# "Elimination Tests"



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

The discussion on the event board concerning the North Dakota Trial highlights a debate I have been hearing more and more often with larger field trials. 

On the one side, there are people who take a position like Kim Johnston’s (suprdogs). As I understand the position, it goes something like this:
•	When a test results in over (pick a number) - but for purposes of discussion, let’s say 75% - the dogs being dropped in the first series land marks, the test is simply too hard
•	There is simply no reason to establish this sort of “elimination test”
•	Judges do so because they are unwilling to judge the dogs - that is, decide among the dogs that pick up all the birds - which dogs deserve to return

On the other side, there are people who take a position like Ed Aycock. As I understand that position, it goes something like this:
•	With today’s bigger fields, limited grounds, and better dogs, the judges must often set up very difficult tests in order to ensure separation and timely completion of the test
•	Contestants would prefer to be fairly eliminated over being “pencil whipped”

I recognize that I have grossly simplified both positions. But, advocates of either are welcome to elaborate further

Here is my question:

Assuming a large trial (90+ Open, 70+ Am), would you prefer to run under a judge that subscribes to position 1 (Kim position) or position 2 (Ed position)?

And why?


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

I have run a 90 dog Amateur under Kim Johnston and won it. 

I don't think I have ever run a large AA stake under Ed (and I know I have not won it!).

In the large Amateur Kim had a hard first series, but not vicious. She carried around 35 or 40 to the land blind. Her blinds were both short, and both got answers. We were done with the last series about 4pm. I think she had around 14 back to the last series.

I have dogs that run good blinds. So I would rather have more dogs carried and then beat them on the blinds to get to the last series.

Judges that set up almost ridicuously hard tests with larger fields that cut a lot of dogs sometimes then go light on the blinds. Yes, marking is of utmost importance, but dont forget about the blinds. Judges who consider them almost "pass fail" are not my favorite judges.

I don't like trials where you pencil whip dogs. But if the marks AND blinds are hard but fair, it will take care of itself no matter how big the field.

The challenge in the Open is to get answers with Rorem, Farmer and Eckett running blinds. It can be done, but you better have one hell of a blind.

Like it or not, this is probably an evolution of the game, with extremely hard judging the result of increasingly good dogs and dog trainers.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2007)

Carify one thing Ted, I do not believe in pencil whipping either. That is as much a cop-out as an excessive test. One thing my father told me a long time ago, never penalize the dogs for your mistakes.

I try to set a test that "relative to the field" I will get answers. That includes handlers and dogs. I will find out who can mark and who can point a dog.
There is always a percentage of dogs that are paying their dues and probably wont get thru the marks. Then there is always a percentage that will get the marks clean and then there are those that are going to be back but will need to catch up.
If you start hard (NOT next to impossible) in your first series, then increase the diffficulty in each follow series, you will get your best dog. And this takes work. It takes a judge committed to his/her obligation to the club, entrants and the sport for that weekend. It takes proper use of setup day.
I am not perfect by any means and I have made mistakes. I lost 6 of 12 starters in a derby first series once. I thought we had set a good test but it ended up being too much. I found out after the fact that a few of those dogs had been entered to bring the entry up. I told my co-judge we were not going to lose anymore dogs unless they just really had to be bad.
We came back with 4 more tests, yes a 5 series derby and only lost one more dog. It went back to the go bird. My winner had 8 of 10 clean birds, 2nd had 7 of 10 etc... 
It can be done but it takes work.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

What is a timely completion of the test ? 

Should the Clubs that *elect *to host these events or the Judges that *accept* these assignments, realistically expect not to have to use all available daylight on the first day(s), or to be finished before "LATE" Sunday ?

Placements under the headlights regards.

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John

Only you would see fit to consider the option of continuing the Field Trial on Monday.

Most people need to return to work on Monday.

Consequently, as for me, and everyone else I know in the sport, timely completion means - absent act of god (flood, lightning, tornado) - before it gets dark on Sunday.

I have been around when placements are done in the dark - and it is not fun.

Ted


----------



## Brad B (Apr 29, 2004)

I'd have to side with positon two. Pencils hurt !!

I'd always much rather put myself out of the running rather than have the judges do it on paper.


----------



## Anthony Heath (Jan 3, 2003)

While I'd prefer that any given test not be at either extreme, if I had to choose I'd take a very hard, fair test over a pencil whipping. That is not to say that Kim is proposing the PW type test, I think she is for the middle ground. I like most I am sure have experienced both, and nothing has ever chaffed me more than getting dropped in the 1st series of an open when my dog never even made a loop.


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

I am not going to criticise any judge that is sit through a hundred+ dog open. And I have been a co-judge with one of these guys and he was very fair and always on the dogs side.

I think there is room in this game for vaired options of judging big trials, medium trials and small trials. Maybe 17 successful jobs after 20 hours of running dogs seems a bit harsh - but it is a tough job with massive time constrains. 

It was obviously an extremely difficult test and the results were as expected - those that did it were happy and though it was great. Those that were not there - have problems with it. 

What amazed me more was that the test held up for that length of time. That is really really hard to obtain. 

As for a more do-able test being a Pencil Whipping test - I have issues with that:

AKC calls you a JUDGE - and that is what you should be able to do - judge MARKs - not just fold pickups. If you can't do this - you have no buisness judging. 

BTW - My dog ran this test - I have no complaints.


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

I'd hate to be dropped for this reason:

I did not do the last mark,
would not, 
could not,
It was dark!

Dr. Zeus regards


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Richard Halstead said:


> I'd hate to be dropped for this reason:
> 
> I did not do the last mark,
> would not,
> ...



Come on Richard you saw the muzzle blast, Just like real duck hunting :roll:


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

i prefer the tough test.

what i REAALLLYYY don't like is tests where a block of dogs are subject to poor light conditions while the rest of the field is not.

with 100 dogs, that means running north or northwest, which is not always possible, i know.

the most dogs i ever judged in 1 day was 78 (a nahra land mark/blind series). i agree it is difficult to set up a test that will go all day and hold up.-paul


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

I much prefer a representative 1st that will get some answers but not designed with such extreme difficulty that only the lucky survive it. If the idea is to reward the best marking dogs, then the goal should be for the best marking dogs to be successful in not only the 1st series but also the 4th series (not always an easy thing to do). This doesn't mean good marking dogs get a pass on the blinds, dogs have to run good blinds too but I'm in favor of getting the best marking dogs to the 4th (demonstrated by the work in series 1-3). I guess this puts me in Kim Jonhson's camp.

Ironically I see the extreme test (relative to the level of the entered field) more often in the minor stakes with relatively large fields when the judges feel a need to get through the stake in one day. In several such cases I have run a more difficult 1st series Q than an Am or open. In one case, I can rememeber even running a more difficult 1st series derby that the AA stakes first series - now that really is ridiculous.

But after all the critique, the judges judge and the handlers have to deal with whatever the set-up - and all the dogs have to do the same work.

I also think there is much valuable time lost between series in the time some take to get the next series set-up started to the extreme in some cases where it forces unrealistic difficulty in subsequent series. Efficiency in the stake process would certainly help regardless of the approach.


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

I prefer to run a good marking over a luck or elimination test. 

4 day trial is not an option for me , Im and Amateur with a business and a family and I train my own dogs. 

3 things i feel should be considered to make field trials better.

1) Required restricted stakes- I don't think it should be an option. Some clubs only care about the money with little consideration for test quality and the pressure to finish is put on the judges. 

2) Required seminars- There are a lot of good people judging who have tons of points but who really don't understand setting up and judging marks and blinds.

3) Incorporate Field Trial Judging Manual A into the rules and regulations read it understand it and be tested on it. 
Receive a licence to judge by passing the test. 

IMO, Passing a short open book test should NOT make you a judge of this sport which i put my heart, soul, time and money into.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

paul young said:


> i prefer the tough test.


Yeah, me too

as a judge you don't always know if the test will be easier or harder than you anticipated until you have run a number of dogs

I would be much more inclined to scrap a test that is too easy than one that is too hard

As I have stated previously you can call them back if they are bad but you can't drop them if they are good

a dog is evaluated relative to the other dog's work, everyone has the option of handling and when the test is very difficult handles will inevitably be called back

No Four Day Open Regards 8)


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

As long as the test is fair, i.e. dogs can see the birds and no tricks, then I am OK with a very tough first series with large tests. What I hate to see are the tests that are poorly set up, where you usually only see older dogs get through or you see a string of dogs get through when the conditions are just right.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Nobody has commented about elimination blinds. A popular blind that I hate is a "keyhole" blind. Dog needs to thread the needle at some point. I'm OK with such a blind as long as it does not overly penalize a speedy dog.

Tight or otherwise tough marks are OK with me, but, blinds should be designed with enough room for a really fast dog to be able to stop and be given a cast without flying "out of bounds" in a blink and being eliminated even though it was a pleasing blind to watch up until the dog bounces off the wrong side of the uprights.


John


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John

I agree with you on elimination blinds and wrote a letter to the RFTN about that subject. but for now let's pass on that.

Obviously, I have overstated both positions.

The ideal position would be to have a test where the call backs were somewhat less drastic. However, like Ed, I think it is difficult to gauge in advance what % of dogs will get the birds. Also, like Ed, I would be more likely to scrap a test where the dogs start well, than the reverse.

I think it is mistake to conclude that all tests where the call backs are small as luck tests. Some tests are more than reasonable and the dogs for one reason or another don't get the birds.

Last year at South Jersey, Kevin Scovel and I had a wide open triple, two retired, no mark longer than 300 yards, birds very visible. I think we started with around 90 and called back around 20. If you graded our test simply on numbers, we would have failed. But, I thought it was a good test then and still think it was a good test

Ted


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Why are so affraid to be judged? With all the responses indicating that they would rather have the dogs drop themselves rather than a judge, judge the quality of their work it has me thinking.

Is it because:

1) They don't have faith in the quality of the judges to accurately and fairly judge their dogs?

2) The politics of the game? The more dogs that are playing at the end make it more likely that one of them is a judges training buddy, etc? 

3) Something I haven't thought of? :roll:


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Sheriff

I find that like Goldilocks, it is hard to find porridge that is just right.

The porridge is either too hot (difficult) or too cold (light)
It rarely is just right.

If the test is too light, you get dropped because

- your dog backsides a gun
- your dog makes two loops around the bird
- your dog runs wide and winds the bird

The easier the test, the more likely judges are to make their decisions based upon how good your lines are

The easier the test, the more likely that politics will govern call backs and placements

The easier the test, the more luck plays into dog performance

I prefer judges who set up ball busters


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Tulsa Slim said:


> I prefer to run a good marking over a luck or elimination test.
> 
> 4 day trial is not an option for me , Im and Amateur with a business
> 
> ...


I agree!

Maybe a new Special Restricted Open stakes to the current menu of options. Require that the dog has placed in an All Age stakes the current year or the previous year. This SRO Stakes could be used at obvious trials ie. North Dakota, Sioux Valley, several MN trials, all August, So. La, in March. Maybe a few others.

The question is, how much(percentage) does a Restricted reduce what was a Special stake?


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Sheriff
> 
> I find that like Goldilocks, it is hard to find porridge that is just right.
> 
> ...


But are these ball busters in the eyes of the "dogs" or in the eyes of the "handlers". What might seem like a ball buster to us might seem like a trick "multiple choice" question to the dog.

For example: do you feal like it is because of the "test" or the "dogs" that the dogs inconsistantly win/place/finish? Are these dogs really this "spotty"? Or have we designed these test to favor luck more than skill?


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Sorry about the double post.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Mr Booty said:


> This SRO Stakes could be used at obvious trials ie. North Dakota, Sioux Valley, several MN trials, all August, So. La, in March. Maybe a few others.


I think we have 83 in the open this weekend at SVRC. Last year it was right around 90 - Mark isn't coming this year. :wink:

Wonder if my shoulder will be sore after shooting 83 flyers on Friday regards,

Dave


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Buzz said:


> I think we have 83 in the open this weekend at SVRC. Last year it was right around 90 - Mark isn't coming this year. :wink:
> 
> Wonder if my shoulder will be sore after shooting 83 flyers on Friday regards,
> 
> Dave


Those 7 are on their way to Illinois. 8) 

I've shot over 90 flyers at an Open and if I had to do it again, I'd shoot my Rem1100 20ga.!!!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I have run my share of trick question tests. But, I have also run a fair share of ball busters where there were no tricks, just tough birds. I have heard from a number of people who ran the North Dakota trial that sparked so much controversy. Those people uniformly thought that the birds were tough, but fair.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

sheriff said:


> For example: do you feal like it is because of the "test" or the "dogs" that the dogs inconsistantly win/place/finish? Are these dogs really this "spotty"? Or have we designed these test to favor luck more than skill?


I don't know what you are trying to say here.

Are you talking about dogs that don't place finish or place consistently?
Are you talking about tests where the dogs don't do well?

Even the very best dogs run by the very best handlers don't finish and/or place that regularly.

How many tests have you seen, run, or judged in the past year?

Ted


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Even the very best dogs run by the very best handlers don't finish and/or place that regularly.
> 
> How many tests have you seen, run, or judged in the past year?
> 
> Ted


Ted, the point that I was trying to make is exactly what you said in the above. I have always looked at the vital stats in FTN and scratched my head. How come, even the great dogs, are so inconsistant? Is it that the dogs have this many bad days. Or is it that the tests are such that you need a little "luck" (maybe alot) to win? I just have a hard time believing that a dog that can go ten series without a handle at the national could fail to finish four series at a local FT if the judges new how to accurately set up a hard (ball buster) test. How come some of the dogs that consistantly finish the national (2 or 3 years in a row) don't at least JAM the majority of the local events? How come JAMS or placements are so rare among even the greats? Is it really the dogs that are inconsistant? Or is it the Judges?

I am relatively new to this. But have been around enough of these things to have watched you and many others with some nice dogs. I am not at your level yet. But I do have a good idea of the amount of time and dedication that you must have given to the sport. I haven't stepped up to the open or ams yet. But have run/finished some (@10) derbies and quals. Lots of HT's.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

I prefer the good tough elimination test. My ideal test is having a good idea if I'm in or not without waiting for callbacks. Everybody cann't be back. There are real mechanical considerations. Do you want callbacks based on time or dog work? The elimination test allows judges to use their books rather than their watches. 
IMHO too much test is better than too little for both judges and handlers, In 2 trails this past I've was dropped in the first series. At one I had an okay job but not good enough and I waited 6 hours to be told I'm dropped. All the handlers were questioning what /who was coming back. The judges even joked: if there was an over/under on the #of callbacks? The other was a hell of a tough test 83 starts with only 23 back, but very few of us needed callbacks to let us know to go home. I left the elimination in a better mood because it was just a big tough test that I failed.



Mr Booty said:


> I agree!
> 
> Maybe a new Special Restricted Open stakes to the current menu of options.


I disagree!
The last thing we need is another contrived category to control entries. IMHO you need rules with #s to control #s.

Tim


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

sheriff said:


> I have always looked at the vital stats in FTN and scratched my head. How come, even the great dogs, are so inconsistant? Is it that the dogs have this many bad days. Or is it that the tests are such that you need a little "luck" (maybe alot) to win?


