# What I'm reading/seeing in the training videos vrs. opinions of others.



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Currently I am just cooling my heels waiting for the hypothetical puppy (who knows if the AI took) and reading/watching all the DVD's, books, manuals and whatever I can find. I'm immediately finding contradictions to stuff I've been told.

I don't know if this is a typical HT approach to teaching marking, or if it's just typical around here with the group of folks I've gotten to know. The prevailing theory around here is NEVER. REPEAT. MARKS. When you repeat marks, you're setting your dog up to switch, teaching him to return to the old fall.

However, in Total Retriever Marking it's about refining lines and teaching concepts and patterns, consequently repeating marks is just part of the program. I am only on disk 2 (of 5) so I don't know how Lardy will address the switching thing. What I observe is that he's all about lining the dogs up properly (left side, right side, spine aligned, reading the dog and getting them to lock on to the memory bird etc.) so as to give them every opportunity to succeed. And of course getting the gunners to give timely help if the dog gets lost. If the dog never (essentially) returns to the area of an old fall in training... does it matter whether your method repeats marks or not?

Another profound difference I've noted is that in HT's marks that are associated with hard hunts are not a bad thing. (I know... all the guns are retired. It's not the same as white coated gunners standing in the middle of a field.) In training with the HT folks, a dog that perseveres and hunts the area hard is a GOOD dog. In the Lardy video the goal is precision. 

So... what's an eager novice to DO? Let me say right off the bat that these HT folks with whom I've trained are top eschelon and been to the Master National umpty-ump times and most recently owned a 5x National Qualifier. So they have plenty of cred going on.

I am eager to hear your views. Please help.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Is Lardy repeating the mark because the dog had a hard time hunting it up, or is he repeating a mark that a dog succumbed to a factor on? There is a difference. You will note that he will repeat a cheating single several times if necessary to get a dog to handle a factor correctly. There is a difference.

Regarding the FT marks with those white coats out there sticking out like a sore thumb. Do you think it's possible that a set-up can be harder as a result of some guns being out, while others are retired? Can dogs get drawn back into old falls when they have a hard time hunting up a bird while there is a gun standing out where they just easily found a bird? Do you think it makes it more difficult if the picture changes when a dog comes back with the go-bird and some guns that were out are now retired?

Good luck with your new pup. Keep asking questions. I hope you get the right answers.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

1tulip said:


> Currently I am just cooling my heels waiting for the hypothetical puppy (who knows if the AI took) and reading/watching all the DVD's, books, manuals and whatever I can find. I'm immediately finding contradictions to stuff I've been told.
> 
> I don't know if this is a typical HT approach to teaching marking, or if it's just typical around here with the group of folks I've gotten to know. The prevailing theory around here is NEVER. REPEAT. MARKS. When you repeat marks, you're setting your dog up to switch, teaching him to return to the old fall.


There are downsides to anything done in excess. There are few things "never" to do. Do what's most appropriate for your dog. For a newer trainer that is tough to know. I understand that, and that's why it's a good general rule for a new trainer to avoid repeating...GENERALLY. More risks than benefits until you have enough experience to tell.


1tulip said:


> If the dog never (essentially) returns to the area of an old fall in training... does it matter whether your method repeats marks or not?


The rationale is whether it's what the dog would benefit from most. Try to avoid absolutes as a general rule. Rex Carr called "never" and "always" 'dirty words'.


1tulip said:


> Another profound difference I've noted is that in HT's marks that are associated with hard hunts are not a bad thing. (I know... all the guns are retired. It's not the same as white coated gunners standing in the middle of a field.) In training with the HT folks, a dog that perseveres and hunts the area hard is a GOOD dog. In the Lardy video the goal is precision.


Hunt test marks aren't retired. They're hidden, and there is a big difference to the dog.


1tulip said:


> So... what's an eager novice to DO? Let me say right off the bat that these HT folks with whom I've trained are top eschelon and been to the Master National umpty-ump times and most recently owned a 5x National Qualifier. So they have plenty of cred going on.
> 
> I am eager to hear your views. Please help.


No offense meant here, but HT pros are not top echelon. The better ones finish tests more consistently than others. But it is nearly impossible even to establish that in the HT game alone, much less in retriever sports in general. A FT pro can establish evidence of superiority by virtue of winning consistently against nation wide competition. Orange ribbons cannot establish that. That is not to diminish achievements in that arena. But you can go to _all_ the Master Nationals and not see a single winner. The losers go out of the event through failure at some point. The others are mutual survivors. No one dog or trainer is distinguished above another.

Your inquiry appears to center on the up or down side of repeating marks. The better trainers do repeat sometimes; some more than others. But they have adequate experience to know when it's best not to do it vs. when it would really be of benefit. Is this what you're wondering about most?

Evan


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

You are correct. At this point in the videos Lardy is teaching. He is showing the dog the concept, then adding something (a delayed 3rd gun, or backing the line further from the water's edge, etc.) It's about teaching... then letting the dog make a decision and if it's the wrong one, correcting it... and then applying pressure if the dog doesn't respond to the correction.

The crowd I have worked with teach the same concepts, or at least put together the same types of marks and gradually add difficulty to them. But they will never re-do it at the same site. The dog gets whatever it is he can get in that moment, and may see the concept repeated the next day somewhere else. This is frustrating to me. I'm a (people) teacher by trade and the feeling is like giving half a lecture and walking out of the classroom.

Structurally, the programs follow the same logic... precept upon precept. But there is less precision required in the HT crowd. And hey, they succeed in their game! 

But I don't see a down side to using the Lardy approach even if I don't run FT's. I could be wrong but I would doubt many HT judges would penalize a dog that runs out and steps on 4 out of 5 marks with maybe a tight hunt on the other.


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

Watched the videos many times and have been to multiple Lardy seminars. I'm maybe not the best at paying attention but I don't recall much repeating of marks in his program. I recall repeating when teaching basic cheating singles in a drill format. He typically did not repeat failed marks when part of a multiple marking setup but made an exception for a failed secondary selection bird. This is what I remember but I could be wrong.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

One of the rules of training is never say never and never say always.
There are successful trainers in both HT's and FT's who almost never repeat marks, and those that do.
My interpretation of repeating marks is, during cheating singles I will repeat back to back multiple times until the dog gets it right. This is more about lining out to the mark, and not about hunting an area of fall. After cheating marks is done, (a few weeks) I ALMOST never repeat marks, and never repeat them back to back. A dog that needs help, would be handled. If an exceptional opportunity to teach something exists with a particular mark, there may be a value to repeating. My preferance would be to repeat it at another time a few days or weeks later. Rare steps outside the rules are sometimes warranted.
People get into trouble with repeating when their objective is to see the dog be perfect in the field/ water according to their expections, without really understanding whether the dog has actually learned anything. 



> Another profound difference I've noted is that in HT's marks that are associated with hard hunts are not a bad thing. (I know... all the guns are retired. It's not the same as white coated gunners standing in the middle of a field.) In training with the HT folks, a dog that perseveres and hunts the area hard is a GOOD dog. In the Lardy video the goal is precision.


Perseverance in the area of fall is something that is seen as good in any venue. I wonder if the precision you speak of is really what takes place at the line, on the mat between dog & handler. This precision can only benefit a dog, wether throwers are in white or not. Once cheating singles are done, correcting a dog in the field is about reading the dog and its intent. Not really about looking for the dog to be perfect from send to delivery.
Sounds like you have good trainers helping you out. It seems that your interpretation of what is happening may be affected by your inexperience.
Continue asking questions in your training group, and watching your videos. You are on a good path.


----------



## Purpledawg (Jul 16, 2006)

Bill Billups said:


> Watched the videos many times and have been to multiple Lardy seminars. I'm maybe not the best at paying attention but I don't recall much repeating of marks in his program. I recall repeating when teaching basic cheating singles in a drill format. He typically did not repeat failed marks when part of a multiple marking setup but made an exception for a failed secondary selection bird. This is what I remember but I could be wrong.


whats wrong with repeating a mark when a correction was made the first time thru to see if the dog understood and repaired the damage they did the first time? I know of several very successful FTers, success indicated by they make it to the nationals and end up finalists, repeat marks when the dog fails a factor.

The biggest error someone can make is to pick and choose, find a program and follow it. shut the books for all the other programs onces you found one you like.


----------



## Richard (Jul 29, 2010)

Bill you are right about repeating. Although Lardy does repeat if you are working on check down (short birds). My suggestion is if you have room is set up a double hip pockets, so you can teach on one, and test on the the other. when your dog starts running triples you can walk off line throw a short go bird which means you will get two series. There are other drills of course, I hope this helps.
If you want more insight I suggest Smart work program it has more in depth details of training.


Drill For Skills. (Evan Graham)


Richard,


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

Purpledawg said:


> whats wrong with repeating a mark when a correction was made the first time thru to see if the dog understood and repaired the damage they did the first time? I know of several very successful FTers, success indicated by they make it to the nationals and end up finalists, repeat marks when the dog fails a factor.
> 
> The biggest error someone can make is to pick and choose, find a program and follow it. shut the books for all the other programs onces you found one you like.


I know that many in the FT game are successful repeating. I know several that do. I was referring to my understanding of Lardy's program


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

As I recall Lardy says as a pro he rarely repeats marks, he repeats concepts in a different place. Hr the concedes that very few amateurs have the grounds to always do that. He says the problem with repeating is teaching going back to old falls. He then distinguishes marks vs cheating singles that he views as a drill not a mark. He also uses bumpers for cheating singles for this reason whereas I would guess this is one time where you could use "never" and say Mike Lardy NEVER uses bumpers on marks. Not my knowledge just what I have pulled out of Lardy's DVDs.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Bill Billups said:


> Watched the videos many times and have been to multiple Lardy seminars. I'm maybe not the best at paying attention but I don't recall much repeating of marks in his program. I recall repeating when teaching basic cheating singles in a drill format. He typically did not repeat failed marks when part of a multiple marking setup but made an exception for a failed secondary selection bird. This is what I remember but I could be wrong.


Yes... that is correct. That is the section of the series I am in at this point. He is doing similar things teaching re-entry.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

JMO And probably similar to others already written. I repeat cheating singles. As for just marks I don't repeat but handle to assist or if near a Gunner have them assist and move on. I also try to do the trouble mark the dog had difficulty with in a different area but similar type of mark. You can also salt the area with bumpers or ducks if you have difficult factors on the way to the mark. JMO Oh yeah it depends on your dog and where you are at in your teaching! Good luck to you. When do you get the pup!!


