# What qualities in a Judge make you want to run under him/her?



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Imagine that you were trying to decide which of two trials you should run, and that the only difference between the two trials, was the judges. That is, the two trials had:

•	Comparable grounds;
•	Comparable entries;
•	Comparable quality of competition; and 
•	Comparable travel distance

Consequently, the only difference between the two trials would be the judges. What qualities/characteristics of the judges would lead you to prefer one trial over another? Put another way, what are the characteristics of the judges that you enjoy running under in competition?


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

Judges that currently run dogs, judges that act like they want to be there. Not judges who act like they were forced to judge and then boss everyone around.


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

Glad it was you that asked this, no one will tell you that you are stirring the pot like they would if I posted this exact same question.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

In no particular order, I like big wide open test with well placed birds, so judges who are known to set up said test are high on my list, I like judges with personality who are just fun to run under, also judges who are good leaders who seem to get the most out of their marshalls and workers, judges who bend over backwards to be fair within the rules and make every effort to make guns visible, birds fall in sight, ect. In other words, judges who have enough faith in their test to stack other odds in the dog's favor. Judges who recognize mechanics are a big part of the formula for dealing with large numbers, not ticky-tacky trick test to eliminate dogs.

Just a few traits that my A listed judges share.


----------



## derrikodom (Aug 16, 2010)

A sense of humor


----------



## T Farmer (Aug 27, 2008)

people who train their own dogs.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

My bias is mostly from the hunt test world although I do run a few minor stakes. I like a friendly, knowledgable judge with a sense of humor. A judge that can achieve answers by placing the birds. Not one who throws birds in a pile or uses contrary marks and tricks to thin the field. I will go way out of my way to run under these judges.
Mark Land


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> Imagine that you were trying to decide which of two trials you should run, and that the only difference between the two trials, was the judges. That is, the two trials had:
> 
> •	Comparable grounds;
> •	Comparable entries;
> ...



I like very hard but fair tests. What I mean by fair is just good marks, no tricks, no training drills, no overlapping fall areas. Blinds where you can see your dog if you run the test.


----------



## Kevinismybrother (Aug 3, 2009)

I run HT and have only dabbled in FT, but here goes

I like to have the judges be friendly but not to the point of talkative , especially when I am actively running my dog. I like the tests to be within the standards, the marks well placed and concieved with no gimmes, but not tricked up. I like the blinds to be challanging, but not arbitrary like tight keyholes. I would expect that each series of the test be such that the dog and the handler move on based on demonstrated work rather than luck and pencil. Finally,IMHO, the best judges handle the test with logistics in mind for things like the gallery, distance from parking to holding blind, moving from one series to the next, etc, so that the event moves along and runs smoothly.

Some day - I hope that describes me


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

Judges that are not judging just because they want to be a JUDGE.
Also friendly attitude toward the handlers. Ones that set up Marking test and as Mark mentioned not a pile of birds. I would like to know that who is judging me is also being judged by others by running dogs


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Buzz said:


> I like very hard but fair tests. What I mean by fair is just good marks, no tricks, no training drills, no overlapping fall areas. Blinds where you can see your dog if you run the test.


The above sounds like what my husband thinks constitute good tests. He would add, "Judges who will judge the tests they set up. "

I've heard him complain about judges who set up good tests, then never judge their own tests as they should have. 

Helen


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

helencalif said:


> The above sounds like what my husband thinks constitute good tests. He would add, *"Judges who will judge the tests they set up. "*
> 
> I've heard him complain about judges who set up good tests, then never judge their own tests as they should have.
> 
> Helen


I believe I know what he is getting at there, tell me if I'm wrong. I have run blinds with lines very tight to the shore. I will give my dog an inside cast knowing that I may have to stop him again with another cast away from shore when he gets too tight. In my mind, this is challenging the test. But then when a bunch of folks have dogs get out, and contestants start letting their dogs swim out to sea a bit, it plays sometimes... The test should be challenged and judges should penalize those who don't.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Buzz said:


> The test (blind) should be challenged and judges should penalize those who don't.


My husband judges. I can tell you that if you ever run under him, you had better challenge the blind. 

Helen


----------



## Firefighter1 (Aug 15, 2010)

Primarily, I run hunt tests. I am interested in judges that put the dog first and leave their own egos at home.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

One who sets up tough tests that are fair. No gimmics or bs. No throwing birds in a pile. Basically one who sets up tough marks for marks like they're suppose to be. It helps if they're engaging.


----------



## PhilBernardi (Jul 17, 2010)

Being sober is important. :mrgreen:


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

someone who has either qualified for a National, won a National or Judged a National


but realistically

someone who is respected by his/her peers as being knowledgeable,fair and honest


----------



## John Montenieri (Jul 6, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> Imagine that you were trying to decide which of two trials you should run, and that the only difference between the two trials, was the judges. That is, the two trials had:
> 
> •	Comparable grounds;
> •	Comparable entries;
> ...


