The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 52

Thread: Derby Triples

  1. #41
    Senior Member JusticeDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Illinois/Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer Henion View Post
    I think that logic may be invalid. Maybe you are thinking of the status quo and thinking that if pros weren't allowed, there would be a shortage of dogs. But I'm thinking that if pros weren't allowed in an OH Derby, more ams would enter. At least that would be true if the advertising was good. Tell the clubs that hold HT to email their members that there was an OH Derby and see who signs up. Might get more volunteer help, too.

    Edit: my husband suggests calling it the "Rank Amateur" Derby...or...the "Hope and a Prayer" Derby, both of which apply to us! Just ignore him, that's what I do.
    .u

    This is flawed logic. There are only so many competitive Derby age dogs in a given area. It seems as if you are suggesting that the test need to be dumbed down. It really means that you need to train harder. Pros in a derby? Pros in an open? Pros in a qualifying? Bring it on baby! It just makes the victory even sweeter.
    Susan

    FC Tribute to Justice, JH "Honor"
    FC Contempt of Court "Ruckus"
    www.justiceretrievers.com

  2. #42
    Senior Member Steve Shaver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Cornish Utah
    Posts
    1,328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by russell.jason2 View Post
    Now I am just rambling but with the number of quality dogs today and most everyone says the dogs are better trained today, let move the derby age back to 18-20 month age limit. Just saying, its not uncommon for dogs to win a Q at 18-20 months and some competing in AA that early. So make it a true derby to evaluate just marking for young dogs. Then you would make QAA an AKC recognized accomplishment...just my thoughts if I were King for a day.
    This is really not a bad idea, maybe 20 months but not 18. I do not like the idea of OH derby. Don't particularly care for OH quals either. I am technically a pro but not full time and nowhere near the caliber of some of the big boys. This would put me out of running the two or three client dogs I get that are capable and I don't have the ability to travel all over to other trials. I think DQ's fill the notch just as well as an OH event especially held by a hunt test club in conjunction with their HT, at least in my part of the country. Most pros aren't going to bother attending a DQ when they have a truck load of AA dogs. I also agree with Susan I don't want to see a derby or qual dumbed down just to attract new people. FT are for people that are serious about training their dogs to compete at a higher level so if your not serious enough to put in the effort to run at that level then stay in HT, that is what they were designed for.
    Last edited by Steve Shaver; 03-23-2013 at 08:47 AM.

  3. #43
    Senior Member John Lash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    1,856

    Default

    I should have added "you need 10 dogs for the points to count."

    In recent years if a pro didn't come to your Derby you didn't have one. I guess you could have one with 4 dogs if you wanted but no one would.

    Derby dogs are with Pros 'cause it's hard as hell to get a dog ready for one if you work full time and live where it's cold.

    I have heard of clubs trying to have an O/H Derby along with their O/H Qual at a Hunt test and in some areas that may work.

    Let's not forget that most, if not all the Pro handled dogs in a Derby are actually owned by amateurs. Most of the Ams are quite capable of running the dog but don't for many reasons. Time and distance being a big reason. The concept of a Field Trial is to find the best dogs. If you limit the entries to exclude the best dogs from entering you kind of take away what winning a Derby means.

    (I agree with Susan, didn't see her post before I hit submit.)
    Last edited by John Lash; 03-23-2013 at 09:02 AM.
    John Lash

    "If you run Field Trials, you learn to swallow your disappointment quickly."

    "Field trials are not a game for good dogs. They're for great dogs with great training." E. Graham

  4. #44
    Senior Member Ted Shih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    4,861

    Default

    I am in favor giving clubs choices when it comes to events (O/H Qual)
    I am in favor in promoting the introduction of newcomers to the sport
    I am in favor of trying new concepts

    I voted for the O/H Q - even though my club will likely never hold one
    I would vote for the O/H Derby - even though my club will likely never hold one
    I would vote for a Rule change which would allow clubs to hold Opens without needing to hold an Amateur - even though my club would likely never do so
    Competition does not build character - It reveals it.

    Home of:
    FC/AFC Freeridin Wowie Zowie (2003 NARC Finalist)
    FC/AFC Sky Hy Husker Power
    FC/AFC Freeridin Smooth Operator
    FC/AFC Freeridin Vampire Slayer (2007 NARC Finalist)
    AFC Freeridin Maserati (Double Header Winner)

    www.freeridinretrievers.com

  5. #45
    Senior Member DSemple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    528

    Default

    I think the derbies are the one stake where the pros are at a disadvantage.

    -Pros spend a lot of time traveling, during trial season Derby dogs are missing out on at least 3 days a week of training.
    -Training on the road often gets more assembly lined, where all the marks are setup for all the dogs.
    -And, Pros are always having to hurry with their derby dogs at the trials.

    Don
    Just for the record I have very fine dogs. Some of the best in the whole country....or at least on my own block anyhow.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Shih View Post
    I
    I would vote for a Rule change which would allow clubs to hold Opens without needing to hold an Amateur - even though my club would likely never do so
    Holding an Amateur without an Open would be what would really shake up the status quo..... and actually reward the worker bees who actually are hands on and are the life blood of the sport and make the trials happen.

