# How much more extreme is it to train for a



## Tommy Wallace (Jun 13, 2008)

Master Hunter than it is to train for a FC. I understand there is a huge difference in distance in marks & blinds but other than that is there much difference other wise. Is it really necessary to have such long distances? I've heard that good bird placement will take care of a lot of dogs. Would I need different equipment than I have now? It seem that in the field trials the rules are a bit more relaxed. I noticed that you can talk to the dog more, show them each bird blind before calling for the birds & you get to wear the big white coats.


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

Short answer, yes. It's not just about distance, it's more technical. Without a pro or experienced mentor/group I think most would struggle training for AA stakes. You need an experienced eye to explain set ups and the factors involved in them and how to train for them.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

You mean train for FT?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

A very small percentage (some say less than 1%) of dogs that are bread, purchased, and professionally trained by trainers experienced in field trial training ever make FC - Field Champion. 

So, the biggest adjustment most folks need to make is getting used to going home nearly every weekend without a ribbon. 

Oh, and you cannot talk to your dog in a field trial, not even on honor (which is allowed in master). But you are correct about pointing out the guns and wearing the big white coats.

Edit: no different equipment, but it's harder to find grounds that are large and varied enough. Most of the top trial trainers rotate to different grounds throughout the week.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

Field trials are absurdly hard.

Look at the numbers in the Master National and the National Open.

But it is a lot of fun, give it a try.


----------



## Chris Videtto (Nov 4, 2010)

What John said!!!!


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

Nikki Malarky said:


> Master Hunter than it is to train for a FC. I understand there is a huge difference in distance in marks & blinds but other than that is there much difference other wise. Is it really necessary to have such long distances? I've heard that good bird placement will take care of a lot of dogs. Would I need different equipment than I have now? It seem that in the field trials the rules are a bit more relaxed. I noticed that you can talk to the dog more, show them each bird blind before calling for the birds & you get to wear the big white coats.


Those big white coats are the bomb, probably a requirement to train an FC.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

Success in FT's is a long term goal that is more about the trainer/handler, than it is about the dog. I don't need a ribbon or placement to feel good or bad, about my dog, (but it helps). I need progress. I measure progress against my last trial, my last dog, and myself. It's about goals and milestones. You can find equal success in both hunt tests and field trials as long as you choose to judge your success against your own goals.


----------



## John Condon (Mar 27, 2013)

Scott Adams said:


> Success in FT's is a long term goal that is more about the trainer/handler, than it is about the dog. I don't need a ribbon or placement to feel good or bad, about my dog, (but it helps). I need progress. I measure progress against my last trial, my last dog, and myself. It's about goals and milestones. You can find equal success in both hunt tests and field trials as long as you choose to judge your success against your own goals.


W ell said!!!!


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

Field Trials are the pinnacle of the sport, period the end. It's the best of the best. I liken it to horse racing or golf. You have to have great dogs, relentless training (both of dog and handler), plenty of time at the school of hard knocks, time and resources to play, and some luck along the way. But, like golf, every so often you hit that perfect shot under pressure at the right time, with awesome specimens in all their glory and doing what they live for. That's what hooks you. Field trial development is measured in years, not months. Great sport, humbling, but great.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

If you wish to get a feel for field trial training Randy Bohn is wintering in Cheraw. He welcomes folks to train with him for modest day fee. I suggest you train go with him and his clients as much as possible until he goes back to PA. After spending 7 to 10 days with him you'll probably be a changed person.
You can reach Randy @ 484.332.9781
. 
PS
Near you another option is to contact club officers who hold FT's at John Thomas's place in Rocky Point. Great place with lots of field trial activity. Andrea who posts here would be person to start with.


----------



## FieldLab (Aug 5, 2011)

Whats the average distance on marks and blinds in FT and whats the entry level in FT AA ?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

FieldLab said:


> Whats the average distance on marks and blinds in FT and whats the entry level in FT AA ?


What do you mean by entry level in FT AA?