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

I agree with these responses. I just want to add hat this is what RTF is about. A well thought out question by a new trainer that wants to do it right. Never, and I will use never, be afraid to ask these type questions. Stay with your training group and listen to them. They will likely be more help than us typist because they will be able to see and help read your dog not just your words. 

Good luck with your pup. I'm sure you will enjoy the ride.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

I basically subscribe to Lardy's program, have attended several seminars and was brought kicking and screaming into the "new age collar dog training", where I have been for the past 25 years or so. Now to the the crux as someone quoted Rex Carr, "never say never" in training retrievers. Has anyone thought thinking out side the box, the reason Mike doesn't advocate repeats, training 16 to 30 dogs, with many repeats would be counter productive with time management! One of the tools a amateur has he/she is able to devote more time each day then perhaps one dog gets on a pro truck in a day up against training 16 to 30 dogs. Now having said that the pros can do things with grounds, excitement level, corrections at a high excitement level that one gets at a field trial or hunt test, flyers, big guns, help, their own expertise, etc etc.
So try to think outside the box too, even at your learning stage. If a mark or blind needs repeating, and you feel the dog won't make the same mistake (some dogs will make same mistakes when repeating even a week or so after on same mark) others will profit, learn quickly a concept, by repeating. You have to use conventional wisdom, not dig a hole and if you do quick digging and seek advice. In other words don't repeat for the sake of repeating so the dog learns "the trick" and you wishfully think you can duplicate the concept at a trial or hunt test it is a road to hell with good intentions. Just a thought from a old guy who stills trains dogs on a daily basis.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

A good rule of thumb for repeating, repeat if it helps the dog learn something, don't repeat to make yourself feel better


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

A few comments on Repeating:

Lardy would definitely fall into the "Does NOT Usually Repeat School". Exceptions are: drill-like marks(cheating singles if failed), failed check down birds, unique terrain/factor marks (esp. while travelling and not able to come back). Repeats of concepts are routine however in a different place. Not clear how it was interpreted that he is a "Repeat School" based on his Marking DVD. 


I have detailed the rational for not repeating usually and exceptions to the NEVER and ALWAYS rules in back issues of Retrievers ONLINE. 

I can add that Lardy has also stated that if he thought repeating was beneficial for marking set-ups he would do it even if it took more time. Some other Pros do repeat and they take the time. On the Farmer/Aycock Problems DVD you see Danny repeat one water mark many times but it was a sort of fight the factors/cheating mark. I rarely repeat marking set-ups except perhaps days/weeks later. For example, with the youngsters, I might do a triple as singles and then come back days later and do the triple. This works well to help the dogs get something out of it as Ed said. I get more out of it by waiting a few days.

Incidentally, if your dog messes up and you repeat, most times your dog will make the same mistake. If you have a good handling intervention, then why repeat?-do elsewhere.

Of interest, I did a lengthy interview with Bill and Micki Petrovish (coming in Summer issue of Retrievers ONLINE-at the printers now) regarding All-time Top Derby Dog-Ammo. We talked about repeating marks. They said Ammo might have repeated 5X in her 5 years of training!!

Rex Carr said- Going back to old falls on water marks is one of the prime causes for failures.

Lots of trainers do lots of different things and still have success. 

I always ask are the methods: fair(humane), effective and efficient?


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Thanks for those reminders and comments Dennis!!


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Criquetpas said:


> I basically subscribe to Lardy's program, have attended several seminars and was brought kicking and screaming into the "new age collar dog training", where I have been for the past 25 years or so. Now to the the crux as someone quoted Rex Carr, "never say never" in training retrievers. *Has anyone thought thinking out side the box, the reason Mike doesn't advocate repeats, training 16 to 30 dogs, with many repeats would be counter productive with time management! One of the tools a amateur has he/she is able to devote more time each day then perhaps one dog gets on a pro truck in a day up against training 16 to 30 dogs*. Now having said that the pros can do things with grounds, excitement level, corrections at a high excitement level that one gets at a field trial or hunt test, flyers, big guns, help, their own expertise, etc etc.
> So try to think outside the box too, even at your learning stage. If a mark or blind needs repeating, and you feel the dog won't make the same mistake (some dogs will make same mistakes when repeating even a week or so after on same mark) others will profit, learn quickly a concept, by repeating. *You have to use conventional wisdom, not dig a hole and if you do quick digging and seek advice. In other words don't repeat for the sake of repeating so the dog learns "the trick" and you wishfully think you can duplicate the concept at a trial or hunt test it is a road to hell with good intentions*. Just a thought from a old guy who stills trains dogs on a daily basis.





EdA said:


> *A good rule of thumb for repeating, repeat if it helps the dog learn something, don't repeat to make yourself feel better*





RetrieversONLINE said:


> A few comments on Repeating:
> 
> Lardy would definitely fall into the "Does NOT Usually Repeat School". Exceptions are: drill-like marks(cheating singles if failed), failed check down birds, unique terrain/factor marks (esp. while travelling and not able to come back). Repeats of concepts are routine however in a different place. Not clear how it was interpreted that he is a "Repeat School" based on his Marking DVD.
> 
> ...



To the OP, these are words of wisdom from people that have played this game to the highest level of achievement possible in the field trial world. Read it a few times. That's the beauty of this game, everyone has a different philosophy about every key element involved in the game and we get to train our dogs the way we see fit and meet on the weekend to see whos the best dog and handler team. I feel that the "NEVER REPEAT" philosophy was one that has roots that start from the original field trial training. Pre collar I think very few trainers repeated a mark (please correct me if I am wrong), It was tabboo. As the breeding and training equipment (collar) improved I think trainers eventually realized there was a legitimate use for repeating marks. The dogs can understand if trained to repeat corrrectly the difference of returning to an old fall (the cardinal sin). I started with Paul Shoemaker and he was pre collar and old school as them come. I've only been in this game for 7 yrs and have only day trained with Paul and Gonia (complete opposites when it comes to training dogs). My first dog was trained to "NEVER REPEAT" a mark and he made a good dog that was just starting to be competitive all age. I think he took me to the fourt series 80% of the amateurs we ran and came close a few times but was plagued with injury and is most likely retired after and elbow surgery and now a scheduled cruciate surgery at 5.5yrs. The pup I have now I trained to repeat and learned HOW to repeat from one of the best, Gonia. He has devised a way to repeat with dogs and has had great success, arguably the most successful of all field trial trainers. My all age dog would go any where in the field except to an old fall, and my young q dog I trust very much not to return to and old fall but wouldnt bet my lunch on it with a tight inline triple with the middle retired throwing hip pocket to the long flier go bird. The problem with training a dog to repeat is when they are vague, or get lost, or wind the wrong bird sent for, their more likely to make that cardinal sin and attempt to return to an old fall. Same goes for a dog that never repeats, they can get lost or wind the wrong bird sent for and accidentally because of confusion attempt to return, or on secondary selection split the difference and accidentally end up in an old fall, It's a double edged sward? But to go back to what Earl was saying, a pro traines his dogs with a whole different mindset than amateurs. I've even heard a great pro say " I don't worry about the other pros, I worry about the one dog amateur.". An amateur can train his/her dog with more precision than a pro can. The pro has 10-20 bullets in his gun, but the good amateurs can train a dog to be very precise. Two different mindsets. I like teaching concepts with singles or taking a single off the key bird and then putting the test together after a dog or two runs. There's so many different ways to train a dog and I like what Dennis said about what ever is humane, effective, and efficient then go with it. All dogs are different and you can never train one the same so learn and study all the different philosophies about the key elements of the game and then decide which way YOU think is best and then we"ll meet on the weekend and run our dogs and have a beer! What I can tell you for certain is don't send them directly back to an old fall, make them retrieve some other mark before you attempt to repeat. And like Dennis eluded to, if the handler is paying attention and makes a timely handle with or with out pressure then you'll find yourself having to repeat marks rarely. Plus teach them to do singles with factors correctly with a high level of tolerance before you start multiples will save your from having to repeat as well. Have fun and continue to evolve and don't get stuck on whatching to many videos or what a book says, read and watch your dog instead


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

*To the OP, these are words of wisdom from people that have played this game to the highest level of achievement possible in the field trial world. Read it a few times. 
*
Read it??? Are you kidding? I'm printing it all off and stapling it in the inside cover of my Training with Mike Lardy manuals!


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

jeff evans said:


> Have fun and continue to evolve and don't get stuck on whatching to many videos or what a book says, read and watch your dog instead


:razz:......Not gonna sell many books or dvd's?, But I'll buy that for a dollar!


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Directly from the horses mouth.
http://www.totalretriever.com/index...t-or-not-to-repeat&catid=31:general&Itemid=76



Gooser


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

1tulip said:


> Currently I am just cooling my heels waiting for the hypothetical puppy (who knows if the AI took) and reading/watching all the DVD's, books, manuals and whatever I can find. I'm immediately finding contradictions to stuff I've been told.
> 
> I don't know if this is a typical HT approach to teaching marking, or if it's just typical around here with the group of folks I've gotten to know. The prevailing theory around here is NEVER. REPEAT. MARKS. When you repeat marks, you're setting your dog up to switch, teaching him to return to the old fall.
> 
> ...


How about just enjoying and hopefully things will come to you.....This is supposed be fun.....Tooo all of us....


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Evan said:


> There are downsides to anything done in excess. There are few things "never" to do. Do what's most appropriate for your dog. For a newer trainer that is tough to know. I understand that, and that's why it's a good general rule for a new trainer to avoid repeating...GENERALLY. More risks than benefits until you have enough experience to tell.The rationale is whether it's what the dog would benefit from most. Try to avoid absolutes as a general rule. Rex Carr called "never" and "always" 'dirty words'.Hunt test marks aren't retired. They're hidden, and there is a big difference to the dog.No offense meant here, but HT pros are not top echelon. The better ones finish tests more consistently than others. But it is nearly impossible even to establish that in the HT game alone, much less in retriever sports in general. A FT pro can establish evidence of superiority by virtue of winning consistently against nation wide competition. Orange ribbons cannot establish that. That is not to diminish achievements in that arena. But you can go to _all_ the Master Nationals and not see a single winner. The losers go out of the event through failure at some point. The others are mutual survivors. No one dog or trainer is distinguished above another.
> 
> Your inquiry appears to center on the up or down side of repeating marks. The better trainers do repeat sometimes; some more than others. But they have adequate experience to know when it's best not to do it vs. when it would really be of benefit. Is this what you're wondering about most?
> 
> Evan


this from a guy that makes videos and doesn't run hunt tests or field trials. How's that golden of yours coming on anything?

/Paul


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

1tulip said:


> there is less precision required in the HT crowd. And hey, they succeed in their game!