    I don't see it happening though

  7. #47
    Senior Member John Lash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    1,856

    Default

    It's been like this forever. The Ams work, and the Open provides the additional $$$ to be able to do it again next year.

    Without the Open most clubs would lose about $4000. 50 entries X $80. Of course without the Amateur you'd lose the same amount.
    John Lash

    "If you run Field Trials, you learn to swallow your disappointment quickly."

    "Field trials are not a game for good dogs. They're for great dogs with great training." E. Graham

  8. #48
    Senior Member Jay Dufour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Pine Grove, Louisiana, 70453
    Posts
    2,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by russhardy View Post
    The derby can be an event to grow the sport with new people and still reward the best marking dogs and I think keeping it as doubles will help foster that.

    I've only run a few derbies but I'd like to see the double stay the norm. It's pretty intimidating for a newbie to run one as it is. As has been discussed, throw in a triple becoming the norm and not only are you rewarding the more trained and conditioned dog but also that more experienced handler quite a bit - and I think unneccessarily so. I'm not saying the more experienced handler and trained dog shouldn't have an advantage in a derby - but I think with a properly placed double that they already will and that the newer less experienced handler will be more likely to train for, pay the $80 and try, and hopefully train more and try again if the expectation is it will be doubles.

    I'd much prefer to see a retired gun in a derby than a triple when circumstances (big entry field, time, grounds etc.) dictate or allow. I think well placed marks that can provide answers and separation are out of sight to the dog for either a good amount or at various intervals of their time enroute to AOF as it is.
    Agree.Why do anything to make it harder for new blood in the sport.Its hard enough as it is.

  9. #49
    Senior Member 2tall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Taos, New Mexico
    Posts
    7,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JusticeDog View Post
    .u

    This is flawed logic. There are only so many competitive Derby age dogs in a given area. It seems as if you are suggesting that the test need to be dumbed down. It really means that you need to train harder. Pros in a derby? Pros in an open? Pros in a qualifying? Bring it on baby! It just makes the victory even sweeter.
    Susan, beginner amateurs like me don't want anything "dumbed down". Our biggest obstacle is the lack of grounds/water to train on for some of the more complex and challenging set ups these days. The need for more complexity/challenge is mostly due to the number of dogs being well trained and run by pros that have the most access to grounds/water. By providing a stake for O/H, maybe we would be running against those limited only by the same lack of access to grounds? On the other hand, having run a grand total of two derbies, I have listened to a lot of instant experts extolling the gallery with all kinds of advice while watching their dog being run by their pro along with 5 other dogs. Is this really "bringing new blood into the sport" or is it just providing more bullets for the pros? In my trips to the line, which are few and far between, I have never griped about the set up, the judges and most certainly not against the pros and their dogs. For me it is all about did my dog please me? Have we improved? Can we find a way/place to work on what we failed? I would like to do well, but winning is not why I go. I go to run the set ups. If they become so outrageous that I can not approach them with my limited training facilities, I will not spend the money to go and just stay home and play with my dogs. Mostly what I do these days, and I'm not blaming the sport, I'm blaming lack of grounds within a day's drive.

    BTW, there are two guys on this forum that cant even spell cojones!
    Carol,
    Owned and handled by Cruisin' with Indiana Jones, JH
    Alternate Handler: Westwind Buffalo Soldier
    Apprentice Handler: Snake River Medicine Man, JH
    http://newhoperetrievers.com

  10. #50
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2tall View Post
    Susan, beginner amateurs like me don't want anything "dumbed down". Our biggest obstacle is the lack of grounds/water to train on for some of the more complex and challenging set ups these days. The need for more complexity/challenge is mostly due to the number of dogs being well trained and run by pros that have the most access to grounds/water. By providing a stake for O/H, maybe we would be running against those limited only by the same lack of access to grounds? On the other hand, having run a grand total of two derbies, I have listened to a lot of instant experts extolling the gallery with all kinds of advice while watching their dog being run by their pro along with 5 other dogs. Is this really "bringing new blood into the sport" or is it just providing more bullets for the pros? In my trips to the line, which are few and far between, I have never griped about the set up, the judges and most certainly not against the pros and their dogs. For me it is all about did my dog please me? Have we improved? Can we find a way/place to work on what we failed? I would like to do well, but winning is not why I go. I go to run the set ups. If they become so outrageous that I can not approach them with my limited training facilities, I will not spend the money to go and just stay home and play with my dogs. Mostly what I do these days, and I'm not blaming the sport, I'm blaming lack of grounds within a day's drive.

    BTW, there are two guys on this forum that cant even spell cojones!

    there is a misconception that adding an O/H stake eliminates the pros, well it does BUT, then you end up competing against some well financed amateurs with nothing more on their hands than time and resources to train dogs...pick your poison

    blaming the lack of grounds, is something that you can do something about...we all make choices on where we live and choose to work...would I like to live in Montana, sure would, but could I make a living in Montana similar to what I currently make...Not a chance..There are very few places in the country where you can live, have a quality of lifestyle, and train dogs..That will lead to the demise of the sport. Look at how many venues where trials are held on properties owned by fellow FT competitors, if you dont have access to those properties then beating someone in their backyard is a lesson in futility..Look at how many pros that have a "sugar daddy" client with grounds for them to train, grounds that the average FT will never have access to, it very hard to compete against a stacked deck
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •