# Field Trial Judging & Marking Concepts



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

There have been a couple of good threads lately on training retrievers to deal with specific marking concepts that we see at field trials. That started me thinking about how many “marking concepts” I have seen or heard others talk about. I have no clue what a couple of these are; I have just heard the term. Therefore two or more may well be the same thing by a different name. Here are the marking concepts that I have listed so far.

1. Long retired gun mark.
2. Up and out or punch bird mark.
3. Hip pocket mark.
4. Over & under mark.
5. Short retired gun mark.
6. Mamma/papa marks.
7. Mamma retired to papa marks.
8. Flower pot marks.
9. Intermediate retired gun marks.
10. Birds in a pile with overlapping fall areas.
11. In-line marks.
12. Two or three down the shore marks.
13. Contrary marks.
14. Texas double marks.
15. California double marks.
16. Interrupted marks.
17. Multiple marks interrupted with one or more blind retrieves.

How many have I omitted?

During the trial season I am lucky to get out training 3 days a week. It is a good training day for me if I can get in two marking setups a day or six setups a week. At this rate it would take me three weeks to present each of these concepts to my dogs one time. That is hardly enough for the dog to become or even stay proficient on all the concepts.

Then the question comes to mind as to why we need to train on “marking concepts” in the first place. The obvious answer is that field trial judges use marking concepts to separate dogs. However, the question persists as to why FT judges use marking concepts to separate dogs on marking tests. What happened to good old fashion bird placement?

Do FT judges resort to marking concepts:
1. Because the grounds are inadequate and do not offer judges the opportunity to set up marking tests based on fair but difficult bird placement.
2. Because the dogs have gotten so good at marking that they cannot be separated on bird placement alone.
3. Because too many judges do not have an understanding of good bird placement so are forced to use marking concepts that the learned from training with their pro.

The answer is most likely some combination of 1 and 2 with 3 being a factor with increasing frequency.

Wouldn’t it be nice if all clubs had adequate ground and water and all judges knew bird placement so a marking test could be a test to evaluate the natural abilities of the dogs leaving the abilities acquired through training other than line manners to be tested on the blind retrieves instead of marking tests to see which dogs have been schooled best on the marking concept de jour.

Or it is entirely possible that I am the one who does not understand the game we play.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

I guess I am going to show my ignorance and ask about # 14 and # 15...what are Texas double marks and California double marks....and please dont someone tell me the California marks come from the far left and Texas marks come from the far right


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I have always thought a Texas double and a California double were different names for the same thing. Mainly a shorter go bird and a loooong retired memory bird. I haven't seen one in a trial in a long time.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ok . 

We now have been given a small cross section of concepts marks. I am now waiting for as many examples of *concept free* _old fashion good bird placement marks._ 

Anyone care to give it a whirl ???????

john


----------



## Geoff Buckius (Feb 3, 2004)

Sure John

How about "if I were a dog where would I not want to go"


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Ok .
> 
> We now have been given a small cross section of concepts marks. I am now waiting for as many examples of *concept free* _old fashion good bird placement marks._
> 
> ...


What Jim has listed are setup types. There are concepts within each set up that require training and exposer for dogs to be sucessful. I think it would be nearlly imposible to put 3 birds in a field and not be able to decribe it with a set up type or name.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Geoff Buckius said:


> Sure John
> 
> How about "if I were a dog where would I not want to go"




Isn't this how some concepts were developed ? 
Over the years people kept track of what dogs were unlikely to do naturally , then developed testing around these factors. A mark in a plowed field for example.

john


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

Jim Pickering said:


> Then the question comes to mind as to why we need to train on “marking concepts” in the first place. The obvious answer is that field trial judges use marking concepts to separate dogs. However, the question persists as to why FT judges use marking concepts to separate dogs on marking tests. What happened to good old fashion bird placement?
> 
> 
> Or it is entirely possible that I am the one who does not understand the game we play.


Because the dogs these days are too well trained for a widely separated stand-up triple to get any real answers. Under your premise, even a single retire is a "concept". Personally, I like concepts and enjoy training for them.

