# Judges who don't run/compete any longer



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

What is the opinion here of judges who no longer run FT's but have been good judges? 

Do you feel a judge today must remain competitive in order to be a capable judge? Or do you feel once a judge has illustrated over time he/she has the understanding of what it takes to set up good fair test it doesn't matter?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I have no problem with it, if someone has been a good judge forever he or she are not going to lose that ability just by not running. Last summer I had the pleasure to run under a judge who hadn't judged in many years. The test he and his co-judge set up were some of the hardest, fair and fun test I have run. On the other hand, I have seen trials where a certain judge who hadn't run in decades seemed to underestimate the capabilities of today's dogs and set up easier than typical test to start with. After a couple series the learning curve kicked in and test got harder. But even at that good judging is a lot more than setting up test, I believe that good judgement sticks with a good judge no matter how long he/she has been out of the game.John


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

there are pros and cons to not using those judges that no longer run/compete in trials. you really shrink the judging pool by not using those that no longer run the circuit..since campaigning an AA dog is somewhat cyclical, there may be a time when a qualified AA judge doesnt have a dog in training or chooses to step back away from the game...one of the advantages of using a judge that is not on the circuit is that they may be your best chance at having an impartial set of eyes with no ties or agenda...the FT circuit is such a tight knit group , they generally know who are good judges...but conversely they also have a tendency to overlook experienced judges, just because they are "out of the loop"...

we could probably start a list of qualified judges that are currently not on the circuit, that would gladly judge a trial if approached , just because they dont have a dog doesnt mean they forgot how to set up an AA test or judge a stake


----------



## David McCracken (May 24, 2009)

I think it helps the judge to stay "down to earth" if he/she still competes his/her dog. I know it does for me.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

As a general matter, I think that being current with the current helps considerably. That doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions, because there are


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

In FT I don't think it makes a difference, it's an elimination game and very hard to be competitive period. Most people really campaigning a dog do not have time to put aside to judge. FT is a very tight-nit group as such they do very well in regulating they're own requirements on setups, rules, judges, etc. They are looking for the best dog that day and not concerned with maintaining a standard, this allows them a lot more freedom, in their setups and adapting for the field, to separate dogs. I don't see how in this case a judge that has ran recently has the upper-hand in one that has not, I think a judge with that can read terrain/conditions and has a good imagination probably is the best you can hope for


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Most people really campaigning a dog do not have time to put aside to judge.



These are precisely the people who should be judging. The sport depends on everyone pitching in


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> In FT I don't think it makes a difference, it's an elimination game and very hard to be competitive period. Most people really campaigning a dog do not have time to put aside to judge. FT is a very tight-nit group as such they do very well in regulating they're own requirements on setups, rules, judges, etc. They are looking for the best dog that day and not concerned with maintaining a standard, this allows them a lot more freedom, in their setups and adapting for the field, to separate dogs. I don't see how in this case a judge that has ran recently has the upper-hand in one that has not, I think a judge with that can read terrain/conditions and has a good imagination probably is the best you can hope for


Do you run FT? I don't, and wouldn't feel qualified to express an opinion regarding judges in that game. If you don't think there is at least a concern in the FT world about judging, read the last 3-4 issues of Retriever News.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Most people really campaigning a dog do not have time to put aside to judge.


....but they make time. That is how those chairs get filled. Many people give up 2-3 weekends per year to do "their part". It may be on their own local circuit giving up a chance to compete or traveling during the local off-season.
As to the OP every effort should be made to keep good judges in the game whether they are actively competing or not
Tim


----------



## Jeff Bartlett (Jan 7, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> These are precisely the people who should be judging. The sport depends on everyone pitching in


I agree


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> In FT I don't think it makes a difference, it's an elimination game and very hard to be competitive period.* Most people really campaigning a dog do not have time to put aside to judge*.
> 
> gotta call BS on that one, and this one comes from home: as my darling SIL told my brother "....if you have the time to take off work and run a trial..you have the time to judge a trial or two.." she was right
> 
> ...


my responses in blue


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Wade said:


> What is the opinion here of judges who no longer run FT's but have been good judges?
> 
> Do you feel a judge today must remain competitive in order to be a capable judge? Or do you feel once a judge has illustrated over time he/she has the understanding of what it takes to set up good fair test it doesn't matter?


NO.

john


----------



## Old School Labs (May 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> These are precisely the people who should be judging. The sport depends on everyone pitching in


Ted is right on here as I know for a fact how hard he campaigns his dogs, and does his fair share of judging. He as well as many others in our sport, give back when in fact they are hard at running and competing their dogs.


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

Yes and no...how is that for an answer! I agree those who have experience and are good judges will continue to be so running dogs or not. Were I think it is important to be current in running dogs has to do with expectations of what dogs today can do. I have run under several old time judges who didn't care much about dogs avoiding obstacles ( water/heavy cover/mud/etc) because in THEIR day thats what dogs did. Equipment/knowledge/gene pool have advaced the game. Hard to keep up if you are away for an extended period of time.

Bill


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

How Many years is to long 1, 2, 5, 10

I think its always a mistake to make broad brush strokes when talking about people. I have seen folks that are currently campaign a AA dog that was not qualified to judge a puppy stake. On the other hand I know some folks who have been good judges 5 or 10 years ago and would be good judges again. 

How long has it been since you rode a bicycle ? Can you ride one tomorrow?


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

At one time AKC would remove your points if you had not judged in 10 years. Maybe they still do.

Tim


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

moonstonelabs said:


> Equipment/knowledge/gene pool have advaced the game. Hard to keep up if you are away for an extended period of time.
> 
> Bill


I agree. Can be done, but difficult to do so


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Haven't run a trial in 3 or 4 years. 

Judged in Montana this fall. 

Thought it was the best stake I've ever co-judged. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Haven't run a trial in 3 or 4 years.
> 
> Judged in Montana this fall.
> 
> ...


*
maybe you just have the Knack*...or maybe you and co judge Ted Miller knew what you were doing


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Hard to keep up if you are away for an extended period of time.



Good solid testing of the All Age Retriever has no boundaries in time...... testing for what is in vogue however, needs for one to keep abreast of training trends.

john


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Good solid testing of the All Age Retriever has no boundaries in time...... testing for what is in vogue however, needs for one to keep abreast of training trends.
> 
> john



So are you saying for example that if every test done in a region in the spring has for example: 1st series triple with a blind & 2 retired. 2nd series keyhole land blind. 3rd series poison bird blind. Forth series out of order flyer with a single retired. That the next weekends test should be the same because thats whats in vogue. What if my Co-judge and I dont want to do that. I thought we were only limited by the rule book, time and man power.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

One only has to look at the RFTN test discussion for the Nationals to see how test design and difficulty have changed over the years.