It seems to me that you are leaving the competition out of your calculations. Most of the dogs running Open are pretty good and many are capable of winning or placing on a good day. The more competitive the field the more variability you will see in who wins or places each week. It seems to me that a well-designed trial pushes dogs and handlers to their limits, which means that even the best will fail many times.


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

YardleyLabs said:


> sheriff said:
> 
> 
> > I have always looked at the vital stats in FTN and scratched my head. How come, even the great dogs, are so inconsistant? Is it that the dogs have this many bad days. Or is it that the tests are such that you need a little "luck" (maybe alot) to win?
> ...


I know what your saying. But I don't agree.

Why do we have 10 series at both national? Is it because we are looking to get the tests that much harder. I don't think so. I think it is because they are looking to put great tests together so they can accurately JUDGE the dogs. I wonder :?: if there is more consistancy on certain dogs finishing the national than the same dog finishing a local trial? If the former is true than one would have to assume that the "tests" are what is inconsistant from trial to trial. Not the dogs.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

First, let’s look at the weekend trial.

Many things play into “inconsistency” in the Open. Typically, it is not favorable to run early in a big Open. The wind is in the judges’ favor. There is little scent down - both bird and dog (and dog scent can be a more powerful influence than bird scent). The handlers have not had a chance to read the test to decide their strategy. 

Similarly, in a big Open it is typically disadvantageous to run late. There can be too much scent out there. 

So, if you are very early or very late, the odds are stacked against you.

Depending on when you run, the wind may be blowing in your favor (giving away a key bird) or blowing in the judges’ favor (downwind) or dead (worst of all for dog and handler).

Depending on when you run, the throwers and birds may be well or poorly lit.

Depending on when you run, the live gunners may be good or poor shots.

And we are only talking about the first series.

All of these factors - and more - introduce variations into the test and to my mind, explain the “inconsistency” of the dogs.

In the Amateur, if you look at the top dogs, you will see more consistency. The tests are easier. The competition is lighter (there are no big dog truck pros with 20+ dogs). And a good handler can cover for the mistakes of his/her dog. In the last series of the Amateur, you will typically see the same dogs and handlers in the fourth series, with a new comer sprinkled in here and there. In the last series of an Open, you will typically see the same handlers (typically the big truck pros), but often with different dogs.

Still, all in all, if you really pored over the RFTN Feb/March Issue, and looked at the “top” dogs, you would find a superior finishing and placing record than the other dogs (and remember the RFTN does not tabulate results for dogs who do not place in a year). So the top dogs are consistent. But their finishing ratio might only be 20% and their placing ratio 10%. It sounds poor, and maybe it is in the abstract ... but not in comparison to other dogs.

So in this case, perhaps the numbers lie or mislead

Or require further inquiry to understand

Ted


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2007)

I agree with a very hard test but what I am trying to get across to you is that there is a difference between very difficult and excessive.
There is more luck involved with an excessive test than a good hard test set within reason relative to dogs today. Of course the pros liked the NDRC test, the 2 mentioned to me recvd the 4 placements and we all like to see if we have that "SUPER" dog. And the judges are within their backyard. Never critisize your neighbor, you might need him someday and nobody is more PC than a Pro dogtrainer.
Maybe someday dogs will be good enough to warrant a big ball buster test such as what I hearing about but right now, when only a very small precentage can get thru that FIRST series, it is excessive. You are all forgetting, this is the FIRST series of FOUR.
How can you properly judge dogs if you get all your answers in the FIRST series? What comes next? Does the best dog overall win ???? No, the best LAND MARKER WITH THE MOST LUCK WINS.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Sheriff

Nationals are completely different beasts than weekend trials.

First, you have the best judges in the country ... and you have three of them.
Second, you have the best grounds in the country.
Third, you have seven days - not two or three to find a winner.
Fourth, in a weekend trial, one good ding and your out. At the National, you typically get two dings before they drop you.

In addition, a poor water blind on the weekend ... and you are gone.
At a National, a poor water blind ... and sometimes a failure ... will not result in you getting dropped.
At a weekend trial - depending on the judges - a blind may make the difference between First Place and a JAM. It is unlikely to do so at a National.

At the National, they run 10 series, not 4 series. Over the course of those ten series, the breaks tend to even out (but, they still exist - especially with flyer falls)

In addition, because the trials are so heavily watched, I think politics - although always a factor - are reduced.

Consequently, I think it is fruitless to try and make meaningful comparisons of weekend trials and Nationals.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Kim

I talked to people who did not win, place or finish and they reached the same conclusion.

I understand your view point, but disagree with it.

Some share it, others do not.

And each of us will be able to implement our own position when we judge.

As a competitor ... and as a judge ... I prefer the ball buster.

Ted


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2007)

I prefer to win place or show because my dog is good, not because he was lucky.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2007)

And I would not be so passionate about this if I did not see that it can be done. I love big trials, I do better at the big entry trial than a small entry statistically so this has nothing to do with my success or failure. It is about people in this sport doing their best, giving their all and not copping out because it might get to be work. Its about judging completely, 4 series as was intended, not laying it all out in one.I dont think we would be having this discussion if this were a minor stake. Why should an open or amateur get less consideration?
If you are a pro with 20 dogs, the harder the test the better because the probability is that you will have one dog that can do it.
I run 3 open dogs and I look at it that way. But that is not what this sport is suppose to be about. It is not about the one dog that can do the impossible. It is which dogs are the best for the weekend. The best dogs should be able to go up against 4 increasingly difficult tests, the best rising to the top.
Was NDRC won on the water or in the FIRST series? I would be interested to know.


----------



## 2dogs (Oct 10, 2005)

Seems like some of the problem is the size that trials have become. I do not care to get pencil whipped either, but it gets rather discouraging as a handler and boring as a watcher to see dog after dog fail test and only a small number carried on to the second series. I know our club has attempted to get a better date (we tend to have very hot trials) but have not been able to in the past due to the mileage restraints and falling on some other club's dates. Why not open it up, more trials to pick from means less dogs at each trial. Sure I understand the clubs would make less money but the dogs, handlers and judges might have a lot better weekend.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Tulsa Slim said:


> 2) Required seminars- There are a lot of good people judging who have tons of points but who really don't understand setting up and judging marks and blinds.
> 
> 3) Incorporate Field Trial Judging Manual A into the rules and regulations read it understand it and be tested on it.
> Receive a licence to judge by passing the test.
> ...


#2 is the spot on….I can’t even begin to guess how many 8 pointed judges there are that only know which end of the dog picks up a bird because their pro told them. These people are the ones that set up quads at 90-100 dog Opens...test take 15-20 minutes per dog then end the trial with some chicken crap water marks so at least four or five dogs get through it...then they proclaim "we got out answers"....stupid SOBs don't even understand the question but they got answers.....

Biggest disgrace to the sport I have ever seen was a guy taking the open book test at a trial brew fest while everyone was shouting out the answers. 

There is a reason the sport is not drawing and keeping new blood.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

suprdogs said:


> I prefer to win place or show because my dog is good, not because he was lucky.


Kim

I disagree with your assumption that the winner of a big trial where there is a big cut in the first series is lucky

I also disagree with your assumption that two judges can gauge their test sufficiently in advance to make the types of cut downs that you think are not only probable, but possible.

You are not going to dissuade me that I am wrong.

So why don't we simply agree to disagree?

Your saying what you have already said several times over is not going to change my mind.

Ted


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2007)

> I also disagree with your assumption that two judges can gauge their test sufficiently in advance to make the types of cut downs that you think are not only probable, but possible.



i suppose if the judges in question have dogs trained by pros and do not participate in any part of such training, i guess you are correct. they would not know bird placement or terrain, why it has its effect on the dogs. they would not know natural tendencies of dogs and what it takes to get them thru these tendencies.
they would only know what they see at the pros place, training setups and see what "works" to "get" dogs.

however i believe anyone that has had some part of training their own dog will know when they see a good mark and the degree of difficulty it can bring.
or maybe i just give amateur trainers too much credit, nah, i think maybe the amateur trainers i have been around just know.

i tend to be fairly confident in the tests i set and the results i will get,
i will guess that others are not and need that big first series to make sure they stay on top of the pack.

i can agree to disagree


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> i tend to be fairly confident in the tests i set and the results i will get, i will guess that others are not and need that big first series to make sure they stay on top of the pack.


As a judge, have you ever laid an egg with a test?

kg


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2007)

have i made mistakes with tests? yup.
amateur at k falls. it was too much, we scrapped it. set a more appropriate test and worked out just fine. 
and when is was too light, amateur at sewrc, we ate it and made it up in the following series.
all worked out in the end and i didnt even read about it on the internet.


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

> *Tim West*
> We were done with the last series about 4pm. I think she had around 14 back to the last series.


Awww dang! I couldn't even imaging being done that early! Up here when we get out of state judges, a field of 30 can run until 10:00 or later. I have see Howard as last dog to run, go to the line sometime after 10:00. The reason for this (I find quite irritating since alot of times I am one of the workers) is that the judges think that since we have no night time, that they can set up long drawn out tests and continue bringing dogs back...

Kim was supposed to come up here this summer, but was unable to. I am wondering with 30 dogs, if we would have been done in time to go fishing!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

suprdogs said:


> have i made mistakes with tests? yup.
> amateur at k falls. it was too much, we scrapped it. set a more appropriate test and worked out just fine.
> and when is was too light, amateur at sewrc, we ate it and made it up in the following series.
> all worked out in the end and i didnt even read about it on the internet.


What were the entry numbers at those tests?

kg


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

With the number of entries in the AM in our area I don't see it possible to scrap the first series. To many dogs not enough grounds, help or daylight . You have to be a judge if it was to hard then call back handles and live with it. If to easy than you may choose to carry or god forbid judge the dogs against the field. If the dogs work is marginal and will not place than you are doing nobody any favors by carrying them to the next series. Don't make me spend another night in a hotel to get dropped on a 4 whistle land blind. If you are good enough to set up a test and know you will drop 40 of the 75 dogs than you should be writing books and giving seminars for money and quit your day job.


On another note I don't think the lack of so called new blood in the sport is due to getting dropped in the 1st series of the AM. If you have a dog that competes at that level you have spent way to much time or money to quit. That may be said about the derby or the Q


----------



## Ken S. (Feb 2, 2005)

I do not like elimination tests. I think that it does factor in a bit more luck, and try to avoid setting them up. Some times they turn out that way, but in general, I think they are wrong. I don't think they accomplish the aims of the test, and often take more time. The mark judging is less pure. They take more time often in that the marks tend to be much longer and the dogs go out and flounder around forever. Sure, it allows some people to know where they stand, but why be afraid of judging or being judged? I will avoid judges if that is their style, as I find often it has little to do with field size.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

I think this difference in perceptions would make an interesting poll.


suprdogs said:


> There is more luck involved with an excessive test than a good hard test set within reason relative to dogs today.


VS. 


Ted Shih said:


> The easier the test, the more luck plays into dog performance


My perception is the same as Ted's. The easier the test, the more luck plays into the preformance. As Ed stated in another thread, minor infractions are elevated in importance. This is further amplified with the "changing conditions" making running at the "right time" even more important. 

The people arguing in favor of the "too hard" test, don't prefere it over the test that is "just right". It is just that it is preferable to the "too easy" test. 

At the end of the 4th series only 4 dogs will place. When the 1st series is "too easy", either the judges "eat it", and carry too many dogs to the blinds or they "pencil whip" the dogs and drop dogs for minor infractions. 

If they've carried too many dogs to the blinds, many times they set up "elimination" blinds. It is very difficult to get a lot of seperation on "straight-up" all-age blinds.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I agree with Doug's position.

However, I recognize that many people whom I like and respect - including Kim (Suprdogs) - hold a different view.

As a competitor, I like to know what flavor I will be getting from a judge. It is up to me to decide whether I want to go and run. Personally, I prefer too hard to too light. I think it is rare that a test is just right. 

To me, it is about consistency.

In major league baseball, the players have no problem with umpires whose strike zone is consistent from inning to inning or game to game. What drives them crazy is the umpires whose strike zone is unpredictable.

If a judge has a preference (too hard v too light) and is consistent about it, I can make an informed decision

Ted


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Some excellent points of view being put forth. This is one of the more intelligent and engaging discussions I've seen on the internet in quite a while.

So....after it's all said and done, can we *fairly* evaluate judges who go from 109 to 25 dogs in one series, simply by looking at the number of callbacks?

kg


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

*Entries*

We'll take all the help we can get in whatever form!!!

Come on up & run!


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2007)

> What were the entry numbers at those tests


i believe 80 in amateur that was too hard, 60 in amateur too light

and why would you get dropped on a 4 whistle land blind unless you were running a different blind than everyone else? 
it seems that pencil whipping is just as big of a problem as the excessively difficult.

i have only penciled one time, i did not want to but was talked into it by my co-judge. i felt sick when the questions started coming in. i knew it was wrong and vowed never to do it again.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I think the courage of one's convictions can always be stood upon. Principle is sadly lacking in our world today.

That said, this statement causes me pause:



> i tend to be fairly confident in the tests i set and the results i will get, i will guess that others are not and need that big first series to make sure they stay on top of the pack.


I'm not sure how to read this, Kim. If you'd care to explain, I'd love to hear it.

On its face, it seems quite presumptuous.

kg


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2007)

i know it sounds cocky, not meant to be. i am not a cocky person, just confident in the few things i am passionate about. field trial has been my life, i grew up with it and it flows in my blood. a lot of people i know wish i would keep to myself but if i can give back to a sport that has given so much to me then i will!
i believe in doing the best i can on setup day to make sure i have covered all my bases. some people just look at the grounds and set the tests.
i cant do that, i have to walk it out, work it and get a feel for what the dogs will do so i am ready. i dont like it when clubs give me lots of options. just give me a field and some water so i can get to work. too many options makes for wasted time and procrastination. i am not a procrastinator.
after the first series i then know whatever happens i have to go up a notch each series and so i make sure i have some room in the content of the tests to do so. i absolutely believe in setting the tone in the first series, everything falls into place after that. and i like to make sure that if there are some dogs that need to catch up they have that opportunity. and the ones holding the lead better hang on tight because the best dog overall should win.
with all that my keyboard has said over the last few days, i am sure i have set myself up for quite a bit of critisizm for my next judging assignments!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

suprdogs said:


> i tend to be fairly confident........
> 
> i will guess that others are not and need that big first series to make sure they stay on top of the pack.


or maybe others have a different philosophy of judging

I recognize that in an Open or Amateur Championship points are to be awarded and I will only get one opportunity to evaluate land marking


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2007)

ed,
i remember you asking me at the trial i judged for you if i expected to get the answers on the mark as i got. my reply was yes. i had walked the field and saw what was out there and based on my general knowledge of dog tendencies i expected to get what i saw. now maybe sometimes not as much or maybe not as little but i still have a feel for what i will get. and i also remember you thanking me for the callbacks, saying you would not have been so generous. did it not all work out in the end? did the dogs not take themselves out as the trial went on? that was the trial tim west won and we were done in time to watch a little derby action.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

So this comment....



K G said:


> Some excellent points of view being put forth. This is one of the more intelligent and engaging discussions I've seen on the internet in quite a while.
> 
> kg


Just got cancelled out by this post.......

/Paul


K G said:


> I think the courage of one's convictions can always be stood upon. Principle is sadly lacking in our world today.
> 
> That said, this statement causes me pause:
> 
> ...


