# Place these dogs........



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

This is a one series derby. Based on the MARKS, and only the marks, how would you place these dogs?


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

1 yellow (#2)
2 blue (#3)
3 green (#1)


1blue(#3)
2yellow (#2)
3 greeen (#1)

I would have a hard time judging it on marks alone - between yellow and blue, anyway...but I am NOT a judge....LOL


how different would the results be if the judge had moved the memory mark - gunner standing to the left and deep of the cover, throwing left to right, mark landing left of the current position...it would have been a different test....
perhaps this would keep dogs from runnig to the right of the cover and winding the mark as they came around?

Juli


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

I voted for (#2) but after looking at it some more I would like to change my vote to (#3).
________
Honda MT50 specifications


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

#3 wins in my book. Obviously marked the fall on the memory bird because of the tight hunt. Didn't give into the factors and wind the bird. BTW Shayne I love these types of posts. This is where watching what people that are known to be great judges can really help us guy/gals that haven't judged.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I dont have any credentials to answer this post but "what the he!!"

Dog 3 =Green!
Dog 2 =did a perty good job!
Dog 1= did a better job than botha mine put together!

Gooser


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

for those of you that voted....let's see your reasoning...please?


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Wait!!

I changed my mind afters re-readin the original post about bein Based on the MARKS and ONLY the Marks!!

I give dog # 2 the green
then dog #3
then dog#1

Gooser


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

#2's handler loooks Waaaaaaaaaaaay better in the tight t shirt. #3 is handled by a sweaty old fat guy=GONE

All else being equal regards

Bubba


----------



## Gwen Jones (Jun 19, 2004)

Derby is a marking test and not so much a factor test. I would have to say that #2 then #1 and then #3. The reason this is a derby and not an all age stake is that #2 and #1 seemed to avoid more of the terrain but without a doubt knew where the bird was. The hunt by #3 was tight and close but could seem an eternity while you watch. Every time I look at this I come up with different answers because the drawing just does not show how much or what type cover was avoided. In a straight up marking test - where you are not allowed to handle or correct, the dog has got to know where he or she is going.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Based solely on natural abilities--as is the case in a Derby--which is marking and finding birds, I would have to say that Dog 2 wins because he went directly to both birds without a hunt. Not cheating cover is an acquired trait--training. Dog 3 had a tight hunt in the area of the fall and indicated, at least to me, that he knew where the bird fell and proceded directly to the area and found the bird. Dog 1 did not indicate a very good understanding of where the birds were dropped as evidenced by arriving from a very great distance, as indicated by the drawing, from the areas of the fall.

There is a passage in the rules that states that a dog which proceeds to the area of the fall and has a (clean, short, intelligent, etc.) hunt shall not be unduly penalized in favor of the dog who goes right to the fallen bird. (not a quote--just remembrance). So.......I would not want to base any placements on that set of marks alone. I would need more to pick a winner that would more clearly separate the work of the contestants. I would also not drop Dog 1 because of 2 bad lines--I would want to see more to determine if it is a pattern of poor marking or what.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Not just cover, but a strong cross-wind.

I am always amazed by these discussions and to see how many people value dealing with factors over actual marking.

It is like water marks -- dog #1 runs the bank and pins the mark. Dog #2 takes the big swim but puts up a hunt. Some people say dog #1 wins, some say #2.

Maybe the rulebook should be more clear.


----------



## Lpgar (Mar 31, 2005)

#3.....marked the bird.....took a very courageous line to the left hand bird fighting wind and cover factors...but could not find it as he was just up wind on arrival...put on a very tight hunt on the right side of the gun. He should not be out scored by a #2 that disturbed more ground and less courage getting to his bird but found it directly. #1....well....He better have had clean work till then...might not even be back on my book if he had another series that looked like that one.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Lpgar said:


> #3.....marked the bird.....took a very courageous line to the left hand bird fighting wind and cover factors...but could not find it as he was just up wind on arrival...put on a very tight hunt on the right side of the gun. He should not be out scored by a #2 that disturbed more ground and less courage getting to his bird but found it directly. #1....well....He better have had clean work till then...might not even be back on my book if he had another series that looked like that one.



Did dog two really disturb more ground? Dog 3 was all over the place in AOF... a lot of square feet of ground disturbed...


Also - none of the dogs pinned the memory mark...all found it by means of wind....#2 hooked it, #1 looped around the backside of the gun and winded it also...#3 hunted until he came back in ended up on the right side of the bird... he hunted deep the entire time, until he came back in....


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

The problem with hypotheticals like this is that they assume that all things are equal - except the lines. That, of course, is never the case. What about style? What focus on the line? 

I think all three are pretty close. I would not place based on this test alone. 

One dog pins right hand bird. Goes right to area of fall and sets up tight hunt. To me, two good marks.

One dog bananas to the right, but comes right in the bird. No hunt in either case. I don't see any evidence that the dog was "clearly well out of the area." To me, two good marks.

One dog goes directly to area of fall then makes hard turn to the left. (Winded bird?) To me, two good marks.

All dogs have shown good marks. I am not going to place based on this test. That's why it's important to have four good series. 

To me, the willingness of people to make placements based on these marks on paper ... is why the derby has become so "line" rather than "mark" based .... and why the derby is my least favorite stake to run


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

sky_view said:


> Did dog two really disturb more ground? Dog 3 was all over the place in AOF... a lot of square feet of ground disturbed...
> ....


Please consider the actual rule.

*Moderate fault:*

*2) Disturbing too much cover either by not going to the area or leaving it.*

Disturbing cover alone is not a fault.
Disturbing too much cover either by not going to the area or leaving it is a fault. 

In my opinion, none of the dogs disturbed "too much cover either by not going to the area or leaving it " 

Therefore, no fault to be assessed.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

sky_view said:


> ...all found it by means of wind....


Which is good, right?

After all, the Rule Book tells us that we are to reward dogs that demonstrate a good nose.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I really did not like the way the marks were set up with the wind. If the dogs didn't fight the factors they were downwind of the bird and easily found it. Only dog #3 ran directly to the area of the fall. I would really like to see what would happen to dog #1 and #2 if the wind direction was reversed. Hard to place them on this test but #3 gets my vote.
Mark L.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Which is good, right?
> 
> After all, the Rule Book tells us that we are to reward dogs that demonstrate a good nose.


I do think it is good...just a fact of that particular mark and those three dogs...therefore other criteria come into play in determining placement.

Juli


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

fishduck said:


> I really did not like the way the marks were set up with the wind. If the dogs didn't fight the factors they were downwind of the bird and easily found it. Only dog #3 ran directly to the area of the fall. I would really like to see what would happen to dog #1 and #2 if the wind direction was reversed. Hard to place them on this test but #3 gets my vote.
> Mark L.


???
Dog number 2 did not run to the AOF? 
What is the AOF?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Directly: without delay (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

In my opinion, all three ran "directly" to the AOF (Area of Fall)


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Directly: without delay (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)
> 
> In my opinion, all three ran "directly" to the AOF (Area of Fall)



I guess 'directly'_ is_ a matter of one's own opinion.... I do not think dog #1 ran very directly...yes, he did run there - but kinda in his own roundabout way.....I suppose that since he did not have any type of hunt, that counts for something.....  Did he run between the two guns because he was getting sucked a little by the old fall?

Juli


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I didn't even vote because I am not a judge but felt the wind gave away the marks to the dogs that didn't fight the factors. Yes they did all proceed to the AOF but dog #3 shouldn't be penalized because it was 3 feet upwind.

My opinion only with limited credentials
Mark L.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Based solely on natural abilities--as is the case in a Derby--which is marking and finding birds, I would have to say that Dog 2 wins because he went directly to both birds without a hunt. Not cheating cover is an acquired trait--training.


I gave Vicki's comment a lot of thought before voting, but believe that #2 has been trained as much as #3. #2's initial line not only had him avoiding the cover, he was headed for the hills until seeing the gunners station and knowing that he is to hunt that area, then winded the bird. #3 (in my book) not only remembered his mark, he busted the cover and fought the wind on the most direct path to the mark. He checked up after hunting just a little long (also impressed me that he knew not to step of the corner of the page onto the gray vastness of the Wide World of Web!) and never left the AOF til he dug out his bird. Had this 25mph wind been up their butts, #1 (and maybe#2) might still be out there hunting.
(So that's why Shayne told me that my dog was #1 in his book when he judged us!)

Mark


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

Not to put words in Ted's mouth, but I think you could substitute "focus" for "intensity", and that can be seen and translated into style.

ml


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

I couldn't possibly vote. I'm not a FT judge, or any other kind of judge for that matter. If I had a dog running, in my mind that would be the winner, doesn't matter which set of marks it ran.


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

Maybe I shouldn't have voted since I'm no field trial judge either. However this was not stated as a prerequisite to vote in the poll. 

My question that I asked myself was...What would I want my own dog to do?
________
marijuana seeds


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Dog #1 did not run directly to the bird or the aof... if i'm reading the diagram correctly, he went up and over the levy and was probably even out of sight for a short period of time. That's why i'd place #3 with his hunt, higher than #1. 

You can call it judging lines if you want to, but Dog #1 was running/hunting in an area that had nothing to do with the test. Watching where he ran gives you an indication of his marking.

What if he ran another 300 yards deep before making a huge circle back and smacked the bird? The route a dog takes to a mark can certainly give you some insight on how well they knew where they were going.

It's like driving from Houston to Dallas - and going through Denver to do it... just because you never stop to ask directions and eventually got to Dallas, doesn't mean you knew where the hell you were going, or you would have just drove straight up I-45. 

Just because the dog didn't "hunt" for the bird, doesn't mean he knew where he was going either - which he indicated by running way to the right and up and over the levy. Thats not judging lines, that is judging marking.

Some dogs need Tom Tom regards,

SM


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Buzz said:


> I couldn't possibly vote. I'm not a FT judge, or any other kind of judge for that matter. If I had a dog running, in my mind that would be the winner, doesn't matter which set of marks it ran.


Heck I just voted anyway. I felt admitting I didn't vote and wasn't a judge was better than getting baited into a fight over the definition of AOF.
Mark L.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> You can call it judging lines if you want to, but Dog #1 was running/hunting in an area that had nothing to do with the test.


Running ain't hunting



Shayne Mehringer said:


> Watching where he ran gives you an indication of his marking.


No watching in your hypothetical



Shayne Mehringer said:


> What if he ran another 300 yards deep before making a huge circle back and smacked the bird? The route a dog takes to a mark can certainly give you some insight on how well they knew where they were going.


Yeah, but he didn't


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Just because the dog didn't "hunt" for the bird, doesn't mean he knew where he was going either - which he indicated by running way to the right and up and over the levy. Thats not judging lines, that is judging marking.


Just because the dog wasn't quartering with it's nose down doesn't mean it wasn't hunting for the bird either. ;-)


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Yeah, but he didn't




What if he did? Where do you draw the line? How far "off line" does the dog need to "run" before you decide he didn't have a very good mark on the bird?

SM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Dog #1 did not run directly to the bird or the aof... if i'm reading the diagram correctly, he went up and over the levy and was probably even out of sight for a short period of time. That's why i'd place #3 with his hunt, higher than #1.
> SM


All of which goes to show that if you are trying to get placements out of this test you are doing some serious pencil whipping


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> What if he did? Where do you draw the line? How far "off line" does the dog need to "run" before you decide he didn't have a very good mark on the bird?
> 
> SM


Well

1) You had to be there
2) That's why they call it "judging"


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> What if he did? Where do you draw the line? How far "off line" does the dog need to "run" before you decide he didn't have a very good mark on the bird?
> 
> SM


I don't know how much is too much

But, I don't think there is "too much" on the diagram

Obviously, others disagree


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Not a FT judge, but based on what a derby is supposed to be, a marking test, # 2 does the best 2 marks and # 3 is second best. 

Judge the marks.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Im Not a Judge! (DUH) Not much of a handler either,, but I CAN SING!!

Anywhos,, are you sposed to be judging lines with Marks,, or are you sposed to be judging weather er not the dog knew where the bird was??

I said #2 wins cause that dog went the most directus to the area of fall without a hunt!

I would really like to own a dog 3 when Ya consider the wind,, but then agin,, we wasnt sposed to be,, right?

Gooser


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

1st dog 2 

2nd dog 3

3rd dog 1


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

As a matter of completness, here is Jim's description of these marks as posted on the other thread:


> "I could become even more obnoxious given that I have figured out how to post diagram, but here is another of a derby test that I ran this year. It was run in the corner where two levee roads intersected. The memory mark was about 170 yards thrown down the shore and the go bird was about 70 yards thrown back up the shore. I have indicated the lines taken by three dogs, #1 in green, #2 in orange and #3 in blue."


This coupled with the diagram indicates that these are water marks. 

Please note that I do not judge trials, but it seems like an awful sharp angle water entry for the go bird for derby dogs. Getting a bank running dog based on this setup (at any level) would fall into my shame on the judges catagory. 

Discussions like this are always difficult to mentally vision, as the assumption is that the dogs' behaviour is always identical for all other attributes when this never ever happens. For example, what happens when we add a few other parameters: Dog 1 returns from the go bird, essentially throws the bird at the handler while backing into heel position and indicating the memory bird and launches immediately as the hand goes down, compared to dog 3 who comes back from the go bird, does not indicate the memory bird and the handler spends 2-3 minutes doing the lining dance before sending the dog? 

Looking at the drawing and not knowing the idiosyncracies of the drawer, it would appear the dog 3 overshot and hunted about 40 yds beyond the (170yd) mark. Hunting on the levee road and off the back side, possibly out of view (more times than dog 1). In total, the area of ground disturbed by dog 3 is vastly larger that either dog 1 or dog 2. 

If this was the fourth series and this is what a judge is basing his placements on, I'd be very dissapointed in the judges. However based on this I'd place them 2, 1, 3. 