Truth be known there's equal precision required in training a HT vs. a FT dog. In a HT things are a lot closer together, blinds are between marks and so forth. This requires a dog that has a hunt to keep a very tight area, lest he be sucked into an old or different fall and be seen as switching. This is especially true if you have a big running dog. Blinds are the same way. There are usually old falls to get sucked into and so forth. Keeping a tight line is important.

In FT all the same precision applies and it is even harder to achieve because of the great distance involved in the tests. The precise field trial dog tends to be the winner. Precision is needed, just for different reasons.

If you want a HT dog that people clap for, you need the same level of precision as you do in FT training.

I don't know about anyone else but barely making 7's and passing X% of my dog's tests isn't my goal. I want a dog that crushes most of what she sees.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> this from a guy that makes videos and doesn't run hunt tests or field trials.....


....*anymore.* Just because I no longer chase all over the country after trials at this point in my life doesn't erase the fact that I've won lots of them, as well as titling one of the first MH's. You know this, and choose to ignore it, or periodically forget it. What's your problem?


Gun_Dog2002 said:


> How's that golden of yours coming on anything?
> 
> /Paul


He has all the skills, why?

Evan


----------



## TonyLattuca (Jan 10, 2013)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> this from a guy that makes videos and doesn't run hunt tests or field trials. How's that golden of yours coming on anything?
> 
> /Paul


Don't know how this guy has any clients, seems like a real dick from what I've seen over the past few months I've been up here!
Tony Lattuca


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Evan said:


> ....*anymore.* Just because I no longer chase all over the country after trials at this point in my life doesn't erase the fact that I've won lots of them, as well as titling one of the first MH's. You know this, and choose to ignore it, or periodically forget it. What's your problem?He has all the skills, why?
> 
> Evan


times have changed Evan. You gonna slam guys walking to the line every week, you best know someone's going to point out you haven't ran in 30 years

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Gotta Lotta Zoom said:


> Don't know how this guy has any clients, seems like a real dick from what I've seen over the past few months I've been up here!
> Tony Lattuca


Lot of people don't like the truth. I don't see anyone telling me I'm wrong, just pissing and moaning that someone pointed out the obvious.

/Paul


----------



## Chris Videtto (Nov 4, 2010)

Gotta Lotta Zoom said:


> Don't know how this guy has any clients, seems like a real dick from what I've seen over the past few months I've been up here!
> Tony Lattuca



Pretty harsh Tony! Evan tries to help as many people as he can on this forum and has quite a bit of dog training experience, not sure what your credentials are but they probably don't stack up!

Chris


----------



## Swampbilly (May 25, 2010)

Chris Videtto said:


> Pretty harsh Tony! Evan tries to help as many people as he can on this forum and has quite a bit of dog training experience, not sure what your credentials are but they probably don't stack up!
> 
> Chris


Right.
That post, BAR NONE- was the most unwarranted post I've ever read.
Unbelieveable.


----------



## TonyLattuca (Jan 10, 2013)

Chris Videtto said:


> Pretty harsh Tony! Evan tries to help as many people as he can on this forum and has quite a bit of dog training experience, not sure what your credentials are but they probably don't stack up!
> 
> Chris


I wasn't talking about Evan I was talking about Paul. Everytime theres a good tread going he seems to want to ridacule Evan for not running trials or test. So what if he dont run he can still train and sell the crap out of some videos. If thats what he wants then thats what he does. Evans always helpful on advice here and I think thats helpful to new people. Me, I dont have credintials and dont want any. I just enjoy training my one dog and thats it.


----------



## Chris Videtto (Nov 4, 2010)

Tony, 

sorry for the confusion......seemed like you were agreeing with Paul and calling Evan a [email protected]%. My bad I read it wrong! You have to take what Paul says as trying to stir the pot!

Chris


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Gotta Lotta Zoom said:


> I wasn't talking about Evan I was talking about Paul. Everytime theres a good tread going he seems to want to ridacule Evan for not running trials or test. So what if he dont run he can still train and sell the crap out of some videos. If thats what he wants then thats what he does. Evans always helpful on advice here and I think thats helpful to new people. Me, I dont have credintials and dont want any. I just enjoy training my one dog and thats it.


 You must have missed the 6000 posts of actual training advice I've posted in the past 10 years. I find it interesting that Evan can come on here, basically slam hard working pro's with his condescending BS and he hasn't ran a dog in forever. Evan doesn't want me pointing out his shaky track record, which by the way has been posted before, then he can keep his comments about actual dog trainers to himself and keep selling his video's....

/Paul


----------



## TonyLattuca (Jan 10, 2013)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> You must have missed the 6000 posts of actual training advice I've posted in the past 10 years. I find it interesting that Evan can come on here, basically slam hard working pro's with his condescending BS and he hasn't ran a dog in forever. Evan doesn't want me pointing out his shaky track record, which by the way has been posted before, then he can keep his comments about actual dog trainers to himself and keep selling his video's....
> 
> /Paul


Who cares? Its not like one bit of advice he gives isn't good. He still has good points to a lot of post. Maybe you should make a video with all your advice, could be some money in it


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Lot of people don't like the truth. I don't see anyone telling me I'm wrong, just pissing and moaning that someone pointed out the obvious.
> 
> /Paul


Paul, I know from reading your post where you actually offer training advise, that you are a good trainer, but what truth did you provide here? I thought Evan's post was right on and don't see how his Golden has anything to do with it.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> times have changed Evan. You gonna slam guys walking to the line every week, you best know someone's going to point out you haven't ran in 30 years
> 
> /Paul


That's the point. Evan wants to call the Kettel black when he is the pot.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Evan said:


> No offense meant here, *but HT pros are not top echelon*. The better ones finish tests more consistently than others. But it is nearly impossible even to establish that in the HT game alone, much less in retriever sports in general. A FT pro can establish evidence of superiority by virtue of winning consistently against nation wide competition. Orange ribbons cannot establish that. That is not to diminish achievements in that arena. But you can go to _all_ the Master Nationals and not see a single winner. The losers go out of the event through failure at some point. The others are mutual survivors. No one dog or trainer is distinguished above another.


Probably a poor choice of description along with a generalization got Paul upset. There are top-echelon pro-HTer's. "BUTT" I'm sure they are forced to "meet the standard" with large numbers of dogs. I would not think FT pro's would have the same battle. "Pro" status really has nothing to do with this thread though. OP you got lots of good input prior to that.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Swampbilly said:


> Right.
> That post, BAR NONE- was the most unwarranted post I've ever read.
> Unbelieveable.


You obviously didn't read Evan's post close enough to hear the loud BANG that came out of Evan's gun when he fired the first shot making demeaning statements about HT pro's. At first glance I was sort of shocked because Evan usually doesn't make derogatory comments unless /paul's been putting the screws to him. lol...


----------



## Swampbilly (May 25, 2010)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> You obviously didn't read Evan's post close enough to hear the loud BANG that came out of Evan's gun when he fired the first shot making demeaning statements about HT pro's. At first glance I was sort of shocked because Evan usually doesn't make derogatory comments unless /paul's been putting the screws to him. lol...


Did read it 'Hap, but didn't hear the same loud bang (Could be I need a hearing aid, Dunno').

I asked myself the question-
Are ALL HT pros "top echelon" across the nation ?

After I answered it, it wasn't so bad.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Swampbilly said:


> Did read it 'Hap, but didn't hear the same loud bang (Could be I need a hearing aid, Dunno').
> 
> I asked myself the question-
> Are ALL HT pros "top echelon" across the nation ?
> ...



You didn't hear it because your argument is a long shot..lol


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> You obviously didn't read Evan's post close enough to hear the loud BANG that came out of Evan's gun when he fired the first shot making demeaning statements about HT pro's. At first glance I was sort of shocked because Evan usually doesn't make derogatory comments unless /paul's been putting the screws to him. lol...


Yeah, I missed that part. I don't think Evan needed to say that even if he believes it, it really is neither here nor there whether the top HT pro's are as good at training dogs as the top FT pros in the discussion about repeating marks or not.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Evan said:


> No offense meant here, but HT pros are not top echelon.
> 
> Evan


Ya know I really don't need to stick my neck out here but very simply Evan, I can't believe you would ever make such a remark. 

If you have so much pro training experience (not saying you don't), you know what an undertaking it is to have 16 dogs to train 6 days a week, including care and all the other things that go into a successful HT training program with birds, grounds, vehicles, clients and everything else I have forgotten about. It's 24/7 devotion that deserves more respect than a statement like that gives and you, of all people, should know that.

A dog training pro being "top echelon" is pretty damned easy to establish. I don't care if they train pets or HT or FT dogs. If they've been in business for more than a minute, they pretty much have to be TOP echelon, or else they will go hungry.

You ought to know that by now and I'm surprised to see you over look it.

I see plenty of pet dog trainers these days that I think are hacks but who make a decent living selling whatever snake oil they sell. They must be pretty damned good at it despite what I happen to think.


----------



## Swampbilly (May 25, 2010)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> You didn't hear it because your argument is a long shot..lol


Ok.
My bad-
EVERY single HT pro in this _country_ _IS_ top echelon!


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Swampbilly said:


> Ok.
> My bad-
> EVERY single HT pro in this _country_ _IS_ top echelon!


Generalizing sucks...I know both kinds. Top and bottom feeders.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> Ya know I really don't need to stick my neck out here but very simply Evan, I can't believe you would ever make such a remark.
> 
> If you have so much pro training experience (not saying you don't), you know what an undertaking it is to have 16 dogs to train 6 days a week, including care and all the other things that go into a successful HT training program with birds, grounds, vehicles, clients and everything else I have forgotten about. It's 24/7 devotion that deserves more respect than a statement like that gives and you, of all people, should know that.


Since the point continues to be missed I suppose I'd better clear it up a bit. I addressed only the comments by the OP about 'top echelon' pros. Take a look back at my post as I broke down its components to try to isolate what he was after. He replied candidly, and our discussion moved on until my analysis was misconstrued as running down some trainer, or _all_ HT trainers - none of which is true. I only clarified that it's not only hard for a HT pro to establish him or herself being top echelon, it's impossible.

For decades the most recognizable athlete anywhere in the world was Muhammad Ali. Everyone knew why, whether they were sports fans or not. He was 3-time heavyweight world champ. Everyone knew that because he entered competition at the highest level and won. No one has to guess that some club fighter from Philly might have been as good as Ali. If he had been, everyone would have known it because he would have established an equal or better record by competing and winning at that level. He may indeed have been great, but there is no way of establishing that. 