I'd prefer judges that setup very challenging tests. Judges who run dogs currently and show a propensity for being fair to the dogs. Tests that fall within the scope of the rules and no gimmicky stuff. Judges that take into account that not all dogs are big (or slow) and being able to see the falls. Also being able to see the dogs while enroute to either the marks or blinds, (a majority of the time), is critical. Being polite to the club members throwing birds, shooting, moving equipment and having the patience to work through problems. BEING ON TIME is important. Not judging a dog based on your relationship with the handler and/or owner, meaning I don't care if you love me or hate me, judge me for the work. Showing respect for the sport by example. Consistency when calling for the marks. Not being afraid to scrap a test if you have doubts or problems. I judge and feel that I have so much to learn still. I think I've come a long way plus I've had the great fortune to judge with some very experience people, who by the way, have been gracious and informative while mentoring me during the process. I want to be good enough to provide a challenging and positive environment for everyone involved.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

T Farmer said:


> people who train their own dogs.


Or involved in the training of their dogs and have common sense


----------



## troy schwab (Mar 9, 2010)

Buzz said:


> I like very hard but fair tests. What I mean by fair is just good marks, no tricks, no training drills, no overlapping fall areas. Blinds where you can see your dog if you run the test.


Buzz,
this is getting out of control....... thats three times today! I may go buy a mega millions lottery ticket tonite....... And we should establish a holiday of some type.......LOL


----------



## Old School Labs (May 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Imagine that you were trying to decide which of two trials you should run, and that the only difference between the two trials, was the judges. That is, the two trials had:
> 
> • Comparable grounds;
> • Comparable entries;
> ...


1. Judges with vast knowledge how to and done properly within the rules
2. Co Judge may influence
3. Bird placement done with skill not just thrown out there somewhere to mess with the field of dogs
4. No gimmicky BS
5. Generous on callbacks when appropriate and warrants it

I like a test of course that is geared well to how my dogs run.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Tests judged by people who owe no one being judged anything.........that leaves out National Judges, too autonomous for my taste

Know a good Mark when they see one, and therefore do not confuse marking with lining, and are knowledgeable enough when seeing both to be able to score them comparably. 


john


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> In no particular order, I like big wide open test with well placed birds, so judges who are known to set up said test are high on my list, I like judges with personality who are just fun to run under, also judges who are good leaders who seem to get the most out of their marshalls and workers, judges who bend over backwards to be fair within the rules and make every effort to make guns visible, birds fall in sight, ect. In other words, judges who have enough faith in their test to stack other odds in the dog's favor. Judges who recognize mechanics are a big part of the formula for dealing with large numbers, not ticky-tacky trick test to eliminate dogs.
> 
> Just a few traits that my A listed judges share.


This just about covers my list. I'd add... I want a judge that will consider the dog's safety and...

I want a judge that the FT committe respects enough to get handlers to the line. One such judge at the 1st or 2nd Q I ran put an A list Amatuer who had dog #1 on the clock immediately after the test dog ran. Another such judge told the marshall at an Amatuer stake to tell the FT committe that if a handler wasn't ready to run when their number came up they should just not bother showing up at all (I'm sure that would exclude those running in the Open).


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

knowledgeable, unbiased, and consistent with call backs


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

When I am evaluating judges, I want to know first if they are fundamentally sound. That is, do they practice the following principles:

1. Safety:	The tests are safe. 
2. Visibility: Dogs can see guns and birds.	
3. Control: Handlers can see dogs. Dogs can see and hear handlers.	
4. Fairness: Objective and impartial to contestants
5. Time management: Trains run on time	
6. Fun: Pleasant and courteous to all	

It is icing on the cake if the judges set up tough, ball buster tests


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> When I am evaluating judges, I want to know first if they are fundamentally sound. That is, do they practice the following principles:
> 
> 1. Safety:	The tests are safe.
> 2. Visibility: Dogs can see guns and birds.
> ...


Nice list.


----------



## minnducker (Jan 29, 2010)

Everything Ted said, plus another important characteristic-I want to run under judges who are not afraid to judge. In other words, I like to run under judges and not just test setter-uppers.
So many "judges" set up tests with elimination in mind, not with judging/evaluation in mind. Anybody can set up a test that eliminates over half the dogs, that's no big deal. This approach results in tests with "tricks", poor visibility, unfairness and many other labels we use to decribe them. The real end result is a kind of crap-shoot; who's lucky today?

Judges who are not afraid to actually judge, can set up tests that most dogs can complete in some fashion, but still can eliminate dogs based on their performance in comparison to the rest of the field. IMO the best Open I ever ran had 7 "easy" series, (not really easy, but straightforward). The judges used their head and set up tests that went quickly at the beginning; (if I recall correctly, first a land double, second a land double and blind), utilized the grounds and the help wisely, and had no problem completing on schedule with a large entry.
They actually judged, and dogs were elminated accordingly. The competitors enjoyed running that trial, and there were no real objections as to the outcome. I remember I made it to the 4th series, and remembered the trial as a refeshing difference compared to the "norm".


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

What about a judge that has good test but isn't the nicest person and is constantly raising her voice?


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

Everything Ted said in post #25, perfect and it applies to hunt tests as well.
Excellently phrased question, by the way, very respectful of your audience.

Trevor T, aka Fowl Hunter study how Ted presented his well thought out question, presenting lots of variables but making them all equal but one. THis shows his knowledge of the game, and shows his audience that he respects their knowledge as well. And then he asked his question in a very positive way to get positive answers about good judging. He did not ask for negative answers about bad judging. If your questions were well thought out, with all information presented upfront, no hidden agenda, asking for positive responses you would not be thrown under the bus and you would not be accused of stirring the pot. Just a helpful thought, we all can learn.

Colleen


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> When I am evaluating judges, I want to know first if they are fundamentally sound. That is, do they practice the following principles:
> 
> 1. Safety:	The tests are safe.
> 2. Visibility: Dogs can see guns and birds.
> ...


Hi Ted,

Can I add one little wrinkle to your original question.

When looking at or considering the 2 trials "you", being any of us, have never run under any of the 4 judges doing the AA stakes or the minors, Now how do you decide?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Wade said:


> Hi Ted,
> 
> Can I add one little wrinkle to your original question.
> 
> When looking at or considering the 2 trials "you", being any of us, have never run under any of the 4 judges doing the AA stakes or the minors, Now how do you decide?


By relying on the opinions of people whose opinion you value, if Ted or someone like Ted gives me an opinion I value that and hope that there are those who value my opinion as well. If none of us have first hand knowledge then enter at your own risk, I have done that in the recent past and I was pleasantly surprised each time.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

EdA said:


> By relying on the opinions of people whose opinion you value, if Ted or someone like Ted gives me an opinion I value that and hope that there are those who value my opinion as well. If none of us have first hand knowledge then enter at your own risk, I have done that in the recent past and I was pleasantly surprised each time.


I like both of your responses Ed. Thank you!! I like what Ted had to say as well. 

Some have mentioned they would prefer to run under someone who is running a dog currently. That would not bother me so long as they have run in the past or been in and around the game recently but without a dog to run.

I like judges who like to have fun because that is why we all started doing this, to have fun. It is big business now, I get that but lifes to short not to have fun especially on the weekend when none of us are working!!!!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Wade said:


> Some have mentioned they would prefer to run under someone who is running a dog currently!


While it is nice to be current there are some who are current who, as the old saying goes, don't know $h!t from Shinola.....


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

EdA said:


> While it is nice to be current there are some who are current who, as the old saying goes, don't know $h!t from Shinola.....


Hahahaahahahahahahaha. you got that right


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

fowl hunter said:


> What about a judge that has good test but isn't the nicest person and is constantly raising her voice?



Gee Trevor, and you wonder why people give you grief.....maybe a lesson is tact and subtlety is in order.....of course you could be describing my son's mother but the only test she knows is 4th grade math,and that is if I help explain to her the book


----------



## wayne anderson (Oct 16, 2007)

Cordial judges (not necessairly overly-friendly), who set up tests where the dogs can SEE the throwers, SEE the marks fall, and SEE their dogs MOST of the time on the way to the blinds. Also, tests to match the number of entries--Don't need a 100-dog test with only 50-some dogs entered (saw and ran under this situatlon just recently).


----------



## Brian Cockfield (Jun 4, 2003)

Wade said:


> I like both of your responses Ed. Thank you!! I like what Ted had to say as well.
> 
> Some have mentioned they would prefer to run under someone who is running a dog currently. That would not bother me so long as they have run in the past or been in and around the game recently but without a dog to run.
> 
> I like judges who like to have fun because that is why we all started doing this, to have fun. It is big business now, I get that but lifes to short not to have fun especially on the weekend when none of us are working!!!!


My thoughts exactly. There are some judges that no longer run dogs but have been there and done that. The tests have definitely gotten harder than in the past but the art of bird placement hasn't changed. I run FT because I have fun doing it. I learned very quickly when I started playing this game that I would go home with my tail tucked between my legs more often than not. I have no problem with this as long as the tests and callbacks are fair. I have run under a lot more good judges than bad and have only had a few blatantly bad experiences.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Wade said:


> Hi Ted,
> 
> Can I add one little wrinkle to your original question.
> 
> When looking at or considering the 2 trials "you", being any of us, have never run under any of the 4 judges doing the AA stakes or the minors, Now how do you decide?


My response echoes that of Ed.

I will talk to amateurs like Ed, Ron Ainley, Robbie Bickley, Jimmie Darnell, Don Driggers, Jason Fleming, Dave Furin, and Michael Moore and ask them for scouting reports.

I will also speak to pros like Bill Eckett, Danny Farmer, Bill Sargenti, Bill Schrader (soon to be an Amateur again) and Kenny Trott and ask them for information.

Ted


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

BonMallari said:


> Gee Trevor, and you wonder why people give you grief.....maybe a lesson is tact and subtlety is in order.....of course you could be describing my son's mother but the only test she knows is 4th grade math,and that is if I help explain to her the book


I was asking a legit question. I saw a judge that. Had very nice test. I have been to alot of trial where you always hear something negative about the setups but I didn't hear a single negative. Everyone was actually saying what nice test they set up. The thing was this particular judge was always yelling from the line get dogs, where are the dogs. Yelling at the bird boys on radio to hurry and to hustle and do we need to get someone else to come throw your bird from you etc etc. this judge also was rude to a handler when it ended up not being the handlers fault. Would you still run under this judge because this judge puts on a fair honest test?


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

T-Pines said:


> Everything Ted said in post #25, perfect and it applies to hunt tests as well.
> Excellently phrased question, by the way, very respectful of your audience.
> 
> Trevor T, aka Fowl Hunter study how Ted presented his well thought out question, presenting lots of variables but making them all equal but one. THis shows his knowledge of the game, and shows his audience that he respects their knowledge as well. And then he asked his question in a very positive way to get positive answers about good judging. He did not ask for negative answers about bad judging. If your questions were well thought out, with all information presented upfront, no hidden agenda, asking for positive responses you would not be thrown under the bus and you would not be accused of stirring the pot. Just a helpful thought, we all can learn.
> ...


Contrary to what people may thing, in all honesty I haven't asked any questions looking for negative responses. I ask questions because I want to learn and ask questions because I am curious as to what others say. Once certain people comment that have no relevance to 
Y questions JUST to get a rise then yes I have probably wrote before I thought it out. But no matter what all Melanie has wrote and has said negative about me and me negative about her if I saw her stuck at a trial I would her pull her out or if she had a flat I would help fix it etc etc. I got into my profession of a firefighter paramedic because I like to help people by nature, whether I like them or not.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

fowl hunter said:


> I was asking a legit question. I saw a judge that. Had very nice test. I have been to alot of trial where you always hear something negative about the setups but I didn't hear a single negative. Everyone was actually saying what nice test they set up. The thing was this particular judge was always yelling from the line get dogs, where are the dogs. Yelling at the bird boys on radio to hurry and to hustle and do we need to get someone else to come throw your bird from you etc etc. this judge also was rude to a handler when it ended up not being the handlers fault. Would you still run under this judge because this judge puts on a fair honest test?


if that judge were Linda Harger, Sylvia McClure (she is too sweet to yell),Nancy White,Judy Rasmuson,Julie Cole, Lorna Kolstad,Linda Erwin (also not a yeller),Diane Mazy,Barb Younglove,Barb Furlano,Judy Aycock,Martha McCool,Lauren Hays....you bet your azzz I would run under them, marshal for them, and probably buy them lunch, and wash their truck so I could extract any bit of info they would be willing to share....


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

Nope it wasn't any of them.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

fowl hunter said:


> Nope it wasn't any of them.



are you that dense, you completely missed the point....Why do you continue to exacerbate a situation....LET ME SPELL IT OUT

dont go calling someone out by inuendos, the retriever community is a very closed knit group....even if it was one of the ladies I mentioned, calling them out on this forum, is not good form...I used those ladies as an example of how many excellent female dog persons there are, not to find out which one yelled...and if they did yell SO WHAT...thats what ear plugs are for


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

I would not mention the persons name even if I was asked. I am familiar with field trial community being tight knit. 
Yelling doesn't bother me but some might not like it or especially if there are people there at there first ever trial. Good night


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

fowl hunter said:


> I would not mention the persons name even if I was asked. I am familiar with field trial community being tight knit.
> Yelling doesn't bother me but some might not like it or especially if there are people there at there first ever trial. Good night


I think Bon was trying to say that people can figure it out, you don't have to say. Give me a few minutes and I bet I can come back with a list you you could pick this lady's name from.


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

Never mentioned this test was recent. I have been going to trial for several years now. I wouldn't say something about a judge from a recent trial bcause yes it would be easy to figure out. This judge has always stuck out to me.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Lots of good posts. Fowl- there is no excuse for rudeness in a judge. If a few more read, understood, and applied pages 149-155 from "Retriever Field Trial Judging-A Manual" we all would be the better for it. It talks about blinds. Good book,it should be a part of the AKC test.

1. *Honesty*- Self explanatory. If they aren't, the rest doesn't matter.

2. *Fairness*- Doing the best to give all the dogs the same opportunity. Some of which bleeds over to #3.

3. *Knowledgeable*- Large topic that has numerous facets. Encompasses Safety- Did you plug those 30 badger holes?
Time management- Nice marks, but how long will it take to ferry three stations across the canal and re-bird?
Logistics- Where are we parking and how are they getting to and from the stake? 
....as well as keeping in mind where the sun will be at 8:00 AM when the first dog runs (see #2).


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

Yet another good night of RTF.... good night and god bless. Always entertaining


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

I havent run enough trials to have a group of judges I like or dislike although there are a couple both ways.
I do have a favorite judge though. Mr Al Wilson. Al is a good honest man that knows how to set up a good test. His bird placement is well thought out and his tests are doable but still have plenty of meat to them and he lets the dogs, or the handlers, take themselves out. I like this kind of test. He gets plenty of answers without butchering the field in the first series. Now dont get me wrong I dont want a gimmie test and Al does not set up Gimmie tests but what I hate to see is a trial that is set up from the 1st series not to see who the best dog is but who can do the test period.To me the latter is just not necessary.
I have seen trials where maybe half a dozen dogs out of 70 do the first series well, the rest are handles or very ugly hunts that had to be called back just to have a field for the 2nd series.