T. Mac


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Well
> 
> 1) You had to be there
> 2) That's why they call it "judging"


I don't disagree with anything you've stated. I'm just making the point that a judge should not blindly believe that the path a dog took to the bird is completely irrelevant in the derby. There are certainly instances where the path they take speaks to how well they marked the bird.

SM


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

T. Mac said:


> As a matter of completness, here is Jim's description of these marks as posted on the other thread:
> 
> 
> This coupled with the diagram indicates that these are water marks.
> ...


But but but - you VOTED 2,3,1

Prolly gonna be someone else disappointed in a judge regards

Bubba


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

#2 wins because of my poor bird/gun placement that allows a dog to cheat the cover, run at the gun and be rewarded by the wind. 

JMO
Tim


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Tim Carrion said:


> #2 wins because of my poor bird/gun placement that allows a dog to cheat the cover, run at the gun and be rewarded by the wind.
> 
> JMO
> Tim


Great post. Finally someone willing to admit they could have done better. Live and learn, that's what judging is all about.

Question: Does the hunt on 3 negate his chance of 1st place over the hook and not quit a nice of line of dog 2? IMO Yes


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

> In a DERBY, based only on the marks below, how would you place these dogs?


Three, Two, One. 

I don't necessarily agree that fighting the factors and taking the straightest line are "trained" behaviors. Some dogs just naturally go straight regardless of what's in front of them. Number three demonstrated a clear understanding of the location of the mark and proceeded in the most efficient fashion. I don't want to penalize the dog for stepping with it's left foot instead of the right one when it came closest to the fall. Two also did nice work and would get a pretty red ribbon.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Bubba said:


> But but but - you VOTED 2,3,1
> 
> Prolly gonna be someone else disappointed in a judge regards
> 
> Bubba


Yea, can't figure out how to make the eraser work on this judging (poll)page.
Also had to compromise with my co-judge 

T. Mac


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> The problem with hypotheticals like this is that they assume that all things are equal - except the lines. That, of course, is never the case. What about style? What focus on the line?
> 
> I think all three are pretty close. I would not place based on this test alone.
> 
> ...


The first three series being of equal work in your mind, this being the last series Sunday afternoon at approx 4:30 PM. Not being able to carry over till Monday morning, who would you pick as your winner?


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Bubba said:


> But but but - you VOTED 2,3,1
> 
> Prolly gonna be someone else disappointed in a judge regards
> 
> Bubba


In a perfect world only 85% would be happy.


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

Before I cast my vote ... I want to know which way the gunners were facing?
Nah. It's 3 then 2. All were dinged but .... I reward a small hunt ding before I reward avoiding cover ding!


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

kjrice said:


> In a perfect world only 85% would be happy.


Only one person gonna be happy - the rest will be dog cussing them lamo judges

Real world regards

Bubba


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Arturo said:


> Nah. It's 3 then 2. All were dinged but .... I reward a small hunt ding before I reward avoiding cover ding!


I like where your heart is, but does the rulebook back you up on that?

SM


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I like where your heart is, but does the rulebook back you up on that?
> 
> SM


Rulebook? wtf 
Now I'm really confused!

Thats why they call it judgin'!


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Arturo said:


> Rulebook? wtf
> Now I'm really confused!
> 
> Thats why they call it judgin'!


HAHAHAHAHAHA thats genius!!!

Rulebooks are overrated regards,

SM


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

The question shouldn't be "place the dogs", it should be "regardless of anything else, who had better marks on this series" Then the answer is dog 1, 2, or 3 or too close to call. I can't tell from the diagram whether dog 1 was cheating cover and knew where the bird was or was heading to no man's land and winded the bird. Can't necessarily tell for sure in person either, but you get a much better feel for it. I certainly wouldn't punish the dog for a poor set up.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Imagine that setup being on a piece of water, with a point or two between the line and the bird on the right and an island between the mat and the mark on the left , with the island being more to the left. And oh yeah, the left hand bird is thrown the other way.

I just described a derby setup we see a lot around Mitchael Pond at the "Canal".

john


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

It's 2,3 1 in that order.

#2 did give into the judges trap but did not square up the dike and hunt behind the gun but rather angled the dike and put himself a very few yards downwind of the bird and picked it up without disturbing very much cover.

#3, did the best trained job but lost the depth of the mark and hunted the top of the dike. He hunted the top for a bit and worked his way downhill and winded the bird. He did a nice job and it doesn't look like he worked himself out of the area of the fall.

The book says a hunt in the area of the fall *should not appreciably be outscored *by a dog who finds the bird on his first cast. The book doesn't say both jobs are equal. This is on page 47 and 48 where ithe book is talking about evaluation of dog work.

What I find noteworthy is that different people see the same drawing and come to different conclusions of the dog work. Roughly 50% of those that voted agree with me and 30% believe that dog 3 did a better job. I really don't know about the roughly 20% who voted for dog #1 ahead of either of the others. Different people see things differently. The next time we get something other than what we think we should get at a trial, remember this poll and realize everyone's perception and evaluations are not the same.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Steve said:


> The question shouldn't be "place the dogs", it should be "regardless of anything else, who had better marks on this series" Then the answer is dog 1, 2, or 3 or too close to call. I can't tell from the diagram whether dog 1 was cheating cover and knew where the bird was or was heading to no man's land and winded the bird. Can't necessarily tell for sure in person either, but you get a much better feel for it. I certainly wouldn't punish the dog for a poor set up.


I am with Steve

I am surprised that so many are willing to award placements on so little separation.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I am with Steve
> 
> I am surprised that so many are willing to award placements on so little separation.


I can't disagree, we need more info. But, this was the question asked:


> This is a one series derby. Based on the MARKS, and only the marks, how would you place these dogs?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

One thing I learned in law school is to avoid the killer hypothetical

That is, the problem that was essentially unanswerable and allowed the professor to skewer any and all at will

That aversion to the killer hypothetical has never left me


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

Style makes for a pleasing performance; together with ability to mark, they constitute the most important factors for placing in Derby Stakes. One must consider style Before a judgement could be made and I think style could be broadly defined.
________
AVANDIA WITHDRAW


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

Wouldn't "style" differ from person to person?
________
silversurfer vaporizer


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> One thing I learned in law school is to avoid the killer hypothetical
> 
> That is, the problem that was essentially unanswerable and allowed the professor to skewer any and all at will
> 
> That aversion to the killer hypothetical has never left me


But yet you have posted nearly 20% of the post to this thread asking a hypothetical question...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Yes, but I never placed the dogs ... which was the point of the killer hypothetical

Didn't know you enjoyed counting so much.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

scott spalding said:


> Style makes for a pleasing performance; together with ability to mark, they constitute the most important factors for placing in Derby Stakes. One must consider style Before a judgement could be made and I think style could be broadly defined.


Actually, style is defined in the Rule Book


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Yes, but I never placed the dogs ... which was the point of the killer hypothetical
> 
> Didn't know you enjoyed counting so much.


Ok lawyer....yeah...my undergraduate was in accounting….I am a counting sumbich. 

