# Marks for Derby Training



## jroberts (Aug 30, 2017)

I am curious to know what everyone does for Training a pup to run in a Derby on a daily basis from ages 6-15months old. After FF and CC and not discussing blinds or any of that stuff. What is a typical training routine for you for Derby marks? 

Here are my questions, I know this different for each dog but I am just trying to get a general idea 
How far? 
how many?
How many times a week? (I can tell a difference in training/marking when my dogs take a few days off but I would prefer to train everyday)
only singles and Doubles or Tripples also? 
Bumpers or Ducks?
Always have bird boys in white or could hidden guns like a hunt test?
Honor other dogs?


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

derby marks always have visible guns... so keep your stations/gunners visible in training.

sometimes you will see singles - usually doubles. never heard of a triple at a derby, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't train for them, assuming you are going to go beyond derby.

Most people (me included) would suggest to train for your end goal - if your end goal is only derbies... then that should be your focus. However, I'd think most people go beyond that.... 

distances - from 75 to 450 yd (or more, I've heard/read)... I'd say mostly between 100 and 350 yd - but my exp is based only on what I've seen in videos, watched at a few derbies, and read. 

Ducks when you can. Flyers when you can.

no honor in derby

5 days a week training if possible... but you can only do what you can do.

when I was training my dog for derbies I worked on cheating marks and fairly tight marks (lots of singles with multiple gun stations) - down the shore, hip pocket.... I didn't see either in the derby I ran, but I'd heard they could happen. Depends on the number of dogs, I would think... with only 6 in the one I was in, there was no points involved so the judges set up pretty straight forward marking tests which tested some trained ability (cheating water), but otherwise were quite 'doable' by most young dogs.


----------



## NateB (Sep 25, 2003)

You said not to discuss blind training, however, you will need to teach the dog not to cheat water, cover, down the shore, etc. And that requires handling, to teach those concepts. So don't think you can train for derbies just throwing marks.
Just remember to balance your training routine, fun stuff and technical stuff. Don't get so focused on preparing for derbies that you lose the balance in training. Good balance keeps attitude up and confidence up. Spoil either of those and then your goals are in jeopardy.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Tobias said:


> Most people (me included) would suggest to train for your end goal - if your end goal is only derbies... then that should be your focus. However, I'd think most people go beyond that.


So if your ultimate goal is all age stakes why wait to introduce retired guns and by not doing so make them more dependent on visible gunners?


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Not sure I follow you Ed... I trained for retired gunners with my dog (before he was 2) because he was/is a hunt test and hunting dog first and foremost.... If all I wanted to do was run derbies, I probably would not spend the time working on retired guns, but I would work on guns going out of sight on the way to the mark... you are suggesting to train for retired guns if you are only running derbies in order to be certain the dog is actually marking, rather than using the gun station as a crutch? I don't train for FT (as I have neither the time nor the grounds... but perhaps someday)


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

Most successful field trial people don't train for field trials.
They are simply training the dog according to their program.
Progress is based on age and opportunity. If the dog is ready for derbies, great.
If not, then they wait until it is. Train the dog. not the test.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Rule of thumb only: about 25% multiples, remainder singles. If you do too many multiples head swinging will show up. In the beginning I tried to do flyers once a week. In hunt test season I try to do the same. 
My one and only derby, the longest bird was about 330 yards. But it was a overcast day with misty rain. The judges put a piece or white marking tape about 3" long on the ducks foot. When the shotgun popper went off you could see the yellow in the blast. But Rowdy marked the bird.
The first series was shorter but the flyer was angled back and it went over the nap of the earth, so to speak. At the tail end of the retrieve the dog went out of sight briefly. 
I went out in the third series (water). I thought i had it but he hunted short by about 10-15 yards and wouldn't get back in the water at the very end of the retrieve. I thought the distances on the water series were very reasonable but the were very technical. The swims were short but lots of in and out.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

EdA said:


> So if your ultimate goal is all age stakes why wait to introduce retired guns and by not doing so make them more dependent on visible gunners?


1, Agree. Having run many derbies with different dogs, I have encountered several retired gun memory marks.
2. I have also encountered a few triples. 
3. My smallest AKC FT derby was 19 up to 43. Last one run was 2014. Be prepared. Amateur trained.
4. Marking is of primary importance.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

The last series of a Derby, at least in the Northeast, is usually a double consisting of an all-age memory bird (think looong and difficult!) coupled with a flyer which may or may not influence the dog's hunt of the memory bird. Keep in mind that this test is usually on water which always is more difficult.

In order to be successful, your dog should be routinely doing this level of work in training without committing A SERIOUS FAULT OR A COMBINATION OF MODERATE FAULTS. See the book for definitions of these if you are not familiar with them. 

I have run tests with a water triple. interestingly, that was back in 1996, so it happens; just not very often. I have not seen tests with retired guns. I have seen MANY where the thrower could not be seen by the dog from the line once the thrower sat down. Good luck! I hope you have fun! -Paul


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Tobias said:


> Not sure I follow you Ed... I trained for retired gunners with my dog (before he was 2) because he was/is a hunt test and hunting dog first and foremost.... If all I wanted to do was run derbies, I probably would not spend the time working on retired guns, but I would work on guns going out of sight on the way to the mark... you are suggesting to train for retired guns if you are only running derbies in order to be certain the dog is actually marking, rather than using the gun station as a crutch? I don't train for FT (as I have neither the time nor the grounds... but perhaps someday)


I am suggesting that if you plan to run field trials beyond the Derby retired guns should be introduced when dogs are young and have achieved some level of competence marking.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

EdA said:


> I am suggesting that if you plan to run field trials beyond the Derby retired guns should be introduced when dogs are young and have achieved some level of competence marking.



Thanks for the clarification. Yes. I agree... Train for your end goal.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

paul young said:


> I have run tests with a water triple. interestingly, that was back in 1996, so it happens; just not very often. I have not seen tests with retired guns. I have seen MANY where the thrower could not be seen by the dog from the line once the thrower sat down. Good luck! I hope you have fun! -Paul


.. did the judges need to see some separation?


----------



## vtjackson (Mar 23, 2017)

Scott Adams
Progress is based on age and opportunity. If the dog is ready for derbies said:


> Makes a lot of sense to this beginner.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Forgive me .
Is A Derby dog winner a contender for AKC Field trial entry ?
Or do many stay in 'Derby' ?
Thanks.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

polmaise said:


> Forgive me .
> Is A Derby dog winner a contender for AKC Field trial entry ?
> Or do many stay in 'Derby' ?
> Thanks.


A Derby is a Field Trial for dogs 6mo to 2yrs. For a big dog All-Age Field Trial, Open or Amateur, any dog over 6mo is eligible to enter (with some exceptions). (While entry at 6mo is permitted no dog is ready at that age anyway)
In reality young dogs compete in Derby from around age 10mos until 2 yrs then move to the Qualifying Stake to get their feet wet before moving to AA, typically around age 3. Often there is overlap where dog will run Derby & Qualifying at same time and later Qualifying & Amateur at same time. Once they are running AA Stakes exclusively many run Open & Amateur over same weekend.
A "Derby Winner" has no meaning relative to eligiblity for other Stakes.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Breck said:


> A "Derby Winner" has no meaning relative to eligiblity for other Stakes.


Thank You 'Breck' . 
So 6 months to typically 3 years is some leap to AA ..for anyone or dog ,and a heck more training and tears . (and posts on RTF) ?


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

polmaise said:


> Thank You 'Breck' .
> So 6 months to typically 3 years is some leap to AA ..for anyone or dog ,and a heck more training and tears . (and posts on RTF) ?


You got it !!


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Tobias said:


> .. did the judges need to see some separation?


I think that's the way it should be. I'm not in favor of making the last test easier than the previous tests.

That said, I would hope that the judges carefully consider whether a Derby triple is required to get them the information they need to get the separation required for placements.-Paul


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

paul young said:


> I think that's the way it should be. I'm not in favor of making the last test easier than the previous tests.
> 
> That said, I would hope that the judges carefully consider whether a Derby triple is required to get them the information they need to get the separation required for placements.-Paul


I agree on both counts ... just wondered if there was a bigger answer to the 'why' - if they had dogs hammering the previous series' for example .... I doubt very many derby judges start the day thinking they are going to throw a triple for the last series just because? I would find it surprising at the very least.

