# HT vs FT, why is this?



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

When a HT has a Qualifying attached to their weekend test with the Master stake full at 60 right away, why do you think that the Qualifying stake would have so few entries?

Do you think it is because the high majority of the dogs entered in the Master stake are being run by Pro's and the Q is O/H?

Do you think that very few owners of the Master stake dogs will not be at the HT on that particular weekend?

Do you think that many of the dog owners of the Master stake don't feel their dog is ready to run a Q?

Do you think the entries are low in the Qualifying stake because the Q trials are not posted on the FT side of EE?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

All of the above plus

Highly unlikely someone who is looking to make their dog QAA or QA2 is going to attend a HT Qualifying stake just for that alone

How many dogs in the Master are already QAA

IMO the two stakes offered aren't necessarily interchangible


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Answering solely from my experience it is the last reason. There is no way for me to search EE for Q's. So I pour through all the FT listings, and take whatever works with my schedule. I've about given up on finding the elusive O/H Q.


----------



## Chuck Ward (Nov 28, 2012)

I think all the points you've made play a part, some more than others. I watched this with interest last year and most seemed to end up with between 20 and 30 entries, some more, some less. Trialers seemed to enter much closer to the close - last week or less. No limits in field trials are also a factor. The three entries in Blackhawk"s "Q" I expect will be closer to 30 at close.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Probably the big thing is O/H restriction. I think the O/H Q is a nice starting point though to see if your dog is ready, gives you or it did me some idea of the rules & the way things move in FT & where my dog was in his training. Nice opportunity for all dogs to try. I run HRC at the first of the season to warm up rather than run O/H. JMO


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

It's pretty simple. Because it's owner handler.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I guess I don't see why you'd want to limit it to owner handlers? I'm guessing (not sure, just a guess...) that the Pro's play the game they play and don't switch hit... or (cammo-white jacket) cross-dress.

So, you get a couple HT pros who don the white jacket, how many of their dogs are ready for the Q? Probably a small % of the dogs they arrive with at the HT. 

And, how many FT Pros are going to want to go out of their way on a weekend to run an isolated Q? Again, probably few.

So why limit it to owners only when a handful of extra dogs run by pros could produce some admirable cross-fertilization?


----------



## bakbay (May 20, 2003)

1tulip said:


> I guess I don't see why you'd want to limit it to owner handlers? I'm guessing (not sure, just a guess...) that the Pro's play the game they play and don't switch hit... or (cammo-white jacket) cross-dress.
> 
> So, you get a couple HT pros who don the white jacket, how many of their dogs are ready for the Q? Probably a small % of the dogs they arrive with at the HT.
> 
> ...


The only choice for a hunt test is the owner handler qual. Opening it up would require a change in the regulations. Field trials have the option of doing the qual either way...not hunt tests.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Wade said:


> When a HT has a Qualifying attached to their weekend test with the Master stake full at 60 right away, why do you think that the Qualifying stake would have so few entries?
> 
> Do you think it is because the high majority of the dogs entered in the Master stake are being run by Pro's and the Q is O/H?
> 
> ...


All the above plus:
- Finishing the Q doesn't get the dog closer to the Master National.
- Until recently the Q had no title associated with it.

Tim


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

bakbay said:


> The only choice for a hunt test is the owner handler qual. Opening it up would require a change in the regulations. Field trials have the option of doing the qual either way...not hunt tests.


Hmmm... I just had to read the rule book and thought I'd done if fairly thoroughly. Where do I look in it for that stipulation?


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Wade,

I think ALL of the above, less than half of the entries are going to be dogs that are running the HT, I would be fine with making them a "Q" and not a OH Q attached to the HT, let the HT pros play if it means more entries for the club, if the owners are there watching there dog run the Master and not handling it then there probably not going to run them in a FT either, and alot of good AM's can go head to head with most HT pro's. from a handling stand point. I ran a couple last year and both times in the 4th. series the dogs that were left were the FT trained dogs, the HT dogs had a tough time with the land and water blind at the Q level. I say open it up to the arm chair handlers or there pro's.


----------



## bakbay (May 20, 2003)

1tulip said:


> Hmmm... I just had to read the rule book and thought I'd done if fairly thoroughly. Where do I look in it for that stipulation?


See page 12...Section 19. Also, the bottom of page 2.


