some of the dogs actually back doored both gunners on one series. All dogs but the ones that didn't pick up the meat were carried. So we are at the water in the 3rd. They set up a ball buster. Memory bird was 340 yard water mark (someone used a range finder because it was so tough) the dog was required to run land for 100yds before an angled entry. Swim between two points 70 yds out and continue down the shore for another 130 yds looking at a lake that was 1 mile across. Which would take the dog past the go bird and scent. The bird was not thrown down the shore. Rather up the hill 30 yds under a tree. The bird when shot was very hard to see because it never cleared the horizon.

The go bird was left of the memory bird. Up wind and up hill 220 yards. The dog would run 60 yds before hitting the water. Swim 70 yards and than run up the hill. Thru a crick bottom and then up the hill totalling 90 yds. All this is being done with a 25 mph wind from left to right. Temp 33 degrees. And water temp near freezing (we had to break ice one the first series land mark the had some cheating water. Several of the dogs went back to the old fall.

My dog, to my amazement, pick up both birds. However, this didn't help our training at all. She cheated bad on the memory bird but stepped on the duck (only one to do so). Many of the dogs that had wintered in TX and seen lots of water new not to get out. They swam for the memory bird like it was thrown down the shore. Back doored the gunners and beached when winding the bird and ran up the hill.

What was accomplished by this? Should a 2 year old dog be able to pick these birds up cleanly? Is the rest of the week to be spent fixing the problems that these tests create? How could I have even befan to train for this? Ice just came off our lakes 2 weeks prior and we are only 150 miles north.

I won't even begin to tell you about the forth series. Except that we waited around for an hour while they broke ice and the go bird was the same mark ran in the open. And the test dog for the open was competing in the derby!


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

You sound bitter. :lol:


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

-with reason, the way things are described in his post.

i don't know how the dog did that got to run that mark twice, but it is WRONG to allow it to happen.-paul


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Bitter--no

Concerned--yes

Try to visualize what i wrote and tell me I shouldn't be. 540yds of swimming in ice cold water on a 33 degree day. Fighting white caps the whole way there and back.

BTW a dog with 17 derby points in 4 trials ran to the waters edge on the memory bird. Turned and came back. Keep in mind it was 100yds to the water. There was no confusion.

There were many posts earlier in this thread that state if the dogs pick up the meat that they should be carried. This is fine. However, if in doing so you create a problem of carrying to many dogs from series to series, than I don't agree. Some judges are obviously feeling the pressure to drop some dogs and setting up test like the one described earlier. These dogs shouldn't be put in this position. TEST what they should know. Drop those that don't preform what they should know. So better tests can be ran and a winner can be determined. This winner will be one that is the best marker. And we will not be running the risk of going backwards in their training for a ribbon.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

I have never finished a Derby campaign feeling good about the judging, while in the Q the only thing that can happen to you bad is winning 2 before you are ready to be a BIG DOG. [/quote]



KG said:


> So how can you automatically qualify someone's ability to _judge_ by the number of times they've been _at the line_ in the stake?


Apparently the gentleman from NE also has a complaint & if his description of the tests is accurate, legitimately so.



KG said:


> It's still fair to say, and you affirmed in your first paragraph, that the emphasis is more on the Q now, especially at the entry level.


I would say that the entries are higher for several reasons, none of which have to do with the Q becoming popular.



kg said:


> As long as we are quoting *statistics*, I believe my personal experience training Derby to All-Age dogs is a little more *statistically* advanced than yours.





kg said:


> Yet you haven't sat in judgement of a Derby dog since the last millenium.


A millenium is a looooong time!



kg said:


> Why are you depriving the sport of your "personal training experience" in evaluating dogs?


When you don't have sponsors in the judging game you may sit for some time. I would rather train than judge, so only judge if asked & I agree to the assignment. I have told a couple of clubs that I would return because of their good mechanics & better than average grounds. Many like myself have multiple placings with multiple dogs yet are rarely seen holding the book at a Derby stake. Yet we have others, including yourself, who have minimal experience with Derby dogs holding the book multiple times. There is something wrong with that scenario, especially when you see the lack of quality judging in the Derby stake.

What you need to do KG, is prove to everyone that YOU CAN train a dog by YOURSELF with your ideas & biases. showing everyone you can do more than sit in front of your computer screen in Saggy Bottom, TN & criticize every one else.

Marvin Sundstrom


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)




----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Archiro, bitter is how coach Stoops felt after the loss to Oregon.  

Rightfully so :!: 

I know the Boise State game never went the way you would have liked. However, it was one of the best games of all time.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Folks, this is LONG....I apologize in advance, but it covers the bases...you have been warned!  



> Apparently the gentleman from NE also has a complaint & if his description of the tests is accurate, legitimately so.


From what I read, I would agree that there was something amiss...but there's always more to the story than one side presents...and that "more" could be on _either_ side.



> I would say that the entries are higher for several reasons, none of which have to do with the Q becoming popular.


Yet you give none of those "several" reasons...and I said _nothing_ about it being more "popular." Times have changed, Marvin...the Q means more now than it used to when compared to the Derby for measuring the future potential of a dog. We're not in the 60's or 70's anymore.....



> A millenium is a looooong time!


I said "_since_ the last millenium.." not "_in_ a millenium." Little bit of a difference, don't you think? And I'm amazed that you didn't correct me, since according to the AKC, the only judging assignment you've had in this _millenium_ was a 20-dog Derby back in 2003....you know, one of those 20 dog Derbies at a time, according to you, when:


> There may be a reason that Derby entries went from 21 in the 60's to 41 in the 70's & back to 21 today. Could it be that the individuals judging don't have a clue about what should be expected of young dogs?


 More on that in a moment....as for the "last millenium," the last _All-Age_ stake you judged was when we wrote "1999" on our checks. :wink: 



> When you don't have sponsors in the judging game you may sit for some time.


Someone with your self-admitted experience training and running dogs has got to find a _sponsor_ (whatever _that_ is...) to get judging assignments?? :shock: I am astonished...you fit your own profile of the "perfect" judge, yet you need a "sponsor" to be asked to judge.....I don't get it........ :? 



> I would rather train than judge, so only judge if asked & I agree to the assignment.


Yeah....I'm sure giving a couple of weekends a year back to the sport would really put a dent in your training regimen. :roll: Where I come from, we call people with that attitude "takers." "Givers" are the ones who _give back_ to the sport. 



> I have told a couple of clubs that I would return because of their good mechanics & better than average grounds.


One Derby judging assignment since 1999 and that's _it_? :shock: Looks like maybe either you haven't been asked or you don't want to give back to the sport.



> Many like myself have multiple placings with multiple dogs yet are rarely seen holding the book at a Derby stake.


I'm guessing there's a _good_ reason for that in _your_ case! :wink: 



> Yet we have others, including yourself, who have minimal experience with Derby dogs holding the book multiple times. There is something wrong with that scenario, especially when you see the lack of quality judging in the Derby stake.


Remember above when I mentioned the last Derby you judged having 20 starters? If I followed _your_ logic, looking at that number _alone_ might tell me you didn't know what you were doing. Pretty ludicrous, huh? Just about as ludicrous as you lumping me in with _your_ perceived lack of quality judging in the Derby stake because I don't have _your_ requisite level of line time. Nevermind that, in this day of boards like RTF, if I laid an egg at the Derby I co-judged at CSRA last month, you'd know about it before the sun set. Apparently the lack of complaints is not good enough for you to think anyone can be a good judge; they _must_ fit your criteria. :roll: 

The last trial at which you judged had 215 total entries, Marvin. There were only 20 dogs entered in the Derby, and you haven't judged since? I wonder why? I mean, I don't _really_ wonder why...it's a rhetorical question.



> What you need to do KG, is prove to everyone that YOU CAN train a dog by YOURSELF with your ideas & biases. showing everyone you can do more than sit in front of your computer screen in Saggy Bottom, TN & criticize every one else.


I'll be doing more next weekend at North Texas, Marvin. When is YOUR next judging assignment? :wink: When are YOU going to give something back to the sport that's worthwhile, instead of muckraking? No time soon, I'm sure.

And what "ideas and biases" do I have that even remotely approach the severity of _yours_? *Ser*iously!!!???

Don't pretend you know me or anything _about_ me just because of your "research" or what you read here on RTF. I notice you don't have anything negative to say about my "line time" in the Amateur stake!  And I didn't train that dog either, yet your "system" of bestowing credibility upon folks puts me in good stead due to that "line time." I hope someday to have the time to do a lot of training, Marvin...to have as much time on my hands as you do today....but right now I'm like one of the hundreds of people in this sport who pay a professional trainer to teach/train/trial my dogs. So if my peers spend more time on the line (but not necessarily _training_) with their dogs (and they must PLACE in the stake in order for it to count; merely finishing isn't good enough...it doesn't earn them a PELT!), they're _more_ qualified to judge than I might be. Simply put, that's absurd. Patently.

I'll put my time in front of a computer up against yours _any_ day; the amount of mind-numbing "research" (statistic compilation, really) you've done for ftretrieverjudge.net will put ANYTHING I've done here to shame! :lol: Too bad that, in the long run, you could have used that time to give something back to the sport of value instead of something that will NOT change a thing.

The AKC will soon have the opportunity to embark upon an education/qualification initiative for all persons who have not previously judged an all-age stake who wish to judge an all-age stake. Field trial holding clubs will have the opportunity to comment on this proposal. There are NO changes pending that would affect the current crop of All-Age or minor stake judges. Hope that doesn't disappoint you _too_ much after all your effort.

As for criticizing, I call out those that need to be called out. I'm in good company here in that regard if you haven't noticed. I can dish it out, and _I can take it_. Too bad you can't do the same.

Saggy Bottom, TN.....now _that_ was a zinger if I've ever heard one... :roll: 

No, we sure don't have a "Sasquatch" here regards, :wink: 

kg

(...but we do have some mighty _fine_ sippin' whiskey! :wink: )


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

K G said:


> The last trial at which you judged had 215 total entries, Marvin. There were only 20 dogs entered in the Derby


Actually, my co-judge & I were fill-ins after the entries closed, no scratches because of new judges. The advertised judges had credentials similar to yours. In their defense, 20 dogs was a typical derby entry that year. 



kg said:


> I'll be doing more next weekend at North Texas,


Are you egotistical enough to think you received that assignment based on merit?



kg said:


> And I didn't train that dog either,





> ....but right now I'm like one of the hundreds of people in this sport who pay a professional trainer to teach/train/trial my dogs.


Without a dog that you own since 1994 cracking the "pelts" you need to pay someone to pick a dog for you also. Apparently when looking at all those dogs when you are covering one of your many judging assignments it hasn't sunk in that you need to concentrate on the get of winners. Or do your winners look like the dogs you have exhibited since 1994. 

Just imagine how good a judge you could be if you actually trained a successful dog! That is if you are as good a judge as YOU profess to be!! 



kg said:


> The AKC will soon have the opportunity to embark upon an education/qualification initiative for all persons who have not previously judged an all-age stake who wish to judge an all-age stake. Field trial holding clubs will have the opportunity to comment on this proposal. There are NO changes pending that would affect the current crop of All-Age or minor stake judges. Hope that doesn't disappoint you _too_ much after all your effort.


Hopefully, this AKC initiative is more successful than their past endeavors. They need to concentrate on the trial holding clubs, they invite the judges. Also, grandfathering is typical regardless of competence!

A couple of posts ago I said I would post the 46 Derby dogs entry's ages- 2 under 2, 18 from 2 to 3 years, 20 from 3 to 4 years, 6 from 4 to 5 years & 2 over 5 years. It was a double, short bird dead 1st & retired, 2nd bird flyer, birds thrown into each other, & a blind by invite. Both dogs under 2 didn't get the marks. I'm not going to research further because I think your theory is full of holes.

If there is no response to much of your verbiage, it does not mean agreement or disagreement, it means the subject you have brought up isn't worth discussing!!

Marvin Sundstrom


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Glad you responded, Marv. After a day and a half absence I was starting to worry about you. I'm _such_ a fan! :lol: 



> Actually, my co-judge & I were fill-ins after the entries closed, no scratches because of new judges. The advertised judges had credentials similar to yours. In their defense, 20 dogs was a typical derby entry that year.


Ah....the "warm body with points" judging assignment....your ONE since 1999. Sorry, Marv, but I'm still _agog_ that you haven't judged any more than you have with your world-beating credentials. With all your "training experience" and "line time," seems like folks would be knocking down your door and ringing your phone off the hook to get you to judge. Do you not work or play well with others, or do you just _talk the talk_ but not _walk the walk_?



> Are you egotistical enough to think you received that assignment based on merit?


Feel free to PM or email EdA for his answer on that one: he's the one that asked me _two years ago_ to judge this trial. :wink: I'm always looking to learn something, Marv. This coming weekend will be no different. I'm not as fortunate as you are to already know EVERYTHING about judging, yet _still_ not judge.



> Without a dog that you own since 1994 cracking the "pelts" you need to pay someone to pick a dog for you also.


Nope. I take full responsibility for the ones I've picked. Feel free to tell me about your "world beaters" any time you want to.



> Apparently when looking at all those dogs when you are covering one of your many judging assignments it hasn't sunk in that you need to concentrate on the get of winners. Or do your winners look like the dogs you have exhibited since 1994.


I do so _LOVE_ when you display your ignorance! The two prior to 1999 were dysplastic; in 1999 I went to work for the AKC for two years as a field rep; of the four dogs I've washed out since then, two were out of NFCs and two were out of FC/AFCs...one was dysplastic. So much for your "get of winners" theory..... :roll: I've got two right now that I'm pretty happy with. Thanks for your interest! At your age, you should _know_ what happens when you *ASS*u*ME*, Marv! :wink: 

By the way, since you haven't "watched" any Derby dogs since 2003 (and only 20 then) and any AA dogs since 1999 (from the "judge's seat, that is), I guess you're in worse shape than I am if you'd have had to pick the get from _your_ winners.



> Just imagine how good a judge you could be if you actually trained a successful dog! That is if you are as good a judge as YOU profess to be!!


Show me where I've said I'm that good a judge...._show_ me.....those are your words, not mine. I'm just amazed that I'm busier than you are, someone who is more _imminently_ qualified than I could EVER be!  Oh yeah....I guess being asked *and* _choosing to give something back to _ (instead of always _taking from_) the sport that I've been a student of for almost 25 years helps. 8)



> Hopefully, this AKC initiative is more successful than their past endeavors. They need to concentrate on the trial holding clubs, they invite the judges. Also, grandfathering is typical regardless of competence!