I can't say as to whether the underlying dogs are better. But, it is clear that the training, and handling of the dogs is better. Dogs today are doing things we would never have considered 10 years ago.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Steve Amrein said:


> So are you saying for example that if every test done in a region in the spring has for example: 1st series triple with a blind & 2 retired. 2nd series keyhole land blind. 3rd series poison bird blind. Forth series out of order flyer with a single retired. That the next weekends test should be the same because thats whats in vogue. What if my Co-judge and I dont want to do that. I thought we were only limited by the rule book, time and man power.


Steve, I don't think John was promoting the vogue test, the opposite actually. Timeless test and good bird placement trumps vogue concept test every time in my book. I think that was what John was saying.

John


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Steve, I don't think John was promoting the vogue test, the opposite actually. Timeless test and good bird placement trumps vogue concept test every time in my book. I think that was what John was saying.
> 
> John


Yes, that was my point.

Yes, among other things, equipment, a broader knowledge base and the incresing depth of the gene pool are changing the game. 
But the jury is still out for me on the question of this change always being in its best interest ? 

john


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Yes, that was my point.
> 
> Yes, among other things, equipment, a broader knowledge base and the incresing depth of the gene pool are changing the game.
> But the jury is still out for me on the question of this change always being in its best interest ?
> ...




Well I'll be dipped, John and I agree on something


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Not running a dog at the level to be judged in the new amount of time eliminates good and bad judges. This should be up to the clubs to decide who to invite. Supposedly they do their due diligence and select the appropriate judges. Who is to say that since a person has not judged, lets say master, in 7 years that they are no longer up to date on what the master dogs are doing. They could be training regularly lower level dog(s) and working with pros or training groups where multiple MH dogs are being run/trained. And they are involved in setting up the tests or training day agenda. So how does that disqualify them? 

What needs to be done is to weed out the bad judges and just the bad judges. There are judges that are current that have no business judging. There are people who are being asked for the first time that have no business judging either. But they still can judge and the clubs that want to ask a non-current judge could now risk sanctioning even though the judge they wish to ask is one of the better choices.

The new rule is a cop out. Evaluation and discipline are the correct answer.
The question is how? There have been many ideas suggested. One of them has to be right. This one is wrong!


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

OP was talking FT, right?


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Yes sir, that is Correct





Thomas D said:


> OP was talking FT, right?


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Wade said:


> What is the opinion here of judges who no longer run FT's but have been good judges?
> 
> Do you feel a judge today must remain competitive in order to be a capable judge? Or do you feel once a judge has illustrated over time he/she has the understanding of what it takes to set up good fair test it doesn't matter?


This could be a really long conversation but, IMO with a lot of research to back it up - the sport is wasting a resource when they do not continue to use those who were successful trainers & campaigners even though they no longer are competing in the stake they may judge. The previous comment applies to those who were successful as trainer/handlers during their competitive years. 

But instead they want to use someone whose knowledge base is so limited that they are at a loss when anything comes up that hasn't been outlined in the primer "How to Fake Knowing Something About Big Dogs" . You might want to ask why that is the case?



Thomas D said:


> OP was talking FT, right?





Wade said:


> Yes sir, that is Correct


Wade - until folks put the necessary effort into playing at the FT level they will continue to delude themselves into believing others venues may compare .


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

As age and attrition erode the pool of qualified judges anyone who is, was, or has been a good judge should be on list for clubs seeking judges, at Red River this weekend some new and some old (all still competitive) and very good in the major stakes.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

EdA said:


> As age and attrition erode the pool of qualified judges anyone who is, was, or has been a good judge should be on list for clubs seeking judges, at Red River this weekend some new and some old (all still competitive) and very good in the major stakes.


Well said Ed, 
Point is and no offense, this is the reason things change and change for the worst in some cases. This game has always ran this way and should continue to be ran this way. Its worked good for 50+ years and I bet it will for another 50+ years. The cream always rises to the top, and plus theirs two of you to bridge the gap.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

That's what I was thinking. There's always two judges.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

EdA said:


> As age and attrition erode the pool of qualified judges anyone who is, was, or has been a good judge should be on list for clubs seeking judges, at Red River this weekend some new and some old (all still competitive) and very good in the major stakes.


Is that the same test that went from 88 to 15 in the first series?

/Paul


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

Yes Paul...both judges still active and current in Fts. Very good first serries...fair with excellent bird placement. Nothing for anybody to complain about. One of those set ups that make you scratch your head about the best way to approach it....before and after you run.

Bill


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Is that the same test that went from 88 to 15 in the first series?
> 
> /Paul


Yes the one in which they lost 2 hours on Friday due to fog when good light disappears at 5 PM, I would have probably called back more handles but the work was so similar that the choice might have been 15 or 50 yesterday with only 4 hours of good daylight remaining. I tried it with 3, one Friday and two Saturday with similar results, one very hard bird that only 12 dogs got but fair and equitable and no complaints from anyone except wishing their dog had done well. All in attendance would like to run the quad in training. 

The Amateur was also good, wish my dogs had done better but they suffer from my deficiencies as a trainer and handler.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

EdA said:


> Yes the one in which they lost 2 hours on Friday due to fog when good light disappears at 5 PM, I would have probably called back more handles but the work was so similar that the choice might have been 15 or 50 yesterday with only 4 hours of good daylight remaining. I tried it with 3, one Friday and two Saturday with similar results, one very hard bird that only 12 dogs got but fair and equitable and no complaints from anyone except wishing their dog had done well. All in attendance would like to run the quad in training.
> 
> The Amateur was also good, wish my dogs had done better but they suffer from my deficiencies as a trainer and handler.


That's the kind of first series I love to run with my dog, not a "trick the dog" test, just very-very difficult marks. You either do well and demonstrate how good a marker your dog is, or you go down fighting like the great majority of dogs on that test, no shame in that. I wish I was there to see if Gus could do it.

John


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> That's the kind of first series I love to run with my dog, not a "trick the dog" test, just very-very difficult marks. You either do well and demonstrate how good a marker your dog is, or you go down fighting like *the great majority of dogs on that test.*, no shame in that. I wish I was there to see if Gus could do itJohn


I on the other hand like to run a tests in the first series that a represenative number of the entrants can be expected to do in some fashion or another . A test where at the end of the day the judges have some dogs left from which to evaluate "relative merits"

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> That's the kind of first series I love to run with my dog, not a "trick the dog" test, just very-very difficult marks. You either do well and demonstrate how good a marker your dog is, or you go down fighting like the great majority of dogs on that test, no shame in that. I wish I was there to see if Gus could do it.
> 
> John


I concur whole heartedly. Sounds like a FT that I would have enjoyed running.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> I concur whole heartedly. Sounds like a FT that I would have enjoyed running.


Conversely, I hate those first series where everybody is doing well, all you can do is hurt yourself and expect some super tricky land blind to eliminate dogs.

John


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Conversely, I hate those first series where everybody is doing well, all you can do is hurt yourself and expect some super tricky land blind to eliminate dogs.
> 
> John


OUCH!! BTDT


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

The example given was a test where 83% of the dogs failed the first series.

This failure rate is the antithesis of a "first series where everybody is doing well".

To my way of thinking those that did do well should refrain from buying a lottery ticket for a while;-)

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Conversely, I hate those first series where everybody is doing well, all you can do is hurt yourself and expect some super tricky land blind to eliminate dogs.
> 
> John


Been there, done that. Hate it. Unfortunately, will probably do it again in the future. 

- Just how small can we make the keyhole?
- How tight can we make the 300 yard poison bird to the line to the blind?
- Etc., etc., etc. - yuck

Ted


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Steve Amrein said:


> Well I'll be dipped, John and I agree on something


Wow dip two. Never thought I'd agree with John. 

15 back and 3 handled. 12 placed and or jammed. Hmmm.... Is there anything wrong with this picture?

I guess 76 of those dogs aren't very good markers. Or just had a bad hair day. I fail to believe that there were that many dogs that can't mark.

I like what one poster said about the cream rising to the top. That's a joke anymore. The cream doesn't rise when you make good dogs look bad. When that many dogs are doing poorly I think you have a little to much test. I would like to know of the dogs that did the test how many hunted and stumbled on the birds. In todays game that seems to be a ongoing thing. 
Championship points and titles are given to dogs that stumble on birds. But it's all about being lucky on any given weekend.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Barry said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Steve Amrein
> "Well I'll be dipped, John and I agree on something"
> 
> ...


If it makes you guys feel any better, just chalk it up to being just one more time that I am agreeing with you

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

As far as I am concerned

IF

1. The tests are safe for the dogs
2. The dogs can see the guns and the birds.
3. The handlers can see the dogs.
4. The dogs can hear the whistle.
5. The trains run on time

It's a good test. 

However, given my druthers, in the All Age Stakes - if the 5 conditions above are met - I would much rather a test be too hard than too easy.

I believe that when the test is hard, the cream does rise.
I believe that when the test is too easy, it is hard to tell the difference between curd and cream


----------



## JeffLusk (Oct 23, 2007)

Barry said:


> Championship points and titles are given to dogs that stumble on birds. But it's all about being lucky on any given weekend.



Not that it doesn't happen, but a dog doesn't stumble on every bird it takes to make an FC in my opinion. Luck is always good to have, but I'd say most FC AFC dogs did more than a few things right along the way.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Barry said:


> Wow dip two. Never thought I'd agree with John.
> 
> 15 back and 3 handled. 12 placed and or jammed. Hmmm.... Is there anything wrong with this picture?
> 
> ...


To have an informed opinion about the trial it would be important to have been there, talk to anyone in attendance and they will confirm that no dog stumbled onto the key bird and that while hard the test was fair, the birds visible, and the callbacks equitable.......


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

Frankly, those of you who were not there and feel the test was some how wrong are misinformed. I wrote earlier that the test was fair with very well placed birds.....I was one who did not make it out of the first serries and I LIKED IT!

Intended or not your comments are demeaning to the judges...bad move!

A serries that was this good was more than worth the effert to be there and the expense.

Bill


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I have heard from several people who I respect and trust that the first series at Red River was very tough - but very fair. I have not heard anyone of them say that it was a bad test. All of them said that they wanted another shot at it.

They way they talked about the test made me wish that I could have had a shot at the test, too.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> I have heard from several people who I respect and trust that the first series at Red River was very tough - but very fair. I have not heard anyone of them say that it was a bad test. All of them said that they wanted another shot at it.
> 
> They way they talked about the test made me wish that I could have had a shot at the test, too.


I think all that I said was that it was to much test for the field. I don't think I ever stated that the judges were unfair. You either do it or you don't. 

IMO a test that gets the kind of answers as this one did is a little over the top for a weekend trial. Any way you people want to spin it spin it.

IMO test such as these take the judge out of the judging aspect of the trial.

And we wonder why people are leaving the sport.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

EdA said:


> To have an informed opinion about the trial it would be important to have been there, talk to anyone in attendance and they will confirm that no dog stumbled onto the key bird and that while hard the test was fair, the birds visible, and the callbacks equitable.......


Yea you always have to be there to have an informed opinion. Like I'm not entitled to mine. 

Why do you seem to be trying to convince me that the test was fair and that the call backs where equitable. I never said anything to the contrary. All I've stated was my opinion about a test that gets this kind of results.You and I have never seen eye to eye on this subject. And I'm getting to old to give in to you anytime soon.


----------



## Malcolm (Oct 13, 2006)

Barry said:


> I think all that I said was that it was to much test for the field. I don't think I ever stated that the judges were unfair. You either do it or you don't.
> 
> IMO a test that gets the kind of answers as this one did is a little over the top for a weekend trial. Any way you people want to spin it spin it.
> 
> ...



?????
I geuss you're pointing out the dividing line in judging.
Some feel the test should determine the outcome, others feel that the judges pencil should.
In my opinion it's a lot more transparent when the test determines the winner.

If you failed the test you know why you're going home! AA Stake's are supposed to be hard.

People are pissed about the sport because there dog made a left turn and some one else's made a right turn. They're out while the other person is still playing who had the same body of work. Ei. The Pencil

If you didn't get the chickens, it ain't the pencil.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Malcolm said:


> ?????
> I geuss you're pointing out the dividing line in judging.
> Some feel the test should determine the outcome, others feel that the judges pencil should.
> In my opinion it's a lot more transparent when the test determines the winner.
> ...



First and formost is the assumption that the test will be able to be done with a varing degree of proficency by a represenative number of dogs entered that weekend.
Then from those dogs a winner, based on the relative merits, will be chosen.

A test that is too difficult takes the judging of the equotion .

john


----------



## Malcolm (Oct 13, 2006)

john fallon said:


> First and formost is the assumption that the test will be able to be done with a varing degree of proficency by a represenative number of dogs entered that weekend.
> Then from those dogs a winner, based on the relative merits, will be chosen.
> 
> A test that is too difficult takes the judging of the equotion .
> ...


I think these things were accomplished based on the data presented.
At the end of the day, there are only 4 placements and a couple of jams at each trial.
Based on what I read, this happened.

Allowing lesser work to continue playing is another question all together.
Outright failures can't(shouldn't) be carried to the next series.
The only question I see is if more people should have handled cleanly instead of picking up their dog.
The fact that they didn't, leads me to believe that some of them knew they were toast.
They could have been wrong? We'll never know.


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

It seems that in todays All Age stakes, especially the Open, far too many people are afraid to handle assuming that they'll be out. I'd assume that instead of the dog getting too far out of the area or not quite making it to the fall would be the right time to blow the whistle and let the judges decide. If you have a giant hunt, you're not getting placed anyways but with quick clean handles you can still play and stay alive.