----------



## Bill Cummins Jr. (Aug 2, 2011)

Wade said:


> When a HT has a Qualifying attached to their weekend test with the Master stake full at 60 right away, why do you think that the Qualifying stake would have so few entries?
> 
> Do you think it is because the high majority of the dogs entered in the Master stake are being run by Pro's and the Q is O/H?
> 
> ...


 All the above, in our region the Avg. Master stake is 80-90 % Pro. O/H Qual., might encourage some handlers to give it a try. We have a 120 dog Master, and about 20-25


----------



## weathered (Mar 17, 2011)

I dont think enough hunt test people know enough about a Q to give it a try. I suspect many are intimidated by the thought of a field trial. I'm in that boat. I'd like to see a poll of HT amateurs and see how many have watched a Q in the last 5 years and which ones know if their Master dog could be competitive in the Q (no matter if they think their dog is not ready).


----------



## Bill Cummins Jr. (Aug 2, 2011)

My message was cut off. We have about 20-25 O/H Q. entries. We think we get a few entries because they can do both.
On a different note- I wonder why some F.T. clubs are not having Qual. stakes right now, when it seems to me there might be a lot of new interest for Master handlers that can't get their dogs entered in a Master.
A few years ago Sooner Ret. Club switched the Derby to Fri., the O/H Qual to Sat., the Amateurs were there running the Am., anyway. We didn't loose many entries, gained a few Master type dogs. Just trying something different to get more people ACTIVELY involved.

Good Luck To All ! Gunz Up !!
Bill C.


----------



## truka (Oct 13, 2010)

1tulip said:


> Hmmm... I just had to read the rule book and thought I'd done if fairly thoroughly. Where do I look in it for that stipulation?


https://images.akc.org/pdf/rulebooks/RHTRET.pdf
Page 2 bottom paragraph.
-trudie kuka


----------



## RJG (Feb 18, 2005)

Hey Mary and everyone -
Come on down to Treasure Coast's Friday OHQ then Saturday & Sunday HT in early November. It's a pretty low key way to experience a Q if you haven't done one before. We get both HT and FT folks and the set-ups are challenging but doable. Everyone is friendly, we have a lot of fun, and also have a great tailgate on Saturday night.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Thanks all. Reading the rulebook cold, even with a highlighter in hand, trying to do a studious job of it... it's amazing what you can miss.

Since this was part of chapter one, I'm guessing that it was part of the earliest iteration of the rule book. (Those with more history with the movement than I, please correct me if I'm wrong.) It was likely put in there because FT _was all there was_ in the earliest days of the HT game. So, (again... I'm trying to read the minds of people back then) they were setting up a boundary that made sense at that time.

Clearly this is a different day and age. You have two mature sports. The impetus now should be to cross-fertilize, since the overall aim should be to bring out the best in the retriever breeds. It shouldn't be a major deal to just apply some white-out to the "owner-handler" references.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Actually, no, tulip, the OHQ was added to the hunt test game just a few years ago, I'm not exactly sure when, but maybe 5 or 6 year ago? Our club, Bryan College Station did a few OHQs with our Fall Hunt tests. I looked back at EE and saw the first one we did was in the Fall of 2010. So I believe the verbiage must have been introduced just prior to that.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

There have been many threads lately dealing with the difficulty of getting into as Master test. In these threads, many point out that the hunt test game originated for the amateur trainer/handler to have a venue to run their own dog. And the owner/handler stake in a field trial was originally Instituted to limit the competition by not allowing the "professional amateur" to run all of the dogs on a given pro's truck and take up all of the placements.

Well, it's an owner/handler Qual to give the amateur who trains his or her own dog a better chance to be competitive. If you want to expose new people to the field trial game by holding a Qual at a hunt test, it would be counterproductive to have them run against a bunch of professionally trained and handled dogs and get bounced in the first series.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

1tulip said:


> Thanks all. Reading the rulebook cold, even with a highlighter in hand, trying to do a studious job of it... it's amazing what you can miss.
> 
> Since this was part of chapter one, I'm guessing that it was part of the earliest iteration of the rule book. (Those with more history with the movement than I, please correct me if I'm wrong.) It was likely put in there because FT _was all there was_ in the earliest days of the HT game. So, (again... I'm trying to read the minds of people back then) they were setting up a boundary that made sense at that time.
> 
> Clearly this is a different day and age. You have two mature sports. The impetus now should be to cross-fertilize, since the overall aim should be to bring out the best in the retriever breeds. It shouldn't be a major deal to just apply some white-out to the "owner-handler" references.


