47 degrees and light rain....Brrrrrr, February in May
In answer to Tom: You read what you wanted to into what I said. I never accused or made disparaging remarks about these judges. In fact, I said the setup sounded good and doable but that the terrain may have gone against the grain of the test. 65% drop in 1st series seemed excessive and in fact I have had several private messages stating what I said had merit. It is very difficult to set up a test in a given terrain and be able to predict how many dogs can handle it. The latter part of my discussion was about tests in general and did not refer to this particular test. That part probably should have been done in a separate thread so that some people like you wouldn't get too confused, but instead, try to read how it was intended. I simply voiced some concerns publicly, knowing full well there would be someone just reading words without the ability to understand them. You didn't disappoint me.
To Ted: I may have written the part about my dog badly. What I meant to say is that whenever he was dropped, he deserved it so that he has in my opinion always been handled fairly by the judges except possibly just once and I would say that is pretty darn good odds for over 5 years of running trials. Also Ted, I think by now I know your ethics and your motivations are of the highest in this game. I know most judges don't have the time or the motivation to manipulate tests, but I also realize that to "increase the odds", it can and has been done to a certain degree. Unfortunately, the realization that has been brought forth time and time again on this forum is that only a few are welcome to discuss their concerns, ideas, and opinions. I keep forgetting the rest of us should just keep quiet, read and agree with what has been said.
1st Deets Youngblood/ Dave Rorem
2nd Henry Starford/ Tim Milligan
3rd Tubby Aycock/ Ed
4th Onyx Scheig/ Chris
RJ Breeze Burson/ Mark Edwards
Jams 3 16 43
A big congratulations to all !
Thanks to the judges for giving us a
challenging and very fair 4 series.
Tulsa club members work very hard to put this
on and do a great job!
Last edited by jollydog; 05-04-2013 at 09:46 PM.
yay- good for amateurs Ed and Chris!! and Lauren and Sylvia too for finishing a tough open-- and congrats as well to Dave, Tim and Mark!
2 3 5 6 8 10 12 16 19 24 26 28 29 33 36
38 39 40 43 44 48 54 55
First, I was not aware that my disagreement with your opinions meant that your opinions were not "welcome."
Second, if I were seeking to ensure that my "chosen dog or handler" won, the last thing that I would do is set up a ball buster test with a failure rate of over 50%. That kind of test - if continued through the trial - leads to a very clear winner. Instead, if I were trying to "fix" the results, I would set up a very easy test, that I knew my "chosen dog or handler" would accomplish. I would continue with soft tests, and at the end, there would be 15 winners, of which I could select my "chosen dog or handler." It is much easier to "fix" the results in a soft trial than a hard one. So, again, I disagree with your basic assumptions about what can and cannot be done.
Third, as both a contestant and a judge, I prefer hard, ball buster style tests. It is what I like to run, and what I like to watch. That is simply a statement of taste.
Finally, I would say that many of the contestants that have posted here, have told us that they thought that the test was both fun and fair.
Competition does not build character - It reveals it.