----------



## Brandoned (Aug 20, 2004)

wayne anderson said:


> Cordial judges (not necessairly overly-friendly), who set up tests where the dogs can SEE the throwers, SEE the marks fall, and SEE their dogs MOST of the time on the way to the blinds. Also, tests to match the number of entries--Don't need a 100-dog test with only 50-some dogs entered (saw and ran under this situatlon just recently).


Geez Wayne you aren't asking for much are you?


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> When I am evaluating judges, I want to know first if they are fundamentally sound. That is, do they practice the following principles:
> 
> 1. Safety:	The tests are safe.
> 2. Visibility: Dogs can see guns and birds.
> ...



Ted,

I should know better than to post in thread of yours like this, because when you come in later and put up a well thought out post like this, it kinda makes me feel dumb. ;-)

Items #1 and #2 are a big deal, especially #1. As for #2, it is always fun to run a setup where a long gunner beyond the flyer is almost impossible to see and key your dog on early in the morning, then when the sun moves and shines on the gunner's front side, he/she sticks out like a sore thumb...


----------



## savage25xtreme (Dec 4, 2009)

fowl hunter said:


> Never mentioned this test was recent. I have been going to trial for several years now. I wouldn't say something about a judge from a recent trial bcause yes it would be easy to figure out. This judge has always stuck out to me.


EE says otherwise. Unless you have been going to watch? To the best of my knowledge you are not a member of any RC in the area, so you weren't there to help out and work.


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

Yes I have gone to watch and I have marshaled at several trials AND I am on the committee with the Rockwall RC. Thanks


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

Also NEVER mentioned I was running a dog did I? Nope suuuuure didn't.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)




----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

*RK*


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Ted,
> 
> I should know better than to post in thread of yours like this, because when you come in later and put up a well thought out post like this, it kinda makes me feel dumb. ;-)
> 
> Items #1 and #2 are a big deal, especially #1. As for #2, it is always fun to run a setup where a long gunner beyond the flyer is almost impossible to see and key your dog on early in the morning, then when the sun moves and shines on the gunner's front side, he/she sticks out like a sore thumb...


Buzz
I remember a two series derby where the first series was a land double. The judges used a sharp pencil to eliminate dogs--like hooked one gun. Second series was an out of order water series where the go bird was a long bird in the shade. Most of the early dogs had to primary select. Waited for 2 hours for a pro to show up. The long gun showed out like a beacon then. The pro got the go bird first and then the memory bird. The judges said "We got a winner" and stopped the trial. One of my favorite pros from Nebraska ran the trial earlier and had 4 perfect marks. He could not believe that he got second place and the other pro got first. He asked the judges and they said that it was because he got the marks on the water out of order. He's a favorite because he pitched for the Dodgers in a World Series. He told me his story about when he first pitched against Hank Aaron. The first pitch he thought was a strike and the ump called it a ball. Second pitch he thought was a strike and the ump called it a ball. He asked the ump what he had to do and the ump said when Mr. Aaron swings at the ball, it's a strike! Sadly enough, he's no longer in the game. Although I think the owner of dog he was running in that derby about 20 years is still running.


----------



## Chad Baker (Feb 5, 2003)

I like judges that setup extremely challenging tests and have very liberal callbacks. I like judges that are pulling for the dogs to do good work and not just there to eliminate 80% of the field. I like well placed birds that are difficult for the dogs to get too. I like land blinds that go thru cover and terrain and not only based about hitting a keyhole or going 5 feet from a poison bird. I like water blinds that show courage and are challenging to the dog and handler.
I like water marks that are hard to get too and require tenacity to dig them out. Judges that setup marks that are easily seen from the dogs level are a huge help. Again I like judges that setup hard tests and keep them hard but they don't forget your dog's prior work when they are making the callbacks, or should I say one strike you play on, two strikes your out, that one bobble judge I don't like to spend my time and money on.
Chad


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

> What qualities in a Judge make you want to run under him/her?


Venality.

How can you trust someone who doesn''t have a fixed price?

Eug


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

road kill said:


> *RK*


That about sums it up! I like it.


----------



## capflyfish (Jun 21, 2009)

Does the question have anything to do with yr new position with 
RTF news?

Regardless here are my thoughts. First would be attitude. Why does this person judge does he or she do it to give back to the sport and are they able to see past owners and evaluate the work. Do they know how to place a bird that will test marking ability and not over emphasize training. Are they going to make the guns and birds visible? Are they going to set blinds that are fair, reasonable and that give handlers ample view and room to handle?
And are they going to be willing to put the required effort into the task at hand. One of my frustrations is judges that want to carry on a conversation while the dog is still working. As judges we need to give our full attention to contestants while they Are under judgement.
And last is do they have the courage to hand out a half a dozen jams if the work deserves it. I have recently been at some trials where several dogs finished the last series with reasonably good work only to be sent away empty handed. A judges reputation is not enhanced by a low number of placements being givenout. If on this particular day your test did not provide a great deal of separation in dogs that finished but did not place then reward them accordingly even if it is the open. As contestants we understand that evaluation of work can be subjective and that all we are looking at is an equal application of standards and clear objectives. And yes given the opportunity I will make a choice based on the judges.