Trial giving clubs are the key, true enough. They always WILL be....and the AKC will always defer to the RAC *IF* enough trial-holding clubs (the only ones that can vote on _any_ rule changes) vote to pass a RAC initiative. As for the grandfathering, trial-holding clubs _still pick the judges..._or don't pick them, in some cases 8) ........



> I'm not going to research further because I think your theory is full of holes.


Yet you don't grace us with where those holes are. Pity. I'd think you'd take that opportunity to at least further your own agenda. 



> If there is no response to much of your verbiage, it does not mean agreement or disagreement, it means the subject you have brought up isn't worth discussing!!


Interesting. All I did was answer points _you_ brought up. Apparently _you_ thought they were worth discussing _before_ but not _now_.....hmmmmmmmm......I guess it is best to avoid the point if you don't have anything else worth adding to the discussion.

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

[quote="K G.] The "rest of the story" is the change in emphasis from making a big splash in the Derby to starting earlier in the dog's life to extend its all-age potential by training for and entering in the Qual while still eligible for the Derby. Many folks today quit running Derbies all together when the dog "makes the list," since THAT is the real feather in a young dog's "cap." Some move to the Qual after they get a Derby win or just a handful of points, enough to know that they have a marking dog. Becoming QAA before or near two is the REAL accomplishment, much more so than making the Derby list by all appearances. kg[/quote] 

You'll have to tell "Frank the Fisherman", 2005 NFC "Chopper" (46 Derby points) & 2006 NAFC "Carbon" (a raft of Derby points in Canada) that he is not managing his dogs right & should get his dogs out of the Derby because you think the Q is a more meaningful stake. That's about as good an example to show your theory is pretty weak. A training regimen depends on the dog. Frank does most of his own training & is outstanding at bringing a dog to a higher level than the dog's age would dictate.

There was this individual who managed to parlay "FLYING FREE" into ALL-AGE assignments in the teens. This individual always had an excuse for his dog not running & when entered usually scratched. When this individual's fellow club members were asked if this person ever ran a dog, they could not remember when nor had they ever seen him seriously train. This person was always congenial & willing to pass on his vast knowledge of dogs. He also let you know of his next assignment. This continued until he & his less knowledgeable Co-Judge ran a land blind toward a busy highway with logging trucks using their compression brakes. When approached by the Field Trial Chair, insisted on continuing the test. Fortunately, this was the end of a judging career. While this individual was good at making excuses about not having a dog, self praise & belittling others was not part of this individuals act.

If you are going to wash a dog for dysplasia, you can get an evaluation at 6 months that will be pretty accurate.

You mentioned ftretrieverjudge.net. It fills an unfilled niche, will always have a use & highlights that some individuals do not have the necessary "personal experience with dogs in the field" as the AKC discusses in "Status of a Judge of LICENSED FIELD TRIALS". If the AKC or RAC make a decision to change that guideline there will be historical guidelines that will need to be changed &/or updated. 

From your last post I believe there is some agreement that Field Trial giving clubs are responsible for the judges they invite. Most individuals will accept as they are not knowledgeable enough to know they are unqualified.

There are significantly more e-mails supporting ftretrieverjudge.net than detractors. You & a couple of others are the only die-hards with your agenda! THEY are also a little light on PELTS!!

Marvin Sundstrom


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> You'll have to tell "Frank the Fisherman", 2005 NFC "Chopper" (46 Derby points) & 2006 NAFC "Carbon" (a raft of Derby points in Canada) that he is not managing his dogs right & should get his dogs out of the Derby because you think the Q is a more meaningful stake. That's about as good an example to show your theory is pretty weak. A training regimen depends on the dog. Frank does most of his own training & is outstanding at bringing a dog to a higher level than the dog's age would dictate.


Marv, when you have to resort to word twisting, you must not have any other substance to stand on. Even though you quoted me, it's as if you couldn't comprehend my words:



> _Many (as in "not all"...as in "there are always exceptions to the rule.... :roll: ) folks today quit running Derbies all together when the dog "makes the list," since THAT is the real feather in a young dog's "cap." Some (as in "not all"...as in "there are always exceptions to the rule.... :roll: ) move to the Qual after they get a Derby win or just a handful of points, enough to know that they have a marking dog._


Your illustration of two of the most outstanding dogs to put four feet down at a field trial is WAY above the norm....and you *know* that. So do I. They are the _exception_, not the _rule_. You _know_ that, _too_. The fact remains that the Qual and Derby entry numbers and the number of available trials to run tell the story. That you choose to ignore them tells another story _entirely_. 



> While this individual was good at making excuses about not having a dog, self praise & belittling others was not part of this individuals act.


There is difference, perhaps lost on you, between _excuses_ and _reasons_. As for the self-praise, I've asked you to show me where I've done that. You have yet to do so. As for belittling others, if you _can dish it out but can't take it_, you probably should stay out of the argument...and frankly, you just don't _seem_ like the sensitive type, especially with some of the insults you dish out. For the record, you will never see me knowingly put a dog or handler in harm's way for the sake of a test. _Never_.



> If you are going to wash a dog for dysplasia, you can get an evaluation at 6 months that will be pretty accurate.


Unless you have "DVM" behind your name, spare me the diagnosis. I've learned more about dysplasia than I ever care to think about again. "Pretty accurate" didn't cut it for me. Again, don't *ASS*u*ME* you know all the circumstances.



> If the AKC or RAC make a decision to change that guideline there will be historical guidelines that will need to be changed &/or updated.


Until the time comes that the AKC and RAC want handling experience ALONE to be the arbiter of who gets to judge (per your "theory"), no such changes will be made. You know it. I know it.



> Most individuals will accept as they are not knowledgeable enough to know they are unqualified.


Which brings us back to you. If you call it "belittling" that I continue to ask you WHY you don't give back to the sport when you are the leading advocate to change the basis upon which judges are chosen to "placements received" as a criteria for judging a stake, I can't help that. You whizz and moan about unqualified individuals while YOU, the model example of your movement who would be absolutely the BEST person to judge ANY and ALL stakes, do NOTHING to give back to the sport and sit in the chair _'cause you'd rather TRAIN_? 

Bull. 



> There are significantly more e-mails supporting ftretrieverjudge.net than detractors. You & a couple of others are the only die-hards with your agenda! THEY are also a little light on PELTS!!


What else are you gonna say! :lol: I'd almost bet those other "die hards" are current judges, too.....and don't forget that _silent majority_.... 8) 

I'm sorry, Marvin, but this is where the rubber meets the road. If you judged a couple of times a year....shoot, even _once_ a year because of your years in the sport, at least then you could say "I give back to the sport and I propose we move toward X criteria for judges." But you _don't_, and therefore you _can't_ with any sort of credibility discredit those who do, especially those who do year in and year out. You may consider yourself to be rich in PELTS, but you're mighty light with your "give back" to the sport you'd like to make people think that you love.

If you had _your_ way, this sport would shrink to about a quarter of its current size....especially if some of those heavy PELT toters spent as much time behind the line as you have in the last 8 years.. :? ..and even if that decimation were desirable, there would be _no guarantee whatsoever_ that the change would be good for the sport.

It would just fulfill one person's aberrant dream. That just sounds awfully selfish and tunnel visioned to me.

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Keith

WEASEL WORDING seems to be OK when you do it! Your implication is only JUDGES are contributors to the sport. Everyone is not blessed with that special blend of talent for judging you claim to possess, again by implication. 