Now, let's say some HT pro called "WCP" wants to assert that he's a 'top echelon' pro, like say Mike Lardy or Danny Farmer, whom everyone knows actually _is_ top echelon for the same reasons Ali was recognized as such. But since he does not compete in a venue that provides the same hard evidence, how can his stature be equally established. He may be terrific! But how can anyone establish equity between Lardy and WCP? 

None of that is pointed toward demeaning anyone. It's simply aimed toward providing rationale for using terms that should mean something. If 'top echelon' and 'moderate echelon' mean the same thing, why not just say "echelon"? I haven't demeaned any individual or group.

Indeed, many of my friends are excellent HT pros who work hard for a living, are honest, and are fine trainers. One Texas HT pro I consider one of my finest friends, and I assure you he would have understood my comments clearly, and without offense. Meanwhile back at the subject of discussion; *1tulip*, do you better understand the pros and cons of repetition in general?

Evan


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

i think i dated a girl nice looking foreign exchange student in tenth grade from "upper echelon". it didn't last too long because there was a custom for girls from echelon never to cross railroad tracks. i wonder if she is still crying?

oh yeah.....i repeat marks sometimes. i do this in emulation of the practices of some folk that i have had the opportunity to train with.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Maybe because they feed all their dogs on Master National Plates every night before bed?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Evan said:


> Since the point continues to be missed I suppose I'd better clear it up a bit. I addressed only the comments by the OP about 'top echelon' pros. Take a look back at my post as I broke down its components to try to isolate what he was after. He replied candidly, and our discussion moved on until my analysis was misconstrued as running down some trainer, or _all_ HT trainers - none of which is true. I only clarified that it's not only hard for a HT pro to establish him or herself being top echelon, it's impossible.
> 
> For decades the most recognizable athlete anywhere in the world was Muhammad Ali. Everyone knew why, whether they were sports fans or not. He was 3-time heavyweight world champ. Everyone knew that because he entered competition at the highest level and won. No one has to guess that some club fighter from Philly might have been as good as Ali. If he had been, everyone would have known it because he would have established an equal or better record by competing and winning at that level. He may indeed have been great, but there is no way of establishing that.
> 
> ...


Really? "WCP"? Why don't you keep this crap for Stan's message board where all it takes to have "more pelts than experts" is 2 senior passes....you can't train dogs to any kind of upper level with video's alone. Anybody other a than a complete noob knows that....

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

1tulip said:


> Currently I am just cooling my heels waiting for the hypothetical puppy (who knows if the AI took) and reading/watching all the DVD's, books, manuals and whatever I can find. I'm immediately finding contradictions to stuff I've been told.
> 
> I don't know if this is a typical HT approach to teaching marking, or if it's just typical around here with the group of folks I've gotten to know. The prevailing theory around here is NEVER. REPEAT. MARKS. When you repeat marks, you're setting your dog up to switch, teaching him to return to the old fall.
> 
> ...


Actually there isn't as much difference as you think. Both sports want a dog that front foots the birds all the time. Both sports want a dog that stays tight to the AOF and digs it out. 

/Paul


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Evan said:


> No offense meant here, but HT pros are not top echelon.
> 
> Evan


You claim that you didn't demean anyone. If that is the case then please fall back on your trusty dictionary and explain to us mouth breathers how this quote could be taken otherwise. 
To a certain extent I agree with your premise; in light of the fact that HT's, unlike FT's aren't trying to identify the BEST. They are judged to a standard & don't identify a winner. If you look on EE it will tell you who the Best was on any given weekend for a FT, but not for a HT. At a HT a dog that barely met the standard gets the same ribbon as a dog who was outstanding However I'm quite surprised that you would throw this mud. Usually whenever someone points out your ACTUAL track record & FT credentials you attack & call them names. imply that they are misconstruing your accomplishments, and attempt {usually successfully} to get the thread locked so it will quickly fall off of the first page.
I definitely agree with you that their is a TOP ECHELON when it comes to field trials. They even refer to the stakes as being Minor or Major The MINOR Stakes {The Derby & Qual} THen there are the MAJOR Stakes {the Open & Am} which carry Championship points. It would be obvious from your position that the "Top Echelon" would compete in and be successful in the MAJOR STAKES; wouldn't you agree? In order to avoid the chance of anyone misconstruing your accomplishments in the TOP ECHELON, would you tell us all how many Blue ribbons and other placements you trained and handled a dog to in Major Stakes?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> In order to avoid the chance of anyone misconstruing your accomplishments in the TOP ECHELON, would you tell us all how many Blue ribbons and other placements you trained and handled a dog to in Major Stakes?


Sure, right after you explain how this adds anything at all to the addressing of the OP's question. This is pretty much the only bullet in your gun, isn't it Marc? You're like a rumor; never intended to help anyone, but rather only used to tear someone down. (Rumor: an assertion or set of assertions widely repeated as true, though its veracity is unconfirmed.)

Evan


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Evan said:


> Sure, right after you explain how this adds anything at all to the addressing of the OP's question. This is pretty much the only bullet in your gun, isn't it Marc? You're like a rumor; never intended to help anyone, but rather only used to tear someone down. (Rumor: an assertion or set of assertions widely repeated as true, though its veracity is unconfirmed.)
> 
> Evan


I believe I responded to a post you made universally slamming HT pro's
What did that have to do with the OP?
Furthermore I believe that information could be very helpful to someone who is weighing which program to purchase. Woulden't you agree that knowing if someone can "WALK the WALK" & how many "pelts" someone has in the "Top Echelon" would be worthwhile


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I think I hear keys jingling down the hallway.. lol


----------



## Kyle Garris (Oct 27, 2005)

Wow. Just, wow...


----------



## RetrieverNation (Jul 15, 2012)

Some are great dog teachers, some are great people teachers and some are good at both. Maybe you guys could team up? Wouldn't that be great?


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

RetrieverNation said:


> Some are great dog teachers, some are great people teachers and some are good at both. Maybe you guys could team up? Wouldn't that be great?


Sign me up for that seminar. /Paul ,will you be handling dogs at the first ever Smart-Marc Seminar?


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

There are a few gems in here. Tulip, please weed through the mess and find the good stuff.

To those of you who truly attempted to provide some value in this training thread, Thanks!

Chris


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Chris Atkinson said:


> There are a few gems in here. Tulip, please weed through the mess and find the good stuff.
> 
> To those of you who truly attempted to provide some value in this training thread, Thanks!
> 
> Chris


Well it certainly has had some entertainment value.;-)


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

duk4me said:


> Well it certainly has had some entertainment value.;-)


If you enjoy watching a train wreck or reality TV


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

EdA said:


> If you enjoy watching a train wreck or reality TV


Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.......


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

duk4me said:


> Well it certainly has had some entertainment value.;-)



Not for me. It's a bad, broken record.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> I believe I responded to a post you made universally slamming HT pro's
> What did that have to do with the OP?
> Furthermore I believe that information could be very helpful to someone who is weighing which program to purchase. Woulden't you agree that knowing if someone can "WALK the WALK" & how many "pelts" someone has in the "Top Echelon" would be worthwhile


I re-read the thread and not only did he diss the pro's, he dissed tulips training buddies. I guess 5x master national pass doesn't compare to a "golden with skills." Best thing tulip can do is stick to the training group where he will see real live dogs trained over time and get guidance from people actually working with dogs. 

/Paul


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I re-read the thread and not only did he diss the pro's, he dissed tulips training buddies. I guess 5x master national pass doesn't compare to a "golden with skills." *Best thing tulip can do is stick to the training group where he will see real live dogs trained over time and get guidance from people actually working with dogs*.
> 
> /Paul


I totally agree...


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

*But since he does not compete in a venue that provides the same hard evidence, how can his stature be equally established. He may be terrific! But how can anyone establish equity between Lardy and WCP? *

Evan the answer is in your own statement above which I bolded. Your statement comparing WCP to M. Lardy is not a good choice! The difference is obvious! M.Lardy recently competes in FT venue whereas WCP doesn't. There is a trememndous inequity! JMHO


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

EdA said:


> If you enjoy watching a train wreck or reality TV


Hey Ed: 

Didn't know you were like me and despise so many of those reality TV shows that capture millions. Truly each to his own.

We just had a horrific train wreck up here in Canada this summer in Quebec. Watching the aftermath was painful.

You and Earl and I and a few others tried to add some content to the OP question. I have barely posted all summer despite viewing. I am reminded again why certain people rarely post. Somebody posted some links back to about 2008. I went back and read them. it was fascinating. There was absolutely tremendous input by a real variety. It was quite stimulating. 

I wish everybody could get back to that including you and me. But trivial questions and answers seen a hundred times, back-stabbing and vendettas, and blatant marketing make it really difficult to participate the way we could. Because I market a product, some think every time I give advice that I am marketing. Well that's crap also. Based on what I read here, I'd guess 90% of current active folks don't even know what I market!

Most of the time I am trying to Walk my Talk. Can't succeed everyday. But if anybody really wanted to discuss the details of repeating, I'd be interested. Sorry I got sucked into off-topic.

Dennis

PS. Paul- you aren't going to change Evan-don't you know that? And- more know his credentials as a teacher than yours as a trainer so once again, the Internet is not where you can learn to train dogs, nor are videos, or books or even workshops but it is undeniable that we all benefit from some exchanges and information with them and the RTF. I enjoy your posts (mostly) although I wallow at having 10% as many of them!


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Hey Ed:
> 
> Didn't know you were like me and despise so many of those reality TV shows that capture millions. Truly each to his own.
> 
> ...


Not to dis Paul as I also enjoy and mostly agree with his post on training, but regarding your 10% comment, I really-really-really appreciate all your post on dog training.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> I believe I responded to a post you made universally slamming HT pro's


Of course you believe that. It's what you want to believe, so the facts can't outweigh your desire to distort them. I did not slam HT pros, or anyone else.


mjh345 said:


> What did that have to do with the OP?


The OP (in case you still haven't read it) stated (once again) "Let me say right off the bat that these HT folks with whom I've trained are top eschelon and been to the Master National umpty-ump times and most recently owned a 5x National Qualifier." Is that the bench mark? Is that what he's asking? We've cleared that up of course, but your myopia has glossed over that fact for the sake of attacking me without real basis in fact. Like _that's_ new!


mjh345 said:


> Furthermore I believe that information could be very helpful to someone who is weighing which program to purchase. Woulden't you agree that knowing if someone can "WALK the WALK" & how many "pelts" someone has in the "Top Echelon" would be worthwhile


If a person were in earnest about a program to use, the salient point would not merely be what the author could do with the program, but rather what other trainers have been able to do through using it.


