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

> Again I like judges that setup hard tests and keep them hard but they don't forget your dog's prior work when they are making the callbacks, or should *I say one strike you play on, two strikes your out*, that one bobble judge I don't like to spend my time and money on.
> Chad


Thats is big for me. Too many judges look at each series in isolation. A dog that hammers the landmarks and has a avg or below average blind gets dropped, while a dog has a mediocre set of land marks but an above average blind gets carried.

I have only been running for 3 years, but have I definately have judges that I will not run under again.

No doubt in my mind that the rapidly deteriorating judging pool is the biggest long term risk to this sport.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

junfan68 said:


> No doubt in my mind that the rapidly deteriorating judging pool is the biggest long term risk to this sport.


Why do you think that is happening?
If we're going to realisticly discuss this subject, this question must be answered.
Ted? Your thoughts?


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

If I ran FT I would like to see judges that at least had some time in training their own dogs, or working some with their pro's

I run AKC and mostly HRC HT's. I would like to see Judges that have trained their own dogs mostly, and had a little time water-fowling.

Tests are not hunting, but a hunting background could not hurt. JD


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

helencalif said:


> "Judges who will judge the tests they set up. "


Amen 



EdA said:


> knowledgeable, unbiased, and consistent


That says it all. I worked for years with a very knowlegeable pro. It was always an indirect compliment that when he ran under me & any co Judge, he brought his "A" game as a handler as he knew he would get what he earned "nothing more or nothing less". There would be no family favors.



EdA said:


> While it is nice to be current there are some who are current who, as the old saying goes, don't know $h!t from Shinola.....


My 1st assignment was a Derby with Gus Rathert, about 5 years after he had won the NAC with Rebel Chief of Heber. Gus was a knowledgeable dog person who was getting out of the competitive side of the sport as driving distances to train & compete were in the greater than 100 mile range 1 way on an average. He said "there are 2 trials under 300 miles 1 way, there rest reach up to 500 miles 1 way". 

My question to those who talk about current as if it were the Holy Grail. Would you rather be judged by Gus 10 years hence or would you want some unsuccessful newbie that meets AKC minimums? That's one of the things killing our judging pools, the sport is not utilizing the veterans, as judges, who have proven they have the knowledge to compete, when they decide they no longer want to beat themselves to death training & campaigning a dog. 



wayne anderson said:


> Cordial judges (not necessairly overly-friendly),


As a SD boy my idea of enough conversation is "let us know when you are ready" 



Losthwy said:


> there is no excuse for rudeness in a judge. If a few more read, understood, and applied pages 149-155 from "Retriever Field Trial Judging-A Manual" we all would be the better for it. It talks about blinds. Good book,it should be a part of the AKC test.
> 
> 1. *Honesty*- Self explanatory. If they aren't, the rest doesn't matter.
> 
> ...


Nice post - though the manual you quote is only a reference which explains the "Rules & Standard Procedures" on a somehwat more elementary level to those many who mainly lack experience with dogs in the field   .


----------



## Jimmy Ausmus (Aug 18, 2009)

Judging is one of the hardest task I have ever done. 
Thursday on the grounds at daylight seeing where the sun comes up trying figure out how to run 80 dogs and meet the requirement of being fare to all, the first and last dogs of the day. Building holding blinds and walking the grounds looking for traps and holes that could take a top dog out and you were the judge that set that up. 

Hoping that the wind dosent change and give the birds away.
Will the club have enough help there to support the trial because if they dont the judges are the ones that folks remember and as we judge our judges remember what we want (a fare shake) so do the judges. 
Every good judge has had more than one trial they wished thay could have back and have a do over, just like everyone of us wished we would have run the test diffrent and if we had it to do over it would be diffrent. 
The judge I want to run under understand that he must improve each time he agrees to take the book he is a student of the sport, he is honest to himself and he is his own worst critic. 
Lets face it there is one person happy at every trial the rest would have like to have seen it go a diffrent way or would have judged it diffrent.
If you dont judge or give back to our game then you should support those that do by giving them the benifet of the dought that every judge judging today have made some mistakes that they would love to have back but the ones that learn and adjust from the good and the bad are, what I want to run under. 
The clubs need to work at getting judges matched up to make the club look good. 
I am getting more critical of the clubs that wait until the last min to get folks to judge than the folks that are judging.

