# Handler Triangle Concept



## Randy Wilson (Mar 1, 2003)

In another thread, participants in the Rorem Workshop mentioned a "handler triangle concept". From what I can gather it has to do with location of the handler, the dog, and the location of the bird...but I am struggling with the underlying philosophy. Can someone explain this concept in more detail.

Thanks,

Randy


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I would like to know as well. I am not familiar with the term.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

You may have to go to a Rorem Seminar to learn.


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

Is it this?

This isn't really handling though. 

http://www.dobbsdogs.com/library/retrievers/rj22.html


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

The info you are seeking may be copywritten.

When running a BLIND with an advanced dog you will usually increase the odds of the dog taking your cast if the angle between you, the dog, and the object is not too great.

Cover or terrain may negate this fact completely


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

The "Openning the Triangle and closing the Triangle", is a cute buzz phrase Dave invented describing what we do normally in training everyday.

Let's say your having a hard time getting a _specific_ cast. You will move your position in relation to the dog, when handling the dog to get that cast. The blind is at the top of the triangle. The dog is one corner of the triangle and you are the other corner of the triangle. It's not a perfect triangle, it's twisted around a bit,,, but there is the blind, you and your dog. The positioning does look like a lopsided triangle. You keep moving so you can get that "right angle back" cast for example. This way the dog gets practice getting the correct cast.

Another example. You give your dog a right angle back and it scallops out of it, you recast, still no good, now to get the dog to the blind you'll have to give a left straight up cast. Well since your dog didn't give you the right angle back cast don't give it a different cast until it has executed the original cast correctly...

It may sound harder then it is. If you saw it you would say "Ohhhhhhh"..

It's not that big a deal...

Angie


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

TN_LAB said:


> Is it this?
> 
> This isn't really handling though.
> 
> http://www.dobbsdogs.com/library/retrievers/rj22.html


No

/Paul


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Angie B said:


> The "Openning the Triangle and closing the Triangle", is a cute buzz phrase Dave invented describing what we do normally in training everyday.
> 
> Let's say your having a hard time getting a _specific_ cast. You will move your position in relation to the dog, when handling the dog to get that cast. The blind is at the top of the triangle. The dog is one corner of the triangle and you are the other corner of the triangle. It's not a perfect triangle, it's twisted around a bit,,, but there is the blind, you and your dog. The positioning does look like a lopsided triangle. You keep moving so you can get that "right angle back" cast for example. This way the dog gets practice getting the correct cast.
> 
> ...


Angie, let me think, hopefully I think phase my question correctly. What is the relationship between dogs not taking correct casts, and allowing the dog to go into the grey area-thus the dog thinking he was originally on the correct line for a long (training level) period of time? 

Gawd I am hot.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Why not position yourself around the line so you give less angle and more back. 

It might be a subtle difference but by playing the %'s you increase your chance of getting the cast you need.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

It is not a lopsided triangle. It is a triangle. Three points. blind, dog and you. The only point that remains constant is the blind. For the rest of the information attend the Rorem seminar and it will be a real eye opener. It also changes your perspective as to running a blind - reactive or proactive. Attend the seminar Angie. A lot of good pro's attend.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

i have learned this third hand while training with another handler and it has worked well for me so far.:

if you stop your dog on a blind being a bit left or right, just reposition yourself at the line to try to _*eliminate*_ that triangle between you, the dog, and the blind as best you can - the ultimate goal being that if you can move 10 or 15 feet and then its just a straight "back" as opposed to an angle back from where your original position is, or at least less of an angle.

a lot will depend on where your judge at the time decides you as a handler are creeping off the line, but all you have to do is stop where they tell you.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

moscowitz said:


> It is not a lopsided triangle. It is a triangle. Three points. blind, dog and you. The only point that remains constant is the blind. For the rest of the information attend the Rorem seminar and it will be a real eye opener. It also changes your perspective as to running a blind - reactive or proactive. Attend the seminar Angie. A lot of good pro's attend.


Your right I should attend. It's been 3 years since my last Rorem seminar and I was on his DVD from the first one.... I went to 2 that was enough.

He trained my FC,,, sooooo those few times I got to train with Dave I did pick up a thing or 2....  Why I needed Dave's seminar when I was able to train with him any day of the week, makes me scratch my head.

I can't stop laughing.....