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Scott Adams said:


> Success in FT's is a long term goal that is more about the trainer/handler, than it is about the dog. I don't need a ribbon or placement to feel good or bad, about my dog, (but it helps). I need progress. I measure progress against my last trial, my last dog, and myself. It's about goals and milestones. You can find equal success in both hunt tests and field trials as long as you choose to judge your success against your own goals.


Thank you Scott. You've said it all for me! The only thing extreme is dedication, hard work, access to grounds and real satisfaction with small improvements.


----------



## Tommy Wallace (Jun 13, 2008)

Breck said:


> If you wish to get a feel for field trial training Randy Bohn is wintering in Cheraw. He welcomes folks to train with him for modest day fee. I suggest you train go with him and his clients as much as possible until he goes back to PA. After spending 7 to 10 days with him you'll probably be a changed person.
> You can reach Randy @ 484.332.9781
> .
> PS
> Near you another option is to contact club officers who hold FT's at John Thomas's place in Rocky Point. Great place with lots of field trial activity. Andrea who posts here would be person to start with.


Thanks a lot Breck
Got sometime off this week. Think I will try to get up with him.


----------



## IdahoLabs (Dec 21, 2011)

Along the same lines... for people who do have a dog with a pro, what's the average cost to get to that FC?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I would say probably upwards of $8K-10K a year with more when the dog is running and an average FC at 6 years


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

Average distances for All Age trials vary greatly by region and terrain. In the trials I have ran in Georgia I have seen 450+ yard marks and well over 300 yard blinds. Now here in MN I have seen the same but for the most part we have more cover so we see 350-400 yard marks and 300 yard blinds. You will also have the 50 yard short retired birds too.

My experience is you can make 90+ percent of well bred labs into MH's. It may take a few extra tests but it can be done with most dogs.

To get a FC or AFC it takes a very special animal, probably top 2-3%. It is very interesting to look at old FT results on Entry Express. Look at dogs that have even placed in a All Age trial at a young age that still never title, it happens quite a bit. In the past 10 years I feel FT's have gotten considerably harder. At a weekend field trial it is not uncommon to see retired birds in the Qualifying stakes now, 10 years ago a Qual looked closer to a MH test than an Amatuer test. Now it is the opposite.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

IdahoLabs said:


> Along the same lines... for people who do have a dog with a pro, what's the average cost to get to that FC?


$1,000/month for 5 years. $60,000. 
That's the average cost for on that makes it. Considering 99% never make it, probably closer to $1/2 to $1 m spent for each FC made.


----------



## IdahoLabs (Dec 21, 2011)

So are most FC dogs with pros year-round then?

Curiosity then... many times I see on EE that an entire litter from an FC x FC breeding became FCs. Are those puppies just that much better than the other 97% of the population, or are their owners just that much more dedicated?

People on RTF who have multiple FC dogs... do you also have a long line of washouts that didn't turn into what you expected? if not, why do you think your pups consistently became FCs and other dogs with other owners didn't make it?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Even the best breedings rarely produce more than 2 or 3 field trial titles in a litter, more than that is rare and exceptional and some produce zero field trial titles. Some of the level of success is who gets the puppies and maximizes their potential either as a gifted trainer or dedicated owner. From a personal perspective over many years relatively few washouts some sold due to financial need or unsuitability of dog and owner handler.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

IdahoLabs said:


> So are most FC dogs with pros year-round then?
> 
> Curiosity then... many times I see on EE that an entire litter from an FC x FC breeding became FCs. Are those puppies just that much better than the other 97% of the population, or are their owners just that much more dedicated?
> 
> People on RTF who have multiple FC dogs... do you also have a long line of washouts that didn't turn into what you expected? if not, why do you think your pups consistently became FCs and other dogs with other owners didn't make it?


How many???


----------



## WBF (Feb 11, 2012)

I enjoy the hunt test game so I'm not knocking. The answer to the question is very simple, any retriever with a lick of retrieving desire can obtain a MH title in time with minimal training. Very very few dogs will even be All Age competitors, out of that very few maybe 1% will be able to obtain the points they need to become Field Champions. You can train a MH never leaving 5 acres, one All Age FT setup takes that plus. Its smart not to even compare. Both games are fun but different standards.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

WBF said:


> The answer to the question is very simple, any retriever with a lick of retrieving desire can obtain a MH title in time with minimal training.


what is your definition of minimal training? 