Jimmy


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

IMHO one of the reasons that the FT game gets the unfair tag of being the "good ole boys club" is that 15 per cent of the memberss are doing 90 percent of the judging assignments,as the sport gets older,you have two choices, either mentor new young talent or go back to a deeper wider pool of judges that no longer do the grind of the circuit,unfortunately once an individual no longer campaigns a dog they are soon forgotten and omitted from the judging pool,now if their physical skills have diminshed to where they are no longer able to do the task at hand.then they obviously cant


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

JDogger said:


> If I ran FT I would like to see judges that at least had some time in training their own dogs, or working some with their pro's
> 
> I run AKC and mostly HRC HT's. I would like to see Judges that have trained their own dogs mostly, and had a little time water-fowling.
> 
> Tests are not hunting, but a hunting background could not hurt. JD


If you ran field trials you might see a correlation between judges that did their own training and some hunting, but mostly you would just see good and bad judges, and have no idea whether they hunted or trained their own dogs. I could care less how a guy or gal becomes a good judge, I just make note and remember him or her for future trials.

John


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

I'll quote your earlier reply. I agree. No arguement from me be it HT or FT.




John Robinson said:


> In no particular order, I like big wide open test with well placed birds, so judges who are known to set up said test are high on my list, I like judges with personality who are just fun to run under, also judges who are good leaders who seem to get the most out of their marshalls and workers, judges who bend over backwards to be fair within the rules and make every effort to make guns visible, birds fall in sight, ect. In other words, judges who have enough faith in their test to stack other odds in the dog's favor. Judges who recognize mechanics are a big part of the formula for dealing with large numbers, not ticky-tacky trick test to eliminate dogs.
> 
> Just a few traits that my A listed judges share.


JD


----------



## Hunchaser (Jun 15, 2009)

Judges with imagination and intelligence. The ones that put on a test that demonstrates a days hunt in the field and is pleasing to the eye.


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

Now let me ask.. Could an experiened AKC Master Judge, or an experienced HRC Finished, or Grand Judge set up and judge a FT open even if they had never run one?

Many train to that level even though they don't compete, and will never even run in a Q.

Are the concepts so different? JD


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

I only run hunt tests, but I like a judge that sets up a challenging but fair test. No tricks, no B.S., just very good placements of marks, and a challenging blind. Then I want the judge to judge the dog's work fairly, not pencil whip the dog. A good judge gives the dog the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

JDogger said:


> Now let me ask.. Could an experiened AKC Master Judge, or an experienced HRC Finished, or Grand Judge set up and judge a FT open even if they had never run one?
> 
> Many train to that level even though they don't compete, and will never even run in a Q.
> 
> Are the concepts so different? JD


I've done both, and I must admit that there is quite a difference. Many concepts, and especially bird placements don't really translate from one game to the other. They are different styles, one no better than the other. To each his own.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

[QUOTENow let me ask.. Could an experiened AKC Master Judge, or an experienced HRC Finished, or Grand Judge set up and judge a FT open even if they had never run one?

Many train to that level even though they don't compete, and will never even run in a Q.

Are the concepts so different? JD][/QUOTE]

Anyone can set up a test. Put 3 gunners out and poof you have a test. Drop a bird somewhere and poof you've got a blind
Any one can set up a master also. They never even have ever run a HT. All they have to do is hunt something.
wear some camo and shoot 3 birds. wear some camo and drop a bird some where and poof there's a test.

It would save all kinds of time especially the time it takes to get knowledgeable about the games. 


Pete


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

When one says "very good placement of marks" isn't one alluding to Mark placement that requires an abundance of good trained responses for success.....

john


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

John Robinson said:


> If you ran field trials you might see a correlation between judges that did their own training and some hunting, but mostly you would just see good and bad judges, and have no idea whether they hunted or trained their own dogs. I could care less how a guy or gal becomes a good judge, I just make note and remember him or her for future trials.
> John


I would agree. 
When someone says "judges that hunt" that tells me you run hunt tests. Nothing negative about that. It is a different game. I'll say it a hundred times. Many of these threads are like carrying on parallel discussions on different tracks. I'll give another example. This was over heard in a disscusion about the last series. Tell if it's a hunt test or a field trial. "I didn't like that last series. It was too easy, should of started hard and ended hard".


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

JDogger said:


> Now let me ask.. Could an experiened AKC Master Judge, or an experienced HRC Finished, or Grand Judge set up and judge a FT open even if they had never run one?
> 
> Many train to that level even though they don't compete, and will never even run in a Q.
> 
> Are the concepts so different? JD


That's a very good question and I'm not sure I know the answer. I suspect a high level hunt test judge would be surprised at the capabilities of the average all age dog, especially when it comes to distance and "courage" marks. I think they would tend to underestimate the dogs at first, and consequently end up not pushing them hard enough to get separation. I could be wrong though.

John


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

There are "high level hunt test judges" that judge both, and run both venues. I would think that you would need a lot of line time at either venue to become a "good" judge at either venue.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> When one says "very good placement of marks" isn't one alluding to Mark placement that requires an abundance of good trained responses for success.....
> 
> john


It would help if the dog actually knows where the bird is. Even better when the dog knows where the bird is and makes good decisions on the way. Convinces the judge that he knew where the bird was the entire time and was going there with purpose.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Howard N said:


> It would help if the dog actually knows where the bird is. Even better when the dog knows where the bird is and makes good decisions on the way. Convinces the judge that he knew where the bird was the entire time and was going there with purpose.


Is John trying to say that a dog that can get to a well placed bird is just lining to it? Nonsense...