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

surfgeoD300 said:


> i have learned this third hand while training with ladyduckhunter, and it has worked well for me so far.:
> 
> if you stop your dog on a blind being a bit left or right, just reposition yourself at the line to try to _*eliminate*_ that triangle between you, the dog, and the blind as best you can - the ultimate goal being that if you can move 10 or 15 feet and then its just a straight "back" as opposed to an angle back from where your original position is, or at least less of an angle.
> 
> a lot will depend on where your judge at the time decides you as a handler are creeping off the line, but all you have to do is stop where they tell you.


Not quite, but close enough....

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Why not position yourself around the line so you give less angle and more back.
> 
> It might be a subtle difference but by playing the %'s you increase your chance of getting the cast you need.


You're missing the point of "the Triangle".... It's not about "the" cast,,, it's about getting the "correct" cast.

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Don't make the whole Triangle concept harder then it is...

It's not that hard... It's really very, very simple...

Angie


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

It really has to do wtih your position in relationship to the dog. The blind, teh dog, and you are each a point on the triangle. The purpose is to keep the triangle skinny... the underlying premise is to line yourself up with the dog so if you have to give a big cast lets say to the right to get back on line, and your dog is really far left (Big fat triangle), it's going to take one HUGE cast to get that dog back on line. If you've positioned yourself more in front of your dog and give that right hand cast, the dog will cover the ground more readily. He won't have to cross back over you to get to that blind. 

Lainee has some great drawings of it.. easy when you see it. Have to keep track of where the line to the blind is... and then as Lainee mentioned, if the dog is overcasting, you have to do the opposite...


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Excuse my ignorance, but it sounds as if this is a concept for training, not so much for trialing/testing, right?


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

HuntinDawg said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but it sounds as if this is a concept for training, not so much for trialing/testing, right?


not at all! its handling - which is trialing/testing....


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

Angie B said:


> Not quite, but close enough....
> 
> Angie


sooo....enlighten me! where am i amiss?


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Captain Mike D said:


> The info you are seeking may be copywritten.


If it is I'm going to puke! Not because of its worth. But rather, its cost. 

I wonder how much Rex could have made if he had copy written his ideas?


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

HuntinDawg said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but it sounds as if this is a concept for training, not so much for trialing/testing, right?


Nope... most judges will let you move laterally..... and they put a limit on foward motion. You can either ask for clarification, or wait until they tell you that you're going too far. The biggest risk is loosing track of where the line to the blind actually is...


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

HuntinDawg said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but it sounds as if this is a concept for training, not so much for trialing/testing, right?


I think just the opposite HuntinDawg. This would be more for trialing. When you're training you can train to get the bigger cast. Get a nice honest big cast in training hopefully you'll get a nice honest smaller cast at a trial.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

surfgeoD300 said:


> not at all! its handling - which is trialing/testing....


It just seems like you are moving around to try to be in position to give the same literal cast which the dog did not take (or at least carry) the first time. Sounds like training to me. And as you mentioned before, if you have to move very far to make it happen the judges are unlikely to allow it, so it seems most beneficial in training. That is what I perceived from the description, but I've never heard of it before this thread.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

JusticeDog said:


> Nope... most judges will let you move laterally..... and they put a limit on foward motion. You can either ask for clarification, or wait until they tell you that you're going too far. The biggest risk is loosing track of where the line to the blind actually is...





Howard N said:


> I think just the opposite HuntinDawg. This would be more for trialing. When you're training you can train to get the bigger cast. Get a nice honest big cast in training hopefully you'll get a nice honest smaller cast at a trial.


OK, I think I get it now. This is primarily about the fact that advanced dogs are most comfortable with and most used to fairly straight back casts (small angles). By moving a little you can keep the angles as small as possible to take advantage of this fact.

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

HuntinDawg said:


> It just seems like you are moving around to try to be in position to give the same literal cast which the dog did not take (or at least carry) the first time. Sounds like training to me. And as you mentioned before, *if you have to move very far to make it happen the judges are unlikely to allow it*, so it seems most beneficial in training. That is what I perceived from the description, but I've never heard of it before this thread.


remember - you have to stop the dog before he is too far off-line anyway...right? so - stop the dog so you can move to close the triangle with minimal steps....and you _should_ be within the judges hypothetical boundaries...


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

surfgeoD300 said:


> remember - you have to stop the dog before he is too far off-line anyway...right? so - stop the dog so you can move to close the triangle with minimal steps....and you _should_ be within the judges hypothetical boundaries...


OK, I think I get it. Thanks.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

HuntinDawg said:


> OK, I think I get it now. This is primarily about the fact* that advanced dogs* are most comfortable with and most used to fairly straight back casts (small angles). By moving a little you can keep the angles as small as possible to take advantage of this fact.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.


mmmmmm maybe not quite. for myself think its best suited for my young dog, who is used to "straight backs" along the sidewalk in yard training. my 14 yo retired dog did 8 point angle casts perfectly 99% of the time, i would have never cared or thought about this technique for her. not needed ever. she took 45deg casts at each direction without me moving. 

now i have a different dog with different strengths and weaknesses.... ;-)


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

HuntinDawg said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but it sounds as if this is a concept for training, not so much for trialing/testing, right?


Yes you are correct! 

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

JusticeDog said:


> Nope... most judges will let you move laterally..... and they put a limit on foward motion. You can either ask for clarification, or wait until they tell you that you're going too far. The biggest risk is loosing track of where the line to the blind actually is...


Susan,,, 

We're talking about training, not trialing... The "Triangle" concept just pertains to training...

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

HuntinDawg said:


> OK, I think I get it now. This is primarily about the fact that advanced dogs are most comfortable with and most used to fairly straight back casts (small angles). By moving a little you can keep the angles as small as possible to take advantage of this fact.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.


Not necessarily.....

Angie


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Angie B said:


> Yes you are correct!
> 
> Angie


Thanks, I think I can use that.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

surfgeoD300 said:


> remember - you have to stop the dog before he is too far off-line anyway...right? so - stop the dog so you can move to close the triangle with minimal steps....and you _should_ be within the judges hypothetical boundaries...


*Hello????*

How can you people botch such an easy training concept??? Who was ever talking about trialing???

It's about getting the cast on a dog in training,,,, nothing more,,, nothing less...

Keep listening to surfgeoD300.... There's a guy who knows a heck of a lot!! 

Angie


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Susan,,,
> 
> We're talking about training, not trialing... The "Triangle" concept just pertains to training...
> 
> Angie


Not anymore Angie.... I definitely am talking about trialing. There's no reason to stand in one spot and try and cast your dog. When I've been with dave the past two years, it was definitley about trialing... see how he tweaks things when you're not lookin'!


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

JusticeDog said:


> Not anymore Angie.... I definitely am talking about trialing. There's no reason to stand in one spot and try and cast your dog. When I've been with dave the past two years, it was definitley about trialing... see how he tweaks things when you're not lookin'!


Susan,,, Dave Rorems "Triangle" isn't about moving laterally on the line at a trial... YIKES!!

Moving on line at at trial is,,,, never mind...*sigh*... but it has nothing to do with his/anyones "triangle" training....

Angie


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

Angie B said:


> Yes you are correct!
> 
> Angie


angie help me out here - if you apply the principle in training, why would you not use it in a test/trial? dont you want the dog to think a test is just a hyped-up training session so you and your dog are still mentally connected as always?

i think you are afraid of releasing someones "secrets" but methinks unnecessarily so....overall, whatever concept you use training should not vary much (if any) from handling in a test/trial...


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

surfgeoD300 said:


> angie help me out here - if you apply the principle in training, why would you not use it in a test/trial? dont you want the dog to think a test is just a hyped-up training session so you and your dog are still mentally connected as always?
> 
> i think you are afraid of releasing someones "secrets" but methinks unnecessarily so....overall, whatever concept you use training should not vary much (if any) from handling in a test/trial...



DUCK!

Wow, where is the popcorn eating smilie?


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

Angie B said:


> Susan,,, Dave Rorems "Triangle" isn't about moving laterally on the line at a trial... YIKES!!
> 
> Moving on line at at trial is,,,, never mind...*sigh*... but it has nothing to do with his/anyones "triangle" training....
> 
> Angie


my apologies angie, you are obviously more light years ahead of me than i initially thought and have no desire to enlighten as to the correct method. "yikes" and "sigh" show me that you dont think i or others can even comprehend your angle. i'll go back to basic 3HC and stay there...