After your success this past year, imagine how much better you would have done if you understood the game.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

I think there are those obvious set-ups occasionally seen at a trial that seem to have been laid on a piece of ground as if they were preconceived. And they sometimes seem rather artificial. But I also think regardless of the bird placement skills of the judges, most trial set-ups fall generally into one of the various concept models - or they are described as concept types by entrants to provide a means of description among competitors. In my limited judging experience, I have not had a co-judge attempt to impose a set concept model. I also don't have "favorite" concepts I want to run. Without exception, when I have judged, we have tried to look at the land choices, pick the best available location & then place birds according to what the land character offers and the influence each mark has upon the other.

But apparently some judges are predictable in terms of set-ups, because some experienced trainer/handlers have an uncanning ability to train appropriately & be well-prepared for specific trial set-up that they inevitably see at the trial.


----------



## Beverly Burns (Apr 20, 2006)

A couple of years ago, two very competent judges decided to set up an Open using a triple on land with pheasants and a triple on water using ducks and retired nothing in either marking series. Guess what? They still finished the usual four placements with several Jams. What a novel concept. I think, sometimes leaving stations out gives the dogs more ownership with marking responsibilities. Just a thought.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

I absolutely agree. I don't think there is an obligation to retire guns. A triple with pheasants and a little cover can take a real toll - even a good double. And for the minor stakes I have noticed a trend toward retiring guns in the Q & sitting the guns down in cover such that they are effectively retired in derbies.

Another trend is the apparent idea that marks need to be extremely long, 400+ to get answers.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Refer to these two documents for explainations of marking concepts and bird placement.
http://www.weebegoldens.com/John Training Manual02062001.pdf
http://www.weebegoldens.com/JudgesManual/Judging Manual Version 5.0.pdf

Go here to view all documents authored John available on this site.
http://www.weebegoldens.com/John_Cavanaugh.htm

If you have never seen this stuff it is a must read.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Ok .
> 
> We now have been given a small cross section of concepts marks. I am now waiting for as many examples of *concept free* _old fashion good bird placement marks._
> 
> ...


John, maybe I do not understand your comment, but to ask for examples of good bird placement suggest that you do not know good bird placement. Good bird placement is not something that can be given a more definitive name or explained in ten words or less other than Geoff’s explanation of where the dogs naturally do not want to go.

Maybe good bird placement could be explained as the use of factors such as terrain, cover changes and wind as opposed to the relative position of the guns and order of birds down to test the marking and other natural abilities of the dogs. The specifics of how to use these factors cannot so easily be explained. 

I will say that more often than not when I have judged we, my co-judge and I, have been given a flat field with no cover changes and in some cases no distance. In those situations the judges have not choice but to manufacture factors by using marking concepts.

BTW I assume the link in the PM you sent me twice is a list of marking concept compiled by Vickie Lamb, but it does not work. When I attempt to open the file I get a Net Zero website that requires membership to view.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Tulsa Slim said:


> What Jim has listed are setup types. There are concepts within each set up that require training and exposer for dogs to be sucessful. I think it would be nearlly imposible to put 3 birds in a field and not be able to decribe it with a set up type or name.


I do not mean to be argumentative and maybe I should define marking concepts as marks where the difficulty is based solely on relative placement of the guns. To that extend whether you call them marking concepts or marking setups they are the same. That is not to say that one could put three well placed marks in a field with good natural factors and retire one or more guns or have one mark significantly longer or shorter than another, but the difficulty is in the natural factors as opposed to the relative placement of the guns and/or order of birds down. My argument is that a dog’s ability to do these setups / marking concepts is more a function of training than a dog’s natural abilities which should IMHO be the primary purpose of marking tests.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Howard N said:


> I have always thought a Texas double and a California double were different names for the same thing. Mainly a shorter go bird and a loooong retired memory bird. I haven't seen one in a trial in a long time.


they are the same, Ray Goodrich is reported to be the inventor, he used the California Double in in flat alfalfa fields, he would dig as hole in the field to for the long gun to retire into

the test is a long retired gun (the route to the long bird tight to the back side of a short flyer) with a physical obstacle (ditch, hedgerow) deep of the flyer guns, dogs tend to lose momentum, break down, and hunt behind the flyer gun, we still do the test regularly in training

the test was done at a Texas trial in the spring in the late 70s or early 80s and was renamed the Texas Double by the Minnesota boys


