[Ted Shih]

Fourth, let’s address the efforts of you and others to use courage as a surrogate for lining.

The RB defines "courage"as:

"a trait which cannot be tested at every trial. It may be displayed by a willingness to face, and without hesistation, rough cover, cold or rough water, ice, mud or other similar conditions which make the going rather tough, and of doing it repeatedly." Page 49 (italics in original)

Please note that the RB implies that courage cannot be tested at every
trial - something that would not be the case if mere water entries demonstrated courage.

In fact, the RB refers to cold or rough water as situation where courage may be displayed. Mere water is not enough. The water must be rough or cold. Neither rough or cold water was described in the hypothetical.

Also note that the RB emphasizes the need to display courage repeatedly. Again, no evidence of repeated courage or lack of courage in the hypothetical.

Barry

This is what I wrote about "courage"

Ted

 

[Ted Shih]

In your opinion it would be OK to go as far out of one's way to retrieve a bird, as long as the end result was ending up at the bird. Because marking is of primary importance, no matter how you get there is OK?

Never said that.

Did say that I didn't see any of the dogs go "far out of the way."

Did say I thought all three dogs had good marks.

Did say that I didn't see Dog 1 hunt.

Did say that I couldn't make placements based on information provided.

Ted

 

[Barry]

Barry

This is what I wrote about "courage"

Ted

It states that "It may be displayed by a willingness to face and without hesitation, rough cover, (which was at this trial) cold or rough water, (which if the trial is a winter time trial chances are good the water is cold) ice, mud and similar conditions which make the going rather tough, and of doing it repeatedly.

I don't believe that the hypo said anything about adverse weather conditions except for the wind, to constitute the rough water or rough going. But I do believe that one can see conditions in a different manor. Rough being tough going for some and not so though for others. Wind is a rough condition for some and not for others. Because wind isn't mentioned in the RB under the
courage provision mean it doesn't exist and should be dismissed as an obstacle or rough going?

Natural Abilities are enhanced IMHO through the ability's of training.
Avoidance or caving to any, or all of these obstacles can be judged as major faults. But it is all relative.

 

[Barry]

Never said that.

Did say that I didn't see any of the dogs go "far out of the way."

Did say I thought all three dogs had good marks.

Did say that I didn't see Dog 1 hunt.

Did say that I couldn't make placements based on information provided.

Ted

Your opinion certainly differs from mine. I am more interested to know why?
Buy what you have stated you are unwilling to admit that there is seperation enough to be able to pick one over the other.

 

[Evan]

Your opinion certainly differs from mine. I am more interested to know why?
Buy what you have stated you are unwilling to admit that there is seperation enough to be able to pick one over the other.

Because the question was asked only on the basis of the marks themselves. We were instructed not to judge anything else; only the marks.

Evan

 

[Buzz]

I have never seen any dog without training that would hold a perfectly straight line throught the kinds of factors seen in today's FT's at any level. In fact I'd like to see how many of the dogs that place in derby's today that are still pre T work.

/Paul

Sheesh, mine never ran until it was 10 months past finishing basics, and through transition.

 

[Evan]

The only one I allowed a client to run in a Derby prior to having handling skills was Lucy. She was 11 months, and just learning 3-handed casting. Blast her little hyde, she won it! Thankfully she didn't run any more of them until she was handling.

Evan

 

[DarrinGreene]

How much of a factor do you guys think those trained abilities play in the judge's job of comparing natural ability between derby dogs?

Can you tell which dog has the best marking ability if one with lesser marking skills but better lining skills is running against it? Let's assume they both stepped on the bird and the only difference is one ran straighter than the other...

Are there nuances such as ear position, tail "crack", etc... that will show you which one marked it and which one lined it?

OR is that why there are multiple series...

 

[Barry]

Because the question was asked only on the basis of the marks themselves. We were instructed not to judge anything else; only the marks.

Evan

And that's all well and good, I can still pick a winner out of the three as I'm sure you could. And it's no different than the one I had before. Sure it would be nice to have more to go on, but there isn't more. Based on the marks themselves the dogs still had to get there and come up with the bird. They still are judged on marking alone. I still come up with a winner with the rule book thrown out the window. Why can't Ted?