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm not taking your bait, Paul. Kim is obviously quite capable in explaining her position. While I may not agree with her verbage, I most certainly agree with her approach as she explained it. Had she chosen to take umbrage with my question, she was free to do so.

If you've got something to contribute to the discussion about elimination tests at field trials, by all means proceed.

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

suprdogs said:


> ed,
> i remember you asking me at the trial i judged for you


I certainly do remember it, and it was a very nice trial, a 50 something dog Owner Handler Amateur with 10 titled dogs entered

Kim, your ability as a judge is not in question

the discussion began after some long distance criticism the judges in North Dakota received for putting on a very difficult first series for 109 Open dogs with several top pros in attendance.

Your implication is that judges who do very difficult first series tests do so because they are somehow less competent than you. I find that implication to be at best offensive if not downright insulting and self serving.

I applaud anyone for taking a judging assignment with that size entry, I have done it several times, hopefully for the last time. IMHO in those circumstances the end justifies the means, and I would be among the last to question those means.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Well said, Ed.

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> I'm not taking your bait, Paul. Kim is obviously quite capable in explaining her position. While I may not agree with her verbage, I most certainly agree with her approach as she explained it. Had she chosen to take umbrage with my question, she was free to do so.
> 
> If you've got something to contribute to the discussion about elimination tests at field trials, by all means proceed.
> 
> kg


I've enjoyed the conversation so far, I lean towards prefering harder tests but I don't want to see impossible tests. Your question was the bait my friend, we've all seen you do this too many times.

/Paul


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2007)

i by no means consider myself a better judge than you or anyone on this forum. i however feel that judging has made a drastic turn from judging dogs to eliminating dogs, i did not think that was what field trial was suppose to be about. you have been around long enough to know the difference.
and i dont feel that numbers are a sufficient reason.
no one has answered my question regarding the following 3 series in NDRC. was the last series as difficult as the first? was the trial won on land or water ? why did the open end on saturday, were the judges instructed to do so for trial mechanics purpose or did they run out of dogs? if they just ran out of dogs, then the first series was really more than they needed bcause they left time on the table that they could have been judging a few more dogs that just did not luck out on friday.
i feel there is a difference between difficult and excessive.
i have run under you ed, and would again any day. your tests were very difficult, not excessive. did you take the approach to eliminate, i did not see that. i think most are taking offense to this because they are refusing to see beyond who set the test. any of us are capable of error, you have to be willing to see it and learn. ask why and try to do better next time.
most of all, dont penalize the dogs for our own lack of understanding or knowledge.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

*Elimination Tests*

Over the years, I've noticed that there are two main tendencies with judges in field trials:

1. Set up a 1st series test that is either pass or fail, and let the dogs eliminate themselves. I consider this to be what you are calling an "Elimination Test".

2. Set up a reasonable test with "reasonable" difficulty factors, and call as many dogs back as possible. (Herein lies the rub. Courts have been debating the standard of "reasonable" since who flung the first chunk)

Usually judges fit into one of these two categories with different variations between the two. The judges who call many dogs back like to "sort it out at the end and actually make a judgment about which dog has done the best work from 1st thru Reserve Jam.

The judges who prefer elimination tests feel that handlers know what went wrong when their dogs failed the test and many questions and resultant hard feelings are not encountered as a result of not being called back.

The rule book tells us that dogs with a reasonable chance of placing should be called back. The rule book also speaks to proper planning/time management to adequately test the dogs fairly in the time allotted for the stake. Time management is essential for the judges and the trial-giving club.

Callbacks should not be based upon a preconceived percentage of dogs completing or failing a test. In other words, judges should not be ruled by the perception that a low percentage of dogs or a high percentage of dogs should be able to complete the test. After all, we are looking for a winner, 3 other placements, and, hopefully, some JAMs at the end of the trial, not just a preconceived standard of performance. Nonetheless, there is still the old adage that if too many students fail the test, the instructor is asking the wrong questions! 

I hate to think that judges "laugh" at dogs that don't do a particular test. Maybe some unsympathetic people will do that, but most recognize that the dogs they are looking at are generally good dogs that perform at a high level. Many people are very sensitive during competition--emotions run high. Often judges are speaking about something other than the dog that just ran when laughter erupts, not laughing at the dog or handler. However, judges who behave badly should not be "excused" from an acceptable behavior just because they are judging. Just because dogs didn't do a particular test on a given weekend doesn't mean they are slubs! Some will be younger dogs that err due to exuberance or lack of experience; some are older dogs who just miss a mark or make a mistake. A very few will be dogs that shouldn't be entered any weekend until they are competent with more advanced training, but this is usually the exception, not the rule. 

That said, I have run many trials when the test was too hard for the field, even though the number of entries was "ideal". Heck, I've put up tests that were in retrospect too hard for the field--they just didn't look to be that hard, but for one reason or another, they were. For the record, I walk the field and usually have a pretty good idea of what I will see in response to a test--be it marks or blinds. I've also run alot of trials where the test was so doable that all you could do is back up. At the end of 4 series there are usually 30 people thinking they are winning the trial. 

Let's face it folks, field trials start on Friday morning and end on Sunday evening. Competent judges test the dogs fairly, but also don't completely wear out the trial giving club members by trying to be so PC as to call back dogs that have no hope of placement--whether by not meeting the standard of performance set by the field in the first series, or through accumulation of faults/mistakes as the trial progresses. Putting on a trial shouldn't mean that the club members have to work so late they are too tired to eat dinner after they clean up and pick up behind the stakes they are working. This usually happens when too many dogs are entered, too many are called back that have no reasonable chance to place, or tests get scrapped with big entries or even small ones because dogs are failing miserably. Often when the club has a party or dinner, there are a number of members who are still out in the field working when the rest of us are complaining about the test and eating, drinking, and generally enjoying ourselves. 

Most of the folks in our part of the country have to work for a living. They already take Fridays off from work, and a whole bunch of us have to take Thursdays as well. I for one am not willing to take Mondays off on top of that to accommodate stakes spilling over from the weekend.

I believe that if you don't like large entries over 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 or greater because you feel the test will be too hard or unfair--take your pick for your personal number--you as an individual must make a decision about whether to remain entered or scratch. If the trial exceeds your number--SCRATCH your dogs. Then people who feel that way will not have to deal with larger entries that result in these killer first series.

It's easy to say that the CLUB should take measures to assure that entries are reduced/limited, but each of us has the same responsibility. I don't offer any relief to those with their dogs on a pro truck either--you can still say don't run my dog there because its too big; because I don't like the judges; because I don't think my dog will be treated fairly--whatever reason one may have.

Club workers don't like the excessive entries either. Most of us would much rather spend 8 hours per day in the field or working behind the scenes than 12-16 hours each day! The revenue may be nice, but for a small membership, large numbers are tantamount to insanity! Still, the decisions aren't always that simple. There are always a few pockets that have dedicated members who truly love the game, only run at their own (or a select few local trials) and aren't really that competitive, but they can often be the backbone of the club or the trial. Often they resist having a restricted form of stake because it eliminates their participation. Clubs have to weigh this against the large entries and make a decision that is right for the club--not just the entered handlers.

We could debate what's too hard vs. what's too easy vs. what's just right forever. There will never be a perfect way to determine this. Some people are so good at bird placement that every test they put up is hard. Some don't know the difference between a training concept and a field trial test. Some--like Kim--seem to have a feel for what makes dogs do what they do. I believe this makes for the best judge and someone who can be relied upon to set up good tests for competition. They know dog tendencies and build upon them. There are not a lot of folks who can do this and I for one love to run under them--even when my dogs don't do the tests (Although I have to say its a lot more fun when they do the tests!). 

Tests should be hard for the right reasons, not tricks or set-ups that defie sound training. Guns should be conspicuous to the dog as he comes to line. Guns should not be placed so distant that they look like specks on the horizon. Dogs should be able to see the bird in the air and as it falls. Tests should be constructed to avoid hidden hazards that can result in injury to the dogs. Tests should be constructed so that even visible hazards are not imposed that can result in injury to hard-charging dogs that rely on us to keep them safe so they can go as fast and hard as their legs will let them to run blinds or retrieve thrown/shot birds. Judges should be able to see the dogs pick up the bird and hunt in the area of the fall. 

There is one thing I belive with certainty. Everyone for the most part sets out to test adequately and fairly. They want to have their names associated with putting on good trials. They want dogs to look outstanding when they win their trials, or place in them. All of their trials will not work out quite the way they plan. Murphy is always hiding in the grass somewhere. But...they try as best they can to put on a good trial.

When you accept a judging assignment, unfortunately you can't qualify your acceptance upon only "X" number of dogs. You usually accept way in advance and have no idea who will enter. If it is large, and you have people who are uncomfortable doing that many dogs, it can be very difficult for these judges as well. Keep in mind they are doing the best they can, even if it isn't what you would do.

Clubs that have had large entries in the past, should discuss this possiblilty with their prospective judges and try to determine if this will be a problem. Some judges are just not comfortable with large entries. 

But...if all our trials only had 35 to 50 dogs per stake, a very whole lot of us would not be running dogs!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> K G said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not taking your bait, Paul. Kim is obviously quite capable in explaining her position. While I may not agree with her verbage, I most certainly agree with her approach as she explained it. Had she chosen to take umbrage with my question, she was free to do so.
> ...


Great *contribution*, by the way.... :? Was that from a field trial you ran or one you judged?

As for your obvious attempt at a slam, I'll take that as a compliment, Paul....it's been a straightforward discussion that has allowed the expression of several viewpoints and questions answered. I wanted to make sure I understood Kim's point of view. It would seem she understood my concern with this comment:


> i know it sounds cocky, not meant to be.



Kim Johnston wrote:



> i think most are taking offense to this because they are refusing to see beyond who set the test.


With all due respect, Kim...I have no idea who judged the trial. I still haven't looked. I tend to pay more attention to comments from folks who were there than analyzation that relies solely on number of entries vs. 1st series callbacks to pass judgement on the test or who judged it.

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> Great *contribution*, by the way.... :? Was that from a field trial you ran or one you judged?
> 
> As for your obvious attempt at a slam, I'll take that as a compliment, Paul....it's been a straightforward discussion that has allowed the expression of several viewpoints and questions answered. I wanted to make sure I understood Kim's point of view. It would seem she understood my concern with this comment:
> 
> ...


Its been a good discussion and I really didn’t want to see you start in with your normal methodology. I don’t have much more to add frankly; in general my views have been expressed adequately in this thread so I don’t see any sense in restating the same thing in 5000 more words. Anyone with a competitive fire wants to see hard tests and their dogs do them. I do believe I understand Kim’s viewpoint as well. You know I don’t judge FT’s but that by the rulebook, not because I wouldn’t do it if asked.

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

You left the door wide open, but with discretion being the better part of valor, I'll just let it shut quietly.....  

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> You left the door wide open, but with discretion being the better part of valor, I'll just let it shut quietly.....
> 
> kg


Thanks. I knew you could do it. Sorry I had an opinion.

/Paul


----------



## TRUEBLUE (Aug 27, 2007)

*elimination test*

Welcome to all. This is my first post to this forum. I have read quite abit about the trial at Fargo, and since I was there all weekend, I thought I would comment on the Open test. As previously mentioned, there was a question as to whether the rest of the Open was as difficult as the 1st series, and whether the trial was won on land or in the water ?
I would like to say that the level of difficulty stayed consistant thru out the trial. I did not see the land blind from the line, so I will not comment on that. The water blind consisted of the dogs crossing a road close up and then entering the water after swimming thru 4-6 ft iron weed, swimming by the 1st point,then on and off 2 more points, all with somewhat of a crosswind. The water marks [triple-two retired]were somewhat wide open. The go bird flyer, on the right , was shot across a channel of water that was not visible from the line. A couple of dogs hunted briefly on the gunners shore before crossing over the water to the flier. The flier landed tight to the other shore and some dogs hunted up on land for the flier. The line to the flier required the dogs to cut a piece of water. The retired middle bird was tucked into heavy tall cover by a group of trees. The line to this bird required the dogs to angle across a levee and go into this heavy cover to dig out the bird. The long left hand retired bird was thrown along the treeline on the opposite shore. The dogs had to fight a 30-40 mile per hour crosswind and multiple reentries into the water to get to this bird. In my opinion this trial was difficult thruout and bird placement was very good. If the dogs did not fight factors or remember their mark, they did not get there. In my opinion this trial was won by the dog who had the best work thruout the whole trial, not just in the first series.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*Eliminating dogs*



Patrick Johndrow said:


> Tulsa Slim said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Required seminars- There are a lot of good people judging who have tons of points but who really don't understand setting up and judging marks and blinds.
> ...


#3 is not a good idea. The manual is an excellent primer, but it is a collection of opinions, some good, some better, not all correct. "Field Trial Rules & Standard Procedure for Retrievers" is the STANDARD regarding the conduct of a field trial & the JUDGING of dogs. The best way to know how to correctly interpret Field Trial Rules is to have considerable EXPERIENCE in the field. 

The answers that I have read on this post are excellent. It shows there is a wealth of experience in this sport & many different ways to arrive at a similar solution. The field trial giving clubs do not make good use of the experience they have available. 

The ideal test is one that 80 dogs will show you 60 different ways to do the assigned task. As Ed A says tough is better, easy does not show anything!! Grade on the Curve!!

Marvin S


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

[/quote]
#3 is not a good idea. The manual is an excellent primer, but it is a collection of opinions, some good, some better, not all correct. "Field Trial Rules & Standard Procedure for Retrievers" is the STANDARD regarding the conduct of a field trial & the JUDGING of dogs. The best way to know how to correctly interpret Field Trial Rules is to have considerable EXPERIENCE in the field. 

And this is a collection of your opinions. Some good, some bad, some practical, some not.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: Eliminating dogs*



itilii said:


> Patrick Johndrow said:
> 
> 
> > Tulsa Slim said:
> ...


Paul

I ask that you read page ii & page iii, paragraph 2 of Retriever Field Trial Judging, a manual. These are the same individuals that have not been able to achieve any sort of solution regarding quality of judging & large entries. This is why websites exist & the forums go on the way they do. All is not well in FT Retriever Land & these individuals are in charge!!

Marvin S


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

*Re: Eliminating dogs*



itilii said:


> All is not well in FT Retriever Land & these individuals are in charge!!
> 
> Marvin S




I think this is a point we all agree.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

When I first started reading this thread, I understood the discussion options to be a near impossible 1st series to eliminate dogs versus a difficult but doable test. Now seems it's a difficult 1st series versus and easy first series - how did the discussion get here? I have never read where Kim advocated an easy 1st series - or I'm I misunderstanding something?


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

*Re: Eliminating dogs*



itilii said:


> #3 is not a good idea. The manual is an excellent primer, but it is a collection of opinions, some good, some better, not all correct.
> Marvin S


Since I'm a beginner, and I was refered by experienced fellow RC members to that judging manual, I would be interested to see some discussion on what you feel is not correct. They felt is would be the best source for someone like me. As a newbie, I'm likely going to take a source such as that as gospel.

I've never been involved in anything where there are so many divergent views...


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: Eliminating dogs*



Buzz said:


> itilii said:
> 
> 
> > #3 is not a good idea. The manual is an excellent primer, but it is a collection of opinions, some good, some better, not all correct.
> ...