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


> I do not mean to be argumentative and maybe I should define marking concepts as marks where the difficulty is based solely on relative placement of the guns. To that extend whether you call them marking concepts or marking setups they are the same. That is not to say that one could put three well placed marks in a field with good natural factors and retire one or more guns or have one mark significantly longer or shorter than another, but the difficulty is in the natural factors as opposed to the relative placement of the guns and/or order of birds down.* My argument is that a dog’s ability to do these setups / marking concepts is more a function of training than a dog’s natural abilities which should IMHO be the primary purpose of marking tests.[/*quote]
> 
> I agree to a point Jim, even with wide open marks it take a lot of training concepts to get the pups to well placed birds for example fighting cross wind, holding hillside, cheating water and cover, angle entries. A good AA dog has the trained skills to get to the marks regardless of the factors be them natural or gun placement.


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

jim what concept did you use to teach your dog to get a bird from the birdboys bucket and still get a placement.lol


----------



## Greg Heier (Jan 3, 2009)

Jim,

I here what you are saying as far as some "marking" tests being more of a test of training than a test of marking. The best example I can think of is the "Indented Triple" with a short bird in the middle at the bottom of a hill and two longer guns up the hill including the go bird flyer. In the late 90's in the midwest, it seemed this set up was the opening series in a lot of All Age trials. After my dog blowing through the short middle gun (usually retired) a couple times, I realized I needed to come up with a way to train for the test. I came up with a training method that after a series of earlier steps I would actually not even throw the middle bird when I set up the indented triple in training. (I would just have the gunner lay the bird out there before bringing the dog to the line and simply pop but not throw when signaling for the birds.) By cueing the dog on easy and some earlier steps I was able to train the dog to become proficient on this set up and getting that short middle bird out of there. Don't remember that dog not picking up the birds in a trial that had an indented triple after "training" the dog how to handle the set up. Probably the classic example of a "marking" test that was definitely in vogue at one time that is much more of a "training" test when a dog can be trained to do a good job picking up the key bird in the test without ever seeing it thrown.

I don't think using the relation of marks as a factor in "protecting" birds is all bad, though I would hope the primary factors "protecting" birds would be natural factors.

Greg


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

I agree with Didier. The names come into play for description purposes. 

Bird placement is bird placement and good bird placement is necessary for any of the named concepts to be a good test. (a test that results in a lot of failures is a not always a good test)

Dogs are dogs, and usually most of the dogs you judge are going to be just that - dogs. It's the 15-20% that are going to be brilliant that day that you have to separate.

SM


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Throughout the years I have probably seen 1,000 AA marks as a competitor & an additional maybe 500 as a spectator &/or judge. 

The effective tests generally follow a pattern of solid use of factors given the circumstances. All tests work in some manner should judges have an understanding of bird placement & the path to the bird which is equally as important. There are places dogs don't naturally go & paths they don't naturally want to follow. Effective use of those factors can make or break a test. 

Now - Is a flower pot the same as a fountain? & my understanding of a CA double was short memory - long go bird. Used effectively in large entries of dogs given good terrain.

With more & more hiring their training done, I do not see an improvement in the quality of judges, unless we overwork those judges who train their own dogs. 

& kip, I've seen an Am where the 1st place ribbon was awarded to a dog that didn't want to go in the water at a distance & grabbed one from the BB's. Used to call the guy, now long out of the sport, Bird Bag Bob & never ran under the people who were the judges again.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> & kip, I've seen an Am where the 1st place ribbon was awarded to a dog that didn't want to go in the water at a distance & grabbed one from the BB's. Used to call the guy, now long out of the sport, Bird Bag Bob & never ran under the people who were the judges again.


This may be for another thread... but we've all told bird boys to keep their birds in the bag or the bucket, and we've all seen those orders go totally ignored. If the dog picks up a bird laying at the BB's feet... how are you going to judge that?

SM


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

Having an out of order flyer, not always the last bird down. So the go bird is adead bird rather than a flyer can cause a problem with younger dogs or the fllyer crazy dog.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> Another trend is the apparent idea that marks need to be extremely long, 400+ to get answers.


Amen to that. 

Old time (now retired) pro trainer-handler Warren Grimsby has often said, "If you can't set up good marks in a Safeway parking lot, you shouldn't be judging" -- or words to that effect.