I think it's because marking to him has to many variables.Depth of fall, hunting short, pinpoint marking vs small hunt in the area which is all well and good. Make a decision. To me that all means Close, but no cigar. Who got the bird with less effort. Judge what you see.

 

[Barry]

How much of a factor do you guys think those trained abilities play in the judge's job of comparing natural ability between derby dogs?

Can you tell which dog has the best marking ability if one with lesser marking skills but better lining skills is running against it? Let's assume they both stepped on the bird and the only difference is one ran straighter than the other...

Are there nuances such as ear position, tail "crack", etc... that will show you which one marked it and which one lined it?

OR is that why there are multiple series...

Maybe the dog before he leaves the line should have to declare which direction and where the bird is, or which blade of grass it's under. That way we as judges will finally be able to make an informed decission. May not need a RB then.

 

[greg ye]

In fact I'd like to see how many of the dogs that place in derby's today that are still pre T work.

/Paul

Didn't place, but Gary Kavan's chessy pup, Bur Oak's Here's Winston, JAM'd at Sooner RC, Oct., 07, at the ripe age of 6 months. There must be other examples. Think he was taught "straight?"

 

[john fallon]

Maybe it would be better just to do as I've been saying for the past 5 yeare, i.e. change the rules to reflect the way the Derby is for the most part being judged now...after all it is the 21st century.


john

 

[T. Mac]

And that's all well and good, I can still pick a winner out of the three as I'm sure you could. And it's no different than the one I had before. Sure it would be nice to have more to go on, but there isn't more. Based on the marks themselves the dogs still had to get there and come up with the bird. They still are judged on marking alone. I still come up with a winner with the rule book thrown out the window. Why can't Ted?

I think it's because marking to him has to many variables.Depth of fall, hunting short, pinpoint marking vs small hunt in the area which is all well and good. Make a decision. To me that all means Close, but no cigar. Who got the bird with less effort. Judge what you see.

I think what Ted is saying is that after 3 previous series of identical work, and with the results of this series as all that you have to differentiate between the 3 dogs, you do not have enough information to make that decision. And certainly not without making assumptions about each of the dog's work, especially dogs 1 and 3. While you and others seem to be partial to dog 3 based upon its straight lines, you assume that it was marking the fall and might not actually be marking the birdboy sitting up on the levee. And if it did mark the lateral position, it did not mark the depth that accurately. You assume that dog 1 winded the bird when this might not be the case and the dog just took what it thought was the fastest and most expedient route to the bird. Not to knock Jim's drawings as they are much better than the drawings I make judging hunt tests, but they are very short on notations as to what the judges "saw" that might make the selection easier. And there is always something that the judges sees with respect to each dogs work, other than just the lines to the bird, that they use in their decisions.

It is easy to say that training shouldn't play a role, but it is hard to imagine a dog competing at any level of HT or FT work who hasn't had a little training. And to have 2-3 dogs competing for the blue ribbon in a ft one must believe that they have had several months of training; having completed their yard work and transition training; and have had hundreds of marks thrown for them. Many are probably working on the de-cheating stuff and angle entries depending on age.

Based on this dogs quickly begin to associate gunners with the presence of birds in the field, learning to hunt off the guns. Any or all of the dogs in our scenario may have been hunting off the gun and not actually marking the fall of the memory bird. But then we could also assume that both dog 1 and 2 used the wind to find the bird, which is a positive trait and is to be rewarded. True, if dog 3 had front footed the memory bird, things could be seen differently, but it didn't. And if dog 2 didn't fishhook both birds,..., but it didn't. Again, there is no notations or implications presented to give us any idea of dogs focus, style, speed, attitude on the line, or any other indicator that they knew where the birds were other than their paths. And a straight line on a piece of paper does not necessarily indicate a mark and as much as a banana path does not indicate a lack of a mark.

 

[Marvin S]

The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, i.e. the dog that performs in that manner wins the "Disturb the least amount of cover award".

Ted - How do you get the statement "The dog that disturbs the least amount of cover wins" from the above statement?

You received a response in Post 71

that's not what Marvin said

but you failed to respond. which is not unusual when you have no defense.

post 96 - This thread is about the Rule Book

Yet in post 33

Note the manual says this is wrong.