People contribute to the sport as best they can & time will allow. It takes more than 2 judges to contribute to a successful trial. The workers, gunners, marshal's, those who arrange for grounds, equipment, keep things running smoothly, those who keep the bookwork current & correct, & the many others unmentioned are all contributors in their own way. The person that hauls a sack of birds is an important part of a smooth running trial!

As for trainers not giving back to the sport, I would say they are the drivers of the excellence we view today. The trainers, their dogs & the advances in training technique are making it harder for judges to get separation FAIRLY. 

If all the aforementioned are not giving back to the sport, possibly you with all your wisdom could let the masses who hang on your every word 
know what is. 

Long Term there are those who contribute to the continued health of the sport by maintaining connections which may prove useful when there are needs. (Legislation & grounds come to mind)

Many Field Trial sponsoring clubs have been short sighted in arranging long term for grounds. That lack of action will do more to contribute to the long term decline of the sport than anything I view. The sport has managed to survive poor judging & prosper. One has to wonder how the sport would be prospering if it had the type of leadership SUCCESSFUL private companies maintain.

Marvin Sundstrom


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Are you guys talking to each other? I keep seeing itilii quoting KG in his posts but not really answering the content??? 

Maybe a simpler questions.
1. itilii, are you getting judging requests and turning them down or are you on everyones "sh**" list? 
2. If you are turning down the requests...why? I can't figure out how training 360 days a year instead of 365 is gonna make that much of a difference.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

achiro said:


> Are you guys talking to each other? I keep seeing itilii quoting KG in his posts but not really answering the content???
> 
> Maybe a simpler questions.
> 1. itilii, are you getting judging requests and turning them down or are you on everyones "sh**" list?
> 2. If you are turning down the requests...why? I can'tfigure out how training 360 days a year instead of 365 is gonna make that much of a difference.


I'm not ignoring you, i've done 2 posts that have been erased prior to submit, so am shutting down.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Are you guys talking to each other? I keep seeing itilii quoting KG in his posts but not really answering the content???


You gotta give him credit, Russ....he's consistent! :lol: 



> WEASEL WORDING seems to be OK when you do it!


Never heard that term before, Marv....must be a northwestern thing. 'Splain it to me, please....but be careful not to describe any terms, phrases, or verbage that you've used during this "exchange." :wink: That would make you a "weasel worder" too!



> Your implication is only JUDGES are contributors to the sport.


_Where_ is that implication made, Marv? I've asked you to be specific before in your accusations. I don't expect you to answer this one either. 



> Everyone is not blessed with that special blend of talent for judging you claim to possess, again by implication.


Again, _where_ do you get this? Just in case you don't know it, your powers of interpretation _stink_...maybe _that_'s why you don't get asked to judge anymore.



> People contribute to the sport as best they can & time will allow.


So this is how you answer my "You don't judge anymore?" question? What a copout...... :roll: Your time belongs to _you_. *YOU* control what you contribute.



> It takes more than 2 judges to contribute to a successful trial. The workers, gunners, marshal's, those who arrange for grounds, equipment, keep things running smoothly, those who keep the bookwork current & correct, & the many others unmentioned are all contributors in their own way. The person that hauls a sack of birds is an important part of a smooth running trial!


Thanks for the primer, Marv. :? None of this explains one whit why you don't judge anymore. Am I supposed to *ASS*u*ME* that these are the things you do to give back to the sport while indicting anyone who doesn't have enough "line time" as unfit to judge? Please....



> As for trainers not giving back to the sport, I would say they are the drivers of the excellence we view today. The trainers, their dogs & the advances in training technique are making it harder for judges to get separation FAIRLY.


I never said trainers don't give back to the sport, but apparently you think that's all you need to do to give back. Fair enough. Explain what YOU have contributed to the sport to "give back" as a trainer....developed an FC/AFC that passes his/her talents on to their offspring? Bred a litter/litters from a titled or QAA/MH bitch that you trained that went on to expand the retriever gene pool? Help me understand where you see yourself fitting the description you've provided.



> If all the aforementioned are not giving back to the sport, possibly you with all your wisdom could let the masses who hang on your every word know what is.


Oh, they _are_ giving back to the sport. You'll find _nothing_ in any of my posts that suggests otherwise. I just simply have _no clue_ how they apply to _you_, especially when the changes _you_ would propose in how judges are chosen have absolutely NOTHING to do with what sort of _training_ experience a judge has.



> The sport has managed to survive poor judging & prosper.


Wonder how that is? :shock: _Seriously_....I mean, if the national hue and cry were loud enough, the judging bad enough, the situation desperate enough, and the need for judges with more "line time" incessant enough, _surely_ folks would quit entering field trials and wait for all of those "line time" judges to show up and save the ever-lovin' day...... 8) 



> One has to wonder how the sport would be prospering if it had the type of leadership SUCCESSFUL private companies maintain.


Tell you what....AKC has STRONG competition in the bird dog game with American Field. Why don't you take whatever your "perfect" model of the field trial game is, judges and all, to them and propose that they develop retriever field trials under the Sundstrom Proxy. Your dream would be finally realized and you could leave this surviving-in-spite-of-itself AKC field trial game behind.

_Seriously._

kg


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

K G said:


> > Are you guys talking to each other? I keep seeing itilii quoting KG in his posts but not really answering the content???
> 
> 
> You gotta give him credit, Russ....he's consistent! :lol:
> ...


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

achiro said:


> Are you guys talking to each other? I keep seeing itilii quoting KG in his posts but not really answering the content???
> 
> Maybe a simpler questions.
> 1. itilii, are you getting judging requests and turning them down or are you on everyones "sh**" list?
> 2. If you are turning down the requests...why? I can't figure out how training 360 days a year instead of 365 is gonna make that much of a difference.


I don't know KG other than he has been at me since Lanse Brown posted the item on ftretrieverjudge.net. Disagreement is one thing, vitriol is another. I ask you, does he deserve a response?

Question 1 - In the mid - 90's I agreed to do a trial (Open & Derby) 2 years out for a club that was well known for poor mechanics. I told them to send a confirmation letter which was received 6 weeks before the trial & had the Am & Q as the assignment. I did not do that trial. If an assignment is offered in good faith I accept it. I don't consider a last minute assignment as anything other than a trial being managed as needed. 

Here are my preferences when I judge. Tests that treat the dogs as nearly equal as conditions allow over the entire field are a preference. Tests with a degree of difficulty that separate the field are also preferable. Handlers are expected to try to do the test presented to them. Dogs & handlers that do not do that are dropped especially when others attempt the test & fail. Everyone regardless of their perceived status receives the same treatment. I expect my Co-Judge to function as a team member, we are a team not individuals when in that capacity.

As for being on everyone's S-list, I can't call that one. I am the same person that was successful working for some very large companies in demanding positions. I had responsibility for moving a lot of ore when in the mines & for many decisions made at the big kite factory out here on the West Coast. All of our work at the big kite factory was court admissible evidence. 

I've probably made some influential detractors, if you are measured by that I have an A-list. But we are nearly equal I disrespect them for good reason more than they dislike me. I don't push easy! We don't associate with the dog crowd of TODAY because we have little in common. Training is something I enjoy & I train mainly by myself with my wife helping when I need help. I would judge, I just wouldn't take on the work load I have in the past, but someone needs to ask you. Mike Greene & Don Hutt made sure my name was considered or I probably wouldn't be an 8 point judge. 