I'd really be curious if anyone took a picture of what this infamous "Battle at the Red" test looked like.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

TroyFeeken said:


> It seems that in todays All Age stakes, especially the Open, far too many people are afraid to handle assuming that they'll be out. .


The reality is 9 times out of 10 - maybe 19 times out of 20 - except at the Nationals - handle and you are gone.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I did not see the test or care to comment on it.

What I have asked before is with the way our current trials are done I am really not sure the best dog is awarded the blue. A test (1st series) that runs all day is not the same for every dog. Lighting, throws, wind, flyer dragback and trails or paths made make it different. Its easy to look at call backs for that series and see when it was the best time to run. Ted is right if I have had to handle in the 1st series and more than 10 dogs have done it I am in the truck on my way home. I also understand that its the best dog that weekend. Its to bad that weekend trials can not be judged more like the nationals. BTW I dont subscribe to the cream rises idea as I have seen 30 titled dogs in a row including a NFC pick up only to have a dog just out of the Q do it. Then to have the same dog miss a point by a back leg get dropped. Really.....? Dropped on a water blind 300 yds long by the 1/2 the width of a dog. 

Weekend trials are about time and a reason to eliminate a dog.


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

Barry, I just do not understand your thinking about taking the judging out of the equation by virtue of the set up/call backs. The set up was brilliant. The set up is part of judging. I just gave Jeff Lusk a brief breakdown of the set up..suprised more of you are not more interested in how the judges constructed the test.

They did call back two or three handles.

The 4th serries was almost as good as the first. With 15 dogs after the first the judges still had to find a winner.

The open is the highest level of competition that I know of in the retriever world. Expectations are extremly high in what we expect the dogs to do. Nothing about the set up in the first serries was out of line with those expectations.

Getting penciled out...to me...just sucks!

Bill


----------



## Malcolm (Oct 13, 2006)

Steve Amrein said:


> I did not see the test or care to comment on it.
> 
> What I have asked before is with the way our current trials are done I am really not sure the best dog is awarded the blue. A test (1st series) that runs all day is not the same for every dog. Lighting, throws, wind, flyer dragback and trails or paths made make it different. Its easy to look at call backs for that series and see when it was the best time to run. Ted is right if I have had to handle in the 1st series and more than 10 dogs have done it I am in the truck on my way home. I also understand that its the best dog that weekend. Its to bad that weekend trials can not be judged more like the nationals. BTW I dont subscribe to the cream rises idea as I have seen 30 titled dogs in a row including a NFC pick up only to have a dog just out of the Q do it. Then to have the same dog miss a point by a back leg get dropped. Really.....? Dropped on a water blind 300 yds long by the 1/2 the width of a dog.
> 
> Weekend trials are about time and a reason to eliminate a dog.


?? Yes, trials are designed to eliminate dogs. 
I assume everyone who competes understands that. 
The question is how you go about it. Strong tests or scribbled lines.
No one is titling a dog who can't do the work. It's to dam hard!!!

No one dog is on, all the time!! 

If you miss a key point in the blind you are cheating the test. You're out!!!!!!
The obstacles are there to force you to handle and control your dog. 
If you avoid them you haven't proven your dog can handle.
Blinds are about you and your dog navigating obstacles in a pleasing manner.
A good blind will influence and expose dogs weaknesses.
A good handler will know his dogs weaknesses and have a plan to counter them.
Reinforce want you want before you 're in trouble. If that doesn't work you have another concept to train on. 
It is a competition not a pizza party. It's also, why I love it!!!

Believe me!! I have screwed up things when i know my dog could have done it.
That's another variable that we as contestants seem to forget.
Good dog with handler era's flop every weekend, this includes pro's.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

moonstonelabs said:


> Barry, I just do not understand your thinking about taking the judging out of the equation by virtue of the set up/call backs. The set up was brilliant. The set up is part of judging. I just gave Jeff Lusk a brief breakdown of the set up..suprised more of you are not more interested in how the judges constructed the test.
> 
> They did call back two or three handles.
> 
> ...


The set up is part of the judging process. It is up to the judges also to determine if it's to easy or to hard. Either way you make adjustments or change the test to suit your needs. Obviously these judges thought that this test suited their needs. And that's fine. I just think that there is other ways of getting results. A good sound 10 min triple In my mind would have achieved just that and taken a lot less time.


The set up in your mind was brilliant and I'm not saying that it wasn't. One thing I do know is that usually there are four series to be judged. I'm not willing to send 85% of the dogs home after the first series. I do know that there are some who want to see that kind of test. The reason being that the less dogs that are left the odds are better for them and the judges don't have to make any decisions on who to bring back or drop. Just get the chicken mentality. Problem is that there are still 3 series to go. I'm not willing to go to the last series with only 2 dogs. I would like to test the dogs not eliminate them. IMO dogs run against a test not one another. At the end of the trial I want to determine along with my co-judge who the winner and places should go to relative to their performance through out the whole trial. 

All that being said when you come back with so few dogs I find it very hard to think that you would not want to finish with as many as you could for fear of everyone talking like they are now so you back off and except sloppy work. Not only that to finish all that you brought back after the first doesn't sound right to me. JMO 

Penciling really does suck, when it doesn't go your way. What do you think the judges do when they are doing call backs. Determine who should stay and who should go. This term penciling is really over done. If nobody does the test the judges still determine the results. That's the job of the judges. Being that there is two judges it keeps the penciling on the up and up. You of all people should know this you have been around for awile and have done your fair share of judging.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Steve Amrein said:


> I did not see the test or care to comment on it.
> 
> What I have asked before is with the way our current trials are done I am really not sure the best dog is awarded the blue. A test (1st series) that runs all day is not the same for every dog. Lighting, throws, wind, flyer dragback and trails or paths made make it different. Its easy to look at call backs for that series and see when it was the best time to run. Ted is right if I have had to handle in the 1st series and more than 10 dogs have done it I am in the truck on my way home. I also understand that its the best dog that weekend. Its to bad that weekend trials can not be judged more like the nationals. BTW I dont subscribe to the cream rises idea as I have seen 30 titled dogs in a row including a NFC pick up only to have a dog just out of the Q do it. Then to have the same dog miss a point by a back leg get dropped. Really.....? Dropped on a water blind 300 yds long by the 1/2 the width of a dog.
> 
> ...


So does that mean that that's the way it's supposed to be? Or is that just the direction we a heading in due to the lack of knowledge or know how?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> I did not see the test or care to comment on it.
> 
> What I have asked before is with the way our current trials are done I am really not sure the best dog is awarded the blue. A test (1st series) that runs all day is not the same for every dog. Lighting, throws, wind, flyer dragback and trails or paths made make it different. Its easy to look at call backs for that series and see when it was the best time to run. Ted is right if I have had to handle in the 1st series and more than 10 dogs have done it I am in the truck on my way home. I also understand that its the best dog that weekend. Its to bad that weekend trials can not be judged more like the nationals. BTW *I dont subscribe to the cream rises idea as I have seen 30 titled dogs in a row including a NFC pick up only to have a dog just out of the Q do it. Then to have the same dog miss a point by a back leg get dropped. Really.....? Dropped on a water blind 300 yds long by the 1/2 the width of a dog. *Weekend trials are about time and a reason to eliminate a dog.