Twist it till it suits you regards


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Ok lawyer....yeah...my undergraduate was in accounting….I am a counting sumbich.
> 
> Twist it till it suits you regards


HAhahahahHAHAHAHAHahHAHAHahahah

Game Set and Match to the Jarhead.

Kobayashu Maru Regards

Bubba


----------



## Joe Dutro (Nov 20, 2007)

Dog 3 wins- straightest line, just missed the mark on the up win side, and stayed in the area of the fall. Just my opinion. 
Joe


----------



## huntnalot (Jan 9, 2008)

I am not a judge . Just my opinion .

I think all 3 dogs ended up with a wind save on G1 mark of a sort .I also believe #3 and #2 are pretty equal when it comes to knowing where that mark was .
So that makes me look at the go to bird (G2 )for the best marker .

#3 picks it up the best with no wind save ,then #2 and last #1

So thats my order .

#3 is first
#2 is second
#1 is third 

Thanks 
Gerald


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

MooseGooser said:


> I would really like to own a dog 3 when Ya consider the wind,,. . .


Considering the wind AND the cover, but mostly the wind.

I wouldn't give #3 the blue in this test case, but if I was a handler stepping to the line, that is the dog I would want at my side.


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Ok lawyer....yeah...my undergraduate was in accounting….I am a counting sumbich.
> 
> Twist it till it suits you regards


That right there is funny!

I am not a judge by any means either but had this series 3,2,1 

3 marked the birds and just missed the second mark and didn't let the wind or cover push him. With a differant wind 2 and 1 may have had bigger hunts (wind aided the cheater). I wouldn't want this to be the only or last series though. Not enough seperation.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Like I said when this was posted on the other thread. 
They ALL are back for the next series.
john


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

scott spalding said:


> Style makes for a pleasing performance; together with ability to mark, they constitute the most important factors for placing in Derby Stakes. One must consider style Before a judgement could be made and I think style could be broadly defined.


It's been a long time since i saw a non-stylish derby dog. If a dog lacks style in the derby, it's future in all-age is likely pretty grim.

Ted... that diagram reflects more separation than i saw at quite a few derbies the last few years. Dog #3's hunt on the memory bird would have made him green in a lot of derbies.

SM


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Like I said when this was posted on the other thread.
> They ALL are back for the next series.
> john


Sunday at 5:30pm, that is the last series... all 3 dogs stylishly hammered the first 3 series in the exact manner. I'd pick a winner. I wouldn't be happy about it or proud of my performance as a judge, but i'd lose less sleep than if i caused the derby to carry over to Monday.

SM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Sunday at 5:30pm, that is the last series... all 3 dogs stylishly hammered the first 3 series in the exact manner. I'd pick a winner. I wouldn't be happy about it or proud of my performance as a judge, but i'd lose less sleep than if i caused the derby to carry over to Monday.
> 
> SM


I'd pick one, too, before I went to Monday.

Wouldn't like it, either.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I'd pick one, too, before I went to Monday.
> 
> Wouldn't like it, either.


So which one would you pick? 

SM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I haven't seen the work from the first two series.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I haven't seen the work from the first two series.


Damn lawyers. 

SM


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Desire Dogs said:


> Dog 3 wins- straightest line, just missed the mark on the up win side, and stayed in the area of the fall. Just my opinion.
> Joe


Does the AKC rulebook support that decision? As much as i would like to own Dog 3, i don't believe the rulebook supports giving him the blue.

SM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Does the AKC rulebook support that decision? As much as i would like to own Dog 3, i don't believe the rulebook supports giving him the blue.
> 
> SM


Maybe he showed more "courage" by diggging into the cover than dog 2, or fighting the wind more than dog 2, a lily livered coward who "avoided" those hazards


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

No judge, no nothing regards,

I like 3,2,1

3 goes directly to aof, works the bird out with what appears to be an intelligible hunt, checking down...and pinned the go bird (duh).

2 does a good job but is not as deliberate/direct as 3, both pick ups make me think without the wind, he/she may have carried well beyond the mark...I've only got my stupid colour line to go by, can't remember if/he she was breaing stride at the bird or broke at the wind save.

1's drawing creates reasonable doubt, and is nowhere as direct as 1 or 2.

Where is my diagram from the earlier series?! man I misplace everything.

Is there a definitive answer supported by the rule book?

All the best

Wayne


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I haven't seen the work from the first two series.


In the first 2 series all three took straight lines,no hunts, had perfect line manners and were fun dogs to watch. The series presented is the only separation. It is 6pm Sunday and your plane leaves at 8pm. Time to commit! 

Tim


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

huntnalot said:


> #3 picks it up the best with no wind save ,then #2 and last #1


What page of the rule book does "wind save" appear on?


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

I can't find wind save in the dictionary even, but I hear it all the time LOL!

Wayne


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Maybe he showed more "courage" by diggging into the cover than dog 2, or *fighting the wind* more than dog 2, a lily livered coward who "avoided" those hazards





Steve said:


> What page of the rule book does "wind save" appear on?


There seems to be a lot of about rewarding the dog for "fighting the wind" or not giving the dog any credit because of a "wind save". Yet, the rules in a couple different places states that the dog that "*uses the wind*" is of great value. I can find no such reference for the dog that "fights the wind".;-)


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Well based on all the above, as there is no real consensus maybe the winner was the fastest dog there and back! Did anyone start the stop watch?


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

Steve said:


> What page of the rule book does "wind save" appear on?


I just found MY rule book.
Page one, paragraph two! "A good mark beats the crap out of a wind save on any given day."
Same page, paragraph three! "A wind save should consider himself lucky to get a RJ." (even with only 3 dogs runnin')

"A dog that "*lets the wind use him*" is of lesser value and should keep his fingers crossed for a greenie." Same page, paragraph four!

Jus' the facts,


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

Will somebody tell me where I can get a copy of Arturo's rule book!!!! LOL!

I new a couple drops of "wind save" and this thing would have new life! 

Nobody with official judging credentials answered my question, if they felt there was a definitive rule book supported winner.....other than Arturo..I mean.

Thanks for that Art!

Wayne


----------



## torg (Feb 21, 2005)

Dog three the winner for fighting cover and wind factors. Even though dog three over ran the bird to the left. It was a tight hunt and on line. Dog 2 and 1 had a clear advantage by cheating the cover and coming up down wind to the bird where they could easily wind it. For that reason I see number 3 actually doing a better job on the test and that is how I would have judged it if I judged a Derby.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

torg said:


> ....advantage by cheating the cover and coming up down wind to the bird where they could easily wind it.


That is not the dog's fault.

Tim


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

I am not a judge and am not familiar with Derby rules; however, just judging from the mark (picture only); I would put them in this order: #3, #2, #1. While I gave consideration to #2, in the end #3 would get my vote. The wind factor (come on ? 20 -25 winds) is impressive?dog #3 fought the wind and challenged the cover, the tight, clean hunt would not bother me?.dog #2 did a nice job, but faded with the wind and avoided too much cover?

Am very interested in reading how others judged it and why they chose their placements. This is a great learning experience for me; reading others evaluations, helps me understand what I *should* be looking at!