You will get more clarification if you look at the Field Trial rules, which state that a FT has to offer more than one stake unless it is an O/H Q attached to a Master HT or a national championship trial:

"A club may not hold a field trial with only one stake except in the case of the National Championship, National Amateur Championship or an Owner-Handler Qualifying stake held in conjunction with a Retriever Hunting Test that includes a Master level test."

So if a club wanted to hold a regular Q in conjunction with their HT, they could do so by offering a second stake. Our club, for example, offers a D/Q on the Friday before the Sat/Sun hunt test.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Todd Caswell said:


> I ran a couple last year and both times in the 4th. series the dogs that were left were the FT trained dogs, the HT dogs had a tough time with the land and water blind at the Q level.


I had the opportunity to judge an FT Q last October, and I have a dog who has had some FT training and is working on his MH title, and I would agree that this would be the first separation. It was also very instructive to get to see the pro handlers right next to the amateurs. Going too fast, not a high enough standard on line manners, and fiddling around too much at the line (guilty on all 3) are the main ones you see the amateurs doing.

I would love to get my rear end handed to me in some Qs (O/H or not) just for the line time, but since my dog only has one AKC parent he is not allowed even after losing his reproductive abilities to run HTs. Go figure.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

RookieTrainer said:


> I had the opportunity to judge an FT Q last October, and I have a dog who has had some FT training and is working on his MH title, and I would agree that this would be the first separation. It was also very instructive to get to see the pro handlers right next to the amateurs. Going too fast, not a high enough standard on line manners, and fiddling around too much at the line (guilty on all 3) are the main ones you see the amateurs doing.
> 
> I would love to get my rear end handed to me in some Qs (O/H or not) just for the line time, but since my dog only has one AKC parent he is not allowed even after losing his reproductive abilities to run HTs. Go figure.


Steve do you not think Am have to start somewhere & those issues you wrote would come over time w/ experience & w/ doing the Qs. How do you all see Am's getting that experience so more would contend?


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

weathered said:


> I dont think enough hunt test people know enough about a Q to give it a try. I suspect many are intimidated by the thought of a field trial. I'm in that boat. I'd like to see a poll of HT amateurs and see how many have watched a Q in the last 5 years and which ones know if their Master dog could be competitive in the Q (no matter if they think their dog is not ready).



I have seen the degree of difficulty of quals vary across such a wide range, I'd think it would be hard to know if your dog is ready for a qual unless you train for all-age and wait to run your dog after you feel it is about ready to start running all-age stakes. After-all, they do call it "qualified all-age."


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Best of all possible worlds would be for HT and FT people to train together Sometimes the do. It's great when it happens.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Mary Clark has it right from my perspective. Is wouldn't know where to begin...and field trials are intimidating.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> Steve do you not think Am have to start somewhere & those issues you wrote would come over time w/ experience & w/ doing the Qs. How do you all see Am's getting that experience so more would contend?


Time and experience are the things that all of us rank amateurs need to get better, and the Qs would only help. I don't know why more people don't, because I would love to if I could. I think more folks just have to decide to take the leap.

I would also guess that a lot of folks don't have regular access to the technical water they would need to train to that level. But that's just a guess.


----------



## Willie Alderson (Jan 26, 2011)

2tall said:


> Answering solely from my experience it is the last reason. There is no way for me to search EE for Q's. So I pour through all the FT listings, and take whatever works with my schedule. I've about given up on finding the elusive O/H Q.


O/H Qual coming up April 19th...southwest Idaho!


----------



## TexGold (Jan 27, 2009)

Here's an example for you- this weekend I ran a Qualifier that was not O/H. We got a RJ. The top four places went to pros. No other amatuer completed the final series. I'm not bragging or complaining, but it would seem had this been an owner handler, I would have won. Truth is though I am more proud of this RJ than I would have been with the win. 

Last weekend we ran a Master and got a pass. So you can play both games. 

It is different having pros in MH than Q's. In the MH you are not competing with them. In the Q and an Open, you definitely are. Heck, even in the Am one gets the chance to compete against other weekend trainers. 

There is an O/H and HT coming up near San Antonio. Master is full. I could enter the O/H, but it is not worth a five hour drive if I can't get in both. There are closer FT and HT, but I do like it when I can get both in one shot.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

TexGold said:


> Here's an example for you- this weekend I ran a Qualifier that was not O/H.