Again we are thinking in concert!



Barry said:


> So does that mean that that's the way it's supposed to be? Or is that just the direction we a heading in due to the lack of knowledge or know how?


Both the Blue Judges Manual and the Rules Regulations and Guidlines say it is not suppose to be this way.........

john 

john


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

In training, running HT's and watching FT's, I have often seen set ups that turned out to be much harder once the dogs started running than anyone expected during set up or while looking at the test from the line. 

It sounds like some are assuming that the judges at the trial in question purposfully set up a test to eliminate 85% of the dogs. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't but isn't it possible that the dogs that day just had a harder time than was expected?

Those that were there, when you first looked at the test did you realize it was going to be so difficult or did that realization come only after watching a few dogs run? How did the test dog(s) do on the test?


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Malcolm said:


> ?????
> I guess you're pointing out the dividing line in judging.
> Some feel the test should determine the outcome, others feel that the judges pencil should.
> In my opinion it's a lot more transparent when the test determines the winner.
> ...


My philosophy exactly. Thanks also to Ed and Bill for the positive comments.

I am going to reply here not because of the criticism of John Fallon and Barry Anonymous; I give a rip about the opinions of either. My reply is in the interest of sharing my philosophy on judging with the possibility that it might be helpful to someone. 

In a perfect world which in the case of field trials would be entries limited to 65-70 dogs with 3 days to run, judges could attempt to set up tests that would allow 60% +/- of the dogs to be called back after each series. Not possible with the large entry numbers at most trials today. 

The large entry numbers especially with short days limit the options of the judges. If the first series marking test is not sufficiently difficult, judges are forced to either pencil out dogs as Malcolm indicated or to call all back and then eliminate an excessive number with an absurd keyhole blind with arbitrary pass/fail criterium which rewards the less stylish dogs and penalizes the dogs that are most pleasing to watch. [On a side note, if one lacks the knowledge and ability to evaluate a dog's team work on a blind retrieve without some arbitrary pass fail criterium then maybe one has no business judging a field trial.]

Another alternative we often see is to start with a blind or interrupted marking test with a blind to eliminate dogs before the marks are retrieved. I find this inconsistent with the rules:
(1) Accurate marking, or memory of “falls’’ is of paramount importance. However, this does not imply that dogs which excel in marking shall not be severely penalized, or even eliminated, for deficiencies in, or a lack of the other required “abilities.’’​
Subject to my ability to persuade my co-judge if not of like mind I will always start with a marking test that I hope is on the difficult side, but as fair as I am able to make it. If a dog does not go reasonably direct to the area of fall of a mark and hunt there until the bird is found in my book the dog has exhibited no memory the mark i.e. the dog has failed that particular mark. I find nothing in the rules that states that handling on a mark is a fatal fault. Therefore, I would much prefer the dog be handled to the mark verses to watch it hunt further away from the bird than when it left the mat even though the dog may eventually stumble on the bird (SOB). I am happy to call back as many dogs as time will allow including handles subject to being consistent with the call backs.

At the risk of digressing again, if you handle your dog on a mark, handle it to the freaking bird. It aggravated the heck out of me to see a dog handled to a point down wind of a mark and allowed to hunt.

In the FWIW department, Barry, there was at least one dog a RR that did retrieve 4 birds without a handle that did not get called back, SOB. 

Now that everyone knows my judging philosophy, not to worry. I am done judging for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Again we are thinking in concert!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not only that, I guess six months of Retriever News articles basicaly said the same thing. From the mouths of some of the same people on this very forum.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


> My philosophy exactly. Thanks also to Ed and Bill for the positive comments.
> 
> *I am going to reply here not because of the criticism of John Fallon *and Barry Anonymous; I give a rip about the opinions of either. My reply is in the interest of sharing my philosophy on judging with the possibility that it might be helpful to someone.
> 
> ...


Just one more example of your mischaracterization of what someone has posted here on the RTF.

Here is a link to my posts on this thread. http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/search.php?searchid=2851130

Using them in the context they were posted, show me any overt criticism of the trial or judges that Paul brought up.

john


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> The reality is 9 times out of 10 - maybe 19 times out of 20 - except at the Nationals - handle and you are gone.


And would that be right or wrong Ted?

Would you be inclined to bring back a crisp clean handle or a hunt?

What does the standard say for something like this?

I tend to agree with Troy here in that way to many judges today skew what the standard has to say and tend to go with the every day norm of a weekend trial.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

moonstonelabs said:


> Barry, I just do not understand your thinking about taking the judging out of the equation by virtue of the set up/call backs. The set up was brilliant. The set up is part of judging. I just gave Jeff Lusk a brief breakdown of the set up..suprised more of you are not more interested in how the judges constructed the test.
> 
> They did call back two or three handles.
> 
> ...



Bill, how does one justify losing 73 dogs in one series but can only come up with losing 3 more dogs over the next 3 tests?
As judges shouldn't we try to set up progressively tougher test as we go along? In an open we do have 3 days to complete the task, correct?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Wade said:


> Bill, how does one justify losing 73 dogs in one series but can only come up with losing 3 more dogs over the next 3 tests?
> As judges shouldn't we try to set up progressively tougher test as we go along? In an open we do have 3 days to complete the task, correct?


I'll answer for myself here, 

1) I don't know the judges so can't presume to say what was on their mind, but from what has been posted by a couple participants, it sounds like the test were fair but very difficult. I imagine the judges knew they were setting up a very difficult first series, but got more than they planned for. As a judge I have had it go all ways, easier than I planned or thought, harder than I planned or thought and, occasionally working out exactly how I planned and thought it would.

2) I know you know this, but in AA stakes each series test a different skill set, they aren't progressively tougher, just different. I talked to one of the pro's who ran all four series and it sounded to me like the last series was a terrifically difficult, huge test in adverse conditions.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

As far as "crisp handles" getting called back in the first series.

You and your co judge set up an indented triple with the line to the long bird going pretty close to the short retired. 

Would you call everyone back who missed the short retired, and got the long bird, then when sent for the short bird again headed long again, only to be saved with a quick handle?