Would love to see more threads like this!
________
Ford eucd platform


----------



## John Goode (Mar 6, 2008)

What color are the dogs?
I'm not a judge but I have stayed at a Motel 6-with a pool


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Damn lawyers.
> 
> SM


Reminds me of the story about three men who applied for a management position. As part of the selection process they all had to interview with the company shrink whose favorite question was "What is two plus two?"

When the accountant was asked what is two plus two, he said, "If it's exactly two plus exactly two the answer would be exactly four."

When the engineer was asked what is two plus two, he said, "According to my calculations that would be somewhere between three and five."

When the lawyer was asked what is two plus two, he said, "Mmmmmmm, what would you like it to be?"


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Sunday at 5:30pm, that is the last series... all 3 dogs stylishly hammered the first 3 series in the exact manner. I'd pick a winner. I wouldn't be happy about it or proud of my performance as a judge, but i'd lose less sleep than *if i caused the derby to carry over to Monday.*
> 
> SM


*/*

You,as the judge,didn't *cause* anything, you simply recognised that "some days it bees like dat"

Red River regards

john


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

"Based on the MARKS, and only the marks, how would you place these dogs?"

It's not a judging test. It's just a question. Based on the terms of the question, Dog #1 is the winner. That was the only dog to pin each mark.

That doesn't mean I would give it to him as a judge...or that I wouldn't. There are variables to weigh from the judges chair. But it was just asked as a clear question, and with only one critera; only the marks.

Evan


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

fishduck said:


> I really did not like the way the marks were set up with the wind. If the dogs didn't fight the factors they were downwind of the bird and easily found it. Only dog #3 ran directly to the area of the fall. I would really like to see what would happen to dog #1 and #2 if the wind direction was reversed. Hard to place them on this test but #3 gets my vote.
> Mark L.


I agree, but in defense of the judges in this case the trial grounds are one of the toughest places to setup good test and judge. With three stakes going the derby judges typically have very few options and if the wind is not the most desirable you go with what you have. That is, in fact, one of the biggest problems with the derby stakes; it always has to suck the hind tit.

However, derby judges do not often have the opportunity to truely test the courage of the dogs, a natural ability that most definately should be judged. This is one of those tests and so far most of those commenting have ignored that factor.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

john fallon said:


> */*
> 
> You,as the judge,didn't *cause* anything, you simply recognised that "some days it bees like dat"
> 
> ...


Going "over," based on Shayne's comment, has -zero- resemblance to what caused Red River to carry over.

Apples and aardvarks regards,

kg


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

The cause is irrelevant it's the effect that is in question.
Dog A dog B regards
john


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Irrelevant...in _your_ world...

kg


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

K G said:


> Irrelevant...in _your_ world...
> 
> kg


In *Yours* too.......... In one of the Dog A v Dog B threads you and Junbe opted to continue on Monday when you could not aggree.

john


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

And as I _tried_ to explain to you (and you're having NONE of it, as usual), the Red River situation had NOTHING to do with not agreeing on placements. Get it now?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Well now I'm curious.

Why *did* it go over? It was simply a minor stake............. and there were no "Championship" points involved

John


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Go look at the trial on EE....you can form your own opinion, John. Checking out the "Red River" thread on the Events page might shed some light as well.

kg


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

Evan said:


> "Based on the MARKS, and only the marks, how would you place these dogs?"
> 
> It's not a judging test. It's just a question. Based on the terms of the question, Dog #1 is the winner. That was the only dog to pin each mark.
> 
> ...



Anyone else agree with this? I don't think he pinned either mark. Only dog to pin a mark was dog 3 on the first mark.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

I see poor routes, but zero hunt on either mark. As I see it, zero hunt = pinned mark. That's all he asked about was a result based on the mark.

Evan


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

Poor routes for dog 1 may be the understatement of the day. He got up on the dike, wandered down and winded the bird. By no way is that PINNING anything!


----------



## Chuck N (Mar 21, 2006)

Mike Peters-labguy23 said:


> That right there is funny!
> 
> I am not a judge by any means either but had this series 3,2,1
> 
> 3 marked the birds and just missed the second mark and didn't let the wind or cover push him. With a differant wind 2 and 1 may have had bigger hunts (wind aided the cheater). I wouldn't want this to be the only or last series though. Not enough seperation.


This is excatly the way I see it too.
I agree with you Mike.


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

Thanks Chuck! How are those pups doing? Should be some nice ones!


----------



## Chuck N (Mar 21, 2006)

Mike Peters-labguy23 said:


> Thanks Chuck! How are those pups doing? Should be some nice ones!


Mike, they are looking great. I am keeping the girl for myself, and I have 3 beautiful boys left. Sadie went South for a winter trip this year, so I will have a lot of time with the new pup.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Maybe I'm all wet!!

But I kinda agree with Evan,(sorry Evan) ecept wich one of the dogs did better.

Shaynes original question was as to the Marks and ONLY the marks.

I read that as sayin disreguard the wind, terrain, cover.

Dog three did a great job! but had a hunt.

In my opinion, dog 2 demonstrated that it had a better idea of where the bird was than dog 1, because of the direction it took to the mark. Didnt have a hunt either, like dog 3.

BUT both dogs 1 and 2 demonstrated they knew most definatly where the bird was. didnt take the best routes,, but THEY MARKED THE FALL.

Gooser


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Is this really the type of test that derby judges would set for a fourth series, knowing they had at least 3 dogs with no seperation? Are judges more concerned with keeping the others in the pack in the ribbons rather than putting on a challenging test to get seperation and perhaps losing a few jams? It just seems to me that the site offers a lot of options to toughen the test beyond the test presented. Just seems like with the wind blowing into the levee, and the levee surrounding the falls, any dog that gets back there will eventually wind the birds. And with the BBs sitting on top of the levee drawing the dogs out, they should all get to the levee. 

Also hard not knowing the height of the levee. Small levee, the scent would blow over, big levee and you will get a lot of swirling and pooling at the inside toe of the levee. Also you would have a scent shadow behind the levee, which would indicate that dog 1 did mark and didn't just wander into a scent cone on the memory bird. This could also be somewhat determined by the dogs speed in getting out there, something else that can't be determined by the drawing. But a tall levee and you really don't know what the real path of dog 1 and dog 3 when they drop behind the levee. And the drawing also doesn't note if the dog ever put its nose down. I've seen dogs take some very convoluted routes to marks and step on the birds. One of my buddies hunting dogs will actually pause before going and you can actually see him planning his route out to the bird. Did he take a straight line to it? No! But he sure marked it and knew where it was and how to get there. 

T. Mac


----------



## Wayne Dibbley (Jul 20, 2005)

I keep going back and looking at the route #1 takes...on the go bird his route puts an area where it's possible that he saw/knew where the bird was and/or used the wind to come into it without a hunt...it's also possible he didn't watch the bird down at all and came into it via wind. 

On #1's memory bird his initial route is going who knows where not even correct side of the gun so did he watch the mark down? Maybe, but it's also entirely possible he was headed to no mans land and hooked the gun via gun and/or wind...no? Not sure how I can look at the line and not consider how wind may have been a possible factor....

So without considering the wind, and if we dropped 3 for his hunt, how do I put #1 over #2 - 2's line suggest to me more that he watched/marked the birds down better than #1 with less chance of luck, than #1's routes possibly demonstrate.

I have never spent so much time looking at a goofy diagram - but with Moosegooser not agree'ing with me (again ; )) I have to really look at this thing.

Where are the high paid judges to clarify this for the rest of us.

Wayne


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Don't get me wrong, dog 1 demonstrated the poorest training of the group. He did nearly everything wrong from a technical standpoint. I don't see any evidence of a hunt on either mark.

It seems "pinning" a mark is being interpreted as also taking a straight line. I agee that they often go together, but not this time.

I'm just answering the question Shayne asked according to the simple criteria. Just the marks. He didn't ask for a grade on the lines, or how honest the water work was. Just the marks. I think #1's marks were best.

Just my opinion, based on what's given.

Evan


----------



## Mike Peters-labguy23 (Feb 9, 2003)

You could talk me into 2 being better no doubt. You couldn't however talk me into saying any marks were pinned except dog 3 on the first bird down. It is hard to tell how big the hunt 3 had but it does look very tight and not very big.

Chuck, those should make some great pups, scary seeing EIC/CNM clear pups with awesome pedigrees and titles not selling.


----------



## DEN/TRU/CRU (May 29, 2007)

Just a comment, G-2 if I read the diagram right is a "contrary" Mark. It is thrown in at the dog. A very tough concept for a young Derby dog. To go right to this bird as one dog did shows exceptional marking.
Dennis


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

Okay, I may be a rookie in every since of the word, but I still don?t see #1 as the winner, maybe, I could be educated by enough of you to understand how #2 could be placed first, (although, I can?t help but believe that a young dog (#3) that can take hold such a beautiful line, while fighting a factor of a 20-25 mph crosswind AND challenge cover and terrain, even with a tight clean hunt - who incidentally put his nose on the first mark - is the winner)?help me out?..
________
WEED VAPORIZER


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Natural abilities ?

Hou about those aquired in 3,000,000 years of evolution. Is that Natural enough ?
Dog one marked the bird and went at it like his ancestors did. Down wind so as to fully rely on its strongest ability it's sense of smell.

Too bad we as judges have lose sight of this .

john


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

I wonder if it was all of the generations of great ancestry that help dog 1 and 2 or if it was the dudes in the white coats. Looks to me like these two dogs broke out of the cover on the memory bird and ran to the gunner. Were lucky enought that they were rewarded for being on the down wind side of the bird and ran over and picked it up. Dog three "MARKED" the memory bird which is shown by the tight hunt on the upwind side of the bird. In addition, he stepped on the go bird. It is hard to know which dog(s) had the most style but I have to believe it was dog three.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

sheriff said:


> I wonder if it was all of the generations of great ancestry that help dog 1 and 2 or if it was the dudes in the white coats. Looks to me like these two dogs broke out of the cover on the memory bird and ran to the gunner. Were lucky enought that they were rewarded for being on the down wind side of the bird and ran over and picked it up.


That makes perfect sense to me. 

Evan


----------



## DEN/TRU/CRU (May 29, 2007)

Again, the post was how well does the dog "MARK" the Bird. To me a "MARK" whether in a DERBY or any other stake involves more than going to the Bird without a hunt. I get the impression here that a Dog can take any route they want as long as they don't break down and hunt on the way, they get the bird and it's considered a great job(?). At some point a judge has to consider how the dog handled all the other factors, (such as style which I think is often over looked). In this senario I agree It's tight but since its a one series hypothetical test, we have to consider it for what it is.


----------



## Greg Heier (Jan 3, 2009)

Jason,

You wrote,

"I wonder if it was all of the generations of great ancestry that help dog 1 and 2 or if it was the dudes in the white coats. Looks to me like these two dogs broke out of the cover on the memory bird and ran to the gunner. Were lucky enought that they were rewarded for being on the down wind side of the bird and ran over and picked it up. Dog three "MARKED" the memory bird which is shown by the tight hunt on the upwind side of the bird. In addition, he stepped on the go bird. It is hard to know which dog(s) had the most style but I have to believe it was dog three."

Just out of curiosity, I am wondering how you draw the conclusion that dog #1 took the route it did because it saw the gun and then winded the bird. If the diagram were exactly the same but the wind was blowing the opposite direction, would your conclusion be the same? In that case, based on the EXACT same diagram, your conclusion could not be that the dog winded the bird. An EQUALLY likely conclusion is that the dog didn't fight the wind and water and drifted off line but corrected itself when it recognized the location of the gun and went directly to the bird. I personally think judges should not make assumptions like you made that a dog winded the bird just because a test gives away birds when dogs don't fight the wind.

I would concede the sharp left hand turn made by dog #2 would indicated that dog winded the bird. Implicit in your emphasis that dog #3 "marked" the bird, however, is the assumption that dog #2 would not have had an equally tight hunt or an even better one than dog #3 if it had not winded the bird. At the point dog #2 winded the bird, it was definitely closer to the bird than dog #3 was when it began its hunt. I don't know how you can assume dog #2 would not have set up an equally intelligent and tight hunt as dog #3 if it had not used the wind to put itself in a better position to find the bird quicker and cleaner than dog #3. 

I can certainly see how people would think that dog #3 displayed great courage and took the line we would want our dog to take on the memory bird, but I fail to see how you can make the assumptions that are necessary to conclude on marking alone that it was the only dog to mark the bird. So reward dog #3's courage and training if you want by placing this dog's work first, but you won't convince me that it "marked" the memory bird the best. I would say you can make that conclusion only by making assumptions against the marking work of dogs #1 and #2 when there are equally possible explanations supported by the drawings. Specifically, that #1 and #2 marked the area of the fall and corrected their lines to get to that area even though they failed to fight the factors of wind and water the way we would want them too. Also, penalize dog's 1 and 2 if you like for not fighting factors or for lack of courage but I don't think you can fairly criticize their "marks." Their marks were both at least as good as dog #3 even if their lines and courage were not. Again, I can see how reasonable judges could say #3 overall performance was still best, it did have a good mark and did show courage, I just don't think you can assume its "mark" was best. If dog "3" won on the memory bird, it is for reasons other than marking! Just my opinion. 

Greg Heier


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Bubba said:


> #2's handler loooks Waaaaaaaaaaaay better in the tight t shirt. #3 is handled by a sweaty old fat guy=GONE
> 
> All else being equal regards
> 
> Bubba


That is exactly correct, but how did you know?


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

DEN/TRU/CRU said:


> Again, the post was how well does the dog "MARK" the Bird. To me a "MARK" whether in a DERBY or any other stake involves more than going to the Bird without a hunt. I get the impression here that a Dog can take any route they want as long as they don't break down and hunt on the way, they get the bird and it's considered a great job(?). At some point a judge has to consider how the dog handled all the other factors, (such as style which I think is often over looked). In this senario I agree It's tight but since its a one series hypothetical test, we have to consider it for what it is.