When setting up 'subsequent' series - do judges automatically set up 'more challenging' series every time? Or do they set up a series they feel will give them separation? Could it be they don't need a more difficult last series if they already have answers OR they have several dogs essentially 'tied'? Could it be the dogs do better or worse than they anticipate - thus needing a more difficult or less difficult series? Or are judges so experienced that they know what the dogs will do, thus not needing to make changes to what might have been original plans?


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

There are "pencil" judges. There are "protective" placement judges. There are "petal to the metal" judges and let the best prove their worth. You need to run a bunch and understand the quality judgement of your judges. This is not for the faint of heart. The transition from HT to FT is not easy. Sometimes never attempted nor achieved.

When you have two dogs so close do you have a triple for clear separation or do a pencil job? I prefer a triple. Put up or shut up. The weak ones suffer but not everybody in a derby gets a reward.


----------



## fnsret (Nov 12, 2003)

I don't think triples are needed in a Derby. An experienced judge can set up a double that will give AA dogs problems.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Fnset #21 Having run derbies(AA) in MD-VA-DE-NJ the problem is sometimes available grounds, time, workers etc. Not all FT judges are of high quality, especially , at the Derby and Qualy. So let the dice roll. No pencil just marks. When the book is in your hands you make the choices.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

It doesn't matter what the grounds are. If I were judging, I would be hard pressed to run a triple in the derby.


----------



## fnsret (Nov 12, 2003)

Swliska, Im old school, I just don't like to see them in a Derby. I have been out of trials I guess for 10 yrs but ran the same circuit as you NJ,DE,MD,Va and some NC. Five of the top 10 ten Derby dogs competed in that circuit. We finished with 14 pts ( with a fluffy )and never saw a triple and dont think it was ever needed. Just my opinion.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

fnsret #24 Well I have also run in the MN-WI-ND-IA circut plus ME-NY-VT-CT-MA, not showing off but grounds differ as do judges. I had the opportunity to see many times D. Frisbee's Enchanted Budweiser run. Last 1981 Fluffy to be top USA derby Dog (61 points). The point is bird placement knowledge is critical and as I have got older have seen more training set-ups applied to trials with weak evidence of this skill. Some folks think distance makes difficulty while lacking bird placement sense. Pistol, Wayne Anderson's Fluffy did a nice job at the 2017 NAFC. I am really old school or maybe not...just always ran into storm clouds about organization. Like I said when you have the book, your choice but no pencil. Best


----------



## cowdoc87 (Dec 18, 2014)

Derbies are fun and its great to see what some of these puppies can do. You will see at some point a test set up just to see how much your puppy wants to cheat , and like every level, the water work is what separates them usually. Good luck and have fun!


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

cowdoc87 said:


> Derbies are fun and its *great to see what some of these puppies can do*. You will see at some point a test set up just to see how much your puppy wants to cheat , and like every level, the water work is what separates them usually. Good luck and have fun!


Breck said ''_A Derby is a Field Trial for dogs 6mo to 2yrs._ "
A 2 year old dog is not a puppy .


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Hey you "old school guys" have you judged a derby in the last 5 years? It's a lot different than it was 20 years ago! You do realize that they've changed the FT rules in the last 20 years, and not all for the better! One of the biggest changes. You can no longer place derby dogs that handle! It sure makes it a lot more difficult to separate the top dogs and still have 4 dogs finish.

Also, IMO,Today's derby dogs are a lot better on water than they were 20 years ago. 

In a perfect world derbies are 4 series, each series is progressively more difficult, and you have 4 clearly separated placements! 

If you're down to 6 dogs after the 3rd series, maybe you, simplify that 4th series you had planned, just so that you have 4 dogs finish. Now Swliszka callls you a placement protector or a pencil whipper! In the real world, It's pretty hard to have that "perfect test".


For a number of reasons, IMO, Derby is the hardest stake to judge.


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

polmaise said:


> Breck said ''_A Derby is a Field Trial for dogs 6mo to 2yrs._ "
> A 2 year old dog is not a puppy .


.........(Sigh)


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Doug Main #28 Yes . I have judged and run. And you? Derby is hard but I think the Qualy may be a bit harder. Heck we got an old school RTF poster here who won the 1973 NFC. We are the last "bridge" people . 