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

HuntinDawg said:


> DUCK!
> 
> Wow, where is the popcorn eating smilie?


so i am being a bad guy here? what have i done wrong? sheeesh, i give up. you guys are too knowledgeable/tough/fickle/ridiculous/serious/everything all at once. so much good stuff to learn from so many good folks but gleaning the good stuff from the $%#@ takes too much effort sometimes....


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

I never heard all this philosophical terms Dave must have thought them up when he was out Rainy Lake being the localfish cop. I must spend too much time sitting instead of sitting and thinking. To me training is getting the dog better to take a cast on the weekend, 

I used to work with a groupof scientist that were always creating new terms for the same thing and then why their term was a better description of the term.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

surfgeoD300 said:


> so i am being a bad guy here? what have i done wrong? sheeesh, i give up. you guys are too knowledgeable/tough/fickle/ridiculous/serious/everything all at once. so much good stuff to learn from so many good folks but gleaning the good stuff from the $%#@ takes too much effort sometimes....


On another message board that I frequent, if someone makes a comment that is sure to draw fire, it is common for someone to post "Duck!" or "Incoming!" That comment is all in fun. You sorta called her out IMO. I've been on the receiving end when Angie got riled up before...

Also, I can think of quite a few examples of when/why you wouldn't test/trial like you train...but I'm not nearly the trainer that Angie is, so I'll let her respond since you directed the post toward her.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

HuntinDawg said:


> On another message board that I frequent, if someone makes a comment that is sure to draw fire, it is common for someone to post "Duck!" or "Incoming!" That comment is all in fun. You sorta called her out IMO. I've been on the receiving end when Angie got riled up before...
> 
> Also, I can think of quite a few examples of when/why you wouldn't test/trial like you train...but I'm not nearly the trainer that Angie is, so I'll let her respond since you directed the post toward her.


come on man, i asked her to enlighten me a couple of times and just got a brush off. i was in no means challenging her, i just wanted clarification and enlightenment on her unclear descriptions of the concept, and in return got an offhand dismissal. i tried......


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

JusticeDog said:


> Not anymore Angie.... I definitely am talking about trialing. There's no reason to stand in one spot and try and cast your dog. When I've been with dave the past two years, it was definitley about trialing... see how he tweaks things when you're not lookin'!


O.K. I now know where you, Howard and everyone is coming from with using the "Triangle" on the line at a trial.

I think of that as moving to enhance, a cast or trying to break momentum. But yes,,,, The Triangle is there...

Sorry, I apologize to everyone on that one...... Even Surfdude

When I think of the whole triangle thing I think of it's use mostly with transitional dogs where you need often times a lot of movement, not only on the line but out in the field with them teaching casting.

In my original example which obviously wasn't very good, the trainer positions herself to teach and get a particular cast.

At a trial one will give whatever cast they need to get the cast. Hence my not shifting gears as quickly as I should have with this disscussion.

Angie


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

surfgeoD300 said:


> angie help me out here - if you apply the principle in training, why would you not use it in a test/trial?...


It is not a line dance at a cowboy music festival.
You have to stand on a mat.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

surfgeoD300 said:


> so i am being a bad guy here? what have i done wrong? sheeesh, i give up.....


Yes, you’re new, moderately full of yourself, and already seem to have all the answers you need.
Have started posts in the past citing the number of champions you already trained in your chosen game.
This does not entice the grizzled veterans to welcome you with a group hug.
I think you may have some potential here so I’m not writing you off yet.
It is not the average rtf poster who can piss off ranchers, cattlemen and field trailers in an afternoon and not even know why.
There are “Dues” here, when you make the move from jingling the change in your pocket to paying them….. well.


----------



## Buck Mann (Apr 16, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> You have to stand on a mat.


Only to send. As Susan said, most judges are pretty liberal with lateral movement on the line. At Dave's most recent seminar the triangle was mostly about positioning yourself to get the cast you need at a trial.

Buck


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> It is not a line dance at a cowboy music festival.
> You have to stand on a mat.


Or, sit on a bucket. But once I hear "dog", I stand up to send the dog (I won't do it from the non-dominant position) and move to get the optimum cast no matter what game I'm playing. 

But, since you've now suggested it, I'll bring some music next time.  That could make the game more interesting... !


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Ken Bora said:


> You have to stand on a mat.