Less than FC or AFC training? yes(emphatically, I might add). How about QAA training? Many people jump from master to Q relatively successfully, based upon the number of stud dogs advertised as both MH and QAA


----------



## WBF (Feb 11, 2012)

Do you think just because a dog becomes QAA it makes it an All Age competitor or even able to get out of the first series of an AM or Open? Did the dog become QAA because of an AM or Open JAM or placement? There is a big difference. A qualifying stake is only as tough as the competition.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

Tobias said:


> what is your definition of minimal training?
> 
> Less than FC or AFC training? yes(emphatically, I might add). How about QAA training? Many people jump from master to Q relatively successfully, based upon the number of stud dogs advertised as both MH and QAA


out of 403 dogs that got QAA last year, 69 were MH's, thats 17%. I wouldn't call that "Many"

With 653 dogs earning their MH in 2015, and 758 in 2014, thats a large pool of MH's to get 66 QAA.


----------



## NateB (Sep 25, 2003)

I have played in both games and am very proud of our hunt test accomplishments, but when describing the difference to non-dog people I tell them.
"Hunt tests are like NCAA Div 2 football, Field trials are the NFL of retriever games"


----------



## Garduck (Feb 1, 2013)

To put it into perspective one of my pups had just come out of derby with nothing but jams and was probably 3-4 months out from running quals (lower than All Age FC) and probably lacked the motor to deal with a large test. Due to a job change he went 4-5 months without a single real setup and entered a master test. He passed without a fault and he likely would never even be capable of running an all age test.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

WBF said:


> Do you think just because a dog becomes QAA it makes it an All Age competitor or even able to get out of the first series of an AM or Open? Did the dog become QAA because of an AM or Open JAM or placement? There is a big difference. A qualifying stake is only as tough as the competition.


Absolutely not, I just have noticed there are a good number of master hunters with QAA status as well.


----------



## Bryan Parks (Aug 19, 2015)

Daren Galloway said:


> out of 403 dogs that got QAA last year, 69 were MH's, thats 17%. I wouldn't call that "Many"
> 
> With 653 dogs earning their MH in 2015, and 758 in 2014, thats a large pool of MH's to get 66 QAA.


Those stats are misleading. You need to know how many of those MH dogs even tried to get QAA. It might have only been 69.... I know that's not likely


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I'm sure with O/H Quals run at HT, there are a good number of MH that enter but it's just not that easy. I would say more get QAA and then go back and get their MH until they are ready to run AA. As stated before, just because a dog is QAA doesn't mean he is ready for AA, and many never are talented enough to run AA competitively.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

WBF said:


> I enjoy the hunt test game so I'm not knocking. The answer to the question is very simple, any retriever with a lick of retrieving desire can obtain a MH title in time with minimal training. Very very few dogs will even be All Age competitors, out of that very few maybe 1% will be able to obtain the points they need to become Field Champions. You can train a MH never leaving 5 acres, one All Age FT setup takes that plus. Its smart not to even compare. Both games are fun but different standards.


I agree. My first MH would never have gotten out of the first series of an AA stake and never finished a Q. I have a current MH who is an excellent HT dog, almost always passes. He is fairly consistent in finishing Qs and can probably get a call back to the second in an am about 30% of the time. He has never gotten past the 3rd and will most likely never finish an AM and probably would never get out of the first series of an Open.

Having made the transition, the biggest difference is grounds. I have the same gear but you can train for HTs in office parks, a little piece of land here and there and do well. You need more grounds and more challenging grounds for FTs. Heck, even folks who have grounds most of us would kill for trade off with others so they get different looks and can train on different concepts.