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

John Daniels said:


> I thought he was trying to say that a well placed mark would require a trained dog to fight the factors to get to it. Maybe I read it wrong?


Well sure, but if you put a bird where a dog wouldn't normally go by accident, then it shows that the dog has marked the bird and remembered it. At least that's how I look at it. But I'm still a noob.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

What I am saying is that, it is not sufficient for the judges to to have the bird land in a spot in the field that they think the dogs will not go to of their own volition. 
What is necessary is a mark that, after it has initially marked the bird and left the line to pick it up, the dog must additionally make "an abundance of good trained responses for success....."

john


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

john fallon said:


> What I am saying is that, it is not sufficient for the judges to to have the bird land in a spot in the field that they think the dogs will not go to of their own volition.
> What is necessary is a mark that, after it has initially marked the bird and left the line to pick it up, the dog must additionally make "an abundance of good trained responses for success....."
> 
> john


Sorry to put words in your mouth. My thinking was tarnished by some past RTF discussions about excessive lining. It's always nice to have a field that allows you to put marks behind stuff dogs would rather not run through. Now I think we're mess'in up Teds thread.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

JDogger said:


> Now let me ask.. Could an experiened AKC Master Judge, or an experienced HRC Finished, or Grand Judge set up and judge a FT open even if they had never run one?
> 
> Many train to that level even though they don't compete, and will never even run in a Q.
> 
> Are the concepts so different? JD


No especially an Open. My experience with those very experienced HT judges is thier conceptual knowledge of what is a all-age field trial test are mostly pre-concieved notions.
Now having said that a very experienced field trial judge might have the same problem judging a MH hunt test. A very good friend and very high point field trial judge who had never run a hunt test, but, gunned many, and hunted said "why I would shoot the birds to land in the decoys" thats where many of my birds land when hunting.

Also, you almost have apples and oranges with the different venues of hunt tests, AKC, HRC, etc. let alone a Master National or a Grand. I might ask could a very experienced hunt test judge, judge the National Amateur or the National Open event?

Of course we are speaking of those who have never trained a dog for all-age field trial work, not someone who trains with a high standard, distance, bird placement, white coats, etc etc and chooses to train that way (we do) but has run hunt tests.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

john fallon said:


> What I am saying is that, it is not sufficient for the judges to to have the bird land in a spot in the field that they think the dogs will not go to of their own volition.
> What is necessary is a mark that, after it has initially marked the bird and left the line to pick it up,* the dog must additionally make "an abundance of good trained responses for success*....."
> 
> john


Why?

john


----------



## Bob Tebbens (Sep 6, 2008)

Real simple.Fair honest tests.No tricks,no contrary marks.Get their answers through bird placement. Friendly.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Why?
> 
> john


Specifically ,what is your question ? You have emboldened a portioned of the post that would appear to be self explanatory.But lest you forgot ......"BTW I train hard on tradition marking concepts daily because they are a proven method of training your dog to make those decisions that will tend to help the dog get to the area more often than not, that and a lot of marking talent."
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showpost.php?p=455391&postcount=31

john.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Hi John,

I don't mean to call you out, I highlighted that portion because I'm a little sensitive to the idea of judges judging dogs from a "that was a nice decision, good dog" standpoint rather than just judging the mark. I know where you are coming from, and I agree that in order to sucessfully compete, we need to train,train, train on teaching dogs to recogonize situations and make the correct decision on the fly. I remember running Yoda in a Qual over a decade ago. We were in the last series and the judge was standing right behind me giving a running commentary as he ran. The test was designed with three or four obvious decision points enroute to the key bird. It seemed to me the judge had a check list of each check point and made a "good dog" or "bad dog" observation as Yoda reached each point and either made the right or wrong decision as she was thinking out loud. I'm afraid we train so much and make daily training judgements on our dog, whether it be a good effort to stay in the water, or whatever, that we tend to lose sight of overall mark. 

I am currently running two very different animals. One has proven to be an excellent marker from day one, the other though possessing all the tools needed to run field trials is more a man-made dog. The first dog just seems to possess some kind of built in radar guidance system, that along with his incredible drive and desire to run through obsticals rather than around them, lead him right to difficult birds. I don't believe he makes any trained decisions at all, he just runs right to the bird. As a matter of fact, with this dog, if we make him think too much his marking falls off.

The other dog is much more a team player, he just wants to please and tries very hard to do so. With him you can see the wheels turning in his head as he approaches each decision point. It really is a joy to watch and I have had more than a few judges make that observaion as he runs. If all these decisions add up to excellent work an a difficult mark, I am very proud of him.

Sorry for the ramble, I guess I want to make two points; 1) As nice as it is to watch, do the decisions make any difference from a judging standpoint, or should we just judge the mark? 2) I believe that some dogs are so well trained, that if they recognize a training concept or other recognizable decision point, they will make all the correct decisions enroute, and end up going to a bird that they didn't otherwise mark. That is one of the reasons I like wide open marks with no recognizable "concept".

BTW, like you I train every day on teaching the dog to make good decisions, because, my first dog's talent notwithstanding, that has proven to be the most successful method by far.

John


----------