"2 Qual wins and 3 Derby wins over 4 weekends with my 2 dogs so far this year espouses the virtues of Smartwork!!" - Hope Roberts (Contact information available for anyone other than mjh345)

I'm done with this Marc. I'm sure you aren't. Fortunately, I don't care.

Evan


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Hey Ed:
> 
> Didn't know you were like me and despise so many of those reality TV shows that capture millions. Truly each to his own.
> 
> ...


Dennis;
Being fairly new here, I am learning when to stay away. I want you to know that I look for posts and read everyone.

Keith


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> I wish everybody could get back to that including you and me. But trivial questions and answers seen a hundred times, back-stabbing and vendettas, and blatant marketing make it really difficult to participate the way we could. Because I market a product, some think every time I give advice that I am marketing. Well that's crap also. Based on what I read here, I'd guess 90% of current active folks don't even know what I market!
> 
> Most of the time I am trying to Walk my Talk. Can't succeed everyday. But if anybody really wanted to discuss the details of repeating, I'd be interested. Sorry I got sucked into off-topic.
> 
> ...


I for one, learn and hope to understand where you come from!...Repeating?...It's a matter of doing or not! depending on the dog.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SnO9Jyz82Ps


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Scott Adams said:


> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SnO9Jyz82Ps


Scott:

You slay me

-best ever!

Dennis


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

polmaise said:


> I for one, learn and hope to understand where you come from!...Repeating?...It's a matter of doing or not! depending on the dog.


Post #16 pretty well explains where I come from on this topic. I use the same principles on all my dogs but change tactics according to their foibles. Any specific questions?

Dennis


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> If a person were in earnest about a program to use, the salient point would not merely be what the author could do with the program, but rather what other trainers have been able to do through using it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a point well taken... A feat such as this "should" quell some of the program's more vocal detractors here on the RTF, at least from a minor stakes perspective..........but I'm sorry to say, I don't think it will.

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Hey Ed:
> 
> Didn't know you were like me


Perhaps more than you realize, my Ontario born and raised spouse and my Canadian in-laws have given me a perspective previously unknown to me about Canada and it's citizens and civility is much more prevalent in Canada than it is in the US.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Hey Ed:
> 
> Didn't know you were like me and despise so many of those reality TV shows that capture millions. Truly each to his own.
> 
> ...


The fact that you try is very rewarding to those who want to learn...There are those who have maybe a hidden agenda or maybe a personal vendetta, but there will always be those folks in any venture who will never be satisfied and will cause those who what to learn to be confused....Just keep what you are doing....They will see and will thank you in sharing your knowledge and making them better, so to speak, understanding what dogs are about and what can be accomplish in their journey as being a dog trainer to be....Please never stop because it would be a a injustice to those that really want to know.....Enough said...

Benny


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

EdA said:


> Perhaps more than you realize, my Ontario born and raised spouse and my Canadian in-laws have given me a perspective previously unknown to me about Canada and it's citizens and civility is much more prevalent in Canada than it is in the US.


You haven't driven in BC in the last 20 years. It can make LA Drivers appear civilized.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I thought about this thread when I got home from training last night, this idea of “top echelon” trainers being impossible in the HT world. I just don’t agree with that. While its true for a dog, I struggle to accept that with the trainers. There are many top trainers in the country who don’t run dogs. They train dogs and the owners run them. There are many examples of “HT Pro’s” who run dogs that go on to do very well in field trials. Research this years National Am’s handler and trainer. Look at some of the dogs qualified for this years National Am. Lardy said his national wins just help demonstrate that his philosophies towards dog training work. This years National Am winner Andy’s first dog was a gundog that he was talked into running in HT’s by the friends he trained with. Cutter is now AFC. There are also hundreds of examples of amateurs that routinely train dogs to perform very well that have never won a national or perhaps never ran a national. Does that make them poor trainers? My experience says no, there are some very good trainers out there. Fact is there is a small pool of special dogs that dominate because they are just that, special animals who also were lucky enough to get with a trainer that brings out those special skills. Just about every trainer will tell you that those special dogs make them look better than they are. 

Maybe my calling Evan out appeared to be a dickhead move, but Its mostly because I fundamentally disagree with what he said. As well, he wants to use an example of someone that had success after watching his video’s. Fact is, he didn’t train that dog and his video’s are merely a framework for the steps in training a dog. He’s not standing there running the dog in training everyday, he’s not standing their guiding the person on how to make setups that build and enhance the dogs abilities and he’s not standing there making decisions on when to use attrition, use the collar or use gunner help. I guarantee someone is. I’m willing to bet that lady has watched a variety of video’s from different trainers and taken advice from a lot of people. One of my favorite clients, Toni, told me when Radar was 8 weeks old she wanted guidance from me on training her dog. There have been times when I had the dog, trained the dog directly, I even handled Radar to a NW gundog championship win, however she put the time in and ran the dog to his MH. I could take credit for that, but frankly I see that as her training the dog. 

In the end, the OP question was regarding the seemingly difference between so called “HT” trainers and what he see’s on the videos. Fact is a “trained dog is a trained dog” (Danny Farmer) The difference is hardly discernable. Everyone wants a dog to front foot the bird regardless of the game being played. Good trainers train for that and they do that by solid training methods. It sounds like you have experienced dog folks to train with, I would encourage you to do so. However never stop learning, never stop gleaning information, and stay humble enough to take advice. Sometimes good information comes from the unlikeliest of places.

/Paul


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Hey Ed:
> 
> Didn't know you were like me and despise so many of those reality TV shows that capture millions. Truly each to his own.
> 
> ...


The only TV of value is sports & the stock market, though I look forward to the new Robin Williams show due this fall . 

I won't go into your train wreck as my opinions would be political. 

I would state there are few that post here who don't have an agenda: yourself, Earl & Wayne Anderson fall into the crowd trying to add something to the conversation. 

I was fortunate that I started in a time when there were grounds available, folks like Bob Sparks to help a novice along, & later the opportunity to day train with one of the greats in this sport for over 2 decades. The dogs I watched are still discussed on this forum, for the most part with little factual info to go with it. I cringe when the posts come along that say there are absolutes: not repeating marks (when my experience says it can be a training moment), & the more recent one by someone on this forum for over 7 years, close to 8K in posts, & can't figure out on their own what needs to be done to fix a simple problem. I wonder how that individual will deal with the issue when she finds out the bloodline she's in likes water like a cat ! 

You are right, the quality of discourse is on a down hill trend, the folks who do dogs are doing that & the rest talk about it. Though I will say all the posts were not positive during my intro to this forum.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I thought about this thread when I got home from training last night, this idea of “top echelon” trainers being impossible in the HT world. I just don’t agree with that. While its true for a dog, I struggle to accept that with the trainers. There are many top trainers in the country who don’t run dogs. They train dogs and the owners run them. There are many examples of “HT Pro’s” who run dogs that go on to do very well in field trials. Research this years National Am’s handler and trainer. Look at some of the dogs qualified for this years National Am. Lardy said his national wins just help demonstrate that his philosophies towards dog training work. This years National Am winner Andy’s first dog was a gundog that he was talked into running in HT’s by the friends he trained with. Cutter is now AFC. There are also hundreds of examples of amateurs that routinely train dogs to perform very well that have never won a national or perhaps never ran a national. Does that make them poor trainers? My experience says no, there are some very good trainers out there. Fact is there is a small pool of special dogs that dominate because they are just that, special animals who also were lucky enough to get with a trainer that brings out those special skills. Just about every trainer will tell you that those special dogs make them look better than they are.
> 
> Maybe my calling Evan out appeared to be a dickhead move, but Its mostly because I fundamentally disagree with what he said. As well, he wants to use an example of someone that had success after watching his video’s. Fact is, he didn’t train that dog and his video’s are merely a framework for the steps in training a dog. He’s not standing there running the dog in training everyday, he’s not standing their guiding the person on how to make setups that build and enhance the dogs abilities and he’s not standing there making decisions on when to use attrition, use the collar or use gunner help. I guarantee someone is. I’m willing to bet that lady has watched a variety of video’s from different trainers and taken advice from a lot of people. One of my favorite clients, Toni, told me when Radar was 8 weeks old she wanted guidance from me on training her dog. There have been times when I had the dog, trained the dog directly, I even handled Radar to a NW gundog championship win, however she put the time in and ran the dog to his MH. I could take credit for that, but frankly I see that as her training the dog.
> 
> ...


Paul,

I agree with nearly all of that. The only exception would be with the interpretation of my defining the meaning of "top echelon". I approached it from a more clinical definition. You and others appear to view it more subjectively, and that's surely your prerogative. I want you to know it was not aimed at you, or anyone specifically, and was only intended to define the term for the OP. I didn't state that it was impossible for a HT pro to _be_ a top echelon trainer, or to be as good as one who was, but rather only that _establishing_ that as a fact was not possible on the basis of the results HT's provide. 

I'm a fan of hunt tests, and their impact on the retriever world. About 3/4 of the seminars I give are hosted by hunt test clubs.The field trial game has benefited from many good dogs and trainers who came over from the HT game, and I believe in giving credit where it's due. I apologize to anyone who misunderstood my meaning, or were otherwise offended, you included.

Evan


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Maybe my calling Evan out appeared to be a dickhead move, but Its mostly because I fundamentally disagree with what he said. As well, he wants to use an example of someone that had success after watching his video’s. Fact is, he didn’t train that dog and his video’s are merely a framework for the steps in training a dog.
> 
> /Paul


Paul

First, I think your message would have been better received if you weren't so nasty - or in your own words - a "dickhead" in conveying it. I agree with Ed and Dennis, I prefer not having to watch a trainwreck. 

Second, I have never met Evan, I have never viewed his videos, so I am by no means defending him. But, I know of many people who swear by Lardy's videos - for example, Tim West. So, I don't think it is valid to say that a person's method has no value, because it is only expressed on a video.

Third, my trainer trains hunting dogs, hunt test dogs, and fieild trial dogs. She does not run them in any events. So, I would disagree with Evan to the extent that he contends that a person's knowledge can only be validated through the accumulation of ribbons.

Ted


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Paul
> 
> 
> Third, my trainer trains hunting dogs, hunt test dogs, and fieild trial dogs. She does not run them in any events. So, I would disagree with Evan to the extent that he contends that a person's knowledge can only be validated through the accumulation of ribbons.
> ...


Not validated; only _established_ through objective results. That said, the highest echelon trainer I've had the pleasure to know was Rex Carr, who also didn't run dog games. The evidence of his training ability was provided by not only the dogs he trained, but even more through what his students achieved. In that regard your trainer has produced ample evidence in a similar manner. I'm happier now, seeing my students succeed, than I ever was walking up to receive the ribbons. I appreciate your objective and well articulated opinion.