I've seen foot faults called at FTs, for stepping off mat, or, out of handling box, while running blind.



Buck Mann said:


> Only to send. As Susan said, most judges are pretty liberal with lateral movement on the line. At Dave's most recent seminar the triangle was mostly about positioning yourself to get the cast you need at a trial.
> Buck


Yes, you can many times move laterally, but the judges usually don't. ;-)


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

fine.

just stand there on the mat,and lose your dog to a hazard. then there is NOTHING to judge!

anyone who thinks that handlers/pros at weekends or nationals would do such a thing needs to see what goes on when these very successful people run blinds.

in hunt tests or field trials you need to survive the blinds. you do what you need to do.-Paul


----------



## BrianW (May 10, 2005)

Pardon my ignorance as I've never been to a Rorem seminar or trained with him, but wasn't the point of Angie's explanation that the dog had not taken the correct cast the first time and you are moving in order to repeat it, so as to be able to "teach the dog" to take it correctly?
By definition "training"? 

Now if I'm in a test (never trialed yet) and my dog does not take the cast, why would I move to try and repeat a cast that the dog just showed the judges he couldn't take? That would seem to me to emphasize a "trainability" problem. Isn't the main intention of this concept to get the dog to learn to take the cast correctly the first time so you wouldn't have to move in a test?


----------



## Lucky Seven (Feb 4, 2008)

If you have NOT attended a Rorem seminar...... you need too. Instead of trying to get something for nothing. Get your butt's in your car, spend your money and let Dave teach and explain to you the "triangle", and the proper way to do it.

I recently judged a clubs fun trial. Six handlers who attended Rorem's Florida seminar back in December, all ran the fun trial. NOT one of them used the "triangle" on either of the blinds  ...... In my opinion, this fun trial would have been the perfect opportunity to work on this technique.

Maybe sometimes you CANT teach old dogs ....new tricks. ;-)


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I did the diagrams for the seminar handouts.....the triangle is used for training and trialing. I recommend anyone who has not had an opportunity to attend a Rorem seminar to attend one. Simple rule of thumb, follow your dog if you are not getting enough cast; go opposite of your dog if they are over casting. If at a trial you are not able to move from the mat then get your intitial read on whether your dog is undercasting or overcasting and use every inch of the mat to your advantage.

Lucky - I will say this was my 4th seminar and just in the past year has the triangle really sunk in, if you have never done it before then it will take some practice to use it. I'm sure those from the seminar, especially the handlers could hear Rorem's voice correcting them - I know I do! It is easy to understand on paper, but tough to incorporate unless you work at it.....it will become second nature though once you do it.

Lainee, Flash and Bullet - the over casting dog this seminar....widen the triangle


----------



## Randy Wilson (Mar 1, 2003)

Thanks for all the replies. I can not say that I totally understand because I heard a couple different views / perspectives. Nevertheless, I have a better understanding of the philosphy behind the concept -- which is what I was looking for.

Thanks

RRW


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

BrianW said:


> Now if I'm in a test (never trialed yet) and my dog does not take the cast, why would I move to try and repeat a cast that the dog just showed the judges he couldn't take? That would seem to me to emphasize a "trainability" problem. Isn't the main intention of this concept to get the dog to learn to take the cast correctly the first time so you wouldn't have to move in a test?


Nope. It's about getting the optimum cast the FIRST time. If you're dog is way off line to the left, and you have to give him a BIG cast to the right, and into the wind.... well good luck if you stuck your butt on that matt and not moved an inch to follow your dog. That's going to be one big mother of a cast.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Granted, at trial/test, whatever gets the bird.

What is the advantage in training an older, educated dog with the triangle?
What does it do that that works better than correction/attrition?

If an AA dog scallopes a cast, do they get a second chance?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> Granted, at trial/test, whatever gets the bird.
> 
> What is the advantage in training an older, educated dog with the triangle?
> What does it do that that works better than correction/attrition?
> ...


I am NOT an expert, but I happened to ask Dave this question yesterday because I forgot to ask him at the seminar - my question to him was "Do you use the triangle in training?"

My thought process was that it would be a "crutch" to an AA dog - I see the usefulness for a young transition dog, but I know I have a bad tendency of "babying" my dog, but he is an AA dog and he knows how to take casts, so why use the triangle?

