[john fallon]

The example given was a test where 83% of the dogs failed the first series.

This failure rate is the antithesis of a "first series where everybody is doing well".

To my way of thinking those that did do well should refrain from buying a lottery ticket for a while;-)

john

 

[Ted Shih]

Conversely, I hate those first series where everybody is doing well, all you can do is hurt yourself and expect some super tricky land blind to eliminate dogs.

John

Been there, done that. Hate it. Unfortunately, will probably do it again in the future.

- Just how small can we make the keyhole?
- How tight can we make the 300 yard poison bird to the line to the blind?
- Etc., etc., etc. - yuck

Ted

 

[Barry]

Well I'll be dipped, John and I agree on something

Wow dip two. Never thought I'd agree with John.

15 back and 3 handled. 12 placed and or jammed. Hmmm.... Is there anything wrong with this picture?

I guess 76 of those dogs aren't very good markers. Or just had a bad hair day. I fail to believe that there were that many dogs that can't mark.

I like what one poster said about the cream rising to the top. That's a joke anymore. The cream doesn't rise when you make good dogs look bad. When that many dogs are doing poorly I think you have a little to much test. I would like to know of the dogs that did the test how many hunted and stumbled on the birds. In todays game that seems to be a ongoing thing.
Championship points and titles are given to dogs that stumble on birds. But it's all about being lucky on any given weekend.

 

[john fallon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Amrein
"Well I'll be dipped, John and I agree on something"


Wow dip two. Never thought I'd agree with John.

15 back and 3 handled. 12 placed and or jammed. Hmmm.... Is there anything wrong with this picture?

I guess 76 of those dogs aren't very good markers. Or just had a bad hair day. I fail to believe that there were that many dogs that can't mark.

I like what one poster said about the cream rising to the top. That's a joke anymore. The cream doesn't rise when you make good dogs look bad. When that many dogs are doing poorly I think you have a little to much test. I would like to know of the dogs that did the test how many hunted and stumbled on the birds. In todays game that seems to be a ongoing thing.
Championship points and titles are given to dogs that stumble on birds. But it's all about being lucky on any given weekend.

If it makes you guys feel any better, just chalk it up to being just one more time that I am agreeing with you

john

 

[Ted Shih]

As far as I am concerned

IF

1. The tests are safe for the dogs
2. The dogs can see the guns and the birds.
3. The handlers can see the dogs.
4. The dogs can hear the whistle.
5. The trains run on time

It's a good test.

However, given my druthers, in the All Age Stakes - if the 5 conditions above are met - I would much rather a test be too hard than too easy.

I believe that when the test is hard, the cream does rise.
I believe that when the test is too easy, it is hard to tell the difference between curd and cream

 

[JeffLusk]

Championship points and titles are given to dogs that stumble on birds. But it's all about being lucky on any given weekend.

Not that it doesn't happen, but a dog doesn't stumble on every bird it takes to make an FC in my opinion. Luck is always good to have, but I'd say most FC AFC dogs did more than a few things right along the way.

 

[EdA]

Wow dip two. Never thought I'd agree with John.

15 back and 3 handled. 12 placed and or jammed. Hmmm.... Is there anything wrong with this picture?

I guess 76 of those dogs aren't very good markers. Or just had a bad hair day. I fail to believe that there were that many dogs that can't mark.

I like what one poster said about the cream rising to the top. That's a joke anymore. The cream doesn't rise when you make good dogs look bad. When that many dogs are doing poorly I think you have a little to much test. I would like to know of the dogs that did the test how many hunted and stumbled on the birds. In todays game that seems to be a ongoing thing.
Championship points and titles are given to dogs that stumble on birds. But it's all about being lucky on any given weekend.

To have an informed opinion about the trial it would be important to have been there, talk to anyone in attendance and they will confirm that no dog stumbled onto the key bird and that while hard the test was fair, the birds visible, and the callbacks equitable.......

 

[moonstonelabs]

Frankly, those of you who were not there and feel the test was some how wrong are misinformed. I wrote earlier that the test was fair with very well placed birds.....I was one who did not make it out of the first serries and I LIKED IT!

Intended or not your comments are demeaning to the judges...bad move!

A serries that was this good was more than worth the effert to be there and the expense.