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Jim Pickering said:


> In a perfect world which in the case of field trials would be entries limited to 65-70 dogs with 3 days to run, judges could attempt to set up tests that would allow 60% +/- of the dogs to be called back after each series. Not possible with the large entry numbers at most trials today.
> 
> The large entry numbers especially with short days limit the options of the judges. If the first series marking test is not sufficiently difficult, judges are forced to either pencil out dogs as Malcolm indicated or to call all back and then eliminate an excessive number with an absurd keyhole blind with arbitrary pass/fail criterium which rewards the less stylish dogs and penalizes the dogs that are most pleasing to watch. [On a side note, if one lacks the knowledge and ability to evaluate a dog's team work on a blind retrieve without some arbitrary pass fail criterium then maybe one has no business judging a field trial.]
> 
> ...


IMO, Mr Pickering by virtue of experience with dogs in the field is more than qualified to judge a trial as he sees fit conforming to AKC rules as he interprets them. There are many in this sport today with many more bullets who would like to have Mr. Pickering's record as a trainer handler . 

TBS - unless you have had the privilege of judging in the environment where every test needs to accomplish something you should refrain from what if's ;-). It is much easier to finish the job with no one being pencilled out & in fact, with maybe none of the dogs being perfectly clean. Sort of grading on the curve . 

If we all had the same philosophy of what constituted a proper test it would be fairly boring to those that do FT's. I believe the AKC has a venue for that!

TBS, Keep up the good work Jim, the sport needs people like you!!!! & you are entitled to your opinion by virtue of having been there done that!!!!


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

At the end of the day, isn't the goal to find 1 dog that 2 judges deem as the best that weekend?

As long as the rule book is followed, all other discussions are hawg wash.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Barry said:


> IMO test such as these take the judge out of the judging aspect of the trial.


In my opinion, criticism of tests set up by people who give up a weekend or more to judge, takes many people out of the judging pool.

Who wants to go through the brain damage of judging knowing that after the weekend is over the armchair quarterbacks will second guess your decisions?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

The real irony of this entire discussion is that the negatives have been voiced by people who were not there, who have never seen the grounds, who have not seen most of the dogs, and who probably have never judged a field this large in December with limited hours of daylight (I have), while the positives have come from people who were there, and in my case, did not do well. 

Over the years I have concluded that the better judges have owned, handled, or have been regularly exposed to extremely talented dogs and therefore have an appreciation of what they are capable of doing. At this trial both judges qualified under those parameters.

I would go out of my way to run under either or both of them at any future date. 

Thanks Jim and Dan for giving up 4 days of your life to be the subject of Internet judging scrutiny!....


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

> And would that be right or wrong Ted?


Sometimes, it's right. 
Sometimes, it's wrong.
It depends on the circumstances. 




> Would you be inclined to bring back a crisp clean handle or a hunt?


I have brought back quick handles and dropped hunts.
I have placed quick handles over hunts
It depends on the circumstances



> What does the standard say for something like this?


I know what the Rule Book says.
Do you?



> I tend to agree with Troy here in that way to many judges today skew what the standard has to say and tend to go with the every day norm of a weekend trial.


 I disagree. 

In my experience, there are very few clean handles in a FT.
They almost always occur on nasty short birds (hen pheasants), where the dog is not checking down, and shows every indication of running to the next state. If you bring back those handles, and the book gets made on you, then the pros start handling, the dogs all look similar, and you diminish the work of the dogs that worked out the short nasty bird. Is that what you want?

If your dog is hunting the big punch bird that no one is getting, you are going to give your dog a chance to find that bird. And by the time, you realize that
your dog is not going to dig up the bird, you have a big hunt, to go with your crisp handle. Is that a handle that you want to bring back?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Malcolm said:


> I geuss you're pointing out the dividing line in judging.
> Some feel the test should determine the outcome, others feel that the judges pencil should.
> In my opinion it's a lot more transparent when the test determines the winner.


Malcolm, I think you overstate the case, but I share your opinion. However, I think Barry's position is understandable and defensible as well.

There is one group that takes the position that the tests have gotten out of hand, that tests should be less difficult, and that people should be allowed to play longer. Critics of this group contend that the judges simply "pencil whip" the field.

There is another group that contends that you need very hard tests to separate the field, and that the tests should make it easy to separate the wheat from the chaff. Critics of this group contend that the judges simply "eliminate" the dogs.

I prefer the second approach.
But, I think that the first approach is understandable, and reasonable too.

Given my druthers, I want the hard ball buster test every time.
I will drive a long way to run under judges that I know who set fundamentally sound, but difficult tests.
Because I enjoy those kinds of tests.

I won't go across the street to run under judges who set tests where a large percentage of the dogs get the birds, and differentiation depends on subjective evaluations that I may or may not share. 
Because I don't enjoy those kinds of taste.

I understand if people do not share my taste. I don't think everyone needs to like Strawberry Haagen Das. 

But, I do find it bothersome when they try to impose their tastes on me and tell me that I shouldn't like Strawberry Haagen Das.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


> In a perfect world which in the case of field trials would be entries limited to 65-70 dogs with 3 days to run, judges could attempt to set up tests that would allow 60% +/- of the dogs to be called back after each series. Not possible with the large entry numbers at most trials today.
> 
> The large entry numbers especially with short days limit the options of the judges.


Just two weeks ago, I judged an Open in North Carolina. Fortunately, there were only 54 dogs - and the club was fine about having the stake run three days. As a result, I thought the callbacks were quite generous. Many people got to play three series, until we cut down to the cream of the field that weekend for the fourth series. 

However, if the field were larger - 70+ dogs
Or the club expressed that it needed the Open to be done in two days

Well, callbacks would have been far less generous.

The harsh truth is that time dictates your test and your callbacks.

If you look back to the series of articles in the RFTN about judging, you will notice how many of the authors commented on the impact that larger trials have had on judging. There is a very real pressure associated with getting separation in a limited amount of time with a large field.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Or the club expressed that it needed the Open to be done in two days
> 
> Well, callbacks would have been far less generous.


Under what circumstance would this position by a club be a valid one ????

john


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

EdA said:


> The real irony of this entire discussion is that the negatives have been voiced by people who were not there, who have never seen the grounds, who have not seen most of the dogs, and who probably have never judged a field this large in December with limited hours of daylight (I have), while the positives have come from people who were there, and in my case, did not do well.
> 
> Over the years I have concluded that the better judges have owned, handled, or have been regularly exposed to extremely talented dogs and therefore have an appreciation of what they are capable of doing. At this trial both judges qualified under those parameters.
> 
> ...


I didn't know that to voice one's opinion on a certain topic one would have to travel 600 miles and spend $170. I don't think that one would have to be there to make a comment about a test that was to tough for a weekend trial.
As the call backs speak for themselves. 

I think that it's pretty funny that because people have a different opinion than you that you would state that we probably haven't ever judged a field that large or under such conditions ( I have to ) 

If opinions are not to be heard than don't post test and results on threads. And than make comments about such trials. Saying what happened and why.

I to appreciate Jim and Dan giving up their time for doing something a lot don't want to do. I just have a difference of opinion in the way that I like to do things.