His answer put simply is "yes, use it" 

I asked about attrition/pressure and level of dog too. His answer was still "yes, use it."

The triangle is nothing more than a tool to communicate with the dog....clear communications....the triangle is not the end all be all, it is just another tool - if your dog responds well to a collar correction for a bad cast and you are able to get the dog to comply with the next cast then go with that, if attrition works go with that, if the triangle works then go with that......it is just another tool.

FOM


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Thanks Lainee, very interesting.
Totally agree, if what one is doing is not working, try something else!


----------



## Laird's Retrievers (Apr 20, 2007)

Lucky Seven-

How do you know not all used the concept- did you watch each and every dog run the blind????

Just thinking outloud

Dr P.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Laird's Retrievers said:


> Lucky Seven-
> 
> How do you know not all used the concept- did you watch each and every dog run the blind????
> 
> ...


I hope so, since he was the judge.


----------



## Lucky Seven (Feb 4, 2008)

Oh lord ...... 

You know exactly what I mean.

Chad-ly




Laird's Retrievers said:


> Lucky Seven-
> 
> How do you know not all used the concept- did you watch each and every dog run the blind????
> 
> ...


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

One picture is worth a thousand words. So will someone(Lainee) post up a sketch or two?

john


----------



## mike hodge (Aug 31, 2003)

Chad: For the record, although I ran out of contention, I used the triangle at the fun trial on the second blind.

I moved with the dog (slightly up and left) and did not stay on the mat.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

john fallon said:


> One picture is worth a thousand words. So will someone(Lainee) post up a sketch or two?
> 
> john


They are at home, I am at work.....if I remember I will when I get home.


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

Laird's Retrievers said:


> Lucky Seven-
> 
> How do you know not all used the concept- did you watch each and every dog run the blind????
> 
> ...


Bet there's a story behind this comment!!


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

I'm probably one of the least qualified, but had already started drawing this. 









FWIW, here is a situation where I use the triangle concept.

Picture 1 shows the handler (H), the line to the blind (B), and the route the dog is taking (D). At this point I'm obviously going to need to give him a back, right cast. WHISTLE.

Picture 2 shows the dog stopped, but via a loop. Now he's back on line. If I give him a straight back (left or right hand) he's going to jump off line and not get closer to the bird, defeating the purpose of the whistle.

Picture 3 - I've moved to the right to change the angles between me, the dog and the bird. I'll now give him an angle back right, which he'll usually take literally.

Just one example. Hope this helps.

Mark


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

2-Dogs said:


> I'm probably one of the least qualified, but had already started drawing this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Why did you wait so long to blow your first whistle? Just kidding....

Also an oppertunity for a quit sit drill.....

/Paul


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Has nothing to do with the stop whistle.....just saying.

Sloppy sits are a whole different issue.

FOM


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

You guys are really over-thinking this. Sometimes it's just a step that can put you in a better position to give the optimum cast the first time- it's not about correcting a dog for a cast gone array. Sometimes it is following your dog a few feet, not just a step. But, we all know from when they are little that it's better to be smack dab in front of your dog to cast, then to be off to the side. 

Dave's triangle essentially does that. And, once you've been to his seminar, or two, you do start to hear his words in your head ... mine are paraphrased "Invoke the triange." You won't get the dog off line, because you'll know your markers in your head on where the line to the blind is..


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

FOM said:


> Has nothing to do with the stop whistle.....just saying.
> 
> Sloppy sits are a whole different issue.
> 
> FOM


The triangle has nothing to do with the stop whistle. But, running a blind certainly does.....

/Paul


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> The triangle has nothing to do with the stop whistle. But, running a blind certainly does.....
> 
> /Paul


 
Yes....a stop whistle is important to running a blind unless you plan to line them all the time and not use a safety whistle at the end.....

But when talking about the triangle it is about casting a dog that is already stopped and how to correct/react/help/communicate your next cast if the dog does not take it....

FOM


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

FOM said:


> Has nothing to do with the stop whistle.....just saying.


Definitely has nothing to do with teh stop whistle. If you're not invoking the triangle before then, you're down the proverbial toilet.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

FOM said:


> Yes....a stop whistle is important to running a blind unless you plan to line them all the time and not use a safety whistle at the end.....
> 
> But when talking about the triangle it is about casting a dog that is already stopped and how to correct/react/help/communicate your next cast if the dog does not take it....
> 
> FOM


I do plan to line them, all the time.  the triangle concept is not that difficult in practice, apparently hard to explain in writing. 

