Gulf Coast asked "The question is does what HE does, produce champions at HIS game,"..?
His 'Game' may be different to your's or mine!?..Like I said, The content of the videos rather than the Titles achieved is surely what you are 'buying' with your dollar?..;)
Mark, I follow Lardy and have watched Lardy's Dvd's and read his articles and booklets. Love em! My training is following Lardy as closely as possible. Bought Keith's dvds because they looked cool and I happened to kind of know the guy via several UK and Irish gundog groups on facebook - and because this is my hobby, so I buy stuff.
Here's my take on Keith and his Dvds: He's very down to earth, despite his high end production manager and the commercials. He knows dogs and dog training. He knows his gun dog sport backwards and forwards and has had success in it, including making up two of the puppies in his Dvd series that follow the dog's progress over 3 yrs.
The puppy and young adult obedience drills are well laid out for the novice. The yard drills he presents are very similar to pile work, baseball, simple casting, and T work. His T drill is more complicated and called a "Rotating diamond" where he sends to a different destination in the diamond, whistle stops and casts left, right or back. He moves this drill to different locations with different cover and obstacles like fences that the dog has to cast over. Also moves the drill to water.
He then moves to teaching the process of blind retrieves. He increases the difficulty and distance over time and goes up to 400 yards across heavy cover and water. There's also a lot of instruction on building marking skills.
So it very much follows a similar progression to Lardy's. But it's a little different in style and does not use compulsion training.
I don't recommend it to a seasoned hunt tester or trialer in the US. I do recommend it to hunters looking for a thorough dvd that shows what to do from 7 weeks to 3 years to get a fully trained hunting dog. Also recommend it to those who don't use compulsion methods, but are following a proven US program to create a competition dog and need some different ideas for teaching and proofing Lardy and Graham type systems without the collar.
Just my own view.
I agree w/ Robert in that the "pelts" or lack thereof have no real bearing on the content of the DVD. The end of the DVD will show whether or not the methods produced dogs capable of doing the work. All that said, making FTCH's is one way to measure a trainers success. But if he's not in it for that, this method is useless.
For instance, we could argue all day about Mike Stewart's dog training capabilities, but titles wouldn't have anything to do with it.
This is why I mentioned that Ross did earn us FTCH. Doesn't matter whether Keith handled him for it or not. The dvd shows Keith train the dog from puppy onward, & the dog earned the FTCH. That's more than enough pudding for me.
Um....it matters quite a jot to a lot of folks. The question is does what HE does, produce champions at HIS game, with HIM driving. Can he play golf, or is the "guru" just a driving range pro? The answer to that question has an awful lot of bearing on whether "what he does" is worth a flip, or worth paying for, you know?
To use your golf analogy.
Can you then say that Sean Foley who coaches golfers such as Hunter Mahan, Tiger Woods, Sean O'Hair, Stephen Ames and Justin Rose is not worth listening to because he chose to become a great instructor rather than try to go the tour route?
OK, lets play with the golf analogy. If I can measure the success of the training, by watching Tiger, O'Hair and others win majors, then he is worth listening to on the swing. If not, not so much. Just another guy. From what I hear above, the man is good at "breeding" golfers. I want to know how many of those golfers DID HE COACH HIMSELF TO A MAJOR? If you claim to be a "guru" golf coach, that is a pretty fair question. Amazing how folks want to do the run around, and not just answer a simple question. I have not downed his DVD's, I have asked about his credentials. Its a really simple numerical answer: O, 1, 2.