& again in post 1 - 2nd paragraph -

Introduction to Manual

Page 30 - 22) The Judges must judge the dogs for (a) their natural abilities including their memory, intelligence, attention, nose, courage, perseverance & style & their abilities acquired through training, including steadiness, control, response to direction & delivery.

Therefore, much of a Judge's responsibility is to determine how much weight he shall give to certain types of exceptional performance & how much penalty to assess because of various individual faults. -----

This is a portion of the response I made to you, Mr Shih, in post 58 - if you read post 58 very carefully you will note there are no references that pertain to handling, whereas much of your defense contains excerpts that pertain to handling & on occasion the Judge's Manual which you believe you are the only one to have read. Yet you failed to respond.

If you want it all to be natural, do as Jim P said bring em to line on a rope & turn them loose. Otherwise note, steadiness, control, response to direction & delivery are all abilities acquired through training which are necessary in today's Derby environment.

I can remember a performance by one of my derby dogs at the top of his game - 7 pins & a slight hunt on the money bird - which was much less than the winner, who ran all day right in front of me. After the trial the judge volunteered you'd have gotten some of the action had your dog not had that controlled break.

By your reasoning, my dog should have won, as steadiness is an ability acquired through training.

Ted requires you think like Ted

You are misleading many future FT'ers, & you should be ashamed of yourself for your egocentic approach. You only hear the music you play.

If you want a discussion answer those posts that are reasoned with your approach, which BTW is not always correct. I guess we would have to classify the ability to admit one was not correct as one acquired through training. You will do this sport more good than you are with your attack dog answers.

 

[Ted Shih]

Marvin

I have posted a comprehensive explanation of why I believe that your position concerning lines v. marks is wrong.

I think my position is clear and well grounded.

I disagree with how you have stretched the meaning of the Rules. I have pointed out my points of disagreement. I have no desire to repeat them like a broken record when you refuse to address them.

I also find it cuirous that you find the need to attack me personally as often as you do.

I will let the readers of this thread make their own determination as to whose logic they find more compelling.

Ted

 

[K G]

For the better part of a week, between this thread and it's "daddy," the thread on "Field Trial Judging" begun on 1/6/09, pretty much everything that could have been said has been said with regard to "The Mark," especially as it pertains to its impact on the Derby stake. What began as a discussion on whether or not seating gunners facing away from the direction that they throw is misleading the dog to every scintilla of minutiae regarding what should be judged as a mark has appeared on one of the two threads. I tried to keep up with the discussion but found myself almost physically tired reading the point/counterpoint back-and-forth, mostly on this one thread.

I've avoided participation until the last dozen or so posts made me come to realize something, for me anyway. From the first thread to this one, something has kept me on edge...something has felt "wrong" about the absolutes that seem to be the goal of these discussions. For the record, I support having the gunners/throwers face the way they throw; I also support having them face the running line through the whole test IF there is a sun/rain/wind situation that would affect the gunners/throwers negatively from a comfort level for the day.

Relative to marks, anyone who knows me, either in person or from this board, knows what a fan I am of the rulebook. The rulebook makes no distinction about the level of difficulty that should be set up with an all-age mark or a minor stake mark. The AKC expects judges in either stake level to know what they are doing when they set up marks to test their respective fields in either stake level. Clubs should do their homework when they pick judges to judge at either level; that homework takes a lot of different forms that I won't go into here. I'm a fan of the FT Judge's Manual but only up to a point; it is NOT the rulebook and does not carry ANY weight with regard to rule interpretation. It is for reference and example ONLY, a purpose for which it is well designed.

Here's my point: IMHO (my opinion and my opinion only), any attempt to judge a Derby MARK without any consideration whatsoever for its other "moving parts," moving parts that the FT Rules require be a part of the testing and evaluation of dogs, is pure folly. Any serious attempt to further the education of the masses about judging "The Mark" by suggesting that it can be judged without any outside influences and that any single setup could result in the placement of a dog is folly; it does make for some interesting debate and discussion as has been evidenced here, but it has also resulted in some contentious posts (not unexpected considering that this is RTF...;-)). Judges should reasonably know what to expect when they set up a test with regard to what the dogs can be expected to do when influenced by the test's terrain, cover, wind, overall lighting and background, bird/thrower visibility, and bird placement. Line 'em up and watch what you have created affect the dog's ability to get the birds in the cleanest manner possible. 95 times out of 100, after 8 marks, a winner will be obvious after considering all the factors, from line manners to style to marking. While "marking is of primary importance," it is NOT of EXCLUSIVE importance. Again....all of this is JMHO...