Congratulations for earning a Reserve Judges Award of Merit in the QUALIFYING stake, it's not a "Qualifier". Pet peeve


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

EdA said:


> Congratulations for earning a Reserve Judges Award of Merit in the QUALIFYING stake, it's not a "Qualifier". Pet peeve


Also it's a AKC Hunting Test, it's not a UKC Hunt Test!


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

TexGold said:


> Here's an example for you- this weekend I ran a Qualifier that was not O/H. We got a RJ. The top four places went to pros.
> 
> There seems to be an overwhelming fear of professional trainers when running field trial stakes that the pros are allowed to run. The last field trial I attended, the top four spots in the open all age stake went to amateurs. I think if you asked any pro, who they have the most concern over possibly beating them, they will tell you it is an amateur handler with a good dog or two, that knows what they are doing. A good amateur does not have to train 30 or so dogs a day and can devote their time really honing their dog(s). How do you get to being one of those good amateurs? Put the time in.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

wetdog said:


> TexGold said:
> 
> 
> > I think if you asked any pro, who they have the most concern over possibly beating them, they will tell you it is an amateur handler with a good dog or two, that knows what they are doing. A good amateur does not have to train 30 or so dogs a day and can devote their time really honing their dog(s). How do you get to being one of those good amateurs? Put the time in.
> ...


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

You will never know unless you try. 

I don't believe Pro's are afraid of handlers, I do believe however they are afraid of good dogs.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Willie Alderson said:


> O/H Qual coming up April 19th...southwest Idaho!


LOL Willie! Just my luck, if I were in Idaho now, I would be reading about an O/H Q in Eastern NC! I really liked ID. Hope to visit again sometime.

Back on topic , I love running quals even if I haven't made it past third series except for club trials. I am intimidated by hunt tests! Too much drama at the line and too many instructions! I get confused.😜😜😜


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

RookieTrainer said:


> wetdog said:
> 
> 
> > I think you are right as far as it goes. The follow up question would be how many amateurs are out there like that? Lanse Brown showing up is one thing. I am sure there is not one pro out there giving any thought to what might happen if I show up next week. It takes a LOT of time and experience, measured in years, to get to that point. Hard to do while you hold a full time job.
> ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

wetdog said:


> TexGold said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an example for you- this weekend I ran a Qualifier that was not O/H. We got a RJ. The top four places went to pros.
> ...


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Rnd said:


> RookieTrainer said:
> 
> 
> > Steve,
> ...


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

RookieTrainer said:


> Rnd said:
> 
> 
> > I hear you about wanting it, but I like to eat regularly, stay indoors with lights and water, and stay married to my lovely wife.
> ...


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

wetdog said:


> TexGold said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an example for you- this weekend I ran a Qualifier that was not O/H. We got a RJ. The top four places went to pros.
> ...


----------



## TexGold (Jan 27, 2009)

Thanks. I stand corrected. Congratulations to yourself Dr. A. Saw where you earned a Reserve Judges Award of Merit in the Open Stake.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

As luck would have it, I talked to someone today who may be taking the plunge and running dogs in a Q in a couple weeks. I'll probably tag along and watch.

One more thought about why folks shy away from the Q. There is a widely held perception that you really can't have a bad bird and hope to place on a given weekend in a Q. For those that run them regularly, what say you?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

RookieTrainer said:


> As luck would have it, I talked to someone today who may be taking the plunge and running dogs in a Q in a couple weeks. I'll probably tag along and watch.
> 
> One more thought about why folks shy away from the Q. There is a widely held perception that you really can't have a bad bird and hope to place on a given weekend in a Q. For those that run them regularly, what say you?


Depends on how bad. The reality is most weekends there will be four dogs that were pretty clean through four series, but with some separation.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

On another thread there are some folks lobbying for $200/dog to run the Master. If that notion catches on... heck, yeah. I'll start wearing the white jacket and take my chances in the Qual. (Which, initially will be slim to none. But...)


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

John Robinson said:


> Depends on how bad. The reality is most weekends there will be four dogs that were pretty clean through four series, but with some separation.


John, that was precisely my experience in the Q I judged.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Wade said:


> When a HT has a Qualifying attached to their weekend test with the Master stake full at 60 right away, why do you think that the Qualifying stake would have so few entries?
> 
> Do you think it is because the high majority of the dogs entered in the Master stake are being run by Pro's and the Q is O/H?
> 
> ...