So I think it is a big difference in dogs and a big difference in grounds and as others have stated, a huge difference in the owner's need to take a ribbon home every weekend.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

It's much harder to become QAA than it is to become a MH, I know plenty of MH dogs that will never become QAA. And many QAA dogs that will never be AA competitive no matter how much quality training they have.


----------



## birddogn_tc (Apr 24, 2015)

just to ask a stupid question and inquiring newbie minds what to know... what is the main difference between a MH test, QAA, and AA? I know I could read all the rules of each, etc but would love a bullet point answer... I know the basic differences like a MH test is competing against a standard and Q's and AA are competing against dogs for placements and points but whats the difference in the actual tests? longer marks? longer blinds? more challenging setups? I assume it's all of the above but is there a defined difference in each?


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

birddogn_tc said:


> just to ask a stupid question and inquiring newbie minds what to know... what is the main difference between a MH test, QAA, and AA? I know I could read all the rules of each, etc but would love a bullet point answer... I know the basic differences like a MH test is competing against a standard and Q's and AA are competing against dogs for placements and points but whats the difference in the actual tests? longer marks? longer blinds? more challenging setups? I assume it's all of the above but is there a defined difference in each?





All of the above is correct. Your in TX lots of trials there. best thing to do is go watch one, That will answer your questions better than a typed out description. Kinda hard to explain. Sometimes you have to see it to believe it.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

birddogn_tc said:


> just to ask a stupid question and inquiring newbie minds what to know... what is the main difference between a MH test, QAA, and AA? I know I could read all the rules of each, etc but would love a bullet point answer... I know the basic differences like a MH test is competing against a standard and Q's and AA are competing against dogs for placements and points but whats the difference in the actual tests? longer marks? longer blinds? more challenging setups? I assume it's all of the above but is there a defined difference in each?


 The main difference is the competition


----------



## runnindawgz (Oct 3, 2007)

I am hoping I have my 1st true FT player in the works ... $$$ and time ... $$$ and time and $$$  

worth it all ... because .... what .... if ....


----------



## Wayne Nissen (Dec 31, 2009)

Not sure who you are using for a pro, but minimum per month trainer's fee would be $1000 including live birds. Plus travel and handling fees. 15k a year plus entry fees. You would get out light, if you have the .001% dog for less than 60k. remember 10% success, 90% failure in field trials. Hunt tests, 90% success, 10% failure.
Good Luck


ErinsEdge said:


> I would say probably upwards of $8K-10K a year with more when the dog is running and an average FC at 6 years


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

You don't have to have your dog with a pro year round. Many send their dog away for basics as a youngster and then do the rest themselves if they can. Many send their dogs south for the winter and train as much as they can themselves in the summer.

You still need grounds and a good training group, but it's possible. You mostly need the right dog.


----------



## runnindawgz (Oct 3, 2007)

John Lash said:


> You mostly need the right dog.


AMEN to THAT!


----------



## Wayne Nissen (Dec 31, 2009)

You are talking about people I don't know, of course I don't know a lot of people. I've visited with retriever folks and judged with quite a few and those that don't train their dog do not generally make good judges, always an exception. Point is these folks are generally in the vicinity of their pro in some way. Now I am from the south and the northern retriever folks may do it differently. By the way you are right about the right dog, although I've trained with some FC AFC dogs I wouldn't have a pup out of. They run 20 to 25 trials a year to get a point or two. Even a blind hog will find an acorn now and then.


John Lash said:


> You don't have to have your dog with a pro year round. Many send their dog away for basics as a youngster and then do the rest themselves if they can. Many send their dogs south for the winter and train as much as they can themselves in the summer.
> 
> You still need grounds and a good training group, but it's possible. You mostly need the right dog.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

There are many, many blind hogs that never find an acorn...

Actually if they run 20-25 trials a year and get a point or two they're doing pretty good.