Warren can set up a dinky double and get you every time.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Upcoming issues of Retrievers Online will address how marks are judged in FT as opposed to how - according to the Rule Book - they should be judged

And

The use of "concept" tests in FT


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Well, after having thrown marks for, and observed these dogs since about 1955, * I thought* *that I might have had a clue* as to the placing of birds--- where a combination of the mark itself, the terrain ,the wind, and other factors were *not* going to allow a dog without first having* marked* the fall and *then giving considerable effort* to just'' happen "upon the bird .......... It seems as though that is not what you are looking for though (?) . 

Early on,this thread, in answer to my post, the inability of its esteemed contributors to briefly articulate what well placed marks were had shaken my confidence to the point of having to rethinking my position on my own prowess.
Heck, I had always thought that "_Put the marks where the dogs does not want to go"_ was a cleshay(SP) of the uninitiated.

As I followed the development of the thread I realized that my thoughts on bird placement, though not pure and unadulterated, were in line with the consensus, and that marks sans concepts,(even in the Derby) though good food for thought, were in reality unlikely to be able to *BE*

Sorry,......it's back to reality for ya'll regards,

john


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

helencalif said:


> Amen to that.
> 
> Old time (now retired) pro trainer-handler Warren Grimsby has often said, "If you can't set up good marks in a Safeway parking lot, you shouldn't be judging" -- or words to that effect.
> 
> Warren can set up a dinky double and get you every time.


Times change... things are different today than they were 20 years ago - or even 10 years ago.

People say the size of the entry, the quality of the training, the quality of the breeding, etc... all attribute to the change. Each of which are true and party to the biggest change, which is the depth of really good dogs.

You can certainly set up a stand up triple in a parking lot and get "answers". Adequate "answers" are relative and vary greatly from judge to judge. I personally feel like a dog should fail a test to be dropped - in a perfect world of course. I try to set up tests accordingly. Some judges feel like having 2 hunts on a triple is answer enough and would consider that a successful/good test. I believe handling on 2 birds is the better answer and you are more likely to ultimately reward the better dog. A common dog can do great work on a common test.

SM


----------



## trog (Apr 25, 2004)

Shane

Awesome post - enough said
trog


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Another trend is the apparent idea that marks need to be extremely long, 400+ to get answers.


I've heard a couple long time FTers say in jest, "If you don't know anything, then go long."


----------



## Fast Woody (Apr 13, 2004)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I personally feel like a dog should fail a test to be dropped - in a perfect world of course. I try to set up tests accordingly.
> 
> SM


Then the guy that has a gorilla hunt in the first series thinks he won because he did the last series....
________
iolite vaporizer review


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Fast Woody said:


> Then the guy that has a gorilla hunt in the first series thinks he won because he did the last series....


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA amen my crown drinkin brother!!!!!

SM


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I personally feel like a dog should fail a test to be dropped - in a perfect world of course. I try to set up tests accordingly. Some judges feel like having 2 hunts on a triple is answer enough and would consider that a successful/good test. I believe handling on 2 birds is the better answer and you are more likely to ultimately reward the better dog. A common dog can do great work on a common test.
> 
> SM





Fast Woody said:


> Then the guy that has a gorilla hunt in the first series thinks he won because he did the last series....


I agree with Shayne but what do you do on the scenario where a dog is carried to the next series, and proceeds to step on the next three series. Is that dog the winner. I actually saw that scenario play out one time long ago,a dog butchered the first series and by most judges should have been dropped but proceeded to have excellent 2-4 series and picked up the hardware..call it home cooking or whatever..we all know it happens


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

bonbonjovi said:


> I agree with Shayne but what do you do on the scenario where a dog is carried to the next series, and proceeds to step on the next three series. Is that dog the winner. I actually saw that scenario play out one time long ago,a dog butchered the first series and by most judges should have been dropped but proceeded to have excellent 2-4 series and picked up the hardware..call it home cooking or whatever..we all know it happens


I kinda subscribe to the theory of getting rid of them while you can. HAHA

That dog is not guaranteed to be the winner. If your really judging by the book.... which bird did he hunt? The dog that smacks the money bird, but hunts the flyer, should technically place behind the dog that smacks the flyer but hunts the money bird... but that is rarely the case IMO.