I haven't noticed any change in the average number of entries in the O/H Qs at hunt tests since the limited Master stakes were allowed. I've run a few but only because I was there to run the Master test. So, I don't see that people are saying, "I can't get in the ht, do I'll run the Q."

From my perspective as being primarily interested in field trials, Quals are limited time events - very much like derbies. You get your dog Qualified All Age, and you move on. You don't run Qs over and over like you do Master tests. In fact the rules limit the field by preventing you from running after 2 wins. (I think an AA finish prevents you from running a Qual also, but not sure).

Also, having an AA dog and/or a derby dog, I'm not going to travel to run a Qual at a hunt test with one dog. I'll spend my travel money going to a trial where I can run all of my dogs. 

When I was working on my most recent dog's MH title, I did favor events that also had a O/H Q. 

In the end, I think that the majority of folks at a hunt test don't care about running a Qual. Most of the folks that I've seen run are running simply because they are already at the event, and it's another chance for their dog to pick up some birds.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

RookieTrainer said:


> ...One more thought about why folks shy away from the Q. There is a widely held perception that you really can't have a bad bird and hope to place on a given weekend in a Q. For those that run them regularly, what say you?


That's about right. A handle in the first almost always get you sent home and more than a small area hunt on any bird and you are usually looking at green at best.

Edit: but I get great pleasure in finishing any trial, so the green in a competition is more meaningful to me than an orange in an exhibition.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Willie Alderson said:


> O/H Qual coming up April 19th...southwest Idaho!


DOh!! the only way I could get my dog to travel that far would be to have them on a Pro truck and share expenses with other owners; then she couldn't run the Qual; and I'd only do such if she could get both . Double Jeopardy on both ends; Still good luck with your test. I wish more clubs would offer such options. A chance at MH pass and a FT ribbon all the same weekend; really appeals in regard to my time and money.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

So is there any way to calculate wether or not this stake actully increased Field Trial participation? or was it just another way for AKC to make more money?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

dexdoolittle said:


> So is there any way to calculate wether or not this stake actully increased Field Trial participation? or was it just another way for AKC to make more money?


Just anecdotal, but I got my feet wet in derbies and quals out of hunt test before moving up into the all age. That was years before they did the combined master-qual thing, but I have seen a few hunt test people come up that way the last five years or so.


----------



## weathered (Mar 17, 2011)

How long does a qualifying last? Does it typically run over into a second day if it starts later the first day due to following the finish of a derby?


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

If you have the grounds and weather isn't an issue you can get through a 30/40 dog Q in a day If it starts on friday. If it starts after the Derby then yes there is a pretty good chance that it isn't going to get done in a day. Like any other stake avaliblity of water for the last two series on Saturday can be a problem on most grounds.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> Just anecdotal, but I got my feet wet in derbies and quals out of hunt test before moving up into the all age. That was years before they did the combined master-qual thing, but I have seen a few hunt test people come up that way the last five years or so.


John,

I think the derby is really tough for the average guy training his own dog to be competitive in, alot depends on the dogs BD and the geological location of the owner, Iv'e got a young dog and I don't care how much training I did this winter or how good he is he would never be ready to run a derby this spring going up against dogs that were in the water all winter down south, but next year as a 3 year old he could compete in the Q. So personally I think the Q is the starting point for the AM. trained dog, ( and in most cases the end as well) in the FT world..


----------



## A team (Jun 30, 2011)

Todd Caswell said:


> John,
> 
> I think the derby is really tough for the average guy training his own dog to be competitive in, alot depends on the dogs BD and the geological location of the owner, Iv'e got a young dog and I don't care how much training I did this winter or how good he is he would never be ready to run a derby this spring going up against dogs that were in the water all winter down south, but next year as a 3 year old he could compete in the Q. So personally I think the Q is the starting point for the AM. trained dog, ( and in most cases the end as well) in the FT world..


Todd, I believe you're spot on, I'm on my second year with my second dog in the FT world. As previously stated I do agree with you on the difficulty level, you must train nearly everyday, have access to technical water, shoot fliers regularly and have dog with enough talent that they can mentally digest the training concepts that being fed to them daily. For the most part you are competing against very talented and established pros with very talented young dogs. You must be able to simply appreciate that your finishing against the field. 