Evan


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Evan said:


> I'm happier now, seeing my students succeed, than I ever was walking up to receive the ribbons.
> Evan


This would be the difference between a Trainer and a Handler who trains!.Much the same here Evan! ..Some of the best are behind the scenes when the ribbons are handed out.
Don't know everything about your games over there ,but I'm catching up!..and It is easier to spot and separate the wheat from the chaff' ....That said,the various clips /dvd's and quotes from this modern world of internet has also provided me with valuable information and understanding. for those that I communicate with 'behind the scenes' I thank you immensely !


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> You must have missed the 6000 posts of actual training advice I've posted in the past 10 years. I find it interesting that Evan can come on here, basically slam hard working pro's with his condescending BS and he hasn't ran a dog in forever. *Evan doesn't want me pointing out his shaky track record, which by the way has been posted before, then he can keep his comments about actual dog trainers to himself and keep selling his video's....*
> 
> /Paul





Gun_Dog2002 said:


> *this from a guy that makes videos and doesn't run hunt tests or field trials. How's that golden of yours coming on anything?
> *
> /Paul





Gun_Dog2002 said:


> *times have changed Evan. You gonna slam guys walking to the line every week, you best know someone's going to point out you haven't ran in 30 years*
> 
> /Paul





Gotta Lotta Zoom said:


> *Don't know how this guy has any clients, seems like a real dick from what I've seen over the past few months I've been up here*!
> Tony Lattuca



This was a great thread and the philosophy is so integral to the success of a trainer and dog. A truly great learning experience for all of us, accomplished and new alike, really to bad that we have a guy pointing fingers at Evan when there's 3 fingers pointing back at him. Since you brought up the subject what's your success record. Any blue, red, yellow, or white ribbons, green maybe? Please post pics, Evan did? Get off it, if you have some value to the OP then add to it, but you are the last member of the "Gestapo" left that causes discention among the the entire RTF. I really just use RTF anymore for event results and pure comedy, and /Paul your the main actor in the comedy.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Paul
> 
> First, I think your message would have been better received if you weren't so nasty - or in your own words - a "dickhead" in conveying it. I agree with Ed and Dennis, I prefer not having to watch a trainwreck.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I'm a pretty direct person. People tend to know exactly what I'm thinking. Perhaps not good. I find many of your posts condescending. Again, perspective. Probably in person would be different as forum posts don't show a heck of a lot personality. I mentioned Toni in my previous post, last night at training she laughed and said she might post on this thread and confirm that I'm a dickhead. LOL. I found that funny actually. I also have not met Evan in person, I will say I have watched many of his video's and read the accompanying documentation. I've pretty much watched and read most of the material available over the years. I also attend as many seminars as I can. Too this day i walk away from every trial and test and note what I did well and what I could have done better handling each dog I run. I am after all human, and I don't expect to ever get it right 100%, although that is what I strive to achieve. i will say that attending Lardy's seminar and studying the philosophy has made me a much better trainer over the years despite my human imperfections and I've seen a lot of success with dogs and clients that I mostly likely would have not had if I didn't open my mind to different thinking. Evan's material if fine, but I've come to appreciate that video's regardless of who makes them do not and cannot tell you what to do with the dog in front of you. All they can do is provide a framework to guide you. No different than the hundreds of articles written about working dogs. There are too many variables involved and that to me is an impossible task for any kind of material to take credit for. A good dog person is developed over years of working with dogs and the knowledge accumulated from that is priceless. I feel the best advice I can give anyone is to get with more experienced people and keep seeking more experienced people to learn from. That means at different stages you have to move on to new people to keep learning. Myself included.

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> This was a great thread and the philosophy is so integral to the success of a trainer and dog. A truly great learning experience for all of us, accomplished and new alike, really to bad that we have a guy pointing fingers at Evan when there's 3 fingers pointing back at him. Since you brought up the subject what's your success record. Any blue, red, yellow, or white ribbons, green maybe? Please post pics, Evan did? Get off it, if you have some value to the OP then add to it, but you are the last member of the "Gestapo" left that causes discention among the the entire RTF. I really just use RTF anymore for event results and pure comedy, and /Paul your the main actor in the comedy.


I've posted my accomplishments plenty of times, better yet my clients have come on RTF and posted them for me. Your in WA, feel free to walk up to me and discuss if you like. I'm easy to find, wait till the last series, I'm typically standing there.

/Paul


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I've posted my accomplishments plenty of times, better yet my clients have come on RTF and posted them for me. Your in WA, feel free to walk up to me and discuss if you like. I'm easy to find, wait till the last series, I'm typically standing there.
> 
> /Paul


The last series of the open?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

bjoiner said:


> The last series of the open?


 Anyone can enter the first series, if that is where Jeff wants to meet, then fine. Or if he wants to meet at training grounds I'm open to that as well. 

/Paul


----------



## TonyLattuca (Jan 10, 2013)

jeff evans said:


> This was a great thread and the philosophy is so integral to the success of a trainer and dog. A truly great learning experience for all of us, accomplished and new alike, really to bad that we have a guy pointing fingers at Evan when there's 3 fingers pointing back at him. Since you brought up the subject what's your success record. Any blue, red, yellow, or white ribbons, green maybe? Please post pics, Evan did? Get off it, if you have some value to the OP then add to it, but you are the last member of the "Gestapo" left that causes discention among the the entire RTF. I really just use RTF anymore for event results and pure comedy, and /Paul your the main actor in the comedy.


I wasn't talking about Evan if you read a few post down.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Wow how did I miss this gem of a thread  So epic pros is that the topic, To me there are bottom-feeders in everything whether their game be generalized as the "top" or not, there are also a surprisingly very tiny group of people who can down-right train dogs, some who can out-right train people and some that can do both; these skill-full individuals are very few and when you find them you listen to them, regardless if their venue is considered "top" or not .

Back to original subject to Repeat or Not; when teaching you will repeat whether it's the same mark or not, if you don't repeat a dog cannot learn. When proofing you will repeat whether on the same mark or not. It would shock me if FT people did not repeat, they want THE line not just a concept, how does a dog learn THE line if he is not taught THE line and not corrected for taking Not Quite THE line. We're talking what can be a very little degree changes btw 1st and 3rd, I think I might be teaching my dog how to read THE correct line, and I'd be doing it however I could, until he could do it correctly. All on his own accord, of course, something about Handling in an FT . I know a bunch of people who run tough concepts marks as singles and go back to them as a triple (that's repeating marks). Wonder why they do that, I wonder if it has any value? I always figured it was used as they want to proof the dog on taking a taught correct line despite many distractions. These same charlatans will then go back repeat the very same marks, but change one slightly, and expect a slight change of degree, on a line a dog has already taken. Almost like they expect the dog to learn to read a correct line, and take THE correct line regardless of what might've occurred before in the same spot. It's almost like they think that FT's are ran mostly on the same properties, year after year, the same properties used for training; that such properties have very tempting ghosts, and that judges can use that in a variety of ways.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

I have to ask one simple question. How many posters on this thread personally know Paul and or Evan?


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Met Evan at his seminars twice and /Paul slept on my spare bed last week.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Way too much info Happy! I would NEVER admit /Paul slept on anything I owned.  He is known to be at times severely directionally challenged.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

*Carr based system*

What we have in the Smartworks system, is a Carr based system by a student of Rex Carr.

There are more than a few of them out there so I'll go right to the" 800#gorilla in the room" to use for a for a comparison.

When I do a comparison of the flowcharts of Smartworks and The Lardy System, also by a student of Carr'
I do not find them to be diametrically opposed, to the contrary, I find them to be* quite *similar ....

I find this similarity such, that* I consider it extremely disingenuous of those who criticize the one while singing the praises of the other.*Yes, I know there are some differences, but they are not so much so as to make one diamonds and the other coal....

A minor flaw inclusion in one and not the other, perhaps....one is a Cubic Zirconium and not a diamond at all, maybe(?????) but similar none the less, and to the untrained eye who's to know the difference, certainly not the dogs being trained!!


john

BTW As I have posted on other threads I myself have switched from a MY own Carr based systen, to a Carr hybred which includes Hillman


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

If by saying that Lardy is a "student" of Carr, because he studied Carr's teachings and considered them in implementing his approach, I think you would be correct. If you mean that Lardy spent extensive time with Carr, working with Carr, and learning his approach, I believe you are incorrect.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

john fallon said:


> .one is a Cubic Zirconium and not a diamond at all, maybe(?????) but similar none the less, and to the untrained eye who's to know the difference,
> john
> 
> BTW As I have posted on other threads I myself have switched from a MY own Carr based systen, to a Carr hybred which includes Hillman


A gemologist for one!....Similarly I've evolved into a 'Jimmy' and a 'Tam' with a hint of 'Joe'!....Not a bad thing I think?..you get the best or the worst of all?...and I do not like 9 carat set in silver,or 18 carat promoted as Rose gold!...I like an Emerald!...but even these have flaws'


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> If by saying that Lardy is a "student" of Carr, because he studied Carr's teachings and considered them in implementing his approach, I think you would be correct. If you mean that Lardy spent extensive time with Carr, working with Carr, and learning his approach, I believe you are incorrect.


Your objection is noted, and upon reflection I think you are technically correct... Be that as it may, the "de facto student" discribed in your first sentence will serve its purpose in the post equally well.......


john


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Anyone can enter the first series, if that is where Jeff wants to meet, then fine. Or if he wants to meet at training grounds I'm open to that as well.
> 
> /Paul


So by you saying you are usually around in the fourth, were you talking about the fourth series of open all age stakes? I did not understand your response to my question.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

bjoiner said:


> So by you saying you are usually around in the fourth, were you talking about the fourth series of open all age stakes? I did not understand your response to my question.


Lol. On a good day. Definitely in hrc.

/Paul


----------



## stoney (Apr 6, 2004)

Poor chris having to mediate this garbage all because Evan stated the obvious that hunt test pros are not top echelon /in no way is this demeaning to anyone
the top echelon would i presume be lardy farmer trott eckertt judy A gonia etc Only a few can be top echelon obviously/How is this disrespectful???
what a pity some people look for any opportunity to derail a thread
thank goodness that Dennis Ted and Ed can add a bit of sanity to such a pathetic and unfair tirade


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

john fallon said:


> What we have in the Smartworks system, is a Carr based system by a student of Rex Carr.
> 
> There are more than a few of them out there so I'll go right to the" 800#gorilla in the room" to use for a for a comparison.
> 
> ...


Wow. Just WOW.