The post may have been how well dog X marked but the POLL ASKS - who wins? based on the diagram. 

It appears to me that with 165 votes that I wouldn't want to show at a trial where about 66% of these people were holding the book. But it tells me why the trip through the Derby is generally not a pleasant one!!!!


----------



## brian lewis (Jun 6, 2005)

Id love to hear Mrs Judy comment on this,

I attended her judging seminar and the judging of the "route to the bird" in derby competition was discussed in depth.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


> That is exactly correct, but how did you know?



And all this time you thought I was just another pretty face

Omniscent regards

Bubba


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

brian lewis said:


> Id love to hear Mrs Judy comment on this,
> 
> I attended her judging seminar and the judging of the "route to the bird" in derby competition was discussed in depth.


And inquiring minds want to know, what did the in depth discussion of the route to the bird yield?


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

2-Dogs said:


> I gave Vicki's comment a lot of thought before voting, but believe that #2 has been trained as much as #3. #2's initial line not only had him avoiding the cover, he was headed for the hills until seeing the gunners station and knowing that he is to hunt that area, then winded the bird. #3 (in my book) not only remembered his mark, he busted the cover and fought the wind on the most direct path to the mark. He checked up after hunting just a little long (also impressed me that he knew not to step of the corner of the page onto the gray vastness of the Wide World of Web!) and never left the AOF til he dug out his bird. Had this 25mph wind been up their butts, #1 (and maybe#2) might still be out there hunting.
> (So that's why Shayne told me that my dog was #1 in his book when he judged us!)
> 
> Mark


After reading the entire thread, this is by far the best reasoning postd. You and are definitely on the same page.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

AmiableLabs said:


> Considering the wind AND the cover, but mostly the wind.
> 
> I wouldn't give #3 the blue in this test case, but if I was a handler stepping to the line, that is the dog I would want at my side.


Will wonders never cease. I agree with Kevin on something.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

After reading all the posts it is obvious that Shayne did not include the description that I include when I originally posted the diagram on another thread and many posting here did not read the other thread. Obviously Shayne’s readership is much higher than mine.  So let me fill in the blanks. This was the fourth series test in a derby, water double. The long mark was about 170 yards and the short mark about 70. The test was setup in basically a square corner of a large body of water. What some are apparently calling cover is woody brush. Apparently the water level had been much lower and brush that typically grows along the shore had grown up then the water level came back up. This stuff was tough stuff to penetrate. In reality the wind was more like 15 MPH, but still a stiff wind in the direction indicated. The hunt indicated for dog #3 was actually much tighter with one figure 8 about where an angle back throw would have been and quickly recovering to the bird. As I recall there was one dog that did “run the bank” to both birds, but most of the dogs had work similar to dog #2 +/- by small degrees.

Some have mentioned that they did not like the test because the wind gave the bird away for dog that did cheat the water. I suspect the judges would agree with you on that point. As I posted above, at this trial one or more stake will use this piece of water. I have judge an amateur there and used this. Basically the judges had two choices; they run in the direction as diagramed or they run from where the marks were thrown back toward where the line is located in the diagram, six of one and half a dozen of the other in this case. I am not going to fault the judges for the test given what they had to work with nor am I going to fault them for the placements which I will share later. The only thing I might question is the go bird being thrown toward the corner of the water making is an inviting cheat. I do not care for contrary marks in derby stakes but I have certainly used such marks in an all age stake. I originally posted the diagram to see how far Ted would go with his interruption of the rules that lines do not count, not to determine a winner. However, all discussion is good.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

> Originally Posted by *Desire Dogs*
> Dog 3 wins- straightest line, just missed the mark on the up win side, and stayed in the area of the fall. Just my opinion.
> Joe





Shayne Mehringer said:


> Does the AKC rulebook support that decision? As much as i would like to own Dog 3, i don't believe the rulebook supports giving him the blue.
> 
> SM



Do the rules support saying that dog #3 had the better mark or the better over all work on this setup? I believe that dog #3 did have the best work per the diagram on this setup.

1. The purpose of non-slip retriever field trials is to determine the relative merits of the dogs in the field on any given weekend. I suspect that we would all as judges prefer that the dogs eliminate themselves so that we do not have to make judgment calls, and when we are forced to make the calls we would like there to be clear differences. However, relative to me does not mean that the difference has to be monumental. I just refuse to accept that the authors of the rules intended that if one dog goes straight to the AOF and another goes well out of its way to avoid rough going that there is no relative difference. 
2. When I read the rules it is clear to me that a dog that disturbs ground unnecessarily is to be faulted relative to a dog that does not. As with all faults the degree of the fault determines the penalty. That is not to say that judges should drop a dog that has a banana in its line or the dog that bails out of the water prior to the bird, but I find nothing that requires that the amount of ground disturbed cannot be considered when considering relative merits of the dog work. So based on the marks alone I have dog #3 ahead be it by the slightest of margins.
3. I am certain that there is nothing in the rules that even remotely suggests that the natural abilities of derby dogs should not be judged and with the same weight as the dogs in all age stakes. One of those natural abilities is courage and the best way I know to test courage and to some degree perseverance and style is to give the dogs a big swim in adverse conditions like the water brush and cross wind in the diagramed setup. Maybe one has to have tried to train and run a couple dogs that do not have the courage to truly understand what it is or isn’t. Given that I have tried to train about a dozen Golden Retrievers, I am an authority on dogs lacking in courage, but I have seen plenty of Labs just as bad and a few couragous Goldens.
4. And if you really want to get into the gray area there is this paragraph in the rules.

_PART II — EVALUATION OF DOG WORK
Judging can never be precise; it is not an exact science,
merely an art, and simply because there are so
many shades of gray between black and white. At the
risk of over-simplification, it might be stated that the
primary purpose of a retriever is to get the birds to
hand as quickly as possible in a pleasing, obedient manner
and all faults stem from a deviation from this._

So when you cannot justify your placements any other way you can cherry pick this rule. This virtually allows the judges to place the dogs they see as most “pleasing” or more accurately to fault dogs for work they deem as not as pleasing. If you are like one of my co-judges who did not want to watch dogs swim, then toss the simmers and place the bank runners; it is in the rules.

Does this mean that dog #3 should have won the trial? *You bet it does, because #3 is my dog and he was quite pleasing holding that line to the AOF.*

Truth be known I have not reason to fault the judges' placements. I obviouly watched my dog, but I suspect that the only two people who watched every dog retrieve all eight marks were the two judges. This test was on Sunday and Saturday was a nasty wet day.

This was a spring 2008 trial and in hindsight the results are interesting.
And the winner was:
1st – Un Petit Peu Canaille – Number 6 on 2008 Derby List with 42 points.
2nd - Bluegoose's Passion for Jazz – Number 2 on the 2008 Derby List with 58 points.
3rd - Baypoint Ruby Vroom To Davadar – Aged out with these 3 AKC derby points
4th - Coolwater's Knockout – Tied for Number 1 on the 2008 Derby List with 66 points.
RJ – KPR’s Wet Willie - Number 5 on the 2008 Derby List with 45 points.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Jim P

Thanks for this thread - I have truly appreciated the comments from even the less than prepared for prime time. It shows who we want to avoid if the boiler warms up enough to want to compete again. It is amazing how some believe their internet postings qualify them as dog people, actually doing the opposite. I've always looked for that person who actually did something with a dog besides brag about it. It is obvious that you know good dog work & have the ability to critique same. 