Now I'm fighting away in the Q , tough sport. 

With that being said I would not discourage anybody with a talneted dog to enter the FT world, I've met some incredible people and dogs.


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

Ted Shih said:


> wetdog said:
> 
> 
> > David, I am pretty sure that I judged the Open that you mention in your post. That being said, I don't think that there is anything wrong in having an O/H Qualifying to encourage people to run their own dogs.
> ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

wetdog said:


> Ted Shih said:
> 
> 
> > Yes Ted that is the trial I am talking about. Did you ever get dried out and warmed up after it was over?
> ...


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

I think the Q is much easier than the derby for the new guy to have success in. The Q is a natural fit for the talented MH to transition to FTs. The am would be a MUCH bigger jump. I would not be that intimidated about pros in the Q. The pro dogs in the Q if they are good arent running Q's for long and typically are very young.


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

Once hunt test handlers understand that field trials are for losers, they feel much more comfortable running them. 99% of field trial participants fail and are losers looking for a story to tell. One winning with the rest having a story to tell, only 10% of the dogs entered have a legitimate chance of winning so just go, run your dog, enjoy running your dog and telling that story. 

I agree with Ted there is nothing wrong with people running their own dog.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> John,
> 
> I think the derby is really tough for the average guy training his own dog to be competitive in, alot depends on the dogs BD and the geological location of the owner, Iv'e got a young dog and I don't care how much training I did this winter or how good he is he would never be ready to run a derby this spring going up against dogs that were in the water all winter down south, but next year as a 3 year old he could compete in the Q. So personally I think the Q is the starting point for the AM. trained dog, ( and in most cases the end as well) in the FT world..


Absolutely correct. I ran my first dog in the derby. I ran eight trials and never even finished, but I got a lot of line time with incremental improvement along the way. If you go in with the hunt test mindset of pass-fail you are going to be very discouraged because there will be a lot of failure. If however, you go in with the mindset of learning a new game, then each step forward will be a rush. My dog couldn't find the flyer in our first trial, then it got the flyer twice, so when I actually did well in a series it felt like success. Then we started doing well in the first two series but couldn't handle _two down the shore_. As I ran and failed, I saw first hand the holes in my training and worked on them. Finally just before he aged out Cody did a good job in all four series, except he re-heeled himself on the last bird, I resent and he drilled it, but alas no JAM. I always said if we had been allowed to run three more months after he aged out we would have gotten on the derby list, but so would a lot of dogs.

I agree that the easiest way to transition from hunt test into FT's is with a good MH who isn't afraid to drive long, and start running Q's.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> wetdog said:
> 
> 
> > Took me a week. 45 degree temperatures, 20-30 mph wind, and rain - I have never been so cold judging. But, grounds were in great condition, and dogs were fun to watch.
> ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> I felt sorry for you guys. When that storm blew in, sending your tent flying across the field, horizontal stinging rain, I actually thought you would scrap the test for the day. I'm a long time sailor, that wind was a steady 20-30 knots gusting to 45. Add the rain and cold for California temps, it was miserable.


I was pretty cozy until the tent blew away. Couldn't scrap, had to judge Qualifying after the Open. At about 3 pm, I started shivering uncontrollably. I was pretty certain hypothermia was setting in. Then at 4 pm, shivering stopped, even though it was colder. I think my body got into eating fat. Man, was it miserable.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

SamLab1 said:


> Once hunt test handlers understand that field trials are for losers, they feel much more comfortable running them. 99% of field trial participants fail and are losers looking for a story to tell. One winning with the rest having a story to tell, only 10% of the dogs entered have a legitimate chance of winning so just go, run your dog, enjoy running your dog and telling that story.
> 
> I agree with Ted there is nothing wrong with people running their own dog.


That pass-fail, if you don't win you are a loser mindset will drive you crazy in field trials. I don't think we are looking for a story to tell, we are trying to succeed at the highest level. I also don't agree with your 90%-10% ratio. In my experience, there are 10% who win or place consistently, another 40 % that are always knocking on the door and win or place a few times a year, 40% that could do it if everything lines up for them that weekend, and 10% that probably don't have a chance.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> I was pretty cozy until the tent blew away. Couldn't scrap, had to judge Qualifying after the Open. *At about 3 pm, I started shivering uncontrollably. I was pretty certain hypothermia was setting in. Then at 4 pm, shivering stopped, even though it was colder*. I think my body got into eating fat. Man, was it miserable.