I have placings in the teens in both the Open & Amateur & have placed 7 different derby dogs multiple times including a Derby Lister. The All-Age dogs came from those Derby dogs. I only get uptight when my dog gets hosed out of something he earned. My experience has been that those individuals fit the profile of being marginal trainers & they are the people that don't like the philosophy of ftretrieverjudge.net. Keith doesn't, that's his privilege, but you have to question his motive.

Marvin Sundstrom


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

itilii said:


> I don't know KG other than he has been at me since Lanse Brown posted the item on ftretrieverjudge.net. Disagreement is one thing, vitriol is another. I ask you, does he deserve a response?
> 
> Question 1 - In the mid - 90's I agreed to do a trial (Open & Derby) 2 years out for a club that was well known for poor mechanics. I told them to send a confirmation letter which was received 6 weeks before the trial & had the Am & Q as the assignment. I did not do that trial. If an assignment is offered in good faith I accept it. I don't consider a last minute assignment as anything other than a trial being managed as needed.


I’m sorry, you consider 6 weeks notice as last minute? Do you seriously need 2 years notice to judge? No wonder you don’t judge.



> Here are my preferences when I judge. Tests that treat the dogs as nearly equal as conditions allow over the entire field are a preference. Tests with a degree of difficulty that separate the field are also preferable. Handlers are expected to try to do the test presented to them. Dogs & handlers that do not do that are dropped especially when others attempt the test & fail. Everyone regardless of their perceived status receives the same treatment. I expect my Co-Judge to function as a team member, we are a team not individuals when in that capacity.
> 
> As for being on everyone's S-list, I can't call that one. I am the same person that was successful working for some very large companies in demanding positions. I had responsibility for moving a lot of ore when in the mines & for many decisions made at the big kite factory out here on the West Coast. All of our work at the big kite factory was court admissible evidence.
> 
> ...


The only problem I have with your concept of ftretrieverjudge.net is that I believe the methodology to be flawed in that the results are skewed too much by personal opinion. After our little exercise on WRC I made suggestions for the survey that as of yet to be answered.

/Paul


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I looked at the factoids on Marv's site and they a wrong and seriously out of date. I hope some time can be given to accuracy in the future. 

I do agree that more folks would step up and judge. I dont agree with the must place formula to be able to judge. The difference in many derby trials is 10 feet between blue and green. 

Sorry to GDG up the thread


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> The only problem I have with your concept of ftretrieverjudge.net is that I believe the methodology to be flawed in that the results are skewed too much by personal opinion. After our little exercise on WRC I made suggestions for the survey that as of yet to be answered.


Did Marv send you a copy of that survey along with the letter of explanation? PM or email me a fax number and I'll gladly get a copy to you. You'll LOVE it! :wink: 



> I don't know KG other than he has been at me since Lanse Brown posted the item on ftretrieverjudge.net. Disagreement is one thing, vitriol is another. I ask you, does he deserve a response?


So I guess you decided to respond. Mighty good of you.

What you call vitriol I call enthusiasm. Were I in your shoes trying to promote a flawed concept, I might also take any dissection of that concept as vitriol if I were too narrow-minded to figure it out for myself.



> Here are my preferences when I judge. Tests that treat the dogs as nearly equal as conditions allow over the entire field are a preference. Tests with a degree of difficulty that separate the field are also preferable. Handlers are expected to try to do the test presented to them. Dogs & handlers that do not do that are dropped especially when others attempt the test & fail. Everyone regardless of their perceived status receives the same treatment. I expect my Co-Judge to function as a team member, we are a team not individuals when in that capacity.


Very well stated. _*THIS*_ we can agree on! :wink: 

Hey....credit where credit is due......



> We don't associate with the dog crowd of TODAY because we have little in common......I would judge, I just wouldn't take on the work load I have in the past, but someone needs to ask you.


But you would foist upon that "crowd of TODAY" a concept that is so FOREIGN to what you portray as an _essential_ (training your own dog) aspect? "Line time" does NOT equal "training your own dog." Not on _any_ planet.



> I have placings in the teens in both the Open & Amateur & have placed 7 different derby dogs multiple times including a Derby Lister. The All-Age dogs came from those Derby dogs.


You don't say when this was, in the 60's or in the 90's...but at the end of the day I guess it really doesn't matter....except that the RFT landscape is a WHOLE lot different now (90's+) than it was then (60s-70s). I've heard too many stories _from people who were THERE_ that said 90% of the dogs that ran Nationals in the 60s couldn't finish a weekend open today, and that the Quals of today resemble the Opens of the 60s.



> I only get uptight when my dog gets hosed out of something he earned.


Ditto. As well we should....but at the end of the weekend there are only gonna be two people who will have watched every set of legs run every series. On _that_ weekend, it's _their_ call, right or wrong.



> My experience has been that those individuals fit the profile of being marginal trainers.....


What's interesting here is that there is NO allowance for folks who have a great amount of "line time" to be included as "marginal trainers." Again, since amateurs run the sport, you would require that only folks with the requisite "line time" be chosen to judge....their training history does NOT come into the equation. Too many assumptions are made for that model to be legitimate.



> ....& they are the people that don't like the philosophy of ftretrieverjudge.net. Keith doesn't, that's his privilege, but you have to question his motive.


Your suggestion here is a bit unclear, but it's one of two things: 1) either I'm a marginal trainer, and I'm NOT....I'm not a competitive trainer and have stated such...so that one's off the table, or 2) only people who have something to lose would question a proposition foisted by someone who has judged only ONE minor stake in the past 8 years and whose model for change is based on HANDLING success, NOT TRAINING success. If that is the case, you'd be wrong _again_.

Here's my motive: your logic is MASSIVELY flawed, and were it to be adopted in any way, shape, or form, the game would shrink to the size it was when you were seeing the most success running dogs, and that the judging would regress to a level that I don't even think _I've_ seen in 25 years....which probably corresponds to the time when you were having the most success running dogs.

There. That's _my_ motive. 



> I don't know KG other than he has been at me since Lanse Brown posted the item on ftretrieverjudge.net.


And did you notice that Lanse _never_ answered the first question I asked him about the site after his initial post? What do you infer from _that_?



> I looked at the factoids on Marv's site and they a wrong and seriously out of date. I hope some time can be given to accuracy in the future.


Thanks for bringing that up, Steve. My complaint about same fell on deaf ears on the thread Lanse started. If people aren't complaining to the author of the page about the inaccuracies, it's because either they don't care or they don't know about them. 

Having said all this, I would like to offer an apology to the RTF community in general for my role in furthering this discussion. I come off as far more argumentative than I am in real life; going back and reading some of what I've written only confirms my passion for the subject, but I don't like some of the turns the thread has taken. Notwithstanding my strong feelings on the subject which I shall pursue elsewhere in a more direct manner, I rest my case on this matter.

I appreciate your collective indulgence regards, 

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> > The only problem I have with your concept of ftretrieverjudge.net is that I believe the methodology to be flawed in that the results are skewed too much by personal opinion. After our little exercise on WRC I made suggestions for the survey that as of yet to be answered.
> 
> 
> Did Marv send you a copy of that survey along with the letter of explanation? PM or email me a fax number and I'll gladly get a copy to you. You'll LOVE it! :wink:
> ...



He didn’t send me copy because I’m not worthy. You see I don’t judge FT’s yet so I’m not worthy. Sure he doesn’t either, but that’s difference because well he’s Marvin S. and I’m just /Paul. 