Buzz

Do you have a copy of "Field Trial Rules & Standard Procedure for Retrievers" from AKC? The manual is a good start but it is not the STANDARD regarding the conduct of a field trial & the Judging of retrievers. Also I would suggest reading The Judges page on ftretrieverjudge.net. 

That is why we don't want the same judges to be recycled too often as there are different views. Which is to the betterment of the sport as long as they meet the requirements of the above stated rules. Everyone has a bias or two & no one quite meets the opinion they have of themself. 

Marvin S


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

*Forgive me for my ignorance*

But... isn't the end result still the best 4 - 6 dogs getting the appropriate ribbons after 4 series, regardless of whether 80% carry the first series or 40%?


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

*Re: Eliminating dogs*



itilii said:


> Do you have a copy of "Field Trial Rules & Standard Procedure for Retrievers" from AKC? The manual is a good start but it is not the STANDARD regarding the conduct of a field trial & the Judging of retrievers. Also I would suggest reading The Judges page on ftretrieverjudge.net.
> 
> Marvin S


Yup, I just need to spend more time with it.

I'd still like to hear what you disagree with in the manual... 

Or I'd like to at least read the discussion that you get started.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: Eliminating dogs*



Buzz said:


> itilii said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have a copy of "Field Trial Rules & Standard Procedure for Retrievers" from AKC? The manual is a good start but it is not the STANDARD regarding the conduct of a field trial & the Judging of retrievers. Also I would suggest reading The Judges page on ftretrieverjudge.net.
> ...


Buzz

About 2 months ago there was a discussion during a thread on Derby dogs talking about scoring a dog the same for going directly to a mark on water &/or running around the pond (page 51). The issue was well discussed & I have nothing more to add to that discussion.

Under "discretion to modify tests in pursuit of fairness" on page 64 there is discussion about flagging a bird with White Ribbon which leaves the impression that would be acceptable. Recently 2 judges were disciplined for their actions which were contrary to acceptable practice. 

That's a sample!

Marvin S


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

*Re: Forgive me for my ignorance*



DarrinGreene said:


> But... isn't the end result still the best 4 - 6 dogs getting the appropriate ribbons after 4 series, regardless of whether 80% carry the first series or 40%?


The answer to that question depends on whether you think the same dogs will be there in the 4th if you cut 80% in the 1st.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

*Re: Forgive me for my ignorance*



Granddaddy said:


> DarrinGreene said:
> 
> 
> > But... isn't the end result still the best 4 - 6 dogs getting the appropriate ribbons after 4 series, regardless of whether 80% carry the first series or 40%?
> ...


I guess in my niave mind I think that the dogs who passed the first series and went on to win would have been the ones with the most consistant performance throughout the trial? 

So in a manner of speaking, I believe you would still end up with the same finalists. 

You might get some people who felt better that their dog ran three series instead of one but hte consistant performers are going to be there at the end...

So what difference does it make how many run the blinds?

A dog that can't mark but can run a good blind theoretically shouldn't be winning a trial anyway, the way I understand the priorities.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Apparently, from reading this thread, it seems some would have the opinion that if you cut 80% in the 1st, that you wouldn't necessarily get the best marking dogs to the 2nd. And you might get few or none, in the extreme, that could mark with water involved.


----------



## Vickie Lamb (Jan 6, 2003)

Well, I've been away from the internet for most of the summer, come back to a good discussion, glad to see it.

First of all, with due respect, it would seem IMHO that most judges try to do the best they can, and therefore it would seem a dicey stretch to allude perhaps that the judges were laughing at the end of the day...no matter who they were. 

What exactly, as either I've missed it or it hasn't been thoroughly discussed, what exactly is the _elimination test_? 

Now, I will elaborate as to why I am asking. TO ME, an elimination test includes tricks and configurations that have nothing to do with finding the BEST MARKING DOG. Such things, in my mind, would include elements like a walkup with a 600-yard mark that is shot out of order with flyers right in the dogs face, for example, where most dogs would have virtually no opportunity to ever know the 600-yard gun/mark was even out there, much less have a chance to mark the bird. 

It doesn't sound at all like that is the kind of test that was done in ND this past weekend. 

When I judge, I always evaluate what's out there and generally have a pretty good idea about what the dogs will do throughout each test. I also walk the field for many reasons, safety being one of them. (There are a few scant times when I didn't walk the field and have vowed to never do that again, this is my own preference.) So, what I am now getting at is that if you as a judge put together a marking test, a series that tests the marking ability of the dogs entered, and most of them don't do it, does that make it unfair? 

For, I have done quite a few tests in all-age stakes where the birds were absolutely wide open, but the marks were tough, and a large number of the dogs couldn't do the test cleanly. Does that make this an unfair elimination test? Aren't we supposed to be looking for the best marking dogs in a marking test? Isn't it an absolute thrill to see the dogs that CAN FIND those marks? 

Would I be accused of laughing at the dogs at the end of the day?

I'm just not sure that the mere fact that a test brings back only 20 or so dogs makes it an "elimination" test, as I have seen this happen with really tough, fair, good solid marks time and again. 

And just because some of the best pros in the country are there doesn't mean their truckfuls of dogs can all do the work on any given weekend. For that matter, I can think of some wonderful, barnburner marking tests at certain Nationals, fair, sound, tough, terrific marking tests, where very few of the dogs could do them cleanly--does this make those tests unfair, elimination tests? Yet these are some of the absolutely best dogs in the country for that year, all at one trial, and they can't as a majority whole do these tests. 

Very few dogs are actually really good marking dogs, and even fewer are great marking dogs. Sometimes, when you take away the training configurations and all that goes with it, you discover the dogs can't find the birds. 

Of course, terrain goes a long way to contribute to all that I am saying, and not every field trial grounds has this to lend to these types of marking tests. 

Thanks for reading.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

*Re: Eliminating dogs*



itilii said:


> Paul
> 
> I ask that you read page ii & page iii, paragraph 2 of Retriever Field Trial Judging, a manual. These are the same individuals that have not been able to achieve any sort of solution regarding quality of judging & large entries. This is why websites exist & the forums go on the way they do. All is not well in FT Retriever Land & these individuals are in charge!!
> 
> Marvin S


Marvin

I think the sport could use some tweaking

I think the judging could be improved.

However, I think that the Blue Judging Manual is one of the best resources to come down the pike in a long time.

Ted


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Granddaddy said:


> Apparently, from reading this thread, it seems some would have the opinion that if you cut 80% in the 1st, that you wouldn't necessarily get the best marking dogs to the 2nd. And you might get few or none, in the extreme, that could mark with water involved.


I dunno about anyone else, but we have a simple principal in our training group. If a dog can't do it on land... they certainly can't do it in the water. 

Does it not stand to reason that if you set a test so hard only 20 of the dogs can get all the birds out of 100, that the 20 best are more than likely the ones who will accomplish the task? 

It's just common sense to me? 

I have to admit I have very limited, if any experience, but I don't see myself ever saying a dog got "lucky" and executed a tough test properly.

Even if they just kicked us to the curb.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Darrin

I think your analysis is over simplified.

Some dogs who are great on land are poor in the water.
Some dogs who are good, but not great on land, are spectacular in the water.

It can therefore be argued that if you cut too deep in the first series, you may be eliminating dogs that are spectacular in the water.

There is a reason that the winner is declared after running four series and not just one.

Ted


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Kim, If it helps or makes you feel a little better the 1st series didn't finish until around 4-5 Saturday afternoon. I took birds off the line Friday afternoon and threw the flyer until about 3 Saturday.
I know they got to the land blind Saturday evening. They finished the water work Sunday.
It is my belief that the test remained comparable in regards to difficulty thoughout the trial.

I hope this helps.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: Eliminating dogs*



Ted Shih said:


> However, I think that the Blue Judging Manual is one of the best resources to come down the pike in a long time.
> 
> Ted


Ted 

I do not disagree with that assessment. My comments are only to make new people aware that it is not the Holy Grail. Field Trial Rules & Standard Procedure for Retrievers (properly interpreted) has that position.

Marvin S


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Darrin
> 
> I think your analysis is over simplified.
> 
> ...


See the reasoning there Ted. 

I am a simpleton afterall  Sometimes it gives me clarity others don't have, other times, as you said, it produces over simplification.

One might argue based on the above however, that every dog should run every series and let the chips fall where they may...

I guess I just see too many folks who don't like the way a stake went for them that suddenly want to talk about how the judge and the winning pro were buddies, or the test was too hard or some other thing.

I don't think that's fair to those who put their time back into the sport and quite honestly it tends to ruin my experience with the whole thing sometimes to have people standing behind the scenes telling me how their dog o their buddies dog won a trial but didn't get the ribbon. 

Ya go to a stake, ya take what it dishes out, make book and get back to training so it doesn't happen again. Ya keep striving to get better and ya don't whine about who knows who and all that jazz. If ya think those judges set too hard a first series, don't run under em. 

And if ya don't like how they judge, go take the seminar and get in the chair.

BTW I don't want anyone to take offense to this. It's just the ramblins of a new comer who is already wondering, ebfore running his first real trial, whether or not he even wants to play...


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

whoopsy, double post


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Darrin
> 
> I think your analysis is over simplified.
> 
> ...


See the reasoning there Ted. 

I am a simpleton afterall  Sometimes it gives me clarity others don't have, other times, as you said, it produces over simplification.

One might argue based on the above however, that every dog should run every series and let the chips fall where they may...

I guess I just see too many folks who don't like the way a stake went for them that suddenly want to talk about how the judge and the winning pro were buddies, or the test was too hard or some other thing.

I don't think that's fair to those who put their time back into the sport and quite honestly it tends to ruin my experience with the whole thing sometimes to have people standing behind the scenes telling me how their dog o their buddies dog won a trial but didn't get the ribbon. 

Ya go to a stake, ya take what it dishes out, make book and get back to training so it doesn't happen again. Ya keep striving to get better and ya don't whine about who knows who and all that jazz. If ya think those judges set too hard a first series, don't run under em. 

And if ya don't like how they judge, go take the seminar and get in the chair.

BTW I don't want anyone to take offense to this. It's just the ramblins of a new comer who is already wondering, ebfore running his first real trial, whether or not he even wants to play...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> One might argue based on the above however, that every dog should run every series and let the chips fall where they may...


You could make that argument if you wanted to spend a week on a 100 dog field

No one does ........


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I'm hopin you and others read the rest of that post Ted  

If a trial took a week I could do one a year so I totally agree, and don't want to do it either.

I guess I haven't been around long enough to understand how we got to where we are, but I always try to find the best in people and in many aspects of what I hear, everyone else doesn't seem to do that, particularly when the lose.

Sorry to get off topic BTW.

And to answer your original question... make the first series as hard as you like for us. If we can't do it and 20 out 100 can, then we'll go train to be part of that 20 week in and week out. 

thanks for your patience BTW. 

Until then we'll take our lumps and be good sports about it.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> I guess I just see too many folks who don't like the way a stake went for them that suddenly want to talk about how the judge and the winning pro were buddies, or the test was too hard or some other thing.
> 
> I don't think that's fair to those who put their time back into the sport and quite honestly it tends to ruin my experience with the whole thing sometimes to have people standing behind the scenes telling me how their dog o their buddies dog won a trial but didn't get the ribbon.
> 
> ...


Well said, Darrin. Couldn't have phrased it any better myself.

kg


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Sometimes it's a matter of playing the averages... but it's always a matter of being the best team you can be.

One week that long gun might not be lit really well for the first 20 dogs, and you're dog 21... The following week you might be dog 18...

No whining.... your day will come... 

But if you and your dog are good enough, being #18 might not matter 

So if the first series eliminated 80% of the dogs, then train to be part of the 20, instead of whining about being part of the 80.

Just my opinion of course.

Regional rep for the society for the prevention of whining...

DG


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> DarrinGreene said:
> 
> 
> > One might argue based on the above however, that every dog should run every series and let the chips fall where they may...
> ...


Then you have three options as a judge, right? 

Cut a lot of dogs in the early going with tough tests...

Limit the number of entries in the trial...

Drink lots of coffee and get an extra night at your hotel...

Of those , I prefer the first.

JMHO


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> BTW I don't want anyone to take offense to this. It's just the ramblins of a new comer who is already wondering, ebfore running his first real trial, whether or not he even wants to play...





> I'm hopin you and others read the rest of that post Ted


Darrin

Your opinions will have more weight after you have decided to work, judge, and play.

Ted


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> DarrinGreene said:
> 
> 
> > Darrin
> ...


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I guess the thing about losing a majority of dogs in the first series is some of the best dogs will be dropped. I have noticed that you can have titled dogs and some with a "N" in front of the titles not be able to do the test and after watching 35 in a row pick up or handle your QAA dog comes up and does it. 

Titled dogs don't just get lucky enough times to accomplish what they have. These dogs have been consistent enough that a few of those 35 in a row should be able to do it. 

BTW I feel when judging you should set up a test you will be proud of and hard enough to get separation and be able to drop some dogs. Hoping every set up would end up as a diagram or picture in the Field trial news. I do (in my head) root for every dog that comes to the line and do well. Especially if I am in the chair and 35 in a row have picked up.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> DarrinGreene said:
> 
> 
> > BTW I don't want anyone to take offense to this. It's just the ramblins of a new comer who is already wondering, ebfore running his first real trial, whether or not he even wants to play...
> ...


It's just a discussion Ted.

Don't take me so seriously. 

Just trying to learn by discussing with those more knowledgable than myself.

I coulda left my inexperience out. Would it mean something then? 

opinions being what they are, I think not.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> DarrinGreene said:
> 
> 
> > BTW I don't want anyone to take offense to this. It's just the ramblins of a new comer who is already wondering, ebfore running his first real trial, whether or not he even wants to play...
> ...


And the individuals that have donated worked, judged and played are most of the problem. Old ideas/players are not going to create a slolution to these issues and it will be new blood, new thinking and the fluffing off the old that will create a better game.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I just thought it might be useful to let those who may be influential know what those on teh outside coming in are thinking. If it's of no value, disregard it. It wasnt' meant to be a shot at anyone in particular.

I feel this way about society at large if it means anything. Kids sports being the worst example yet...


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

I'm still reading here that some keep moving the discussion back to a difficult versus easy 1st series (I recognize it is easier for comparative purposes but misses the primary point of the discussion as I understand it). And I don't think anyone is advocating an easy 1st series - at least I'm not. I think the discussion began with comparing 1st series tests that are difficult to the extreme of eliminating even proven marking dogs with the primary goal being reducing the field to manageable numbers by constructing a test of such extreme difficulty that much of the field will eliminate themselves versus  a difficult 1st series that will separate the good marking dogs from the rest of the field but gives the judges latitude to carry more dogs by judging the performance of the dogs.

I think it is very easy to construct a test so that most dogs cannot do it, regardless of the skill level. Even a national field can be decimated by a test of extreme difficulty (I am trying to avoid the use of the word 'tricks') whose goal is to eliminate dogs.

As I think about it, maybe the real issue is the philosophy that would prefer a test of extreme difficulty that would cause the majority of the dogs to fail the test & eliminate themselves versus the philosophy that separates dogs so that judges can judge the marking skills of the dogs .