That is a classic sign of hypothermia, the real danger sign was when you stopped shivering. If you were with me in the wilderness, that would have been the sign to build a big fire, wrap you up and fill you with hot liquid, you were lucky nothing bad happened.


----------



## Brokengunz (Sep 3, 2011)

The difference between HT and FT is, HT'S are structured based on age and the dogs ability through training. eg JR SR MH. At a FT no matter what stake you are in the level of training better be all age level or you won't be playing long. You won't see many 6 month old dogs in a Derby and most test are set to test a trained response rather than natural ability as the rules indicate. I have seen Q's that were tougher than the open. You don't see many new people sticking to trials that don't use a pro. Even then you never know what your dog might do.


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

Brokengunz said:


> The difference between HT and FT is, HT'S are structured based on age and the dogs ability through training. eg JR SR MH. At a FT no matter what stake you are in the level of training better be all age level or you won't be playing long. You won't see many 6 month old dogs in a Derby and most test are set to test a trained response rather than natural ability as the rules indicate. I have seen Q's that were tougher than the open. You don't see many new people sticking to trials that don't use a pro. Even then you never know what your dog might do.


I see plenty of folks that have been in it a long time that dont use a pro or use one only occasionally. I have heard many times about Q's that were "harder" than the open. I have NEVER seen a Q that was close to an open in difficulty and I've run or judged more than a few. Occasionally a series gets set up thats unintentionally harder than whats appropriate for a given field of dogs. If its too hard and nobody is doing it then its typically scrapped. 

In a Q unlike a HT you are not competing against a test. You are competing against the other dogs so if your dog screws up and the other dogs do too, then you are still good to go for the next series


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

Brokengunz said:


> The difference between HT and FT is, HT'S are structured based on age and the dogs ability through training. eg JR SR MH. At a FT no matter what stake you are in the level of training better be all age level or you won't be playing long. You won't see many 6 month old dogs in a Derby and most test are set to test a trained response rather than natural ability as the rules indicate. I have seen Q's that were tougher than the open. You don't see many new people sticking to trials that don't use a pro. Even then you never know what your dog might do.


What FTs have you been going to? FTs also are structured on age and ability! Derby (specific to age), Qual (specific to ability), All-age (limited by nothing except the dogs talent and training). I don't think a derby dog could do All-age training unless it was one heck of a pup. I have never seen a Q harder then an open. I also know of some amateurs that do go it their own but use pros in different ways. You would be an idiot to never use the property, advice, setups, or criticism of a pro. Doesn't mean you are putting your dog on one of their trucks.

A derby tests training and marking ability. They can't test just marking ability otherwise there would be no separation. How would you judge 1st when all but 3 dogs in a 25 dog derby pinned the marks? You need factors and training aspects to provide that separation between good and great. Chances are almost all the dogs in a derby a very good dogs but you are trying to find the great ones.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Brokengunz said:


> I have seen Q's that were tougher than the open.


​I have run a ton of Q's and a ton of Opens. Your experience is far different than mine.


----------



## Brokengunz (Sep 3, 2011)

Lucky You. Guess we don't go to the same trials. Guess I must be mistaken. Sorry.


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

John Robinson said:


> That pass-fail, if you don't win you are a loser mindset will drive you crazy in field trials. I don't think we are looking for a story to tell, we are trying to succeed at the highest level. I also don't agree with your 90%-10% ratio. In my experience, there are 10% who win or place consistently, another 40 % that are always knocking on the door and win or place a few times a year, 40% that could do it if everything lines up for them that weekend*, and 10% that probably don't have a chance.*


Hey! I resemble that remark!


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

Kajun Kamakazi said:


> Hey! I resemble that remark!


At least you know it, already above the curve!!


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

Brokengunz said:


> Lucky You. Guess we don't go to the same trials. Guess I must be mistaken. Sorry.


Hey if you know of any trials where the Qual is harder then the Open by all means fill us in!! Might be a lot of last minute open entries


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

It's not usual, but I think we have all been at a trial here or there where the Qual judges went overboard, maybe by accident, and set up a way too hard test. At the same time the Open judges went easier than normal, everybody is coming back to the Open saying, wow, you should see that Qual!


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Yes indeed John, yes indeed. More times than not the Open Judges find a way to get their revenge. LOL


----------