/Paul

Ps. You signed your name twice so I’m curious what kind of weird voodoo that brings with it….


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

That's where my 1 edit came in. I just noticed it too late.

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

K G said:


> You don't say when this was, in the 60's or in the 90's...but at the end of the day I guess it really doesn't matter....except that the RFT landscape is a WHOLE lot different now (90's+) than it was then (60s-70s). I've heard too many stories _from people who were THERE_ that said 90% of the dogs that ran Nationals in the 60s couldn't finish a weekend open today, and that the Quals of today resemble the Opens of the 60s.


DOG 1 - born in 1986, 4 derby placings (Died of aneurysm), DOG 2 - born in 1990, Derby List, AFC, Last placed in 1999, DOG 3 - born in 1995, 1 derby placing (sold as Gundog as he wouldn't heel to the line), DOG 4 - 2 derby placings, Last in 2004, health issues which have been worked out though he only has 1 working ear now & is currently doing the Q. There are also those that go back to the mid-60's, so I've actually seen the change in the sport.

That might make me current!!

If you don't believe that placings is a legitimate & readily available measure of involvement, What measure would you use?

Marvin Sundstrom


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

If the site listed all placings jams and starts you would show involvement. in a 70 dog am or 100 dog open less than 5% of the dogs place. That does not show the dogs were not trained to a level at which they were entered just the did not place. A whole lot of titled dogs go out in the first series every weekend. Some really nice dogs have never placed or titled. 

You speak of involvement. A great # of folks work their butts off every trial 

Never mind this is time to go home


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> If you don't believe that placings is a legitimate & readily available measure of involvement, What measure would you use?


I appreciate you asking, Marvin! And thanks for the background on the dogs. I can identify with some of the heartbreaks. I'm sure many of us can.

What Steve said is one of the many holes in the "line time" theory. I've already stated my many problems with it so I won't go there again. Anyone who wants to know them can start on page 3 and read on.

For entry level minor stake judges (rookies), I do believe they need to have at least run a few. That "few" is negotiable, depending on who their co-judge is (preferably an experienced 8 point judge, not a "made" 8 point judge). I'm more interested in the experience level from a "seen all four series at some point" standpoint so they at least can have seen what to expect. We all had to start somewhere; this would be the minimum for a minor stake judge, again, depending on who he/she is paired with. I do NOT believe in going with "The Minimum Requirement" in the minor stakes as stated by the AKC. Having an 8 point AA judge with preferably the same level of minor stake experience would be optimum. If that weren't an option, I'd go with 8 minor points and 4+ major points with a rookie.

People learn a lot by being involved in the training of a dog. No doubt. It's the best place to learn why they do what they do, but often, especially if the only dogs one trains are their own, they only know their own dogs and how they view them and their corrections. That can create a sort of "kennel blindness" for lack of a better term with regard to how they view dog work. If they train with a pro, preferably a competitive pro or retired or "train only" pro that has a track record of success, they'll learn INFINITELY more than if they train alone. A training group is good, but only as good as its most experienced and successful participants.

The sport of retriever field trials favors those with expendable income (in their many and varied forms!) and the retired. It's all about available time and the many and varied resources necessary to have a competitive dog. People that can train with a pro can learn a lot about the tendancies of dogs and test setup, but have to be careful to learn the difference between a training setup and a testing setup. Anyone who wishes to break into judging has got to have some sort of background in how that is done. Training with a pro or a training group are two great ways to learn. Training with a mentor (or two) is another good way. The latter is how I got started. I was also privileged to have judged with some former National participants and judges, as well as some very conscientious "weekend only" judges who never tired of my questions and interest. I'm also very fortunate to have NEVER had a "bad" judging experience in way past 50 total assignments. No pressure, Ken! :wink: 

Another critical aspect is that a person who wants to be a judge needs to be a student of the sport. They want to give back to the sport, not just be in control or king/queen for a day. They pay attention, ask a lot of questions, take correction in the spirit it's intended, and try to learn something every time they get out the book. They study and know the rules of the game, including those about misconduct, and are willing to execute their responsibilities per the rules of the game they are judging. They're in it for the dogs first and foremost, and will go out of their way to be fair in testing and evaluation of same. Another important quality of a new judge is that they need to be able to admit, preferably to their co-judge, when they've encountered something they don't understand, no matter what it is. False pride has no place when it comes to learning the finer points of judging dogs. It is an art; not everyone can hold the brush.

Choosing judges needs to be done by judges and/or participants in the sport. The best recommendation a judge can receive is that they were fair in their setups and testing, generous in their callbacks, courteous to participants, always mindful of where the dogs are and what they are doing, and proper in their award placements. No amount of training can teach this; it takes "behind the line time" to properly educate judges. Sure, you can "hire" someone with training and handling experience, but I'm personally more interested in their attitude about the dogs and the work they expect. The best way to learn this about people you don't know is by asking questions...and get multiple opinions, not just from people you know. Sometimes we want to believe that we'll always hear the best about who we want to sit in the chair. Overglowing reports can sometimes be deceiving. Seeing it first-hand is best, IMHO.

It's not easy picking judges. Far from it...but when it comes to a "legitimate and readily available means to measure involvement," I personally believe it's research and what ones own personal network (and extended network) has to say about those being researched. Quantitative research alone simply won't tell the whole story about what they know.

I hope I've explained myself sufficiently. This sport (the dogs, the competition, and the people) means far too much to me to not protect it if I perceive it to be threatened. We each have our own way to accomplish that. It's just hard for any solution to judging issues to be all-encompassing without considering the qualitative issues.

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

K G said:


> If you don't believe that placings is a legitimate & readily available measure of involvement, What measure would you use?
> 
> I appreciate you asking, Marvin! And thanks for the background on the dogs. I can identify with some of the heartbreaks. I'm sure many of us can.
> 
> What Steve said is one of the many holes in the "line time" theory. I've already stated my many problems with it so I won't go there again. Anyone who wants to know them can start on page 3 and read on.


What Steve said is just the experience I brought to the table when deciding to provide a factual analysis of individual accomplishment. If Steve would like to add to the database by researching all the greenies & entries I would very much appreciate that.



KG said:


> For entry level minor stake judges (rookies), I do believe they need to have at least run a few. That "few" is negotiable, depending on who their co-judge is (preferably an experienced 8 point judge, not a "made" 8 point judge). I'm more interested in the experience level from a "seen all four series at some point" standpoint so they at least can have seen what to expect. We all had to start somewhere; this would be the minimum for a minor stake judge, again, depending on who he/she is paired with. I do NOT believe in going with "The Minimum Requirement" in the minor stakes as stated by the AKC. Having an 8 point AA judge with preferably the same level of minor stake experience would be optimum. If that weren't an option, I'd go with 8 minor points and 4+ major points with a rookie.


I agree with you, minimum requirement is not sufficient.



KG said:


> People learn a lot by being involved in the training of a dog. No doubt. It's the best place to learn why they do what they do, but often, especially if the only dogs one trains are their own, they only know their own dogs and how they view them and their corrections. That can create a sort of "kennel blindness" for lack of a better term with regard to how they view dog work. If they train with a pro, preferably a competitive pro or retired or "train only" pro that has a track record of success, they'll learn INFINITELY more than if they train alone. A training group is good, but only as good as its most experienced and successful participants.
> 
> The sport of retriever field trials favors those with expendable income (in their many and varied forms!) and the retired. It's all about available time and the many and varied resources necessary to have a competitive dog. People that can train with a pro can learn a lot about the tendancies of dogs and test setup, but have to be careful to learn the difference between a training setup and a testing setup. Anyone who wishes to break into judging has got to have some sort of background in how that is done. Training with a pro or a training group are two great ways to learn. Training with a mentor (or two) is another good way. The latter is how I got started. I was also privileged to have judged with some former National participants and judges, as well as some very conscientious "weekend only" judges who never tired of my questions and interest. I'm also very fortunate to have NEVER had a "bad" judging experience in way past 50 total assignments. No pressure, Ken! :wink:


You are recommending being involved with successful & knowledgeable individuals, both Professional & Amateur, Why would this be any different than expecting a judge to be successful standing beside a dog before they get to stand behind the dog in judgment? With a pool of successful handlers capable of filling all club's judging requirements, why would anyone advocate a watered down standard when it came to judging? 



KG said:


> Another critical aspect is that a person who wants to be a judge needs to be a student of the sport. They want to give back to the sport, not just be in control or king/queen for a day. They pay attention, ask a lot of questions, take correction in the spirit it's intended, and try to learn something every time they get out the book. They study and know the rules of the game, including those about misconduct, and are willing to execute their responsibilities per the rules of the game they are judging. They're in it for the dogs first and foremost, and will go out of their way to be fair in testing and evaluation of same. Another important quality of a new judge is that they need to be able to admit, preferably to their co-judge, when they've encountered something they don't understand, no matter what it is. False pride has no place when it comes to learning the finer points of judging dogs. It is an art; not everyone can hold the brush.


Choosing judges needs to be done by judges and/or participants in the sport. The best recommendation a judge can receive is that they were fair in their setups and testing, generous in their callbacks, courteous to participants, always mindful of where the dogs are and what they are doing, and proper in their award placements. No amount of training can teach this; it takes "behind the line time" to properly educate judges. Sure, you can "hire" someone with training and handling experience, but I'm personally more interested in their attitude about the dogs and the work they expect. The best way to learn this about people you don't know is by asking questions...and get multiple opinions, not just from people you know. Sometimes we want to believe that we'll always hear the best about who we want to sit in the chair. Overglowing reports can sometimes be deceiving. Seeing it first-hand is best, IMHO.

It's not easy picking judges. Far from it...but when it comes to a "legitimate and readily available means to measure involvement," I personally believe it's research and what ones own personal network (and extended network) has to say about those being researched. Quantitative research alone simply won't tell the whole story about what they know.


> What you have presented makes sense in a perfect world but it still depends on the trial giving club. In fact, there is not a lot that you have presented that is any different than what is done today. Most trial giving clubs do not have the depth of leadership in place to accomplish what you propose. Nor do they have the ability to self critique.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> What Steve said is just the experience I brought to the table when deciding to provide a factual analysis of individual accomplishment. If Steve would like to add to the database by researching all the greenies & entries I would very much appreciate that.


With all due respect, Marvin, this project is *YOUR* baby. If *you* know some of *your* info is wrong, *you* should strive to fix it so that at least the FACTOIDS that *you* put out are correct. If people read wrong information about their or someone else's handling experience, *you* don't have much chance at getting them to take the rest of the info seriously. As I stated before, I believe that if you haven't had many complaints about your incorrect stats, it's because those whose stats are wrong either don't care or don't know about the site.



> You are recommending being involved with successful & knowledgeable individuals, both Professional & Amateur, Why would this be any different than expecting a judge to be successful standing beside a dog before they get to stand behind the dog in judgment?


Because the success they have handling a dog may not necessarily transfer into KNOWLEDGE when it comes to how tests are set. Obviously handling a dog creates a better knowledge base when it comes to competing in an event...but it does NOT necessarily translate into dog EVALUATION knowledge. Placements ONLY just adds another strata of elitism to the judging pool, one that should be strongly avoided.



> With a pool of successful handlers capable of filling all club's judging requirements, why would anyone advocate a watered down standard when it came to judging?


Your pool of "successful" handlers has done NOTHING to prove their ability to set up tests and evaluate dogs. As I have stated ad nauseum, successful handling does not necessarily come from successful training, especially if the handler didn't do the training. In addition, I believe your pool of "successful handlers" is far smaller than you think it is...and they might not judge anymore, either.....



> What you have presented makes sense in a perfect world but it still depends on the trial giving club.


Always has, always will.



> In fact, there is not a lot that you have presented that is any different than what is done today.


That shouldn't surprise you. 



> Most trial giving clubs do not have the depth of leadership in place to accomplish what you propose.


Upon WHAT RESEARCH do you base that assumption? 

You asked this question: _If you don't believe that placings is a legitimate & readily available measure of involvement, What measure would you use?_ I answered you. If you were expecting some sort of bolt-of-enlightenment reply, I apologize for not providing it. That you do not agree with it does not make it any less legitimate.



> Nor do they have the ability to self critique.


That's _your_ opinion. We're all just folks, trying to keep up and have fun in a game that is growing by leaps and bounds and shows no signs of stopping. It's been a _long_ time since I've heard of a club not trying the best they can to do _the best they can_ by the dogs and the sport.



> The info you were mailed is not my effort but the collective effort of several individuals. You shouldn't belittle that effort.


You should start a thread here on that initiative, Marvin, and see what sort of response you get. The "judge evaluation form" that you would propose is only a half-step removed from your "line time" credibility issue. Sorry, I can't and won't support _either_.



> Honey draws more flies than vinegar!!!!


It'll take more than _honey_ to stop the flies from swarming around this issue...... :wink: 

kg


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Keith - not to bash what you say but :



> Most trial giving clubs do not have the depth of leadership in place to accomplish what you propose.


There are certain clubs in our area that this statement is very true. It is not that the club is poorly run or does not have enough workers, but the pond that FT members swim in is very small. Unless the members of the club that obtain judges attend Nationals or travel out of area to judge, it is very difficult to obtain a top notch slate of pointed judges.

But I forgive them for this slight infaction because they stepped up to the plate and put on a FT.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Point taken. I know there are clubs in that situation; I simply find it to be disingenuous to say "most" when there's nothing to substantiate that.

If the pond is small NOW, what do you think would happen if a requisite number of AA finishes were required before one could judge an all-age stake? :shock: Finishes that may or may not have ANYTHING to do with training knowledge, at that...... :? 



> But I forgive them for this slight infaction because they stepped up to the plate and put on a FT.


As I stated previously, if we want this game to shrink to the size it was 25 years ago, let's impose a new handling requirement on the already-shallow pool of available judges.

kg


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

> if we want this game to shrink to the size it was 25 years ago


On second thought, that might not be sure a bad idea! :wink:


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

KG writes:



K G said:


> With all due respect, Marvin, this project is *YOUR* baby. If *you* know some of *your* info is wrong, *you* should strive to fix it so that at least the FACTOIDS that *you* put out are correct. If people read wrong information about their or someone else's handling experience, *you* don't have much chance at getting them to take the rest of the info seriously. As I stated before, I believe that if you haven't had many complaints about your incorrect stats, it's because those whose stats are wrong either don't care or don't know about the site.


KG gets an answer:

People are not reading wrong information - they are reading information they don't agree with. The FACTOIDS are correct. The site now has close to 20,000 hits including about 3,000 on the APPROVED page. I've had input from about 6 people dealing with Co-Ownership &/or failure to identify a handler. There have also been many more inputs applauding the effort. Should I believe what I see on this site or should I believe the inputs I receive from people who play the game successfully!

Marvin


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> People are not reading wrong information - they are reading information they don't agree with. The FACTOIDS are correct.


Is this a comment by an independent third party or you? And the APPROVED page is the one I have trouble with, primarily. I can assure you that IT is NOT correct in its entirety.



> The site now has close to 20,000 hits including about 3,000 on the APPROVED page.


You do realize that those are NOT unique page views....could be 60 people who've hit the APPROVED page 50 times....  



> I've had input from about 6 people dealing with Co-Ownership &/or failure to identify a handler. There have also been many more inputs applauding the effort. Should I believe what I see on this site or should I believe the inputs I receive from people who play the game successfully!


Why, Marv....it's just like it's always been with regard to this subject: you believe whatever you want to believe! If that hit counter on your site and the kudos you receive gets you to where you need to be at the end of the day, by all means _go with it_! Seriously!

Just know that you'll never seriously impact the way judges are chosen. As for the efficacy of your effort, understand that it's YOUR effort, sanctioned by no one, endorsed by same. :wink: 

The home runs or strikeouts delivered by judges each weekend are what will tell the story in the long run. One must be in a position to _deliver_ those home runs or strikeouts before one can sit in judgement of those who do. 

kg


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Maybe the current direction on this thread should be moved to its own topic.

Marv could maybe some stats include scrapped tests and suspensions with AKC. How bout national judging assignments. A whole lot more info could be given to impact on skipping a trial because of a specific judge. Ialso see that the site is /was updated on 4-18-07 I did not check all but I did not catch any placements or judging completions in 07' 

I did get a chuckle out of some folks that have been at the GAME for 20+ years having only sparse success, yet have judged national events and have given judging seminars. 

For Example MY name as well as KG's are on the approved page Does that mean that we are qualified to judge the stake listed ?


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Your point is well-taken about giving it it's own thread, but I think it's about to die anyway. There's really nothing new that either Marvin or I can add that we haven't already said....I'm guessing here, since we're both rehashing stuff that's over on page 3 and 4.....

Just let it go. It ain't goin' away, but it ain't gonna matter.

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Steve Amrein said:


> Marv could maybe some stats include scrapped tests and suspensions with AKC. How bout national judging assignments.
> 
> 
> For Example MY name as well as KG's are on the approved page Does that mean that we are qualified to judge the stake listed ?


Some of that info is in the database, which is closed. There are 2 comments sections, one for positive, one for negative.

APPROVED means that AKC has approved you to judge that stake. You & KG meet AKC standards, they are not standards set by ftretrieverjudge.net.

Marvin S


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

itilii said:


> APPROVED means that AKC has approved you to judge that stake. You & KG meet AKC standards, they are not standards set by ftretrieverjudge.net.
> 
> Marvin S


Forgive me for I am ignorant and unwilling to study up at this time. So according to ftretrieverjudge.net do they meet the site's approval standard? HPW


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

K G said:


> Your point is well-taken about giving it it's own thread, but I think it's about to die anyway. There's really nothing new that either Marvin or I can add that we haven't already said....I'm guessing here, since we're both rehashing stuff that's over on page 3 and 4.....
> 
> Just let it go. It ain't goin' away, but it ain't gonna matter.
> 
> kg


MODERATORS May we have a thread split :roll:

There is no doubt as to where :wink: 

john


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

It won't be worth the effort.

Several days late and 2 1/2 years short regards,

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

HarryWilliams said:


> itilii said:
> 
> 
> > APPROVED means that AKC has approved you to judge that stake. You & KG meet AKC standards, they are not standards set by ftretrieverjudge.net.
> ...


ftretrieverjudge.net posts accomplishments, it does not do standard setting. It's that simple. When you buy a dog & the owner says it has papers you need to know something about the breed. When you see an AKC approved judge posted on the site, it's probably a good idea to know something about Field Trials so you can recognize whether that individual has accomplished anything significant in the Field Trial world.

Marvin S


----------



## captdan (Jan 25, 2004)

*What I d like to see in a Derby*

John,

In my very limited experience, if any dog does not make it to the next series, it is because of some major fault. The dogs which get to the final series have not made any. Carrying all the dogs would not change that. And the point is, afterall, to find a winner and other top performing dogs. It is much better to remember that every dog will have his day, but some will have more than others.

Dan Rice


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> By the rulebook, minor stakes get third and fourth consideration.


Actually,_by the book_, the minor stake*s*(plural) get _Third_ consideration—with one to get no more than the other.

john


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Derby thread from '04 check out the last few pages

Better still read it all it's some good stuff.

john


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Just refer to post #76....and add 2 years to the total......

kg


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I hear ya .

You and Marvin can just reference each other to some of the others.

Some things never change Regards

john


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

It does provide an interesting retrospective....

....and I'm sorry your Derby thread got trashed.....I really am....

kg


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

HAHAHAHAHA I just read this thread that I had invited Marvin to attend to see if I was qualified to judge. 1st series was a double with a flyer. Flat mowed field with trees seperating the marks (less than 200 yards) making it 2 singles. The dogs that got 1st and 2nd place the previous weekend could not find the memory bird. Ended up scrapping the test. To this day I cant figure out why the dogs could not find it even if the could find the gunner.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Why does everyone seem to think we need a "mandate" or rule for every aspect of setting up tests/holding field trials. Clubs need discretion to manage the entire trial, not just a single stake. Judges need to be able to exercise discretion. Pretty soon it will be just like a hunt test with a standard to run against instead of other dogs. Don't have a tape measure for making sure all blinds/marks conform.

Regards!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Why does everyone seem to think we need a "mandate" or rule for every aspect of setting up tests/holding field trials. Clubs need discretion to manage the entire trial, not just a single stake. *Judges need to be able to exercise discretion*. Pretty soon it will be just like a hunt test with a standard to run against instead of other dogs. Don't have a tape measure for making sure all blinds/marks conform.
> 
> Regards!


It seems that some seem to think differently After all they MANDATED dropping the dog that handled after all those years. You yourself said that you didn't need a rule.

If the Derby is ALL about marking (?), and dogs "should be tested equaly on both land and water" ......... From a relative merit standpoint , it only stands to reason that no dog should be carried/dropped until all have been tested on both.

Since should does not seem to work Regards,

john


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

paul young said:


> not sure everyone sees it this way.
> 
> a couple weeks ago my co- judge and i judged a derby with 40 or so dogs and called back every dog that got the chickens. then we awarded jams to all who completed the last series.(13 of 'em)
> 
> ...


Well, not your intent John, but I want to thank Paul for judging the aforementioned Derby in the manner he did. Brought back a wonderful memory. I was new to the sport, ran a bunch of Derbies without success (and mostly without a clue), and my dog earned one of those JAM's in his last Derby. It was our first ribbon and, at the time, was the greatest achievement that I could imagine. It suddenly legitmized everything that I had done with my dog and inspired me to do more and to do better. 

And later, as a judge myself, his early consideration informed my own philosophy of judging minor stakes. Pick up the birds, keep playing, get a ribbon.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

I just went through & edited my posts as i did not know how to quote at that time , not having a lot of computer skills. 
Funny thing is, not much has changed, a lot of water under the bridge & KG's source has traded their orange jump suit for 
civilian clothes.


----------