Note, I am not implying that my comments are directed to any recent test that may have been the motivation for this thread.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Old ideas/players are not going to create a slolution to these issues .


this "old player" has been trying (quite unsuccessfully) and has just about given up the fight

Status Quo Regards


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

EdA said:


> Patrick Johndrow said:
> 
> 
> > Old ideas/players are not going to create a slolution to these issues .
> ...


That was my point Ed...Just like in business sometimes us “old-timers” cant get the deal done….just had a deal I had been trying to get over the line for two years…gave it one of my 20 something guys and he had it done in two weeks. Am I dried up?...hope not...just cant keep running the same playbook year after year. Old ideas are the foundation...new ideas will keep it growing.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Granddaddy said:


> I'm still reading here that some keep moving the discussion back to a difficult versus easy 1st series (I recognize it is easier for comparative purposes but misses the primary point of the discussion as I understand it). And I don't think anyone is advocating an easy 1st series - at least I'm not. I think the discussion began with comparing 1st series tests that are difficult to the extreme of eliminating even proven marking dogs with the primary goal being reducing the field to manageable numbers by constructing a test of such extreme difficulty that much of the field will eliminate themselves versus  a difficult 1st series that will separate the good marking dogs from the rest of the field but gives the judges latitude to carry more dogs by judging the performance of the dogs.
> 
> I think it is very easy to construct a test so that most dogs cannot do it, regardless of the skill level. Even a national field can be decimated by a test of extreme difficulty (I am trying to avoid the use of the word 'tricks') whose goal is to eliminate dogs.
> 
> ...


Thanks you for this clarification and please accept my apology for getting off on a bit of a tangent. You too Ted.

My simplistic view doesn't allow me to understand (yet possibly) how you can set a test that prevents the need to judge the dogs performance when deciding who to call back.

I still hate whiners though :twisted:

So more or less you're asking whether or not getting to the land blind should entail picking up the chicken only, or picking up the chickens in the best way possible...

So that just leaves me, in my own niave sort of way to ask... 

What exactly is the difference, except possibly that in the case of a test so hard only 20% of the field can get all the birds, the results of call backs to the land blind certainly can't be questioned...

It would seem to me, being completely niave, that this would eliminate a lot of belly aching and hard feeling about who caught a break and who didn't in the first series.

It also removes some of the judges discression, which may or may not be a good thing.

One with lots of irrlevant ideas...

respectfully...


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*CHANGE!!!*



EdA said:


> Patrick Johndrow said:
> 
> 
> > Old ideas/players are not going to create a slolution to these issues .
> ...


Ed - Possibly you were too polite!!! I would appreciate a PM of what you would change.

Marvin S


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*WHINING*



DarrinGreene said:


> So that just leaves me, in my own niave sort of way to ask...
> 
> What exactly is the difference, except possibly that in the case of a test so hard only 20% of the field can get all the birds, the results of call backs to the land blind certainly can't be questioned...
> 
> It would seem to me, being completely niave, that this would eliminate a lot of belly aching and hard feeling about who caught a break and who didn't in the first series.


No one wants to listen to a Whiner but the facts are, under some judges, different dogs get different treatment based on who owns &/or runs them. That is a fact of the dog business. Why do you think Pro's hustle judging assignments for their clients, certain breed clubs are always trying to get their members judging assignments & people are not asked to judge because they treat everyone the same. So it's not always whining, sometimes it's fact & YOU need to be able to separate the TWO.

BTW - it's nAIve,if you are using the term.

Marvin S


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: WHINING*



itilii said:


> No one wants to listen to a Whiner but the facts are, under some judges, different dogs get different treatment based on who owns &/or runs them. That is a fact of the dog business. Why do you think Pro's hustle judging assignments for their clients, certain breed clubs are always trying to get their members judging assignments & people are not asked to judge because they treat everyone the same. So it's not always whining, sometimes it's fact & YOU need to be able to separate the TWO.
> 
> BTW - it's nAIve,if you are using the term.
> 
> Marvin S


Marvin, you have lost track of the subject of this thread. This thread is not about judges showing favoritism towards certain people, although that may indeed occur. Its about a first series that is unreasonably difficult and eliminates a high percentage of the dogs based purely on the setup.

/Paul


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> As I think about it, maybe the real issue is the philosophy that would prefer a test of extreme difficulty that would cause the majority of the dogs to fail the test & eliminate themselves versus the philosophy that separates dogs so that judges can judge the marking skills of the dogs .


I would agree with that statement if the choice was one or the other. In the first series of an Open I would prefer a judge that felt that they had the responsibility of setting up a fair difficult marking test that challenged the dog; allowing the dog the opportunity to eliminate themselves. Rather than the judge that felt they had to set a fair marking test that challenged the judge to eliminate the dog.
Lyle


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

*Re: WHINING*



itilii said:


> DarrinGreene said:
> 
> 
> > So that just leaves me, in my own niave sort of way to ask...
> ...


Well Marvin, naive as I am, I can easily seperate unsportsmanlike conduct from the sportsmanlike variety, and as I sit here, training my dog to someday compete, and having bought a new pup exclusively for FT.... I wonder sometimes if I'm heading down the right road... 

I apologize once again for getting us off track.

This is a very reasonable question to discuss and Ted presented it in a very good way. My twisted little view of this game shouldn't really matter. If I'm gonna play I'm gonna play without any of this ever entering my mind.

We may never win a thing but when we do it won't be because we know anyone, or because we judged last week, or because we belong to a club. It'll be because we were the best handler/dog team in the contest that weekend, and if I have to win it any other way, I will not be playing very long.

Maybe if those influential in the sport thought that way.... we'd have more people playing.

Thanks for the spelling tip BTW :roll:


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2007)

Granddaddy, you are correct. The debate is not easy vs extremely difficult. It is whether there is a point where difficult has become too extreme. And IMHO when you lose over 80% of a typically strong field then I believe the test has gone over the limit. Now if you can tell me there where circumstances that arose to cause this situation then maybe I could reconsider on an individual basis but overall, I dont feel you can adequately and thoroughly judge a field of dogs by eliminating the majority in the first series land test.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Lyle Harne said:


> Granddaddy said:
> 
> 
> > As I think about it, maybe the real issue is the philosophy that would prefer a test of extreme difficulty that would cause the majority of the dogs to fail the test & eliminate themselves versus the philosophy that separates dogs so that judges can judge the marking skills of the dogs .
> ...


Actually Lyle whether you agree or I agree with whether a judge should be challenged to eliminate the dog or not, the judge ultimately and always is challenged to do just that - eliminate every dog in the field whether there are just two dogs or 25 remaining at the end of the 4th series. The judge must judge, not just set up a test & have the dogs decide by elimination. So my point would be why change the philosophy from series to series? Set-up a challenging test that separates the dogs each series & let/require the judges do their appointed jobs at the end of each series - judge the dogs performance.

And Kim, I agree, I don't think one land-only series is generally enough to adequately or thoroughly judge who are the best marking dogs in that field. I don't think it means you can't get the task done in a 3 day trial, either.


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

*Ted Shih wrote:*


> On the other side, there are people who take a position like Ed Aycock. As I understand that position, it goes something like this:
> • With today’s bigger fields, limited grounds, and better dogs, the judges must often set up very difficult tests in order to ensure separation and timely completion of the test
> • *Contestants would prefer to be fairly eliminated over being “pencil whipped”*
> 
> ...


*Vickie Lamb wrote:*


> I'm just not sure that the mere fact that a test brings back only 20 or so dogs makes it an "elimination" test, as I have seen this happen with *really tough, fair, good solid marks* time and again.


*Granddaddy wrote:*


> Set-up a challenging test that separates the dogs each series & let/require the judges do their appointed jobs at the end of each series - judge the dogs performance.


I believe the judges ability to set up a quality test is more important than the ability of the judge to select the dogs to be called back. Really, tough, fair, good solid marks challenge the dog not the judge. 
Lyle


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

*Elimination Tests*

I keep hearing that the "good dogs" are eliminated. I don't think anyone is disputing that the dogs are GOOD--even the ones that for whatever reason didn't do the test before them on any given weekend.

But! Like baseball statistics, nobody stays on top every weekend, all season long. There's an old saying in field trials: It's a short step from the penthouse to the outhouse!

Just because a dog didn't do a particular test, doesn't mean its not a GOOD DOG. Conversely, GOOD DOGS don't always do every test well enough to win, place, or finish.

Field Trials are meant to be dog vs. dog competitions. The standard is as good as the best dogs THAT WEEKEND. There is no general standard of work that "entitles" any dog to a callback.

That is why it is hard to get the Field Champion title before a dog's name. It's why that title--second only to NFC or NAFC--is the most coveted.


----------



## TRUEBLUE (Aug 27, 2007)

*elimination test*

Field trials are a difficult competition, and very difficult game to be successful at, as we all know. I think Vicki stated it very well that the FC or AFC is highly coveted because of how difficult it is to obtain. The best dogs did finish that trial that weekend, and were not eliminated in the first series like some have implied. If we as competitors are concerned about the level of competition in the sport we should be playing the hunt test game where you meet a standard. What we should be striving for as competitors is to raise our level of skill in order to be competitive . There is a learning curve to this sport that takes time for both dog and handler to learn. This is what should be focused on, not whether 20 % or 40 % made thru the first series.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

*Re: CHANGE!!!*



itilii said:


> EdA said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick Johndrow said:
> ...




Ok…first my comments were more directed at the condescending tone a “season veteran” was taking with a new person to the sport. Second, if you are part of the incumbent party you have to look at what have done or not done to change the direction of your beloved sport….maybe you can’t do anything because the entire processes if flawed by the ownership of the organization…if on a dead horse get off. I personally think the AKC is not the organization that should be running our retriever field events but that is another subject.

One change that seems obvious is to the RAC… the RAC needs to be elected by whatever means the clubs, participants, etc…RAC members to serve 3 and 5 year terms at the will of their electorates. Accountability cures a lot of ills. 

Field Trials are completely run by amateurs, run over with pros and milked to death by its sanctioning body. Maybe it is time for a little Norma Rae like action in the FT community. 

Got a hat and some big evil cattle regards :wink:


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Patrick

Why do you care so much about a sport in which you no longer participate?

Ted


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Patrick
> 
> Why do you care so much about a sport in which you no longer participate?
> 
> Ted


Would be nice to see the FT game get out of certain people’s hands and get in to the hands of the participants more like the better pointing dog organizations. I don’t participate now because of because to the state of the game…I have other interest and hobbies that I don’t have time for as it is now….but maybe someday I might again. This is America Ted…I can do whatever the hell I want.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Patrick

Over the past year, you have done nothing but criticize the sport.

Why spend so much energy on something you have left behind?

I don't know what turned you so sour, but you ought to let it go.

Ted


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I do have to say Ted, I found your comments surprising. Sporting dogs are like all other hunting and fishing related activites... they are dying.

Those involved should care whether or not these sports die, and telling a newcomer that their opinion means jack isn't reallyt the best way (in my opinion) to attract people to the sport and keep it alive.

I've been reading this board for months now and quite like the way you approach things generally. I work with a very straightforward group of trainers and we don't sugar coat things. The dog can or the dog needs mroe training, and maybe the trainer needs mroe training too. And if something goes wrong it's not because of the judge or the pro before us, it's because we weren't the best that day.

More or less you told me where to pound some sand, and whiile I have plenty thick enough skin to take that and not be discouraged, I was quite surprised by the comment.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Darrin

I have a hard time taking seriously your comments about improving a sport in which you have not yet entered. 

Over the years, I have seen many people come and go.

All of them, like you, talk about how much they love the dogs, how committed they are to the sport. Etc., etc., etc.

The only one I have seen stick is Lainee ... FOM. 

I disagree with Lainee about a variety of issues, particularly with the way she goes about certain things, but I admire her commitment and passion. 

Everyone else has bailed. They could talk the talk, but not walk the walk

The sport is very demanding. It takes a lot of time and a lot of commitment. There is alot of failure involved for the most successful. 
It takes a special person to stick. You have to be pretty darn tough to continue in the sport.

Maybe you will stick like Lainee, maybe you won't. 

But, if my comment to you that I attach little weight to your opinion because you have little foundation for it causes you to bail, I doubt whether you would have stuck at it anyway.

Time obviously will tell

But, until you start actually participating in the sport, it is hard for me to take your comments about tests, judging, or participants very seriously.

Others may feel differently

But, that's my take

Ted


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Thank for the advice Ted and I am sure I will give it future consideration. But for now I am off to start my 37 season of hunting and spending a day in the field with the dogs.


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Hunting with retrievers, what a concept, I thought they were bred to run field trials. :? Pick me up on your way out Patrick i have a dog and a gun and would like to give it a try.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> I keep hearing that the "good dogs" are eliminated. I don't think anyone is disputing that the dogs are GOOD--even the ones that for whatever reason didn't do the test before them on any given weekend.




There was a large trial this spring where — on land, on a very very very difficult retired punch bird—a straight line to the AOF to (10/15) yd on the upwind side of the bird and then immediately finding the bird resulted in being called back.
A similarly straight lines to the same distance down wind of the fall culminating with the same result of immediately finding the bird, did not. :shock:

To my way of thinking those dogs were arbitrarily eliminated.

john


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> ...
> *The only one I have seen stick is Lainee ... FOM*.
> 
> I disagree with Lainee about a variety of issues, particularly with the way she goes about certain things, but I admire her commitment and passion.
> ...


Ted, 

Not EVERYONE else. I, for one, will be around for years to come, God willing. There are newcomers (relatively speaking) that will hang in and contribute to the sport. 

Regarding the subject of this thread, I am in full agreement with those advocating difficult, fair tests. Tough, fair, marking tests are the way to go. 

Frank


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Bayou Magic said:


> Ted Shih said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Don't worry about it much Frank. Ted is only pontificating for Darren, or he hasn't met many people. 

/Paul


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

*Elimination Tests*

John Fallon wrote:



> There was a large trial this spring where — on land, on a very very very difficult retired punch bird—a straight line to the AOF to (10/15) yd on the upwind side of the bird and then immediately finding the bird resulted in being called back.
> A similarly straight lines to the same distance down wind of the fall culminating with the same result of immediately finding the bird, did not.
> 
> To my way of thinking those dogs were arbitrarily eliminated.


That still doesn't mean they weren't GOOD DOGS. There will always be arbitrary judgments that some of us don't agree with--or even most of us won't agree with--no rule can prevent this. Were it so, with all the laws and regulations we currently have in one form or another of our lives, we would have no criminals.

The point I wanted to make was that no matter how good any particular dog is, there are tests he won't complete well enough to be called back. Even though next week, the dog could do the exact same test without a hitch. Not getting a callback in a trial does not make a dog less than he is. Conversely, there are some dogs with such a cult following that often get callbacks no matter what they do. A case in point is when Charlemagne retrieved a stick instead of a bird, was not re-run, and was called back. 

As long a people judge field trials, there will always be differences of opinion about what is a good test, what is a bad test, what is fair and what is not. That's just human nature. Some will be better at judging than others, just like some can play a musical instrument, play professional sports, entertain professionally, etc. We need to get off the finger-pointing platform, support the sport as it is now, but work to change the things that need to be fixed, we need to quit living and dying on every callback or placement. For heavens sakes, it's a GAME! It's certainly not life and death! 

John, I think there was a discussion on this board several years ago that dealt with "wind saves". Sounds like the same issue. Upwind of the bird, the judges considered it a mark; downwind--they considered it a "wind save" (perhaps?). Not right, just is.