You'll know the winner when you see it regards,

kg

 

[Gun_Dog2002]

Didn't place, but Gary Kavan's chessy pup, Bur Oak's Here's Winston, JAM'd at Sooner RC, Oct., 07, at the ripe age of 6 months. There must be other examples. Think he was taught "straight?"

I think the key phrase was "didn't place...."

I could enter every 6 month old dog that comes through here, but that doesn't mean its gonna place....and how straight were its lines...?

/Paul

 

[DarrinGreene]

Maybe the dog before he leaves the line should have to declare which direction and where the bird is, or which blade of grass it's under. That way we as judges will finally be able to make an informed decission. May not need a RB then.

AH I get it, sort of like calling the pocket, regards,

 

[Marvin S]

Marvin

I have posted a comprehensive explanation of why I believe that your position concerning lines v. marks is wrong.

I think my position is clear and well grounded.

I disagree with how you have stretched the meaning of the Rules. I have pointed out my points of disagreement. I have no desire to repeat them like a broken record when you refuse to address them.

I also find it cuirous that you find the need to attack me personally as often as you do.



Ted

- Whose name was mentioned by whom in post 1?

Run for cover, regards!

 

[Marvin S]

For the better part of a week, between this thread and it's "daddy," the thread on "Field Trial Judging" begun on 1/6/09, pretty much everything that could have been said has been said with regard to "The Mark," especially as it pertains to its impact on the Derby stake. What began as a discussion on whether or not seating gunners facing away from the direction that they throw is misleading the dog to every scintilla of minutiae regarding what should be judged as a mark has appeared on one of the two threads. I tried to keep up with the discussion but found myself almost physically tired reading the point/counterpoint back-and-forth, mostly on this one thread.

I've avoided participation until the last dozen or so posts made me come to realize something, for me anyway. From the first thread to this one, something has kept me on edge...something has felt "wrong" about the absolutes that seem to be the goal of these discussions. For the record, I support having the gunners/throwers face the way they throw; I also support having them face the running line through the whole test IF there is a sun/rain/wind situation that would affect the gunners/throwers negatively from a comfort level for the day.

Relative to marks, anyone who knows me, either in person or from this board, knows what a fan I am of the rulebook. The rulebook makes no distinction about the level of difficulty that should be set up with an all-age mark or a minor stake mark. The AKC expects judges in either stake level to know what they are doing when they set up marks to test their respective fields in either stake level. Clubs should do their homework when they pick judges to judge at either level; that homework takes a lot of different forms that I won't go into here. I'm a fan of the FT Judge's Manual but only up to a point; it is NOT the rulebook and does not carry ANY weight with regard to rule interpretation. It is for reference and example ONLY, a purpose for which it is well designed.

Here's my point: IMHO (my opinion and my opinion only), any attempt to judge a Derby MARK without any consideration whatsoever for its other "moving parts," moving parts that the FT Rules require be a part of the testing and evaluation of dogs, is pure folly. Any serious attempt to further the education of the masses about judging "The Mark" by suggesting that it can be judged without any outside influences and that any single setup could result in the placement of a dog is folly; it does make for some interesting debate and discussion as has been evidenced here, but it has also resulted in some contentious posts (not unexpected considering that this is RTF...;-)). Judges should reasonably know what to expect when they set up a test with regard to what the dogs can be expected to do when influenced by the test's terrain, cover, wind, overall lighting and background, bird/thrower visibility, and bird placement. Line 'em up and watch what you have created affect the dog's ability to get the birds in the cleanest manner possible. 95 times out of 100, after 8 marks, a winner will be obvious after considering all the factors, from line manners to style to marking. While "marking is of primary importance," it is NOT of EXCLUSIVE importance. Again....all of this is JMHO...

You'll know the winner when you see it regards,

kg

Something's wrong here!!!!!! Again we agree. Nice post & stated well, Keith.