I accused no one in particular of being a "pencil whipper"or "placement protector." I suggest running clean, clear, defining marks. I just never run under those people again. My time my choice.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

swliszka said:


> Doug Main #28 Yes . I have judged and run. And you? Derby is hard but I think the Qualy may be a bit harder. Heck we got an old school RTF poster here who won the 1973 NFC. We are the last "bridge" people .
> 
> I accused no one in particular of being a "pencil whipper"or "placement protector." I suggest running clean, clear, defining marks. I just never run under those people again. My time my choice.


Well, you can look up my record I use my real name. I have no idea who you are but thinking you are full of it! IMO Qual is by far the easiest stake to judge!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Well, you can look up my record I use my real name. I have no idea who you are but thinking you are full of it! IMO Qual is by far the easiest stake to judge!


Doug 

Good to see you up and running again. Was looking forward to running under you in the Derby at St. Louis, but had to scratch. Oh well. 

I agree with you on several points: 

1) Qual is the easiest stake to judge 
2) Derby dogs significantly better now than 10 years ago 

I think that the Derby is the hardest stake to judge. In degree of difficulty, from hardest to easiest to judge, I would say

1) Derby
2) Open
3) Amateur
4) Qual

Ted


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

swliszka said:


> Doug Main #28 Yes . I have judged and run. And you? Derby is hard but I think the Qualy may be a bit harder. Heck we got an old school RTF poster here who won the 1973 NFC.
> 
> STAN -
> If you are referring to Royal's Moose's Moe's '72 Bosque win, Thank You again.
> ...


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

canuckkiller said:


> Real bird placement has suffered with "lining to scent"
> at distances exceeding 250-300 yards being the norm.
> 
> W. D. Connor


Meaning dogs are learning how to take a line till they hit scent from the fall area rather than marking?


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Doug Main said:


> Well, you can look up my record I use my real name. I have no idea who you are but thinking you are full of it! IMO Qual is by far the easiest stake to judge!


My real name as well. Looked you up in Call Backs. I have no idea who you are. I have been playing since 1977. You want to call me out and do not even know the quality of my dogs or my training? Says alot about you. We all put our pants on the same, even you. 

PS I know Galesburg pretty well...have a bunch of 1948-1950 Gale produced OMC outboards. Restore those.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Bill #33 sorry about 1972 but on RTF everybody is an expert but that is why they have two (2) judges or at the nationals three (3).


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

Hi Stan -
Re Post #35
CHUCKLE, CHUCKLE

Bill Connor (Canuckkiller)


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Doug is an excellent FT and HT judge and has been competing in both for a long time. He sets up good tests, is fair to the dogs, and well known in this area.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> Doug is an excellent FT and HT judge and has been competing in both for a long time. He sets up good tests, is fair to the dogs, and well known in this area.


I agree.
Happy if we can get him for N. Alabama.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

canuckkiller said:


> Hi Stan -
> Re Post #35
> CHUCKLE, CHUCKLE
> 
> Bill Connor (Canuckkiller)


Yea Stan, I called BS on your statement that quals were harder to judge than derbies. and doubted that you have judged any in the last 5 years. 

Now that I know your name, I looked you up on RetreiverResults and found your record. I searched AKC's records and I couldn't find that you have judged anything in the last 5 years, let alone a derby! So Yea I was Right!!!! You are full of BS!!!


BTW Bill Connor (Canuckkiller) AKC lists your last derby judging assignmet as 1999 which happens to be the last time Stan finished a derby or 18 years ago!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Yea Stan, I called BS on your statement that quals were harder to judge than derbies. and doubted that you have judged any in the last 5 years.
> 
> Now that I know your name, I looked you up on RetreiverResults and found your record. I searched AKC's records and I couldn't find that you have judged anything in the last 5 years, let alone a derby! So Yea I was Right!!!! You are full of BS!!!
> 
> ...


Doug 

Don't feed the trolls. 

Ted


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I think that the Derby is the hardest stake to judge. In degree of difficulty, from hardest to easiest to judge, I would say
> 
> 1) Derby
> 2) Open
> ...


Yea that's how I see it too.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

.Do either of you even own Call Backs? Last judged a Derby at CMRC , Sauk Rapids, MN. Ran a Derby # Shorelne, CT Fall 2014. I hope you judging skills are better than your research skills. Erin plays in your hood,. I do not.

Shih tag team. Shih I know a bunch of people who have run under you, trained some of your dogs but I do not see RTF as a place for using people's names (unless cleared).. I hope your lawyer code of ethics extend to your clients confidentially.

Tskes a troll with weak skills and experience to call another out as a troll.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

Doug Main said:


> Yea Stan, I called BS on your statement that quals were harder to judge than derbies. and doubted that you have judged any in the last 5 years.
> 
> Now that I know your name, I looked you up on Retriever Results and found your record. I searched AKC's records and I couldn't find that you have judged anything in the last 5 years, let alone a derby! So Yea I was Right!!!! You are full of BS!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

canuckkiller said:


> Re Pikes Peak Trial at Fairplay,. Colorado, 1999.
> I was asked to judge the Derby at the 'last minute', a couple of weeks prior to the trial.



Bill

As you know, I was a contestant at that trial.

You and I have discussed your Derby at length.

My assessment of that Derby varies significantly from yours. 

For me, it was a blueprint of what not to do as a judge. 

Ted


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

This folks is why we have two (2) judges at trials , unless nationals where there are three (3). Not all agree.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

According to the rule book....a quick handle is preferable to a big hunt (paraphrasing here). 

Kudos to judges who judge according to the rules of the day and not their preconceived and personal notions of the way things "should be".

This game gives endless opportunities to practice good sportsmanship. Some contestants seldom take advantage of those opportunities.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

[QUOTE

Re Pikes Peak Trial at Fairplay,. Colorado, 1999.
I was asked to judge the Derby at the 'last minute', a couple of weeks prior to the trial, I went over to the "trout fishing grounds" in advance because I knew that previously there were serious issues with the water areas and the PPRC had exhausted options as to mechanics with 'stakes' running simultaneously. I scouted out the water/terrain, did a map & knew what I faced as to tests and the terrain.

After 4 solid tests, Maurice Cutting and I had a 'lock-up' - a 5th test was necessary. The 5th test was a 3 bird drop, the last bird a
wipe-out flyer and that determined the places. 4th place went to Ramblin' Gamblin Gunslinger, owned and handled by Prestin Skitt.

Mr. Skitt's dog successfully completed the 5th test by Skitt adroitly & quickly placing his dog on the memory bird with a handle vs allowing his dog to loosely lace around beyond the area of the fall. OTHER HANDLERS INCORRECTLY DID THAT & DID NOT JAM or PLACE.

Absolutely, the terrain ALWAYS determines the tests.

My letter to you, Ted, dated 27 February 2010 carefully responds to your caustic remarks about the trial published in your website.

Ted, regarding what you say here in a public forum, it would have been best served with the proper option - use of the PM button.
Did we as judges err back in 1999 at Fairplay by not reporting your conduct to the AKC? I don't think so. It was your first Derby
and observing your cell phone conversations with Cherlylon Loveland (your trainer) we gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Now, in hindsight, that was a mistake!

WD


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

labguy said:


> According to the rule book....a quick handle is preferable to a big hunt (paraphrasing here).
> 
> .


Not for derby anymore


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

I don't get too much involved with trials - except I like to learn about them, what kind of things are required of the dogs, etc. I loved watching the National videos on youtube.... as well as many others....But, I fully admit my first hand exp with trials is very minimal.... ran one derby this year. It was a lot of fun but not competitive (for points) because there were not enough dogs entered, so not what I would have considered a 'challenging' derby. The judges knew this and set up the marks accordingly (no need to hammer the dogs, iow)

Someone will correct me, I am sure, but it seems to me, from watching videos on youtube, and reading here, that derbies have shifted from their original intent - which was test the natural marking ability of young dogs. Given the advances in training - both tools and knowledge - it is only natural that derby dogs of today have skill levels far exceeding those of the dogs from dogs even 30 yrs ago... (that is not that long when you are near 50, hahahaha).... 

Would there be a significant change in derbies if the max age was dropped to allow only dogs up to the age of 18 mo? Would there be more focus on marking ability and less on the technical aspects of training a dog how to mark? 

This is curiosity on my part, nothing else. I don't want people thinking I am proposing to change the max age - so please don't respond that way. LOL


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

canuckkiller said:


> My letter to you, Ted, dated 27 February 2010 carefully responds to your caustic remarks about the trial published in your website.
> 
> Ted, regarding what you say here in a public forum, it would have been best served with the proper option - use of the PM button.
> Did we as judges err back in 1999 at Fairplay by not reporting your conduct to the AKC? I don't think so.
> ...



You are re-constructing history. I posted my comments - without noting the specific trial - after the FT was over. I stand by those comments. Feel free to contact the AKC about them.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

ErinsEdge said:


> Not for derby anymore


If you had read my entire post you would have seen I was referring to the rules as written in 1999 .....when a handle was allowed in Derby and when the judges made the correct choice to judge according to the rules of the day..........."a quick handle is preferable to a big hunt (again paraphrasing).... but thanks anyway.


Kudos to judges _*who judge according to the rules of the day*_


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

jroberts said:


> I am curious to know what everyone does for Training a pup to run in a Derby on a daily basis from ages 6-15months old. After FF and CC and not discussing blinds or any of that stuff. What is a typical training routine for you for Derby marks?
> 
> Here are my questions, I know this different for each dog but I am just trying to get a general idea
> How far?
> ...


Well that sure went well . . The 42 call backs in the National Derby are hinged on every word now .


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

labguy said:


> If you had read my entire post you would have seen I was referring to the rules as written in 1999 .....when a handle was allowed in Derby and when the judges made the correct choice to judge according to the rules of the day..........."a quick handle is preferable to a big hunt (again paraphrasing).... but thanks anyway.
> 
> 
> Kudos to judges _*who judge according to the rules of the day*_


A little historical perspective is in order. The rules were originally written when no one could have conceived Derby dogs being taught to handle. Since marking is stated to be of primary importance and there are no blind retrieves handling in the Derby was considered a fatal offense. Prior to +\- 1990 almost no one would have considered placing a dog with a handle in the Derby and anyone who did was considered to have violated a sacred unwritten rule.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

EdA said:


> A little historical perspective is in order. The rules were originally written when no one could have conceived Derby dogs being taught to handle. Since marking is stated to be of primary importance and there are no blind retrieves handling in the Derby was considered a fatal offense. Prior to +\- 1990 almost no one would have considered placing a dog with a handle in the Derby and anyone who did was considered to have violated a sacred unwritten rule.




I understand the history. Just because it was " considered" a fatal offense, does not take away from the written rule at that time.

These "unwritten rules" make official rule book useless and meaningless. What's the point of the rule book if judges don't follow it.

A judge is there to judge.......according to the rules of the game. Anything less cheapens the game and gives too much power to the person holding the book to make things up as they deem fit or ignore rules because they don't happen to like a particular section of the book.

Even in today's AA stakes a handle, no matter how quick or clean, is usually the kiss of death.......they'll carry or place a huge hunt over a quick handle even though the rule is clear that the opposite should prevail simply because of some "sacred unwritten rule."


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

labguy #55 X 2.....one of the realities is when you enter a trial is to allow your "team" to be subjected to the folks with the books. No entry no pain. Entry ---welcome to the unknown mix.FT offer this ambiguity Occasionally a trial will have a few superior dogs that distinguish themselves from the rest. Judgement is in the eye of the beholder. Rules, interpretation and life are not always clear.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

labguy said:


> "unwritten rules" make official rule book useless and meaningless. What's the point of the rule book if judges don't follow it.
> 
> A judge is there to judge.......according to the rules of the game. Anything less cheapens the game


So when you judge, you call back handles over hunts?


----------



## Illini Coot Killr (Feb 21, 2011)

Ted Shih said:


> So when you judge, you call back handles over hunts?


Well, I'm not a judge but I have enjoyed following this pissing contest... I mean discussion about a derby trial that occurred 18 years ago. 

Finally a comment that I want to weigh in on.

Once a dog demonstrates good marking/memory and perseverance in the area of the fall then for whatever reason just misses the bird but picks it up with a quick handle I find to be a very pleasing performance. Not as pleasing as a dog that front foots the bird, but much better that one that "hunts" an ever increasing area and eventually stumbles into the bird.

Maybe both get dropped relative to the performance of the rest of the field but in a straight up comparison, all other aspects being equal I'll take the quick handle.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Marking is of primary importance, especially in an all marking stake, so handling may
mean the dog didn't mark. In the 4th series of an All Age stake, handling may mean finishing and even placing over a gorilla hunt. It all depends on context.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> So when you judge, you call back handles over hunts?


A quick, crisp handle over a large (monster) hunt???? Absolutely I do because the rules are very clear on this.........

Obviously it depends on the scenario presented during the test and the work relative to the field.

Judging has a lot of subjective elements to it but it must (should) be done within the spirit and the letter of the written rule book.......otherwise it's just making stuff up as you go along. 

And I agree with Illini Coot Killr's post.....well stated.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> So when you judge, you call back handles over hunts?


Why wouldn't you?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Breck said:


> Why wouldn't you?


*First*, as ErinEdge mentioned the discussion is contextual. I don't know how anyone can make broad proclamations about whether quick handles (how quick) are to be favored over gorilla hunts (how gorilla)?

*Second*, I find the discussion about handles and hunts to be mostly a hypothetical one. 

If you handle, you are acknowledging that your dog had a poor mark or no mark. By and large, that is failure.
If your dog hunts all over the countryside and stumbles on a bird, it had a poor mark, verging on no mark, by and large, that is a failure, too.

In my experience, in the All Age Stakes, both the former and the latter result in elimination.

My experience would be that either a gorilla hunt or a handle result in elimination.

*Third*, as near as I can tell, in the real world, the debate about whether to call back a handle, centers around the short nasty retired bird (usually a hen pheasant)

In the real world, not the internet world

- If your dog gets to the area of the fall on the long retired, you let it hunt. You don't handle. You let the dog try to work it out because there is no reason not to do so. You also don't handle because handling at a distance is iffy. So you let it hunt. And if your dog has a big hunt and you finally decide to handle, you have a mark, but a big hunt and a handle. Not good.

- If your dog takes a line to nowhere and you stop it and cast it 200 yards to mark, you have no mark and a handle. Also not good. 

So what remains? The nasty short bird. Two basic options

- Your dog is blowing through the short retired bird. You have seen scores of dogs drive deep into idiot flats and die. You handle. Smart move as a handler. But, no mark. No mark, but quick and tidy handle. Depending on work, maybe you get called back.

- Dog sets up hunt in area of fall and decides to boogie. You handle. Mark, but gave up on the hunt. Depending on work, maybe you get called back. 

Practically speaking, if you are not at a National (and maybe not then) or a VERY small trial where the judges are VERY generous, you are out.

So, mostly, I think that the debate is a theoretical one. 

Ted


----------



## Terry Marshall (Jan 12, 2011)

How many of these nebulous rules in the book benefit the Judges and their clique not only in FT but also HT...I see no reason why it can't be reeled in a bit (or a lot) as a much easier tool for understanding the game. A gorilla hunt might have a time on it, say 60 seconds...a handle might have a number of whistles, say 2-3 w/o any cast refusals. These adaptations might just speed things up as well and let everyone know where they stand...JMHO


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> *First*, as ErinEdge mentioned the discussion is contextual. I don't know how anyone can make broad proclamations about whether quick handles (how quick) are to be favored over gorilla hunts (how gorilla)?*Actually, it's the rule book that makes those proclamations......nice try though.*
> 
> *Second*, I find the discussion about handles and hunts to be mostly a hypothetical one. *Obviously it's hypothetical.....a moot point agreed to by anyone with half a brain.......what does this have to do with the topic???*
> 
> ...


You're very skilled at taking the counter arguement no matter what the facts are, I'm assuming because of your chosen profession. For me to debate you, given your vast experience, is akin to me taking a water pistol to a gun fight so I'm going to quit this discussion now cause I'm getting a head ache from all this. I do appreciate you at least being civil this time.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Anybody who has enough FT experience under their belt knows exactly what a good handle is and what a bad hunt is. I don't entirely agree with Ted's position. One thing he doesn't mention is "defensive handling". When you watch 10 dogs in front of you crash and burn on a particular mark, a strategic handle, at the perfect time/spot, can be a thing of beauty and the reason rule book actually states a handle may trump a hunt.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Does this dog get carried?


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Tobias said:


> Does this dog get carried?


Well, that was the 4th series. Dog did well on 3 birds. Video doesn't show if he got 4th. Depending on work of other dogs that dog could have won, placed, jammed or got nothing.


----------



## mrman (Feb 12, 2016)

Well this turned into a giant pissing match! lol As far as the original post is concerned, Im currently running/training my first dog, and have ran a few derbies with him. I typically train blinds 2 times a week. these are multiple blinds with common themes to get the dog to "hopefully" understand the concept. then i run marks on the other 3-4 days. These are typically doubles, but turn into singles if head swinging becomes an ever so slight problem. I try and range them from 100-400 yards and will throw a 400 yard mark as may times as my groups permit. sometimes i have my gunner (my fiancé) crouch with the dog en route to "semi retire" the gun or sometimes throw outright retired guns to give him confidence in running to a mark he may have seen but can't find the gunner when he gets back to the line because the gunner sat down. Its not uncommon to have a semi retired gun due to poor visibility. Also losing sight of the gun en route is common too so teaching them to charge hard down into the valley as well as out of it is crucial. 

All this to say I'm no professional but these are some of the things that I do/work on. Hopefully this gets your post back on track from the ego contest we are currently having.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

Breck said:


> Anybody who has enough FT experience under their belt knows exactly what a good handle is and what a bad hunt is. I don't entirely agree with Ted's position. One thing he doesn't mention is "defensive handling". When you watch 10 dogs in front of you crash and burn on a particular mark, a strategic handle, at the perfect time/spot, can be a thing of beauty and the reason rule book actually states a handle may trump a hunt.


The rule book states that a handle may be better than a hunt, because the rule book also emphasizes that *there is value in a dog that does not unnecessarily disturb too much cover.* 
A dog takes a tumble or simply fails too negotiate terrain on the way to a challenging mark, and needs too be handled. It subsequently, is able to re-orient and put his nose on the bird. Is that the kind of dog we want to pencil out?
ps. I like your post Breck, this isn't meant to towards you directly


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

As a former RTFette would say " It Depends". I agree, with both depending on the situation. In the video can't tell if the dog got the bird as Breck said. The dog did make up for the handler sending on the wrong line on the last bird as it looked like it was just to the left of the tree in front of the island. The dog looked a little shallow too. I guess we have to look up the results.  

Still working on more pelts regards,

Jeff


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Tobias said:


> Does this dog get carried?



The long retired was very hard. If I remember correctly, you skimmed the bush on the left, got in the water, got on and off a point, skimmed an island, swim, angle entry out of out water, drive cover, and find the bird. Because the bird was very hard to line, some handlers tried going right of the bush, thinking that the dogs would run along the tree line into the bird

The dog in the video - Crystal - took third. The second and fourth place dogs had similarly large hunts on the long retired. There were no quick handles and plenty of long, protracted handles.

Only one dog got the long retired cleanly. He had a magnificent mark - the kind that you remember forever. That dog, Frank, won. 

Ted


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

All I remember thinking when I watched the marks thrown was holy hell that's a seriously challenging memory mark!


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Looking at video again at point where handler received 3rd bird and is lining up for 4th, there is a Lot of commotion and noise going on. Helpers at 4 wheeler talking and moving stuff and gallery chatter causing Ted to turn around. Bad enough you can see dog take eyes off field and turn to right to look behind. Not good. Handler probably should have recognized this and worked on the dog all over again after he looked away distracted.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Ted, thank you for the follow up. That clarifies that situation. The dog did a very good job then. That is not what I would have not considered a monster hunt. 
Back to derby marks.Train to the next level you are running with AA as the goal. Derbies are fun and challenging but not the final result.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

labsforme said:


> Ted, thank you for the follow up. That clarifies that situation. The dog did a very good job then. That is not what I would have not considered a monster hunt.


Actually, it was a HUGE hunt. 

Only the winning dog had a good mark (a magnificent one actually) on the long bird. But, Field Trials are a relative (that is, a given series) and a cumulative (that is, four series) sport. And in our opinion, this dog's cumulative work merited third place.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Hard to tell from the video. That's why armchair and internet judging doesn't work.  I would love to judge with you some time.

Jeff


----------