Just because one has a different opinion doesn't mean that it's a personal attack. It's just a difference of opinion. I thought you would get that.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> In my opinion, criticism of tests set up by people who give up a weekend or more to judge, takes many people out of the judging pool.
> 
> Who wants to go through the brain damage of judging knowing that after the weekend is over the armchair quarterbacks will second guess your decisions?


Discussions are good. If you are unable to learn things don't ever get any better. I learn things everyday. I've also learned what I like and dislike. And even those things could change if shown a better way. 

These are only opinions. You don't have to do it my way but there are sure a lot of people that share my thoughts.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

I have learned more about judging in this thread than the one Ted designated to judging You all are sportsmen and it shows in the way you respectfully speak to each other, it's refreshing to see we haven't lost that!!


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Dogs today are doing things we would never have considered 10 years ago.


Such as? could you please give us an example. Looking at test from from the National Open 2000 till current shows no great disparity in concept or design.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> Malcolm, I think you overstate the case, but I share your opinion. However, I think Barry's position is understandable and defensible as well.
> 
> *There is one group that takes the position that the tests have gotten out of hand, that tests should be less difficult, and that people should be allowed to play longer. Critics of this group contend that the judges simply "pencil whip" the field.
> 
> ...


I was thinking about starting another thread on the general philosophy of judging, then you just posted my hypothisis. I'm like you, I like running those "ball buster" first series that seriously cut the field way down, but there are a number of judges I like running under, who tend to set up easier test and judge the dogs on a curve. The common denomonator in these different but equally respected judges to me is that they are honest, fair, recognize good dog work and try their best, within their personal philosophy, to find the best dog at the end of that weekend.

John


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> but there are a number of judges I like running under, who tend to set up easier test and judge the dogs on a curve. The common denomonator in these different but equally respected judges to me is that they are honest, fair, recognize good dog work and try their best, within their personal philosophy, to find the best dog at the end of that weekend. John


What they do - is inject themselves into the trial . The trial is about finding the best 4 dogs on that weekend & there is not an opportunity to do that if the tests are not of sufficient difficulty. There is nothing worse than a trial that becomes about pleasing that particular judge's philosophy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Marvin S said:


> What they do - is inject themselves into the trial . *The trial is about finding the best 4 dogs on that weekend & there is not an opportunity to do that if the tests are not of sufficient difficulty.* There is nothing worse than a trial that becomes about pleasing that particular judge's philosophy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I totally agree with that statement, the question is, what is your definition of _sufficient difficulty_? As I've said I prefer to run test at the hard end of the _sufficient difficulty_ spectrum, but as long as the test are fair and are _sufficiently difficult_, there are judges whom I admire and enjoy running those test was well. What I don't like are the trick, ticky-tacky test designed to fool dogs. 

Getting back to Ted's point that both philosophies are valid, they are just different. I'm not talking about test that are so easy, everyone does it well, and the only separation you get is a hooked gun or something, I'm talking about middle of the road test that looses perhaps 25%-33% of the field. And there is a difference between "penciling out" a dog for an accumulation of minor line issues versus dropping a dog that gets all the birds without a handle, but fails one or two marks by showing no indication of a mark, just a huge out of the area hunt before finally stumbling on the bird.

Are you saying that the only way you can place dogs is through an elimination process of extreme difficulty?

John


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> there are a number of judges I like running under, who tend to set up easier test and judge the dogs on a curve.



Could you go into that _judging on a curve _thing in a little more detail,

john


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Could you go into that _judging on a curve _thing in a little more detail,
> 
> john


Talk about taking something out of context... read the whole post and it should become clear to you.

John


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> I totally agree with that statement, the question is, what is your definition of _sufficient difficulty_? As I've said I prefer to run test at the hard end of the _sufficient difficulty_ spectrum, but as long as the test are fair and are _sufficiently difficult_, there are judges whom I admire and enjoy running those test was well. What I don't like are the trick, ticky-tacky test designed to fool dogs.
> 
> Are you saying that the only way you can place dogs is through an elimination process of extreme difficulty?
> 
> John


I'll start by passing on what I considered a compliment at the time, from a now deceased HOF member, deservedly so. His statement "people don't know you are here, the tests are sufficiently interesting that they watch the dogs try to figure the test out, & at the end anyone can determine the places as long as they understand that you do favor stylish dogs". Over the years I have only had 2 people question the callbacks - one is now wearing an orange jumpsuit & the other had been running to many HT's .

It depends on your definition of extreme - I attended a college where I was learning little but did have a full ride scholarship & left after the 1st semester, bored. When I got out of the service I attended a much tougher school that prided themselves on weeding the uncapable out. Loved it - & it was a process where no one course did it but an accumulation of owie's. Sophomore Physics being the main culprit. Though I notice the graduation rate today is somewhat higher, probably due to the availability of early course work in the basic disciplines. I believe the same philosophy can be applied to subject at hand as long as the person holding the book has sufficient experience with dogs in the field . One of the ways you get experience is by working with those who know more about the subject, in this case it is generally the pro's & paying attention.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Talk about taking something out of context... read the whole post and it should become clear to you.
> 
> John


I have read the whole post If it were clear to me I would not have asked the question.

Using your curve anology, how do the judges that set up the ball busters do it when compaired to the ones that set up the easier tests, (the tests with a more represenative success rate)

Is it straight line judging for the BB's where what get is what you get..... or do they both have a degree of difficulty curve (one up one down) built in .

As you can see I do not know what you mean.

john


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> One only has to look at the RFTN test discussion for the Nationals to see how test design and difficulty have changed over the years.
> 
> I can't say as to whether the underlying dogs are better. But, it is clear that the training, and handling of the dogs is better. Dogs today are doing things we would never have considered 10 years ago.




Such as? could you please give us an example. Looking at test from from the National Open 2000 till current shows no great disparity in concept or design.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> One only has to look at the RFTN test discussion for the Nationals to see how test design and difficulty have changed over the years.
> 
> I can't say as to whether the underlying dogs are better. But, it is clear that the training, and handling of the dogs is better. Dogs today are doing things we would never have considered 10 years ago.


Such as? could you please give us an example. Looking at test from from the National Open 2000 till current shows no great disparity in concept or design.


----------



## Malcolm (Oct 13, 2006)

john fallon said:


> I have read the whole post If it were clear to me I would not have asked the question.
> 
> Using your curve anology, how do the judges that set up the ball busters do it when compaired to the ones that set up the easier tests, (the tests with a more represenative success rate)
> 
> ...


 I'll take a poke at this. 
Not speaking for anyone else but myself. 

Lets say you set up a tough blind that will force people to handle.
You began to watch handlers interact with their dog. 

You and your co-judge want to see the contestants handle the adversity with their dogs and not quit. Do the blind(stay on line) without counting whistles. Cast refusals, will depend on how many and if the occur in bunches. 