I would bet I could geographically place the author of that particular run the bank is OK type of thinking in the judges manual. Had a dog do Willie's thing in an Open AA on 2 different marks - Interestingly, got the same result as Willie. Apparently the judges had too many debts to pay. But that's a subject for another thread.

Again, Thanks!

Marvin


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

gdog said:


> Jason,
> 
> Just out of curiosity, I am wondering how you draw the conclusion that dog #1 took the route it did because it saw the gun and then winded the bird. If the diagram were exactly the same but the wind was blowing the opposite direction, would your conclusion be the same? In that case, based on the EXACT same diagram, your conclusion could not be that the dog winded the bird. An EQUALLY likely conclusion is that the dog didn't fight the wind and water and drifted off line but corrected itself when it recognized the location of the gun and went directly to the bird. I personally think judges should not make assumptions like you made that a dog winded the bird just because a test gives away birds when dogs don't fight the wind.
> 
> I would concede the sharp left hand turn made by dog #2 would indicated that dog winded the bird. Implicit in your emphasis that dog #3 "marked" the bird, however, is the assumption that dog #2 would not have had an equally tight hunt or an even better one than dog #3 if it had not winded the bird. At the point dog #2 winded the bird, it was definitely closer to the bird than dog #3 was when it began its hunt. I don't know how you can assume dog #2 would not have set up an equally intelligent and tight hunt as dog #3 if it had not used the wind to put itself in a better position to find the bird quicker and cleaner than dog #3.


Greg the reason I drew the conclusion that dog 1 saw the gun and then winded the bird was because of the position it had found itself before coming out of the cover/water. Clearly dog 1 and 2 changed there present route upon hinting the open field on the memory bird. IMO dog #1 and #2 had a trained response of putting itself close to a gunner. In this case both were fortunate because they winded the bird, #1 even hooked the gun and came up with the bird. Unfortunately #1 didn't do much better on the go bird. I'll bet if the cover was such that by avoiding it, dog #1 would have found itself on the down wind side of this gun as well (hypothetical yes). Unfortunately like many have said the test was set up to reward a dog that might have little style and/or courage and isn't the best marker. Sometimes putting up a tight hunt is the best indicator of how good of a mark a dog had on a bird. I think this is one of those times.

Unfortunately we'll never know how good (intelligent) of a hunt dog 2 would have put on both birds. And the dog isn't to blame for this. All we have to go by is the dogs responses in their respective positions. Dog three, IMO showed that it did know where the memory bird was located by the tight hunt on the upwind side of the bird. Clearly dog three didn't have any problem with the go bird. And I agree that dog 1 had as good of a mark on the go bird as dog 3. But might have some avoidance issues that need to be addressed in order to "compete" in the upper stakes.

I love hearing the responses from you and others that have way more experience than I as a handler, trainer and judge. This is the opinion I have today with my present knowledge. If I'm wrong I hope that I will have the intelligence to see why and the friends to point it out. In addition, I hope that my mind is open enough to listen. Ultimately, I think Ted has the only true answer by saying that we can't draw any conclusions. But what fun is that?

BTW I would love it if we could get together and train again.


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

"2 wins and 3 second" has lost a lot of ground since the early voting. It was over a 25% lead and now it is 7%. I'll bet if everyone could vote again after all the discussion that "3 wins and 2 second" could possibly be in the lead.

Jim, were the dogs 1, 2 & 3 in the diagram the same as the placements? Is that a DUH on my part. I agree with you on throwing that mark at the corner of the pond. .... never in a Derby! People work to hard training young dogs to have someone try and undo some of that training in a Derby ....... JM.02


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Marvin S said:


> Jim P
> 
> Thanks for this thread - I have truly appreciated the comments from even the less than prepared for prime time. It shows who we want to avoid if the boiler warms up enough to want to compete again. It is amazing how some believe their internet postings qualify them as dog people, actually doing the opposite. I've always looked for that person who actually did something with a dog besides brag about it. It is obvious that you know good dog work & have the ability to critique same.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the kind words Marvin, but just in case anyone missed this part of my post #126 above here is is again with emphasis.



Jim Pickering said:


> *I am not going to fault the judges for the test given what they had to work with nor am I going to fault them for the placements which I will share later.*


If this was not clear, I am not going to fault the placements because I have no basis to do so. This was the last test of a four series, eight mark derby. While it is always nice to finish strong, the difference here was not a slam dunk and slightly better even if the judges agreed with my interpretation may not make up enough ground to move up.


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

Arturo said:


> "2 wins and 3 second" has lost a lot of ground since the early voting. It was over a 25% lead and now it is 7%. I'll bet if everyone could vote again after all the discussion that "3 wins and 2 second" could possibly be in the lead.


Is it posible that these threads on judging derby stakes has caused some to re-read the rules and think about the intent? If so that is great whatever their interpretation.



> Jim, were the dogs 1, 2 & 3 in the diagram the same as the placements? Is that a DUH on my part. I agree with you on throwing that mark at the corner of the pond. .... never in a Derby! People work to hard training young dogs to have someone try and undo some of that training in a Derby ....... JM.02


No!! This was a spring trial and I drew the diagram this week from memory and have slept a number of times between. I do have a vivid memory of Willie's work and am certainly not inclined to embellish where my own dog is concerned.  As I said the work of the placing dogs as I recall was on a par with dog #2 in the diagram +/- slightly, certainly all had very good to excellent work on this test. Again this was not the only test so one cannot question the results on the basis of this diagram even if I was certain as to its accuracy and if the judges shared my interpretation which is not mandatory.

I posted the results because I thought it was interesting given the final derby list. With the exception of Louie at the time of the trial non of the placing dog were on the derby list radar screen. Interesting because especially in derby stakes, one never knows which amoung the competition is going to come ahead and start cleaning up on the ribbons.

One more thought comes to mind concering the discusson of stright lines being natural or trained. For the most part I have no doubt that straight is a trained ability. However, there are exceptiong as Shayne mentioned. My boy Willie came that way. From about ten weeks of age he went straight at marks. I quickly discovered that I could throw water marks with any angle of entry and he wend straight at the mark. Decheating was very difficult because it was difficult to induce a mistake so he could be corrected.

However this lasted only until about 18 months of age. Maybe he was just a slow learner, but he did determine that it was faster by land. So at the of the trial setup diagramed the stright line was a natural ability which was later lost. If he every again takes straight lines, it will most definitely be an ability acquired through training. :-x

So even for those who are inclined to poo-poo abilities acquired in training in derby stakes, you can never be certain that a straight line is natural or trained. However, when they get to the all age stakes you can be very sure staight lines are an ability acquired through training.


----------