This site is amaaaazing. I appreciate the viewpoints shared here. My definition of top eschelon FWIW is "Them folks is a lot better then me!" In our area, seriously, there aren't a lot of FT pros and a person wanting to make an honest living training dogs does what the market requires... which is train a lot of meat dogs and hunting companions and develop a cadre of serious amateurs and take them and sometimes their dogs as far as talent and effort can go. (Whilst paying the bills by boarding Fluffy and Mutt over the vacation season and doing obedience training on the dog that's about to cause some couple to get a divorce.)

I actually got a PhD years ago in an arcane science which basically proves I can read and understand a whole lot of stuff and compare research papers to find the data that proves or doesn't the authors' hypotheses. Then I did the bench research myself to contribute a bit to the data. Only problem is... my next project is not a 200 gram Sprague-Dawley rat... but likely a 65-ish pound BLF. So while waiting for the dog to be born... and time for it to grow a bit over the nasty winter season... I'm reading and studying everything I can find. (Sorta melted the visa card a little bit...But, hey... it's a minor expense in the grand scheme of things.)

You guys would probably laugh. I have a thumb drive that's getting filled with notes as I study both TRT and Smartworks. Part of the reason for my original post is I'm going so slowly. Had I gotten deeper into the series, I think I would have understood there are marks and then there are drills and drills are designed for repeating and perfecting.

I want to warn you all... there are many more questions on their way. Just roll your eyes and suck your teeth, laugh quietly to yourselves and get back to me if you will.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Just watch the whole thing 4-5 times straight and don't open the blinds until you're done. Then come back and ask questions. lol With all seriousness, watch the videos more than a few times. THEN as you are training, review the section that is being trained.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

One thing I would suggest for you 1tulip is to go beyond retriever training and into the learning science that's put to use in training.

Retriever programs are just that, retriever programs. As /Paul has said many times, they provide a framework for the development of a young dog. They also provide instructions on the execution of those drills/tasks. This is where it can get a little dicey. This is where the art comes in. Turns out, all dogs don't react exactly the same way to the mechanics of a given drill/exercise. That's why it's so hard to take a video and train a MH without help from experienced people. 

If you're an information glutton (I am), then there is a ton of stuff out there to study that SUPPORTS the training programs you are reviewing. I think some of it should be studied before a retriever manual is ever purchased. 

Here's a video I show to a lot of people, clients, retriever peeps and everyone else. It gives you some ideas about reward based training and how to develop a communication system with your dog. It's from a guy whose never trained a field retriever but it will really help you along if you embrace it. 

http://leerburg.com/flix/videodesc.php?id=529

Beyond that there is a ton of information on Ivan Pavlov and BF Skinner which you really should understand fully before embarking on your journey. 

So my suggestion, keep studying, both reward based and compulsion based training methods. Don't get totally hung up on retriever programs. Use them for what they are, a framework for development and suggestions for how to teach the tasks. Remember, you may get forced to innovate with your particular dog. Don't be quick to deviate from the programs but don't force yourself into a box either. 

Learn what's rewarding to dogs and how the develop the habits through training and day to day interactions with us humans. 

With the base knowledge in place, the retriever work gets a lot easier to understand and execute.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Excellent post, Darrin.

1tulip, I suggest that in your decision what to take from this thread, you give Darrin's post a lot of weight. It *is* a journey, which is why many of us who have been at it a number of years are still doing it and still discussing it.

The best bit of perspective I've read on here in a long time:



DarrinGreene said:


> So my suggestion, keep studying, both reward based and compulsion based training methods. Don't get totally hung up on retriever programs. Use them for what they are, a framework for development and suggestions for how to teach the tasks. Remember, you may get forced to innovate with your particular dog. Don't be quick to deviate from the programs but don't force yourself into a box either.


Amy Dahl


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

These last few posts prove that if you are persistent and keep reading, you will eventually find an answer. Training a retriever is most definitely a journey, much like finding some answers on RTF!


----------



## pupaloo (Jan 6, 2006)

Research is great; education is important. Something to remember-the most important part of your life with this dog is your relationship and partnership with it. So often I read these threads and they get, basically, clinical. What is the training progression, what formula do I use, how do I reward and punish, etc. Don't lose sight of the fact that your dog will have an opinion, too. You can't decide exactly what you will do until you get there. Understanding the theory is great, but you will need to be able to "read your dog" to know what wil work best. When you get this pup, let it be a pup. Don't get hung up on timetables. If you don't have a place you can walk with the pup off leash safely EVERY DAY, find one. Not a dog park-raw land somewhere. EVERY DAY, take the pup to this place, and walk with it. Don't talk, just walk. You will get to watch the pup figure out how to negotiate the terrain, learn how to use it's nose, and, most important-the pup will learn to keep track of you-where you are, what you are doing, where you are headed. It is this time that will create the future of your working relationship-this time will create a dog that is tuned into you. 

Another very important thing-as you progress through training, always watch your dog from the moment you send it until it is back at your side. The dog is out there working for you, and it will know if you are not watching and paying attention. Do your part. If you don't believe me, watch people and their dogs at a training day. Compare the dog-handler teams that work together, and the ones where the handlers are chatting with their friends while the dog is working....


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Well it took me two sessions to read through this thread. To the OP's question, resist the urge to repeat if you can simulate the same set-up tomorrow or another day. You'll find your dog likely understands better when the set-up or condition that was failed is run in another set-up. To explain, I'm thinking of the times I have the urge to repeat. It's usually when my dog has done a poor job to hold a line (maybe due to terrain, wind, water, suction, etc) and causes the dog to miss the bird. I usually just handle on that set-up, make note of the failure and "repeat" the conditions of that set-up another day, maybe the next day if conditions allow. I would usually do the same even for check-down marks if my dog drives through the fall. I just handle to the bird and complete the set-up. I make note of the failure and the dog will see a lot of check-down set-ups until the dog masters the concept, but again, I do this in succeeding training sessions, I don't usually repeat on the same set-up where the initial failure occurred.

As for training dogs effectively, I learned concepts from Lardy written and video material, from Smartworks materials, Retrievers Online materials (my go-to materials over the last 10 yrs), but began years ago with James Lamb Free's book, then Richard Wolters books, Charles Morgan on Retrievers, Tom Quinn's Working Retrievers, Duffy's Hunting Dog Know-How, Bill Tarrant's books, Retriever Puppy Training by Loveland and Rutherford, John Dahl's books, and a gem in my opinion, D.L. Walters' Training Retrievers to Handle. By far the Lardy and Smartworks materials are the most complete and if implemented correctly can result in a well trained dog (apologies to Dennis but I use his Retrievers Online material more as a chronicle from which to gain drills or technique but would find the monthly issues difficult to comprehend as a total training approach). But all of this to say, the most valuable has been the experience once armed with the knowledge imparted by the books & materials listed by actually training the dogs. And further to have been able to train with Dave Smith for several years (Lardy's #1 assistant over his most successful period when he won a number of nationals) who implements the most effective principles daily in his set-ups and how he teaches dogs. My point is that there is no substitute for standing over the dog, teaching the young puppy basic discipline, force-fetch etc, basics, transition, and advanced training concepts, problem solving when there are failures and develop a competitive dog. It took me falling short with a number of dogs over the years to understand the importance of somethings I previously found trivial - and you won't learn these things from reading but rather by doing - and not by having someone else do them for you.

And I'm sure there are other very effective & well-thought-out training systems but I mentioned only those that I have used. But again I don't think it possible to become an effective trainer by reading books. I would characterize that as knowledge but it doesn't become wisdom until applied and success obtained. And maybe more than anything else, the most importance component of effective training is a consistent program applied daily without anger or punishment.


----------



## kdeckels (Sep 12, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> One thing I would suggest for you 1tulip is to go beyond retriever training and into the learning science that's put to use in training.
> 
> Retriever programs are just that, retriever programs. As /Paul has said many times, they provide a framework for the development of a young dog. They also provide instructions on the execution of those drills/tasks. This is where it can get a little dicey. This is where the art comes in. Turns out, all dogs don't react exactly the same way to the mechanics of a given drill/exercise. That's why it's so hard to take a video and train a MH without help from experienced people.
> 
> ...


I believe you've hit on is what a lot of folks have become "closed mind" about. If Carr or Lardy (or that guy that showed up with his camera man to an HRC test with a Golden for the land marks & was AOL the rest of the weekend) don't do it, it must not work. Sometimes whats considered a "better" way is not always a "faster" way.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Granddaddy said:


> Well it took me two sessions to read through this thread. To the OP's question, resist the urge to repeat if you can simulate the same set-up tomorrow or another day. You'll find your dog likely understands better when the set-up or condition that was failed is run in another set-up. To explain, I'm thinking of the times I have the urge to repeat. It's usually when my dog has done a poor job to hold a line (maybe due to terrain, wind, water, suction, etc) and causes the dog to miss the bird. I usually just handle on that set-up, make note of the failure and "repeat" the conditions of that set-up another day, maybe the next day if conditions allow. I would usually do the same even for check-down marks if my dog drives through the fall. I just handle to the bird and complete the set-up. I make note of the failure and the dog will see a lot of check-down set-ups until the dog masters the concept, but again, I do this in succeeding training sessions, I don't usually repeat on the same set-up where the initial failure occurred.
> 
> As for training dogs effectively, I learned concepts from Lardy written and video material, from Smartworks materials, Retrievers Online materials (my go-to materials over the last 10 yrs), but began years ago with James Lamb Free's book, then Richard Wolters books, Charles Morgan on Retrievers, Tom Quinn's Working Retrievers, Duffy's Hunting Dog Know-How, Bill Tarrant's books, Retriever Puppy Training by Loveland and Rutherford, John Dahl's books, and a gem in my opinion, D.L. Walters' Training Retrievers to Handle. By far the Lardy and Smartworks materials are the most complete and if implemented correctly can result in a well trained dog (apologies to Dennis but I use his Retrievers Online material more as a chronicle from which to gain drills or technique but would find the monthly issues difficult to comprehend as a total training approach). But all of this to say, the most valuable has been the experience once armed with the knowledge imparted by the books & materials listed by actually training the dogs. And further to have been able to train with Dave Smith for several years (Lardy's #1 assistant over his most successful period when he won a number of nationals) who implements the most effective principles daily in his set-ups and how he teaches dogs. My point is that there is no substitute for standing over the dog, teaching the young puppy basic discipline, force-fetch etc, basics, transition, and advanced training concepts, problem solving when there are failures and develop a competitive dog. It took me falling short with a number of dogs over the years to understand the importance of somethings I previously found trivial - and you won't learn these things from reading but rather by doing - and not by having someone else do them for you.
> 
> And I'm sure there are other very effective & well-thought-out training systems but I mentioned only those that I have used. But again I don't think it possible to become an effective trainer by reading books. I would characterize that as knowledge but it doesn't become wisdom until applied and success obtained. And maybe more than anything else, the most importance component of effective training is a consistent program applied daily without anger or punishment.


Really good post. Sends out a clear message to become a balanced trainer. Just reading books will not make you the "trainer" one is hoping for. One has to be prepared to learn from other experiences but stick to a program. JMO Thanks for this post.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

kdeckels said:


> Sometimes whats considered a "better" way is not always a "faster" way.


Often that is the case. Fast and Better are not the same things. Effective, user friendly, adaptable; to me, that's better.

Evan


----------



## Lpgar (Mar 31, 2005)

Probably one of the best Threads in ages here....thanks to all who have contributed.

Ted....The ability of a Professional to train a dog and transfer that training and information on how it was obtained to the dogs owner and have success at any game is the highest degree of skill I can think of. I hope your chosen trainer has the same success with Me and my young pup as She has had with you and yours. 

Dennis.... Contribute often and more. Your information is invalueble to Us who do sit on the sidelines and try to take it in. This internet thingy is a very confusing thingy indeed.

Evan..... All information given is appreciated...Keep it up. Everyone has to filter everything all of the time and find how they may or may not use information.

Ed....Glad your finding the Canadian way of thinking worth studing *L*

My quote on repeating marks come from Danny Farmer....... He has had the pleasure of standing beside more National Champs than most....and every one of those dogs has repeated a Mark from time to time.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

john fallon said:


> What we have in the Smartworks system, is a Carr based system by a student of Rex Carr.
> 
> There are more than a few of them out there so I'll go right to the" 800#gorilla in the room" to use for a for a comparison.
> When I do a comparison of the flowcharts of Smartworks and The Lardy System, also by a student of Carr'
> ...


*
John's post might be guilty of spreading a myth about dog training programs.*

It is a myth that just because the steps in a program are the same, that the implementation and philosophy as well as the principles of training are the same. This is important to note because the steps are not nearly as important as how you teach them. To me, these programs are NOT the same.

Carr's Basics steps are Obedience, Force fetch, Collar conditioning, Pile Work, Double-T and Swim-by. You will find these same basic steps in Lardy's material (TRT) and in Graham (Smartworks). If you look at Hillmans Land and Water fundamentals, lo and behold the same steps. But, if you have studied them as much as I have, you will find great differences in many details. Those details range from specific sequences, to amount of repetition, to amount of praise and correction and use of the e-collar and much more. Each have specific procedures and additional steps that the others don't. 

There is also huge variation in the concurrent field work for marking and then later for blinds. Beyond basics, de-cheating, factor fighting and the sequencing to teach blinds is different.

Graham learned much directly from Carr. But, he has evolved and modified both from his own discoveries and that of others. I see some things in later Graham that were not there until Lardy had made public. Coincidence? Who knows but who cares?

Lardy did not learn directly from Carr. He did start out however with a disciple of Carr (Kappes). In the Kappes/Curtis videos you will find the exact same set of steps. Lardy visited with Carr briefly in the 90's as did I shortly before. We both came home with and adopted some of the same drills, most notably Bird Boy Blinds and Tune-up Drills. Lardy changed both a bit and even their usuage and so did I. Graham tends to stick to the original. 

Lardy was the first in concert with Andy Attar to really lay out the sequence of the parallel yard and field work from Basics though Transition to Advanced. There has been a lot of copying of that since but it remains the hard core basis for a huge number of field trial trainers today. Far fewer field trial trainers use Smartworks but a very significant number of hunt test people do. One could be successful using either but there is no question that Mike can "Walk the Talk" and thus his subtleties are worth serious study for field trailers.

Mr. Hillmann has also been in a state of constant evolution (as have many of the top trainers). For many years Bill put in a lot of effort visiting and studying all the top trainers. And his methods show his blend of their methods. He learned what not to do as much as what to do. As a specialist in young dogs and marking he developed fresh angles with the youngsters and his puppy work is most notable. Few of the entrenched trainers are jumping off their own ship however. Some are resisting in fact. As far as I can tell, I was the first one to follow Hillmann's puppy methods (from his DVD) through to title a field trial dog. That dog was recently a top Finalist at the CDN National Amateur as a 4 yr. old. No, he can't heel either at a trial - so nothing is perfect! Again, not the steps but the implementation and maintenance. I am now on my 3rd pup using those methods. I love it. I also use some of Bill's techniques and drills for fundamentals but day in and day out I fall into the Lardy camp in my training procedures and principles. Of course, I do some things differently as described in my training Retrievers Alone DVD and Retrievers ONLINE. And Mike true to his form has adopted and used some of those things now.

*My point here is that these programs are really only similar when condensed into a set of steps.* Beyond that there are many differences. For me some of them are very significant. Each program has some specials gems and each may have some special question marks. Each person also teaches differently.

When we get to the topic of teaching and repeating marks which started this whole thread, you will find some very different philosophies. On a day-to-day basis if you trained with Lardy, Graham and Hillmann (and the late Carr), you would find some very similar things. But on many other days I guarantee you would find one of them doing things that the others would never (well hardly ever!) do!. Now, let's add in Farmer, Gonia, Rorem, Eckett, Pleasant, Arthurs, Totten, Sargenti, Gunzer, 4-5 Canadian Pros who all have their own twists and your rules might be like a jumbled bowl of spaghetti. Dare we add in the top Amateurs?

*So please do not tell me that all these programs are the same. They are not. But, all these trainers are persistent and consistent, able to read their dogs and realize what needs to be done to solve problems.*

*It is rarely so simple as repeat or not!*

Cheers


Dennis


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Dennis, I hope you put that post in "Retrievers Online." 

Your paying customers deserve that bit of wisdom.

Ya done good.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Howard N said:


> Dennis, I hope you put that post in "Retrievers Online."
> 
> Your paying customers deserve that bit of wisdom.
> 
> Ya done good.


Ditto Good post.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Great post, Dennis. 
Lardy says..."It's the overall approach that is most important.'
I think, many do not understand..just how important that statement is.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> My point here is that these programs are really only similar when condensed into a set of steps. Beyond that there are many differences. For me some of them are very significant. Each program has some specials gems and each may have some special question marks. Each person also teaches differently.
> 
> *When we get to the topic of teaching and repeating marks which started this whole thread, you will find some very different philosophies. On a day-to-day basis if you trained with Lardy, Graham and Hillmann (and the late Carr), you would find some very similar things.* But on many other days I guarantee you would find one of them doing things that the others would never (well hardly ever!) do!. Now, let's add in Farmer, Gonia, Rorem, Eckett, Pleasant, Arthurs, Totten, Sargenti, Gunzer, 4-5 Canadian Pros who all have their own twists and your rules might be like a jumbled bowl of spaghetti. Dare we add in the top Amateurs?
> 
> ...


A course in cognative reading should be in one's imediate future if they think that with this post, 



> What we have in the Smartworks system, is a Carr based system by a student of Rex Carr.
> 
> There are more than a few of them out there so I'll go right to the" 800#gorilla in the room" to use for a for a comparison.
> When I do a comparison of the *flowcharts *of Smartworks and The Lardy System, also by a student of Carr'
> ...


I, in my snippet, said anything too far afield from the applicapable conclusions drawn within in your post's ,at times disingenuous, wallowing.

john


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

john fallon said:


> A course in cognative reading should be in one's imediate future if they think that with this post,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that you were not that far off, but Dennis directs his first sentence to you with "maybe", and then expands (my take on it) the rest of his excellent write up toward others who are critical of one over the other. I know from having taken offence from certain posters who replied to some of my past post, that it is easy to get tunnel vision and focus on a perceived insult rather than get the larger point a poster is making, I think that you may have done that with Dennis. My take on it is that was one of the best post I've ever read on RTF and Dennis certainly wasn't disingenuous or wallowing.

I waited a day to post a reply because I'm tired of getting into unwinnable debates with you, but since nobody else spoke up I thought somebody ought to say something in support of Dennis.

John


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> A course in cognative reading should be in one's imediate future


Is cognitive in the immediate future?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> *I agree that you were not that far off*, but Dennis directs his first sentence to you with "maybe", and then expands (my take on it) the rest of his excellent write up toward others who are critical of one over the other. I know from having taken offence from certain posters who replied to some of my past post, that it is easy to get tunnel vision and focus on a perceived insult rather than get the larger point a poster is making, I think that you may have done that with Dennis. My take on it is that was one of the best post I've ever read on RTF and Dennis certainly wasn't disingenuous or wallowing.
> 
> I waited a day to post a reply because *I'm tired of getting into unwinnable debates with you*, but since nobody else spoke up I thought somebody ought to say something in support of Dennis.
> 
> John


So, John rather than him just posting up his thoughts on the matter, neither in rebuttal to or ampilification of my post, he coppied my post, apparently inferring that I as the posts author, might be guilty of spreading a myth about dog training programs. ..... Then in support of this claim, posted a narrative ostensibly proving his point.....when in fact, as you yourself recognised in the opening sentence of your post, he did no such thing. So yes John, you are correct, I was pissed.

As to the writing itself, I think that in general it was good stuff, though perhaps a little too long, and that *some* of the conclusions he drew, in some cases were just a *tad* skewed , but so what, it's his opinion ! In spite of that his posts are generally interesting reads .

As far as your debating skills, keep working on them:razz:


john


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Has anyone ever won an argument with John. I love him, but I've never seen it n 10 years of posting. He's too cagy to get into details...

/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> I waited a day to post a reply because I'm tired of getting into unwinnable debates with you, but since nobody else spoke up I thought somebody ought to say something in support of Dennis.
> 
> John


John

Repeat after me "I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls."


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Ted Shih said:


> John
> 
> Repeat after me "I will not feed the trolls. I will not feed the trolls."


That is not fair....not fair at all. I am most fortunate to have an ole' man who knew the game, yet understand what was going on in the dog games and yet kept civil about it whether he like it or not....I am starting to believe that generation is lost. Too bad.....


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Has anyone ever won an argument with John. I love him, but I've never seen it n 10 years of posting. He's too cagy to get into details...
> 
> /Paul


NOPE ....its best to tell him to P!ss off, and go about your Mary way ,cause he will prevail in every argument ...just like a good woman. ...hmmm... good ....person..... John.

I kinda like you 2 Johnny,Jim.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

shawninthesticks said:


> NOPE ....its best to tell him to P!ss off, and go about your Mary way ,cause he will prevail in every argument ...just like a good woman. ...hmmm... good ....person..... John.
> 
> I kinda like you 2 Johnny,Jim.


Thanks man... much appreciate.......


----------