As far as new people to the sport voicing opinions--keep it up. After all, opinions are usually free, offered without solicitation, and rarely agreed with by those holding oposing opinions! Our club would love to have some new members. All you have to do is show up regularly for AARC and you can be a member. If you take a job at the field trials, you're a valued member. We'll welcome your ideas. We may even adopt some of them! If lots of experienced people poo-poo it, maybe.....just maybe, we've already tried it or considered it and it did not work well. If it's truly a good idea--persist, it will bear fruit at the proper time.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I guess I coulda shoulda woulda been less candid about my "qualfications" to make such comments...

Nah... JK...

often the new comer untainted by history sees things that, if corrected in some way, could bring an improvement to a given situation. Sometimes that are just FOS, but sometimes that can add value. Not sure how my comments here fit that mold but sounds like it depends who you are.

In the meantime, thanks for explaining where you're coming from in a professional manner Ted. I learned something here about the world I have entered, and that is very helpful to me.

I am about as straightforward and simple as it gets in most situations, so forgive me if I have been in any way offensive. It's not my intention to be a snot nosed kid here, but rather someone whose looking at things without the slant that years of experience will put on people.

I'll never be one to cry that teh sport is a mess because all the favorite friends of the judges win. I'll be the guy looking to deliver such an asswhoppin that no one can deny me or my dog a ribbon.

Whether I can or will ever do thaty remains to be seen, but I hope some of you can apprieciate the philosophy behind it.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

You're part of the future of the sport, Darrin.

Keep bringin' it........ :wink: 

kg


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Darrin
> 
> I have a hard time taking seriously your comments about improving a sport in which you have not yet entered.
> 
> ...


When someone says ''over the years I have seen many people come and go '' it conveys to the reader an implied longevity of particapation.

How many years are you talking about. 30? 20? 10? less than 10? 

It just seems like yesterday that you broke into the *FT* game.
What was the date on your first FT ? When did you first become a member of a FT club ?

"over the years" indeed"

john


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

K G said:


> You're part of the future of the sport, Darrin.
> 
> Keep bringin' it........ :wink:
> 
> kg


That's just what I told Ted in '03 :wink: 

john


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> I'll be the guy looking to deliver such an asswhoppin that no one can deny me or my dog a ribbon.
> 
> 
> > Darrin
> ...


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> If the other dog has an edge sitting in the judges chair that will be hard to beat.


How do you KNOW if that's the case, Marv? How can Darrin, a rookie that wants to play the game, know if this sort of malfeasance, either real or imagined, is facing him on any given weekend? :roll: 

Your website SURE ain't gonna tell him _that_! :wink: 

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

K G said:


> > If the other dog has an edge sitting in the judges chair that will be hard to beat.
> 
> 
> How do you KNOW if that's the case, Marv? How can Darrin, a rookie that wants to play the game, know if this sort of malfeasance, either real or imagined, is facing him on any given weekend? :roll:
> ...


I've been there - When you're following the dog that finishes ahead of you & you know you have them covered then you know something is not RIGHT!!!!! Not once but several times!!! 

The website will tell him that person's successful involvement with retrievers. As I have said before "The website is not the solution only a portion of a solution". It does show COMPETENCE in a manner but he'll have to figure out IMPARTIAL on his own. In one of his posts Darrin said he was capable of that. 

Marvin S


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

itilii said:


> I've been there - When you're following the dog that finishes ahead of you & you know you have them covered ...
> 
> Marvin S


We've all been there!The problem is you, me and every other handler does not KNOW. We may have opinions but for that weekend our opinion doesn't count. Our opinions/decisions count when we hold a book not a leash. 

Tim


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Tim Carrion said:


> itilii said:
> 
> 
> > I've been there - When you're following the dog that finishes ahead of you & you know you have them covered ...
> ...


Thank You, Tim. I do know what constitutes GOOD dog work & what is not acceptable dog work. The only person I have ever had question a judging decision I made & make an internet issue of it was Kim Johnston & she was egged on by a Co-Judge who did not understand the rule book & a couple of others that weren't there for the test. I recognize the judges are in charge but that does not make it any more palatable.

Marvin S


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> I guess I coulda shoulda woulda been less candid about my "qualfications" to make such comments...
> 
> Nah... JK...
> 
> ...


Good job Darren. Management 101 says listen to the ideas of the new guy. He's not jaded and influenced by time. New people see things through clear glasses and often times provide ideas and suggestions that old timers won't even review. In fact, Ted is a victim of that with the RAC right now, how sad that he turns around does that to someone else.

/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Paul

You say you don't like to include newcomers in your training group ... 

Why? 

According to you, because they are often more brain damage than they are worth.

I guess I will start giving Darren - who has never run a field trial - the credit I give my peers, when you start applying the same standard to yourself that you want to apply to me

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

And Paul

You need to get your facts straight ... 

The proposal concerning Limited Entries per Handler was submitted by both Ed and me ... Ed is hardly a newcomer

In addition, some of the committee members asked me to provide them with written suggestions - which I did - and which included more than the proposal that Ed and I submitted

The fact is was rejected has more to do with the beliefs of some of the committee members than who presented the proposal

So find another analogy

Ted


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Paul
> 
> You say you don't like to include newcomers in your training group ...
> 
> ...


Its true that I'm cautious about bringing new people into the training group. I don't though consider their opinions worthless and belittle them for commenting or providing ideas, especially on a thread such as this one. He is a customer of the FT just like anyone else, his feedback and opinions have as much right to be heard as anyones. I think Darren has gone above and beyond in trying to not be insulting. This isn't a trial that must be won, its a discussion, a very good one at that which you have contributed some very good thoughts to. I didn't realize people couldn't comment until they has spent X amount of years playing the game. Course if Darren's gonna make it in this sport, he'll have to toughen up and get used to the attitudes that you don't count until your're older than dirt.


/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Paul

Obviously, you impose a different standard on yourself than you impose on me if you think I belittle people, and you do not. 

Darren wrote



> It's just the ramblins of a new comer who is already wondering, ebfore running his first real trial, whether or not he even wants to play...


I responded



> Your opinions will have more weight after you have decided to work, judge, and play.


Darren and others took me to task for this statement. I responded and am now being criticized for being insensitive. 

It is clear it is not politically correct to say
But, I suspect more people share my belief than are willing to say

In any event, it is what it is

I have a hard time taking seriously the comments of someone who has yet to decide whether he wants to engage in field about improvements in the sport

It would be totally consistent for you - who do not run FT - to take me to task for not listening to Darren - who does not either

Ted


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> I've been there - When you're following the dog that finishes ahead of you & you know you have them covered then you know something is not RIGHT!!!!! Not once but *several times*!!!


You're trying to play from both sides of the issue here, Marv....and that dog won't hunt. You're saying that _anytime_ *you* think you're dog has it "covered" and you don't win, it's the judge's fault....yet you expect people to "use" _your_ site when trying to decide which trials to run, when your site doesn't say ANYTHING about a person's character or decision-making ability, or ability to evaluate dog work or set up tests.

Double standard regards,

kg


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I have tried as hard as possible to stay out of this and now find that I can not. I too am a newcomer to dog games in general, trying to learn and find my right place in the games. Damnit Ted, you were one that I respected your accomplishments and to find you attacking a newbie for joining in a discussion is disparaging to say the least. Your comment about Darrins not having commited to "play the game" indicates you totally misunderstood what he meant. He had previously stated on here that he was all for getting involved. I believe, and he will correct me if I am wrong, that he meant after reading your nasty comments, he will seriously reconsider joining in. I have been told time after time, that FT's are political and unfriendly to beginners. I did not believe it, just thought my first couple years ought to be spent learning about dogs, and therefor restricting myself to Hunt Tests. If I listen to your bile, I have to believe I am not even worthy of discussing field trial judging issues until I earn an AFC or FC. You have done a great job of convincing me that the scuttlebutt is right. FT's are an elitest sport. Thanks very much.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Paul
> 
> Obviously, you impose a different standard on yourself than you impose on me if you think I belittle people, and you do not.
> 
> ...


Have i been guilty of crossing the line with people. YES. Have I apologized publicly, in PM and in some cases called on the phone. YES. Am I proud of that behavior? NO I am what I am and anyone who has a problem with that knows that they can approach me anytime and tell me about it. 

Also, get your facts straight Ted. I do run FT's. Mailed entries today in fact. I don’t run a ton of them, a few each year. I handled a dog in my first FT when I was 13. I’m now 38. That’s 25 years. How long did you say you’ve been in this sport? I really enjoy your posts when you stick to topic. Even when I don’t particularly agree. Here’s an idea, be original, don’t turn into the same political jackass as the other age old people in the sport who sit in the gallery and whisper nasty things about other people. You could have taken the high road and ignored his posts, or reached out a hand and encouraged him to stick with it, discussing his ideas. In the end your choice, be who you are.


/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Paul

If someone had 

- Never driven a car
- Never worked on a car
- Never taken classes in automotive mechanics

Why would I ask for advice from that person on what was wrong with my car and how to fix it?

If someone has

- Never run a FT
- Never worked a FT
- Never judged a FT

Why would I ask for advice from that person on what was wrong with FT and how to fix it?

2tall says I am elitist.
I think I am just practical.

Ted


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

"You can observe a lot just by watching."


I've never played in the NBA
I've never worked for an NBA team
I've never refereed an NBA game.

But I sure could give you some opinions as to what is wrong with the NBA today.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

dixidawg said:


> "You can observe a lot just by watching."
> 
> 
> I've never played in the NBA
> ...


Yes, but they wouldn't mean as much to me as opinions from someone who actually worked, played, or refereed in the NBA


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

and that is precisely why it is in the state it is in today. Down significantly in popularity and fan support from it's peak. Can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

So we disagree


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Paul
> 
> If someone had
> 
> ...


I would say you are not an elitist based on the fact that you engage in a give & take on this forum with many who fit the "never" description above.

Marvin S


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Paul
> 
> If someone had
> 
> ...


Yet today's largest computer security concerns are malware, data mining and phishing scams designed to gather information for marketing purposes to get completely ignorants peoples opinions on everything under the sun so big business can create products that generate Billions of dollars. Your right Ted, thats all you really want to hear. Your right. Be who you are...

/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Yet today's largest computer security concerns are malware, data mining and phishing scams designed to gather information for marketing purposes to get completely ignorants peoples opinions on everything under the sun so big business can create products that generate Billions of dollars.
> 
> /Paul


Paul

Let me see if I have your argument right

Big business is interested in developing products to sell - regardless of its worth

And this is something that merits imitation?

You are right, I prefer to be me.

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Dixie Dawg

If you were to ask an outsider, what should be done to make FT (the NBA) more entertaining to the audience, maybe no experience is necessary.

But, if you were to ask an outsider whether type of defense or offense should be employed with a specific group of players, yes the outsider could offer an opinion. But, I would prefer the opinion of a coach in the league. And I would not give much - if any - consideration to the opinion of someone who had not played the game or coached the game.

This thread was started to elicit discussion about the whether - given a large field in either the Amateur or Open - tests that eliminate a large percentage of the field are by definition improper, or whether very difficult tests are necessary for large fields. 

You are of the opinion that someone who has not run a FT, worked a FT, or judged a FT can offer substantive thoughts on the subject.

I disagree

You and I

Will simply have to agree to disagree


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Understood.

One thing I have come to realize is that people are reluctant to change. The most successful leaders that I have worked for, understand and use this principle to their advantage. 

We can't do it THAT way, we have ALWAYS done it THIS way.

Often times it takes a fresh perspective to see that THAT way doesn't really make sense any more.

Do you really believe that it takes years of experience to answer this question:

"...given a large field in either the Amateur or Open - tests that eliminate a large percentage of the field are by definition improper, or whether very difficult tests are necessary for large fields."

The answer to any question should stand on it's own merit, regardless of whether or not the person that formulated the answer has decades of experience.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2007)

> You're trying to play from both sides of the issue here, Marv....and that dog won't hunt. You're saying that anytime you think you're dog has it "covered" and you don't win, it's the judge's fault....yet you expect people to "use" your site when trying to decide which trials to run, when your site doesn't say ANYTHING about a person's character or decision-making ability, or ability to evaluate dog work or set up tests.




at last. give a person enough rope, they will hang themself.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Dixie

If you knew anything about me, you would know that I question everything. So if you assume I am locked into the status quo, you are mistaken. It would be easy enough to accuse me of being rigid in my thought process. But, it would be wrong.

As for your second argument, I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to answer the question. But, I do think that you need to know more than a little 

- about dogs
- about judging
- about mechanics 

to offer a meaningful opinion

I think all of the discussion on this board about the need to improve judging should be proof that the subject is not as simple as it seems

In fact, Lanse Brown wrote on this - or a related thread - about the dearth of people who understood dogs, who understood the sport, who were students of the sport

That does not come overnight

So yes, I do think that it may take years and years of experience

So, I do not buy your argument

Really, I think we should simply agree to disagree

It is clear that nothing I say will sway your opinion 
and 
I assure you, nothing you say will sway my opinion on the subject

Ted


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2007)

Hey, i have a question for all you late nighters.....why are you on the computer so much this weekend? what happened, did you go out in the first series?????


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

suprdogs said:


> > You're trying to play from both sides of the issue here, Marv....and that dog won't hunt. You're saying that anytime you think you're dog has it "covered" and you don't win, it's the judge's fault....yet you expect people to "use" your site when trying to decide which trials to run, when your site doesn't say ANYTHING about a person's character or decision-making ability, or ability to evaluate dog work or set up tests.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kim, What are you trying to say?

Marvin S


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I wish

I am working on bills


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

2tall said:


> If I listen to your bile (Ted), I have to believe I am not even worthy of discussing field trial judging issues until I earn an AFC or FC. You have done a great job of convincing me that the scuttlebutt is right. FT's are an elitest sport. Thanks very much.


Just remember 2tall, that RTF is but a microcosm of the sport. Look at the number of folks online at any given time and you'll find a TON of "guests" along with "members online" and "hidden" members. The number of "guests" usually equals or exceeds the number of "members," and usually only a handful of DIFFERENT folks post on a topic, much like this one....my point being, the MAJORITY of the folks that play the game don't play here. Now, they sure READ it...but they don't participate here. 

The long and short of it is...there are a lot of strong opinions, some make sense, some don't. Some are inclusive, some are exclusive. Some folks are more vocal than others and will go out of their _way_ to let you know your place (or what _they_ think your place should be). Welcome to life. The FT sport itself is strong. Take everything else with a grain (or a _lick_ :wink: ) of salt.

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Well, Ted, how you choose to treat new folks in the sport is really up to you. Discount them if you want. (Guess your not a big supporter that our children are the future so we should invest in them. )

Getting back on topic. 

If you drop a dog for the handler saying "good dog" is that a difficult test or an elimination test?

/Paul


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2007)

I suppose it depends. Is it a good dog or just a lucky dog?


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2007)

> Remember who started the long distance ripping & how sensitive that person is to any criticism


And the ripping started as a question which led to a debate which has gone on for days producing much needed open lines of communication regarding field trial judging. 



> We have a regular poster on this site that achieved an FC with a water double & I mean got the win. Doesn't stop them from acting like an expert.





> Kim, What are you trying to say?


 "To critique is not the same as to insult".


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

K G said:


> 2tall said:
> 
> 
> > If I listen to your bile (Ted), I have to believe I am not even worthy of discussing field trial judging issues until I earn an AFC or FC. You have done a great job of convincing me that the scuttlebutt is right. FT's are an elitest sport. Thanks very much.
> ...


And I might add…The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the ownership of this forum…and the information obtained here is worth exactly what you paid for it. :wink:


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

I think some people don't read as well as others. Or they might be alittle on the emotional side.

I think Ted has been consistant over time with his opinions regaurdless of topic. I don't know him from a hill of beans but he makes plenty of sense,, and he doesn't contradict himself. Context seems to be an important facter when reading these posts.

I have been driving a car about 33 years.. yet no one from "Pimp My Ride" has ever called me for advice. I am offended because after all I have been around cars my whole life. My father owned them as well.

I am also planning to send my dog to be trained by the guy down the street. He is 45 years old and has had dogs his whole life.Thats 45 years. WOW And he has some definituive opinions about dogs
Silly isn't it.

I would want someone with experience to figure out the problems concerning that which he is experienced with.

Thats smart not eletist.

Its obvious some people just like to argue.

Hats off to Ted for being balanced and kind and to those people who year in and year out organize and make these games happen. New people also contribute alot to the sport and everyone is needed. We are where we are in life.
No body comes out of the womb throwing birds,marshaling or hiring judges. It must be learned like anything else. And some people take more time to grow in to participating. Some things take longer to learn than others

Go ahead I have my bite suit on!


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*MISQUOTE*



suprdogs said:


> > Remember who started the long distance ripping & how sensitive that person is to any criticism
> 
> 
> And the ripping started as a question which led to a debate which has gone on for days producing much needed open lines of communication regarding field trial judging.
> ...


The LEAST you could do in the original "Kim - What are you trying to say" is quote what I said rather than what KG said. But when you are ripping me ACCURACY is not one of your strong suits. Then again we could post that dogs record for all to see. Is that what you want?

Marvin S


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

dixidawg said:


> One thing I have come to realize is that people are reluctant to change...
> 
> We can't do it THAT way, we have ALWAYS done it THIS way.
> 
> ...


Dixidawg,
Your first 2 statements describes the AKC/RAC. 

The experience factor comes into play because those that have first hand knowledge of how FT test were different when the numbers were lower have a greater appreciation for what any rule changes would mean and the impact it would have on the sport. Some aspects of large entries are more obvious then others. 
It will take the influence of those that "have been there done that" to change the AKC/ RAC nay sayers.

Tim


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Pete said:


> I think some people don't read as well as others. Or they might be alittle on the emotional side.
> 
> I think Ted has been consistant over time with his opinions regaurdless of topic. I don't know him from a hill of beans but he makes plenty of sense,, and he doesn't contradict himself. Context seems to be an important facter when reading these posts.
> 
> ...


Unfortunatly your opinion doens't count because your from PA. :shock: 

Ok, joking aside. Ted does/has made some great points in this thread. I was personally a bit disappointed that he lowered his credibility by hammering on a newbie. Yes new people suggest things that we know might not work, say things that don't make sense etc. But shutting them down is equivilent to shutting down our sport. Without fresh water a stream dies. Now old timers hammering on each other is another story. I have no qualms going head to head with KG, Fallon, Ted, Bubba, etc because at the end of the day we typically walk away laughing about it, perhaps thinking a different way, with no fear that the other person is going to leave the sport. We also know that at the end of the day, if one of them needed help with an event and we were in a position to provide that help, that each of us would be the first to jump forward and be there. Problem is, without fostering that in new people, pretty soon we're alone, hammering on each other.

/Paul


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2007)

> Then again we could post that dogs record for all to see. Is that what you want?


go for it marv and remember, your accuracy is not much to brag about, take a look at your website.
i am proud of my record with rocket and he was a great dog. you know very little about what you are talking so watch your step.
attacking one of my dogs is the same as attacking one of my kids.

the comment " that dog will never place under me" seems to ring in my ears.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

suprdogs said:


> i am proud of my record with rocket and he was a great dog. you know very little about what you are talking so watch your step.
> attacking one of my dogs is the same as attacking one of my kids.
> 
> the comment " that dog will never place under me" seems to ring in my ears.


On the first account I am hoping that was not his intent and on the second I hope you are kidding.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*Side Bar*



Patrick Johndrow said:


> suprdogs said:
> 
> 
> > i am proud of my record with rocket and he was a great dog. you know very little about what you are talking so watch your step.
> ...


The posting of a dog's record as FACT when the owner tries to create another perception is not an ATTACK. The dog's record is public information for anyone who cares to make the effort. The fact is the dog won an open on a water double - making it an FC-AFC. You yourself have posted a comment which Howard N has put on his posts which talks about handling when there are too many birds out there. Let's face it, a water double in the last series of an OPEN in 2002 is UNUSUAL to say the least!!

The comment you have created 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand did not come from me. I will say that when an owner avoids the test, which YOU did, & makes no effort to bring the dog back into the test until beyond the area the suction, which YOU did, the OWNER has established that they no longer care to play. That is exactly what YOU did as a handler. 21 of 22 dogs did that portion of the test correctly, only you failed to try to do the test. You have tried to make an issue of this for a considerable length of time, all it tells me is that you don't know what a dog really needs to do on a test of that magnitude with that level of competition chasing 4 placings. & anyone who told you that you should have been called back also does not know as much as they should. Remember, I was the person watching all the dogs & recording their performance. I still have the diagrams of the finishing dogs in that trial. I am the only person involved that you never contacted to see why you were dropped. This could have been done after the trial & I would have been glad to explain that to you. But you chose to babble away about how you had received the short end of the stick. Maybe you should have been told to pick up your dog when you sent him out to sea & let him continue beyond the early hazards of the test rather than down the shoreline. But I would consider that discourteous to a handler in today's environment. It is unfortunate that you do not consider it discourteous to attack a judge who was only treating all the contestants impartially.

Marvin S


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

*Re: Side Bar*



itilii said:


> The posting of a dog's record as FACT when the owner tries to create another perception is not an ATTACK. The dog's record is public information for anyone who cares to make the effort. The fact is the dog won an open on a water double - making it an FC-AFC. You yourself have posted a comment which Howard N has put on his posts which talks about handling when there are too many birds out there. Let's face it, a water double in the last series of an OPEN in 2002 is UNUSUAL to say the least!!
> 
> The comment you have created 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand did not come from me. I will say that when an owner avoids the test, which YOU did, & makes no effort to bring the dog back into the test until beyond the area the suction, which YOU did, the OWNER has established that they no longer care to play. That is exactly what YOU did as a handler. 21 of 22 dogs did that portion of the test correctly, only you failed to try to do the test. You have tried to make an issue of this for a considerable length of time, all it tells me is that you don't know what a dog really needs to do on a test of that magnitude with that level of competition chasing 4 placings. & anyone who told you that you should have been called back also does not know as much as they should. Remember, I was the person watching all the dogs & recording their performance. I still have the diagrams of the finishing dogs in that trial. I am the only person involved that you never contacted to see why you were dropped. This could have been done after the trial & I would have been glad to explain that to you. But you chose to babble away about how you had received the short end of the stick. Maybe you should have been told to pick up your dog when you sent him out to sea & let him continue beyond the early hazards of the test rather than down the shoreline. But I would consider that discourteous to a handler in today's environment. It is unfortunate that you do not consider it discourteous to attack a judge who was only treating all the contestants impartially.
> 
> Marvin S



Marvin,
things are juicer if taken out of context 

Now I see said the blind man.


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2007)

lets get something straight, IF i avoided the test it was not intentional and i screwed up as a handler, which by the way I was a very green handler at the time with my first dog. i have NEVER intentionally avoided ANYTHING. 
and if i care to believe what is told to me by not just one but many people over what you say, that is my choice.

when you picked me out of all the persons on the forum i call that an attack because only you and i know the history behind us. when you pick my record with rocket that is a personal attack as well for the same reason.

i thought we had somehow come to an understanding that day in the north cove but i should have known better. i was warned by bob crabb, ken lee and the rest of the training group afterwards, there is never an understanding with someone like you.
you are a hateful person with a big chip on your shoulder.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*MUD*



suprdogs said:


> and if i care to believe what is told to me by not just one but many people over what you say, that is my choice.
> 
> 
> > So you're saying the accused in this case does not deserve a hearing as long as you want to believe what you are told.
> ...


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Unfortunatly your opinion doens't count because your from PA.


 Hey I ain't gonna argue wit dat one

I think we can use one of your famous picturials right about now.


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2007)

> After the understanding at Carlson's & your reaction when you were called on it a person would have to be STUPID to have any kind of an understanding with you.



and you would know what you are talking about because ??????


----------



## Bill Burks (Jan 25, 2003)

I'm with Ed and Ted.
I greatly prefer to run difficult tests. The alternative often results in a crapshoot for a variety of reasons that others have already named.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Paul
> 
> You say you don't like to include newcomers in your training group ...
> 
> ...


I though this was gonna die but since it seems to have a life of it's own and my name keeps coming up, I do have a response that's more to the point for ya, with all do respect Mr. Shih. Seriously, with respect.

Well Ted, you've never trained with me so maybe you should consider getting to know me a bit better before you shove me down the perverbial sewer pipe.

I have joined a group, out of nowhere, that has put up several dogs to the national amatuer, has a couple of FC-AFC animals running, and includes some guys who just aren't going to put up with the new guy's BS. Whether I will ever match their accomplishments remains to be seen but I will gaurantee you one thing, I will not be released from that group because of my mouth of my attitude. I know how to shut up and I know when an opinion might have value to the group. 

I go to training every week, work my arse off, keep my mouth shut and my eyes/ears open. That's how I got into the group and how I have stayed in there. And believe me these guys will hire bird boys long before they put up with any crap out of a new comer, so I have earned my stripes. Our group doesn't put up with sloppy trainign technique or lax standards for our dogs either. You're either there to play or your not and if you're the new guy best keep your trap shut and learn. I have had no problem with that role and still don't but when I believe my opinion might be useful, I am not afraid to voice it. 

In this case I think those on the inside could use to listen to those coming in fresh. I'm not some disgruntled old fart who can't train a dog and goes looking for excuses why I can't win. I'm a fresh face with a lot of fire, a new pup to train and some great mentors to help me. I'm not bitching or complaining, but I am trying to call attention to something that I find unappealing and that I'm sure so many others do too.

If I recall this is one of a whole group of sports we love that is ont eh decline (I never checked that but hunting and fishing are so I assume FT is too).

So look, I don't expect you to give me anything, except what's due me and any other person you come in contact with... a simple chance to show you who I am before I am dismissed.

Now maybe you gave me that chance and I'm just a mouthy newbie in your opinion. That's fine but don't be so quick to judge. 

You will notice in all of my posts that I asked some questions, and yes, I steered the conversation over to one of my many concerns with buying a dog and investing 3 solid years of my life into training him, and then not enjoy the outcome, good, bad or indifferent.

If you really read what I wrote I said the participants should stop whining about who knows who and who got what break, what kind of "impossible test" was set up and a given trial, and respect the expertise and opinion of those who THEY ASKED TO COME OUT AND JUDGE THE TRIAL.

That means I said they should respect the viewpoint of those seasoned people who are handing out those ribbons every week after years of experience both in front of, and behind the running line.

If you have a problem with that attitude, that's fine, but remember one thing. I didn't say there was anything wrong with anything in the field trial game, EXCEPT that people should come out, run the trial, do their best and have a good time, and not ruin it for those of us who are really there to have fun and a little friendly competition on our weekend. 

If I wanna go toe to toe winner take all I'll do it in the board room, not in a field on a Saturday, thank you very much... 

Now if that isn;t what this game is supposed to be about, then please let me know. I have a 15 week old pup out of FC-AFC Runnin with the Devil that you're welcome to, FOC.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

Please stop the personal attacks. They will not be tolerated on RTF.

ftrjuj & suprdogs.....it seems that you have problems with each other which would be better taken to PM status.

To disagree with others is fine....personal attacks are not.

Vicky


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Darren wrote
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just wanted to put out there for the record, that I really have no problem with Ted's statements as they are sure to represent the opinion of many in the sport. They were as I would expect based on what I have seen and heard thus far. 

And as for me running trials, it's unfortunate but the dog I had when I got when I got hooked on this idea, that I still have, probably isn't all age material. She wasn't bred for it, or bought for it, and although we are training for it, we may never make it past a Q, or we may go for an MH title to get me some line time next season. 

It's gonna be a couple of years before you guys see me on the line with the new pup as he is 15 wks old, bred for and will be trained for FT.

Having said that, those of you who care to hear me will be hearing from me in the next couple of years, and you'll probably see me marshalling a trial or at least helping out somewhere along the way since I know that you not only need a good dog in this sport, but you need to be known as part of this community, and a contributor to the sport if you want to play. And quite frankly, I have no problem with that principal, although it appears to get prostituted here and there from what I've been told.

I still believe, after attending a bunch of trials and talking to a load of people, that we have way too many folks taking this whole thing way too seriously, and as with msot American sports, we have a whole bunch of people who are day in, day out destroying what this is supposed to be about, and forgetting the roots of it....

Those being a bunch of people who enjoyed hunting and dogs getting together for a little competition on a weekend, between FRIENDS...

It's no different that little league or soccer in a lot of ways, and it's ashame.

Some of you will come to love me and many many more will probably come to hate me LOL! but that's OK w/me, I been around the block a couple of times, I just haven't stopped at field trial avenue yet.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Attababy, Darrin! :wink: 

Forge on regards,

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*Darrin Greene*



DarrinGreene said:


> It's gonna be a couple of years before you guys see me on the line with the new pup as he is 15 wks old, bred for and will be trained for FT.


GOOD LUCK!



> I still believe, after attending a bunch of trials and talking to a load of people, that we have way too many folks taking this whole thing way too seriously, and as with msot American sports, we have a whole bunch of people who are day in, day out destroying what this is supposed to be about, and forgetting the roots of it....


JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!!



> Some of you will come to love me and many many more will probably come to hate me LOL! but that's OK w/me, I been around the block a couple of times, I just haven't stopped at field trial avenue yet.


ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE NOT AS (NIAVE) AS YOU ORIGINALLY STATED? 

Marvin S


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

No No Marv, I would never misrepresnt my experience. I have a 4 yo lab that I screwed all up and am working to straighten out with a FT training groups... + a 15 wk old Devil pup I'm just starting work with.

When I said I've been around the block I mean I'm no youngster (well, in this game I might be LOL)... I'm 41 yo myself with 20+ years of business experience. Been in a few debates, and been on message boards for other topics for about 7 yrs. Known as a bit of a hard nose at times, and admittedly I can be if I feel I'm right. But aI'm lso known as a consensus builder in many circles and have developed a ton of awesome relationships through these boards.

Funny thing here is I seem to be making both friends and enemies... 

That's tellin me somethin already about where to swim and where not to LOL!

OH ant BTW if you're gonna correct my spelling all of the time get ready for a big job :shock: :twisted:

sumtimes Iz rites liak uh reetard.....


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I don't correct people that make sense or at least *contribute* to a topic....and they don't have to _agree_ with me either! :lol: :lol: :wink: !

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*Dog People*



DarrinGreene said:


> Funny thing here is I seem to be making both friends and enemies...