----------



## Danny Castro (Jan 31, 2012)

I came from hunt test and now only run field trials big difference hard to explain just need to train with field trial pro or go watch a field trial to understand the complexity of the set ups AA dogs run are unbelievable what they can do I am fortunent enough to stand beside a FC and run him on a daily basis they are very special dogs who make it to that level and from experance I have not seen many blind hogs get an acorn in an AA stakes


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Wayne Nissen said:


> Not sure who you are using for a pro, but minimum per month trainer's fee would be $1000 including live birds. Plus travel and handling fees. 15k a year plus entry fees.


I stand by what I said if you read it carefully. Young dogs don't start running right away using a young dog pro, and my AA pro is a National winning pro that lives a half hour away. 



> I would say probably* upwards of *$8K-10K a year *with more when the dog is running* and an average FC at 6 years


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I originally trained for FT and moved into HT with my first dog due mainly to lack of free time and personal inexperience. 

Ran a couple of Q's with him also and have been to dozens of both type events. Leaving AA competition out of the equation. I think the Q and MH are distant cousins but only distant ones.

I actually think that Q set ups are more fair to the bigger running dogs (of which I am a proponent) than most of the MH stuff I've seen. We are talking two completely different animals though in terms of what's important IMO.

In both venues the dog must be able to mark, have good line manners and respond to direction from the handler while in the field. 

In a lot of MH tests I've seen factors are very very close together. Marks in MH are often similar distances and I have seen many with overlapping AOF, making them almost impossible to judge. Blinds are run extremely close to marks and in the same series. This seems dependent on available grounds in a lot of cases although I have seen great grounds wasted and crappy ones well utilized.

Most Q's I've seen are fairly wide open triples with blinds run separately and in a different area than the marks. To me - despite the distances being larger and the competitive aspect making ribbons harder to acquire, these are much more fair to younger, bigger running dogs. 

If FT training is more "Extreme" than MH test training - it's because of the competitive aspect driving the standards the dogs need to meet in order to succeed. You can hack your way through a MH a lot of times and still get a ribbon. You can't hack your way through a Q and win/place because there will be dogs who are at a higher level of proficiency and training than yours every weekend.

Beyond the competitive aspect, I just think the training is different. I don't see one as more extreme than the other. 

Bring AA into it and yes, FT become "extreme" but QAA vs. MH? Just different.


----------



## WBF (Feb 11, 2012)

Tobias said:


> what is your definition of minimal training?
> 
> Less than FC or AFC training? yes(emphatically, I might add). How about QAA training? Many people jump from master to Q relatively successfully, based upon the number of stud dogs advertised as both MH and QAA


My definition of minimal training is that you really don't have to go any further passed transition. Teach triples get them through transition and your on your way to a MH title. Takes about a year to a year and a half depending on how fast the dog matures and its trainability. Its pretty standard in a good FT camp to be able to run Qs before aging out of the derbies. Most of your QAA FT washouts (Studs) end up on HT pro trucks. Making the individual running Masters look like a superstar. Got to do your research its not always what it seems.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

WBF said:


> My definition of minimal training is that you really don't have to go any further passed transition. Teach triples get them through transition and your on your way to a MH title.


This isn't necessarily true when you have great grounds with plenty of factors to run dogs on. When you can put land/water marks out with 4-5 re-entries all pulling the dog in the same direction... "minimal" training won't suffice. Not sure how prevalent those types of grounds are but if you run in my area there are many tests where this example is possible. Rebel Ridge, Rovers Content or Blue Springs with a great set of judges can make a MH test that will curl your toes.


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

When I was running the Q (I ran a lot of them), I would take special notice of MH dogs running. These Q's were not the O/H Q's tagged on to hunt tests, but the Q's in a regular field trial with pro's also running. I remember only one time that a MH dog placed in a Q and it was even very rare to see one get a JAM. I do know of a couple other dogs on the west coast that made the transition from HT to AA competition, but they number very few. From personal experience, a lot of the MH QAA dogs, got the QAA title first as a field trial prospect and then washed out in AA competition and started running hunt tests. As with what everyone else has said about the differences between hunt tests and field trials, one thing I really noticed was the effect distance had on hunt test dogs. They just seemed to really break down at that 100 to 150 yard distance. Granted this probably was a function of their training, but you need an exceptionally hard driving dog to carry out to 400 yards with all of the hazards placed on the line to the mark. On the other hand, not sure how field trial dogs would do at a hunt test in terms of the steadiness tests and short marks. On a wild hair moment, I just entered my dog in a Master test for her first time and after reading the rules, I am a bit worried. I am afraid of a couple things, breaking and creeping is one and blowing past the marks is another. A 100 to 150 yard mark in a field trial is usually a "check down" bird and that is a big achilles tendon for my dog!


----------



## WBF (Feb 11, 2012)

Darren Im pretty sure there are some challenging MH setups out there. Please I hope so for the weight of the title, if not it has zero meaning. So you're telling me that derby dogs don't do re entries? They aren't schooled on tech water? Come on man haha. The first two years of a competitive retrievers life is very critical and when they should be the most watery and tech water honest.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

There is something called Google MAPS. I suggest some of you look up the grounds of clubs located in MN/WI in particular. Next ,if you have interest in a pro, check out their grounds. Do the overhead google to see the ponds, dikes, in/outs, etc. There are some circuits where both amateurs and pros do not want to travel due to terrain and competition. Field Trial dogs should be trained on short bird/marks/blinds as well as 4-500 yard way outs. You never know in scratch hunting when you may need both and you surely do in FT competition. Good pros/amateurs travel and train on different grounds to expose their dogs to multiple variables. If your dog has no go you go out!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

WBF said:


> Darren Im pretty sure there are some challenging MH setups out there. Please I hope so for the weight of the title, if not it has zero meaning. So you're telling me that derby dogs don't do re entries? They aren't schooled on tech water? Come on man haha. The first two years of a competitive retrievers life is very critical and when they should be the most watery and tech water honest.


No - I said you can't get a MH title in our area with "limited" training that just goes beyond transition. I wasn't addressing your comparison to dogs in the beginning of FT training. I would train as if I was doing FT if I wanted a MH. Did that with my first dog and he ate most MH tests up.


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

DarrinGreene said:


> No - I said you can't get a MH title in our area with "limited" training that just goes beyond transition. I wasn't addressing your comparison to dogs in the beginning of FT training. I would train as if I was doing FT if I wanted a MH. Did that with my first dog and he ate most MH tests up.


Amen on that! I was once told, "you want your dog underwhelmed at a trial". Train as hard as you can and DO NOT enter a test/trial if your dog is not more than ready. All you will gain is problems to solve later if your dog is not trained at least to the level you are entering. If you are thinking "maybe he/she can do the test" you are not ready.


----------



## WBF (Feb 11, 2012)

To a competitive trainer all dogs are going to face the same program. Yeah adapting to different personalities but all face the same basics, transition is the same. The dog tells you if he/she is going to be able to run trials or needs to step back and be a great HT dog. I think the confusion is that people have different standards and expectations. Being ready for or even saying a dog is through transition isn't the same for everyone out there. People that are training to win have a different pace and standard than those that are just looking for 6 passes.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I am running across people who are getting their MH... but only as a means of getting to the MN (and the MAI, soon.) How would those sorts of events compare to Q's and/or AA stakes?


----------



## runnindawgz (Oct 3, 2007)

1tulip said:


> I am running across people who are getting their MH... but only as a means of getting to the MN (and the MAI, soon.) How would those sorts of events compare to Q's and/or AA stakes?


Completely different "sports" set ups even at the top (MNH level) of hunt tests will greatly vary from any while coat trial at any level.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

WBF said:


> I enjoy the hunt test game so I'm not knocking. The answer to the question is very simple, any retriever with a lick of retrieving desire can obtain a MH title in time with minimal training. Very very few dogs will even be All Age competitors, out of that very few maybe 1% will be able to obtain the points they need to become Field Champions. You can train a MH never leaving 5 acres, one All Age FT setup takes that plus. Its smart not to even compare. Both games are fun but different standards.


It sounds like you've made a bunch of MH's and have a good bit of field trial experience. What part of the country do you run in?


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

WBF said:


> Do you think just because a dog becomes QAA it makes it an All Age competitor *(1.)* or even able to get out of the first series of an AM or Open *(2.)*? Did the dog become QAA because of an AM or Open JAM or placement? There is a big difference. A qualifying stake is only as tough as the competition *(3.)*.


1: No. 

2: Yes. 

3: False. Depends on the judges, grounds, & number of entries. If 2 HOFers say something, I listen. If they describe how tough it was & liken it to whatever, I'll tend to go with their opinion.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

IdahoLabs said:


> So are most FC dogs with pros year-round then?
> 
> *Curiosity then... many times I see on EE that an entire litter from an FC x FC breeding became FCs. Are those puppies just that much better than the other 97% of the population, or are their owners just that much more dedicated?*
> 
> People on RTF who have multiple FC dogs... do you also have a long line of washouts that didn't turn into what you expected? if not, why do you think your pups consistently became FCs and other dogs with other owners didn't make it?


Might want to read Dr. Ed's retort to that. I'm not sure where you got that info from, but I assure you that's simply not true.


----------



## IdahoLabs (Dec 21, 2011)

Y'all are missing the question. It's not scientific, it's only an impression I had from browsing progeny from different sires. Correct or not correct, that wasn't the question. Are pups from FC x FC breedings typically more likely to succeed, or are their owners just that much more dedicated?


----------



## KEB (Jul 23, 2012)

I have a nice 3yr old MH and we've switched to training for FT and have ran in a couple Q's finishing one with RJ. We have a great experienced training group that trains every wknd on nice grounds but as others have said to compete in the FT game i think having access to nice grounds and nice water is the biggest hurdle . once you get through the 1st,2nd,3rd series and into the 4th you see the dogs that consistently train on nice water really excel .


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Fc X FC breedings cost more. The pups cost more. The breeders will sell these pups to only those who FT the pups. They even demand to know who will be your pro. They will check with this pro before you can buy the pup. They will also sell it on a limited registration. Often , the pups will be sent to a pro , who determines the "quality" of the pups and dispersing them to "potential" owners. Excess pups disappear. They are not bottom feeders. That is why proven pups @ 15 months plus obtain more money than birthed pups such as mentioned because the % of success has higher probability. Been there.


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

IdahoLabs said:


> Y'all are missing the question. It's not scientific, it's only an impression I had from browsing progeny from different sires. Correct or not correct, that wasn't the question. Are pups from FC x FC breedings typically more likely to succeed, or are their owners just that much more dedicated?


Claire, your question has been answered multiple times and you have missed it multiple times. There isn't any science past the initial breeding, after that, is when the cream will rise or fall. Have you heard of puppy headstart programs? IMO, tons can be accomplished through nurture and my bet is many (did not say all) of the world beaters were nurtured by their owners. FCxFC will no doubt increase your odds (gamble) of success but, time, money, knowledge & desire probably play a bigger role in the success of the best out there. FT's are quite unlike our Federal Government, the more you spend, the better the outcome but even then, there is that one item you must have and it's called LUCK.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Raymond Little said:


> Claire, your question has been answered multiple times and you have missed it multiple times. There isn't any science past the initial breeding, after that, is when the cream will rise or fall. Have you heard of puppy headstart programs? IMO, tons can be accomplished through nurture and my bet is many (did not say all) of the world beaters were nurtured by their owners. FCxFC will no doubt increase your odds (gamble) of success but, time, money, knowledge & desire probably play a bigger role in the success of the best out there. FT's are quite unlike our Federal Government, the more you spend, the better the outcome but even then, there is that one item you must have and it's called LUCK.


No, it is called TALENT!!


----------



## Mastercaster (Oct 31, 2010)

captainjack said:


> The main difference is the competition


A lot to be said here. My 3 year-old finished his derby career with 5 whole points and a bunch of JAMs and RJ's. Unfortunately, he ran against 2 of the top 3 derby dogs in the country week in and week out. Could he have done better running a different circuit? Who knows, but running against other dogs vs a standard is a big difference.


----------