Truth be known, set up good tough tests and it will work out. It always works out. The dogs who were dogs would have likely been dogs no matter what, while the dogs who were brilliant were going to be brilliant.

SM


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

kip said:


> jim what concept did you use to teach your dog to get a bird from the birdboys bucket and still get a placement.lol


Kip, right there is the problem with concepts. You are confusing a blind concept with marking concepts *as did my derby dog*. I do train on bird bucket blinds, don’t you? We already have judges who put blinds at a bird boy’s feet and judges who hang birds in trees so I figure it is just a matter of time until some judge puts a blind in a bucket under the BB’s chair. Training on bucket blinds offers two additional advantages. The bucket serves as the blind marker so no additional equipment is necessary and the bucket keeps the fire ants off the birds a bit longer.

I will admit that I have had to back up and try to teach my dog the difference between the bucket blind concet and some of the tight marking concepts. But you do have the give the dog a high score for intelligence. Here is a dog running amuck in the field no where near the mark thrown, he realizes that he is looking looking quite common and embarrasing his trainer/handler but he has the intelligence and presence of mind to snatch a bird from the bird boy’s bucket just as the judges looked away to sharpen their pencils. I have to think a dog that demonstrates that level of intelligence deserves a ribbon.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> Upcoming issues of Retrievers Online will address how marks are judged in FT as opposed to how - according to the Rule Book - they should be judged
> 
> And
> 
> The use of "concept" tests in FT


Ted, did you write the article? I trust my subscription is activated in time for that issue. I will look forward to reading the article.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

bonbonjovi said:


> I agree with Shayne but what do you do on the scenario where a dog is carried to the next series, and proceeds to step on the next three series. Is that dog the winner. I actually saw that scenario play out one time long ago,a dog butchered the first series and by most judges should have been dropped but proceeded to have excellent 2-4 series and picked up the hardware..call it home cooking or whatever..we all know it happens


With time permitting the judges were generous with their call backs . This is how the R&SP says it should be. 

More to the point since it is more prevalent is the Water marks scenario between the dog that crushes the "gorilla" of a first series against the dog that has a one less than perfect bird in the first 

When the situation reverses itself in the fourth . With comparable blinds,...................which dog should win

Dogs dog and Judges judge regards

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


> Ted, did you write the article? I trust my subscription is activated in time for that issue. I will look forward to reading the article.


The series is Dennis' idea. Dennis and I will engage in a dialogue on a variety of different marking related issues.

The first article, which I believe will be included in the next issue of Retrievers Online is entitled "Talking About How Marks Are Judged - What's Going on in the Derby"

Depending on how that article is received, we hope to move on to other marking related issues, including what people mean when they refer to "concept" tests and how they are used/abused (depending on your perspective) in FT

Ted


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Setting up and judging derby marks are the bread and butter of field trial test and for me challenging test to set up and judge. Im looking forward to the article and more discussion on the subject of derby marking.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Tulsa Slim said:


> Setting up and judging derby marks are the bread and butter of fiels trial test and for me challenging test to set up and judge. Im looking forward to the article and more discussion on the subject of derby marking.


Agree completely. A tough and fair derby with a good size entry that truly tests marking ability, and not training, is the hardest stake to judge in my opinion.

SM


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> The series is Dennis' idea. Dennis and I will engage in a dialogue on a variety of different marking related issues.
> 
> The first article, which I believe will be included in the next issue of Retrievers Online is entitled "Talking About How Marks Are Judged - What's Going on in the Derby"
> 
> ...


I will withhold judgment until I see to what extent I agree with the opinions presented, but hopefully some discussion in a publication with significant readership can result in some improvement in the overall quality and consistency of judging.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

My dog not only stole a bird out of the birdboy bucket......but brought back a box of poppers along with it! I asked the judges if I could have the 65$ poppers....they said yes....but no ribbon.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


> I will withhold judgment until I see to what extent I agree with the opinions presented, but hopefully some discussion in a publication with significant readership can result in some improvement in the overall quality and consistency of judging.


Fair enough. I encourage everyone who reads the article to send comments to Dennis, so we can decide where to go next.

Ted


----------