Actually, it's just the way people present themselves in writing. The majority of the people on this site are pretty nice people. As a friend of mine once said about some individuals from a particular area of the US - "They are all strange - some are just more strange than others". In our dog world many of us would be classifiied as different with our own strong opinions! 



> OH ant BTW if you're gonna correct my spelling all of the time get ready for a big job :shock: :twisted:
> 
> sumtimes Iz rites liak uh reetard.....


Good Shot!

Marvin S


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

The thing to remember about this place is that you just can't hang on too tightly........folks seem to LOOK for things to get pissed off about. The same thick skin necessary to compete in field trials will go a long way here as well.

kg


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

don't worry KG...
been doin board 7 yrs, I've been threatened physically LOL! 

skin thicker than my dog's head...

regards. :shock:


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> don't worry Guthrie...:


RTF lesson #1

KG is definitely NOT Gut :wink:


----------



## edfletcher (Oct 15, 2003)

*Elimination Tests*

Well said, Dr. Ed.

Although KG and KG might be confusing to some, this KG is definitely not GUT. I wonder which one of them will get the biggest laugh out of that one.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

EdA said:


> DarrinGreene said:
> 
> 
> > don't worry Guthrie...:
> ...


My bad, edited for my own safety...

Been lurking 6 mos and can't keep it straight.

I hate those silly handles.

regards...


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

EdA said:


> DarrinGreene said:
> 
> 
> > don't worry Guthrie...:
> ...


Ya well after they spent that special night in Texas its kinda hard to tell....

/Paul


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

*Elimination Tests*

Hey Suprdogs!

At the end of the day you still have a BLUE RIBBON from the OPEN, 5 All-age Points and a Field Champion title! Nothing can change that!!! Enjoy.

PS. I've run a double in the last series of an Open that hardly anyone could do without a handle! Ditto in the Amateur. Fewer birds doesn't necessarily mean less difficulty. 

Regards,

Vicki


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

> I don't correct people that make sense or at least contribute to a topic....


NOWWWWWWW I understand!!! :shock: :shock: :lol: 


Been corrected by KG before! :lol: 
I never make sense!! Its my nature! :lol: 


Just in case KG ,,
Mike Baker Littleton ,Co :lol: :lol: 


Gooser


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Gooser/Mike Baker, proud to know you....you're a fun lover, man...that's all that counts! :lol: 




Gun_Dog2002 said:


> EdA said:
> 
> 
> > DarrinGreene said:
> ...


Paul, I'll gladly step aside and let you fulfill your unrequited love quest for Gut.....it's the way things should be! :wink: 

kg


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: Elimination Tests*



edfletcher said:


> Well said, Dr. Ed.
> 
> Although KG and KG might be confusing to some, this KG is definitely not GUT. I wonder which one of them will get the biggest laugh out of that one.


I'm guessin' it's probably EQUAL!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: 

It ain't been _that_ long ago that the "air" between us was a lot thicker. Just shows to go you that things _can_ change...for the better! :wink: 

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> Paul, I'll gladly step aside and let you fulfill your unrequited love quest for Gut.....it's the way things should be! :wink:
> 
> kg


Nah, he's all yours big boy. I got my handful keeping bubba from mounting me...

/Paul


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Nah, he's all yours big boy. I got my handful keeping bubba from mounting me...
> 
> /Paul



:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: 

Scarred For Life Regards,

FOM


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Hands _full_??????????? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: 

TMI regards,  

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

FOM said:


> Gun_Dog2002 said:
> 
> 
> > Nah, he's all yours big boy. I got my handful keeping bubba from mounting me...
> ...


You, I'm sitting trying to load my last bullet because I guarantee you I'll be dead before it happens...

/Paul


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

You know a thread is exhausted when gose down the man love path.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I don't think he can help it........

kg


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Just eliminate that behavior. It's a test. HPW


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: Elimination Tests*



Vicki Worthington said:


> Hey Suprdogs!
> 
> At the end of the day you still have a BLUE RIBBON from the OPEN, 5 All-age Points and a Field Champion title! Nothing can change that!!! Enjoy.
> 
> ...


We were both admonished by Vicky Trainor for a public display of animosity. Maybe you should have read that post & confined yourself to the PM page. Or are you trying to incite?

Marvin S


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

You don't KNOW Vicki Worthington, do you, Marv?

_She_ wasn't admonished, was she? Kim hasn't replied, has she?

No...only YOU have (of the two "admonished")......_surely_ you can resist the temptation.........

kg


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

I don't care if the marks were thrown in the Wal Mart parking lot, a dog has to beat other dogs to get a blue ribbon. 

Last time I checked nobody was getting onto Roy McFall, Jack Voldsted (sp) or even Howard N for amassing points in small fields in Alaska.

A BLUE IS A BLUE IS A BLUE and they are all the same in the record book whether it was a Quad or a double in the last series or against a field of ten or a field of 100.

It's like a golf score. Nobod asks about how you played, just how many you took.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> or even Howard N for amassing points in small fields in Alaska



:lol: :lol:   :lol: :lol:   :lol: :lol:   :lol: :lol:   :lol: :lol:   

Amassing???? I don't think I've ever been accused of amassing points before. I'm still laughing, sprayed the screen too. :lol: :lol: 

'Course, I ain't never given back any of the meager points I and my dogs have amassed either. I'll take every last half point of them.

Accused point amasserer regards,


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*AMASSING*



Tim West said:


> Last time I checked nobody was getting onto Roy McFall, Jack Voldsted (sp) or even Howard N for amassing points in small fields in Alaska.


Howard took care of himself - I'm sure jack Vollstedt & Roy McFall have better things to do than read this stuff. THEY amassed the points they have against some of the finest competition in the mainland US. That they added to the total running in Alaska certainly does nothing to demean the quality of their dogs &/or their accomplishments.

Marvin S


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

hey, you guys are just ramblin now. What does this have to do with elimination tests or the useless commetns of a niave (yep Marv that was for you) comments of a FT newbie?

Quit it with the nice conversation and get back to the arg... uh... I mean debate :twisted: 

starved for better entertainment value, regards....


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Well if ya want a topic for real discussion,,,



KG,,, did you ever have your dog seat with a duck before,, and if so what were YOUR methods!!!!! :lol: 

This outa eliminate the Elimination thread! :? 

Ramblin Pro

Gooser


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

8) ...........................................

kg


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Marvin, they sure did get a lot of points in the US but Roy got a buttload of them in Alaska in 20 dog Opens. I DON"T CARE!! A blue is a blue is a blue!

So what's the difference in that and Kim getting an Open win by picking up a double in the last series?

NOTHIN

Howard, I'm throwing you in with Roy because you're just STARTING to amass those hundreds of points


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Hi Tim, 

I'm going to disagree with this:


> So what's the difference in that and Kim getting an Open win by picking up a double in the last series?
> 
> NOTHIN


I don't care if it was a double or a quad, her dog did the best that day on what the judges gave them. She won and deserves the spoils a win gives. ($3.00 *blue *colored ribbon :wink: . OK, and a title)

I'd expect that the smallest open that Kim attends there in the pac NW is more than twice the size of any here in Alaska. Double, quad or quint, I don't care. Kim's dog whipped more dogs in that trial than I've ever had to in any Alaskan trial. So I think there's difference. BTW, good going Kim.



> Howard, I'm throwing you in with Roy because you're just STARTING to amass those hundreds of points


Well, I can hope  Roy's done it for 40 plus years and only keeps two sometimes three trialing dogs at a time. He and his dogs have earned over 1500 points I believe. He's done all his own training and trialing.

I don't have 30 some points a year in me for the next 40 years.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*Elimination Thread*



Tim West said:


> Marvin, they sure did get a lot of points in the US but Roy got a buttload of them in Alaska in 20 dog Opens. I DON"T CARE!! A blue is a blue is a blue!


Tim

Just how many points did Roy McFall accumulate in Alaska vs how many points he accumulated in mainland US. You have made the statement - now back it up with facts!!!!! The audience would like to know what constiutes a b***load out of approximately 1500 AA points!!

Remember there were 20 dog Opens all over when Roy started, but still some very good dogs! In my time in the dog business I don't ever remember doing a water double in either the Open &/or the Amateur, but have done a triple in a 40+ dog derby.

Marvin S


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Why would someone want to down-play someone else's accomplishment? HPW


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

HarryWilliams said:


> Why would someone want to down-play someone else's accomplishment? HPW



To build themselves up? :?


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> HarryWilliams said:
> 
> 
> > Why would someone want to down-play someone else's accomplishment? HPW
> ...


Thank you Dr Phil.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Tulsa Slim said:


> Patrick Johndrow said:
> 
> 
> > HarryWilliams said:
> ...



Why are you so angry? Is it the field trials?


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

I'm not down playing anyones accomplishments, including Howards!

Roy McFall deserves every blue he ever got. He got a ton of them in Alaska and a ton of them in the mainlands. 

He has had some of the finest dogs in the history of the game.

A blue is a blue, whether it's given in the Wal Mart parking lot, Alaska or in the United States, against a field of ten or a field of 100.

A blue ribbon is to be cherished. 

In twenty years nobody will remember how one was accomplished, just that it WAS accomplished. It will be in the books and hopefully still hanging on somebody's wall.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*Quantify?????*



Tim West said:


> I'm not down playing anyones accomplishments, including Howards!
> 
> Roy McFall deserves every blue he ever got. He got a ton of them in Alaska and a ton of them in the mainlands.
> 
> ...


How many b***loads in a ton or vice versa, whichever is larger? As you are unwilling to quantify, I will - I would wager Roy got less than 25% of his AA points running in Alaska, which means that he got about 1100+ AA points running in the mainland. Not too bad for an individual that I consider one of the better Amateurs to ever participate in the sport. The significance of his accomplishment is it's long standing duration & that it appears to have been mostly self taught. While I know there are several that compare to him, few have stayed on top as long. 

Over the years many have gone North to compete. Most recently, along with the previously mentioned - Mosher goes there & Mark Perrizo shows up in the placings also. It's not quite the cakewalk that some would say it appears to be.

We're a long way from an "elimination thread" with this subject - especially when you try to defend something where you do not know the history!!!

Marvin S


----------



## Vickie Lamb (Jan 6, 2003)

I don't know the history, but since no one else has mentioned this with regard to winning an Open on a double...and without elaborating on any other aspects of the same...

..the double plays a part in establishing most NAFCs and NFCs in at least the past 20 years or so.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Vickie Lamb said:


> I don't know the history, but since no one else has mentioned this with regard to winning an Open on a double...and without elaborating on any other aspects of the same...


The incident was mentioned - no names!!!!



> ..the double plays a part in establishing most NAFCs and NFCs in at least the past 20 years or so.


WHAT are you trying to say??

Marvin S


----------



## Vickie Lamb (Jan 6, 2003)

ftrjuj said:


> Vickie Lamb said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know the history, but since no one else has mentioned this with regard to winning an Open on a double...and without elaborating on any other aspects of the same...
> ...


I was not speaking of the incident per se. I was simply stating that it appeared no one had said anything, with reference to a double in an open, about the fact that a double is generally a part of most Nationals. 

It seems as though many readers on this forum have taken the comment about a double in the last series of an Open to be a detriment thereof...

...does this clear up what I was trying to say?

Thanks for reading...


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*NFC-NAFC double*

Vickie -

On land - in the 1st series - in the interest of expediency. They will have 5 (five) more opportunities to expose the survivors to either a triple &/or a quad, with 3 of those on water. 

Thanks for the clarification!

Marvin S


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Marvin, why do you continue to try to blast me about Roy McFall? 

I DON"T CARE where he got his points. 

They all count the same, which is what I have said for two posts.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*Reply*



Tim West said:


> Marvin, why do you continue to try to blast me about Roy McFall?


The implication in your posts is that the points were picked up on an easy circuit, which is not true based on the number of points.



> I DON"T CARE where he got his points.


There are others who may not share your opinion. Roy McFall is deserving of more than to be thrown about on this message board because of his long term accomplishments. He is a very accomplished & knowledgable dog person. I believe he deserves a higher level of respect based on those accomplishments.



> They all count the same, which is what I have said for two posts.


Not in PERCEPTION!!!

Marvin S


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Some folks earn and deserve recognition and respect for their accomplishments and opinions, some don't. Some are better ignored. 

I got this in a fortune cookie, seemed appropriate.


----------



## TimThurby (May 22, 2004)

*Re: Reply*



ftrjuj said:


> The implication in your posts is that the points were picked up on an easy circuit, which is not true based on the number of points.
> 
> There are others who may not share your opinion. Roy McFall is deserving of more than to be thrown about on this message board because of his long term accomplishments. He is a very accomplished & knowledgable dog person. I believe he deserves a higher level of respect based on those accomplishments.
> 
> ...


Marvin,

Are you the only one not understanding what has been stated??? :roll: 

Don't think Tim would be disrespecting anyone, it seems you are by saying that someone titled a dog by winning a stake with a double in the last series.
And where would these "Easy Circuits" be located? :? 

A Win Is A Win Is A Win, regards,
Tim


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: Reply*



Pond River Kennels said:


> ftrjuj said:
> 
> 
> > The implication in your posts is that the points were picked up on an easy circuit, which is not true based on the number of points.
> ...


As an example---
You are saying LSU's win over Virginia Tech &/or Oregon's win over Michigan are no more significant than (if they even have a team) George Fox beating Eastern Oregon Tech. 

A lot of people have taken 1 side in this discussion - That does'nt mean they have presented anything worthwhile to the discussion. 

Not DISRESPECT -just FACT. Does that change the PERCEPTION?

Unless someone presents something of substance - I'm done!!!

Marvin S


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

*Re: Reply*



ftrjuj said:


> As an example---
> You are saying LSU's win over Virginia Tech &/or Oregon's win over Michigan are no more significant than (if they even have a team) George Fox beating Eastern Oregon Tech.
> 
> A lot of people have taken 1 side in this discussion - That does'nt mean they have presented anything worthwhile to the discussion.
> ...


If "all wins/points are not equal" then we must create a separate point systems for Limited, Restricted and Special Opens.
How can we allow a dog to be awarded 5 points for winning a 70 dog mere Open that only had 35 QAA dog while another gets the same 5 for winning a 50 dog Restricted or Special? 
This inequity must end now! :wink:

Tim


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

*Re: Reply*



Tim Carrion said:


> ftrjuj said:
> 
> 
> > As an example---
> ...


 what about trials in alaska. a 25 dog open is a big one. :shock:


----------



## TimThurby (May 22, 2004)

> If "all wins/points are not equal" then we must create a separate point systems for Limited, Restricted and Special Opens.
> How can we allow a dog to be awarded 5 points for winning a 70 dog mere Open that only had 35 QAA dog while another gets the same 5 for winning a 50 dog Restricted or Special?
> This inequity must end now!
> Tim


Guess they could change it like the politcal system ie ELECTORAL VOTES :roll: 

Now that could get interesting!!! :lol: 

Tim


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

*Re: Reply*



Tim Carrion said:


> ftrjuj said:
> 
> 
> > As an example---
> ...



Or we could ban people who live under bridges and eat billy goats... then the issue just kinda goes away. :wink:


----------



## Anthony Heath (Jan 3, 2003)

Marvin,

What score did you get on the verbal portion of the SAT and/or GRE?

Just askin' regards (© KG ~2001)

A


----------