/Paul


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

As I said, one scenario.

Had the dog stopped without a loop: I could've moved to my right to increase the angle, to the left to decrease (or eliminate it), or even further left if I wanted to use a left back. 

I've been reading others say that people are making too much out of this, but if they're wrong, I sure don't want to be in the dark. Is there is more to this concept than changing angles and relationships between the dog / handler / bird?

ml


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

2-Dogs said:


> Is there is more to this concept than changing angles and relationships between the dog / handler / bird?
> 
> ml


No, it is about changing angles and the relationship between teh dog/handler and bird, but you're making it harding with loopy sitting dogs for the sake of explanation.  And, the whole premise is, that you want to skinny up the triangle for the optimum cast. Fat triangles are more inefficient.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I do plan to line them, all the time.  the triangle concept is not that difficult in practice, apparently hard to explain in writing.
> 
> /Paul


Exactly,,, which is why it is so frustrating when, the Triangle concept comes up.

To me it's not a concept. Like I said before. We do it everyday in training. It's common sense. 

Yes, you do it on the line at a trial in a sense to get "the" cast to the bird. But I don't think it's used in the literal sense as it's used in training

Mark,,, If you ever get up to train with me you'll see me use it 20 times a set-up. And you'll say, "Is that what all the fuss is about"???

I think the worse thing Dave could have done is to give something so simple, a big fancy name. It's being made more of then it warrants.

Angie


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

Angie B said:


> Mark,,, If you ever get up to train with me
> 
> Angie


How 'bout Monday? Me and the hounds are packed. Are you guys thawed out yet?

ml


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

2-Dogs said:


> How 'bout Monday? Me and the hounds are packed. Are you guys thawed out yet?
> 
> ml


Sunday and Monday are our days off.... *Sorry*... 

Angie


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Angie B said:


> I think the worse thing Dave could have done is to give something so simple, a big fancy name. It's being made more of then it warrants.


Really? I think it's the greatest thing... gives the concept a name and reminds people not to stand glued to the mat, and then wonder why they can't get a cast...


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

JusticeDog said:


> Really? I think it's the greatest thing... gives the concept a name and reminds people not to stand glued to the mat, and then wonder why they can't get a cast...


Yea really,,, 8 pages, most of it talking about moving laterally to get a cast. 

There I said it. One sentence. 

I and everyone else understands that one sentence much better then the "Triangle theory".... Which needed 8 pages... :razz: (crazy)

Angie


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

You ladies should pray you never get nailed for a foot fault. :lol:


----------



## Buck Mann (Apr 16, 2003)

Laird's Retrievers said:


> Lucky Seven-
> 
> How do you know not all used the concept- did you watch each and every dog run the blind????
> 
> ...


What Chris said!

Buck


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Exactly,,, which is why it is so frustrating when, the Triangle concept comes up.
> 
> To me it's not a concept. Like I said before. We do it everyday in training. It's common sense.
> 
> ...


Glad you said this Angie. I'm sitting here reading this thread thinking the whole time that all the [harps playing]"Triangle Concept" [/harps playing] is a name that Dave gave it so he could explain/teach it. It seems like something that most handlers do or should be doing as common sense handling???


----------



## Laird's Retrievers (Apr 20, 2007)

To me it is common sense, but most of us forget to use it, we get nervous, uptight etc. We might move a little with or against the dog but we are not thinking abou it completely and try to reduce the triabgle. Many handlers do not use it at all.

As to foot faults, to me when I judge states you must handle from the mat that is crazy. These dogs are not robots, and being able to move laterally is completely appropriate. If you have to move to far you are too far off line and are gone anway. Why pencil. Let the dog/handler team drop themselves.


Chris


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Laird's Retrievers said:


> As to foot faults, to me when I judge states you must handle from the mat that is crazy. These dogs are not robots, and being able to move laterally is completely appropriate. If you have to move to far you are too far off line and are gone anway. Why pencil. Let the dog/handler team drop themselves.
> Chris


While I completely agree with your logical, and reasonable statement, there might be a few that don't. 