It becomes a survival blind. The work is compared against each dog, not what you feel a great job is. "Hence a curve". This discussion should happen between judges before starting the test. If the work is absolutely horrendous and you have no answers, scrap the test. 

I think this could also be a thought on the dogs hanging by a thread in the first series(Marks).

When in doubt, tie goes to the dog!

These thoughts don't come into play at every trial. You just need to be open minded about the situation.

I'm not sure if I answered you Q's completely?

Malcolm


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Malcolm said:


> I'll take a poke at this.
> Not speaking for anyone else but myself.
> 
> Lets say you set up a tough blind that will force people to handle.
> ...


Malcolm thanks for the input ......

A few further questions if I may.

Except for the faults requiring mandatory elimination
Isn't that the way ALL FT's are supposed to be judged. 

BTW Malcolm, John specifically states that the judges in question set up what turned out to be easy tests, then judge them on a curve. This being the case, in you estimation, what, how, and why would something like this take place.

john


----------



## Malcolm (Oct 13, 2006)

john fallon said:


> Malcolm thanks for the input ......
> 
> A few further questions if I may.
> 
> ...


Yes/No - Hopefully the tests determine the outcome and you don't have to do this.
If the tests were easy I don't see why there is a need for a curve. If they do the test, you have to bring them back! The question becomes "what's doing the test". Indicating a mark, making the fall area, and using all of of his/her gifts to find the bird. (Nose, eyes, ear's)

I think this is where trouble starts. You better dam sure know the difference between a dog who marked the bird and one who was lined to it.

The line to it is irrelevent, unless the dog shows a total lack of courage in more than one instance. Still carried for marking the bird. But definitely falls back in the pack. 

The questions among the different Judges, is how they view marking. Which will probably start another thread.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Malcolm said:


> Yes/No - Hopefully the tests determine the outcome and you don't have to do this.
> If the tests were easy I don't see why there is a need for a curve. If they do the test, you have to bring them back! The question becomes "what's doing the test". Indicating a mark, making the fall area, and using all of of his/her gifts to find the bird. (Nose, eyes, ear's)
> 
> I think this is where trouble starts. You better dam sure know the difference between a dog who marked the bird and one who was lined to it.
> ...


Perhaps irrelevant is an overstatement, and within reason, unless there is conspicuously excessive lining, one is allowed by the rules to assist the dog in that regard

With that said, a less than straight line to the mark , if the deviation from straight is within reason, should not significantly negatively impact the dogs score on that bird... even dogs with small hunts are not supposed to be significantly outscored by a dog with a straight line ........ the unvarnished truth is that it does so impact and they are outscored.

I wish John R would post up with what he was refering to with that "curve" statement



john


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Here is another reason to have active FT handlers judge - They are still participating in the game and they need to give back to the game.

Now even though I have not run a dog in a few years - I will help out local clubs when they are in a real bind. Heck, it took me a couple of years just to work off the judging assignments I already had committed to.


----------



## Malcolm (Oct 13, 2006)

Gerard Rozas said:


> Here is another reason to have active FT handlers judge - They are still participating in the game and they need to give back to the game.
> 
> Now even though I have not run a dog in a few years - I will help out local clubs when they are in a real bind. Heck, it took me a couple of years just to work off the judging assignments I already had committed to.


I think part of the reason people are reluctant to "Give Back" is that they feel mistreated.

Some, not all of the veteran FT'ers think people, that they in no way introduced to the game, owe them something! They don't! 
The trials and tribulations of competing and trainining are the things you as an individual chose to do.


If you gave your heart and soul, hopefully you did it because you loved the sport, not because you expected something in return!

I'm a firm believer in helping those who show an interest in helping me.
Wether it's advice and or comaraderie.

Some clubs are better at asking people for help with a task, as opposed to delegating a task for someone else to do. "There is a Big difference"

When this tact is taken people are more willing to take on more responsibility and SHARE in the burdens of putting on a trial.

If you want to help the sport stay viable, show newcomers to the sport how to train their own dogs. Explain the how's and why's of training.

This will create the knowledgeable judging pool.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Perhaps irrelevant is an overstatement, and within reason, unless there is conspicuously excessive lining, one is allowed by the rules to assist the dog in that regard
> 
> With that said, a less than straight line to the mark , if the deviation from straight is within reason, should not significantly negatively impact the dogs score on that bird... even dogs with small hunts are not supposed to be significantly outscored by a dog with a straight line ........ the unvarnished truth is that it does so impact and they are outscored.
> 
> ...


You guys are way overthinking my judging on a curve comment. That comment was a general observation that some judges tend to set up super difficult "elimination" test in the first series, especially if there are a lot of entries and short time, while others tend to set up somewhat easier, (not easy) test, and feel more comfortable judging the relative merits and dropping dogs accordingly. Personally I prefer running the hard test, if my dog is one of the few to do well (not luck, but really knowing where the birds are, you can tell the difference), I feel great, if we stumble on the test and have to handle, oh well we tried and we aren't the Lone Ranger. On the other hand, I know of a handful of judges who fit the latter catagory who are fair, honest good dog people, and I enjoy running under them. There just isn't that huge adrennalin rush upside.

John


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Shih 
One only has to look at the RFTN test discussion for the Nationals to see how test design and difficulty have changed over the years.

I can't say as to whether the underlying dogs are better. But, it is clear that the training, and handling of the dogs is better. Dogs today are doing things we would never have considered 10 years ago. 
**********************************************************
Originally Posted by Greg Magee: 
Such as? could you please give us an example. Looking at test from from the National Open 2000 till current shows no great disparity in concept or design.
*********************************************************
Well you talk a good game anyway.


----------



## Jim Harvey (Feb 7, 2007)

Badger, Badger,…Badger One reason why I do not post on the general forum and will not again after this post. You asked a question, no one answered. Can’t you just let it be? Maybe Ted figures the bitching is just not worth it?

In regards to your question, I haven’t been around long enough to know what the 2000 OPEN was like. But, I have heard Mike on different occasions go into detail on the difference in what National OPENS were like 10 years ago and what they are like now. And NO, I am not going to go into it here. Maybe you know something Mike Lardy doesn’t? 

So just maybe, Ted is correct after all. Now that I think about it, I believe Ted has actually been to the last 3-4 National AM/OPENS. Could it be possible, that the experience might give him an advantage to speak very intelligently on the subject? 

Greg, I frequently feel you have good input. 

However, on this subject and many others, I appreciate Ted's thoughts and I know for a fact, myself and others have learned a thing or two from him.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jim Harvey said:


> Badger, Badger,…Badger One reason why I do not post on the general forum and will not again after this post. You asked a question, no one answered. Can’t you just let it be? Maybe Ted figures the bitching is just not worth it?


Jim

You hit the nail on the head. 

Happy New Year!

Ted


----------