Sorry, shouldn't have brought up foot faults. but, was just picturing people intently working the triangle, all of a sudden, judge starts screaming FOOT FAULT!, FOOT FAULT! at them. Really not funny, but made me laugh anyway. 

Have actually witnessed this, carry on.......
Charlotte


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Sorry, shouldn't have brought up foot faults. but, was just picturing people intently working the triangle, all of a sudden, judge starts screaming FOOT FAULT!, FOOT FAULT! at them. Really not funny, but made me laugh anyway.


 
What is a "foot fault" ?


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Pete said:


> What is a "foot fault" ?


When you're foot goes over the line, like in bowling, or leaves the mat, or whatever imaginary place your foot should have been, but was not...


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

It seems to me, that if you have to move yourself on the line to help "close" the triangle, you have already let the dog get to far off-line. Why wouldn't a whistle and cast EARLIER in the blind run to keep the dog on-line to the blind, be the better way to go.
Also, I did not read anywhere in these posts, the strong possibility of an "auto cast" when the dog sees you moving around the line.
I think I understand the description of the triangle, and why the handler would want to move laterally to "close" the triangle, but it appears to me that if the handler had NOT let the dog get so far offline to begin with, he would not be trying to "close" the triangle.

Perhaps someone with a drawing program can post a sample diagram of a blind where the "triangle effect" could be illustrated.

One picture is worth a thousand words regards....


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

When you are closing or opening the triangle you are supposed to do this while the dog is moving away from you not while the dog is facing you.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

lablover said:


> It seems to me, that if you have to move yourself on the line to help "close" the triangle, you have already let the dog get to far off-line. Why wouldn't a whistle and cast EARLIER in the blind run to keep the dog on-line to the blind, be the better way to go.
> Also, I did not read anywhere in these posts, the strong possibility of an "auto cast" when the dog sees you moving around the line.
> I think I understand the description of the triangle, and why the handler would want to move laterally to "close" the triangle, but it appears to me that if the handler had NOT let the dog get so far offline to begin with, he would not be trying to "close" the triangle.
> 
> ...


The triangle is primarily a matter of getting the *optimum cast* as opposed to a dog that has gotten too far off line. However, we all know that in FTs, it's a matter of how the competition is doing. So, hypothetically, if a dog gets too far off line, and you are able to optimize your cast and give him one clean cast to put him back on line, isn't that better than hacking away at it?


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

JusticeDog said:


> if a dog gets too far off line, and you are able to optimize your cast and give him one clean cast to put him back on line, isn't that better than hacking away at it?


Indeed, it is!

I have not noticed this concept being used with the FT folks I train with. Obviously this concept is not in relation to stepping to one side or the other when giving a cast. The closing of the triangle would mean to position yourself laterally, prior to giving the cast, with or without the side steps when actually giving the cast.
I remember in school that several of my teachers told my parents that I need to pay closer attention.  

Good point!


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Just curious if the triange "concept/method" is mentioned in any of Dave's tapes, I have not seen them yet. It seems a lot like things I have done occasionally in training withouth thinking about it or putting a name on it. Bud


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

akblackdawg said:


> Just curious if the triange "concept/method" is mentioned in any of Dave's tapes, I have not seen them yet. It seems a lot like things I have done occasionally in training withouth thinking about it or putting a name on it. Bud


No, it's not mentioned in his tapes. Just the seminar. It's funny that it's now being called a concept, method or theory. None of which I've heard Dave call it.  And yes, it's used commonly, but think of how many times we glue our feet and fat behinds to the mat, and never move off of it. Not because of any restrictions judges have put on us, just our own, that if there's a mat, we stand on it. I think we also use it more with young dogs in training, and we put the tool away for our AA dogs.

For me, Dave's method has just been instilling the concept of movement. And, you do have to couple it with knowing your markers of where the dog should be at different points. Otherwise, you may be changing your line to the blind. 

Regards-


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I'm glad we got through the secret triangle without getting sidetracked on the magic quadrant method.

/Paul


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I'm glad we got through the secret triangle without getting sidetracked on the magic quadrant method.
> 
> /Paul


/Paul- I think the magic quanrant method deserves its own thread.


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I'm glad we got through the secret triangle without getting sidetracked on the magic quadrant method.
> 
> /Paul


Isn't that the new method for running quads? It's indeed, magic.


----------