Bill

 

[Ted Shih]

I have heard from several people who I respect and trust that the first series at Red River was very tough - but very fair. I have not heard anyone of them say that it was a bad test. All of them said that they wanted another shot at it.

They way they talked about the test made me wish that I could have had a shot at the test, too.

 

[Barry]

I have heard from several people who I respect and trust that the first series at Red River was very tough - but very fair. I have not heard anyone of them say that it was a bad test. All of them said that they wanted another shot at it.

They way they talked about the test made me wish that I could have had a shot at the test, too.

I think all that I said was that it was to much test for the field. I don't think I ever stated that the judges were unfair. You either do it or you don't.

IMO a test that gets the kind of answers as this one did is a little over the top for a weekend trial. Any way you people want to spin it spin it.

IMO test such as these take the judge out of the judging aspect of the trial.

And we wonder why people are leaving the sport.

 

[Barry]

To have an informed opinion about the trial it would be important to have been there, talk to anyone in attendance and they will confirm that no dog stumbled onto the key bird and that while hard the test was fair, the birds visible, and the callbacks equitable.......

Yea you always have to be there to have an informed opinion. Like I'm not entitled to mine.

Why do you seem to be trying to convince me that the test was fair and that the call backs where equitable. I never said anything to the contrary. All I've stated was my opinion about a test that gets this kind of results.You and I have never seen eye to eye on this subject. And I'm getting to old to give in to you anytime soon.

 

[Malcolm]

I think all that I said was that it was to much test for the field. I don't think I ever stated that the judges were unfair. You either do it or you don't.

IMO a test that gets the kind of answers as this one did is a little over the top for a weekend trial. Any way you people want to spin it spin it.

IMO test such as these take the judge out of the judging aspect of the trial.

And we wonder why people are leaving the sport.

?????
I geuss you're pointing out the dividing line in judging.
Some feel the test should determine the outcome, others feel that the judges pencil should.
In my opinion it's a lot more transparent when the test determines the winner.

If you failed the test you know why you're going home! AA Stake's are supposed to be hard.

People are pissed about the sport because there dog made a left turn and some one else's made a right turn. They're out while the other person is still playing who had the same body of work. Ei. The Pencil

If you didn't get the chickens, it ain't the pencil.

 

[john fallon]

?????
I geuss you're pointing out the dividing line in judging.
Some feel the test should determine the outcome, others feel that the judges pencil should.
In my opinion it's a lot more transparent when the test determines the winner.

If you failed the test you know why you're going home! AA Stake's are supposed to be hard.

People are pissed about the sport because there dog made a left turn and some one else's made a right turn. They're out while the other person is still playing who had the same body of work. Ei. The Pencil

If you didn't get the chickens, it ain't the pencil.

First and formost is the assumption that the test will be able to be done with a varing degree of proficency by a represenative number of dogs entered that weekend.
Then from those dogs a winner, based on the relative merits, will be chosen.

A test that is too difficult takes the judging of the equotion .

john

 

[Malcolm]

First and formost is the assumption that the test will be able to be done with a varing degree of proficency by a represenative number of dogs entered that weekend.
Then from those dogs a winner, based on the relative merits, will be chosen.

A test that is too difficult takes the judging of the equotion .

john

I think these things were accomplished based on the data presented.
At the end of the day, there are only 4 placements and a couple of jams at each trial.
Based on what I read, this happened.

Allowing lesser work to continue playing is another question all together.
Outright failures can't(shouldn't) be carried to the next series.
The only question I see is if more people should have handled cleanly instead of picking up their dog.
The fact that they didn't, leads me to believe that some of them knew they were toast.
They could have been wrong? We'll never know.

 

[TroyFeeken]

It seems that in todays All Age stakes, especially the Open, far too many people are afraid to handle assuming that they'll be out. I'd assume that instead of the dog getting too far out of the area or not quite making it to the fall would be the right time to blow the whistle and let the judges decide. If you have a giant hunt, you're not getting placed anyways but with quick clean handles you can still play and stay alive.

I'd really be curious if anyone took a picture of what this infamous "Battle at the Red" test looked like.

 

[Ted Shih]

It seems that in todays All Age stakes, especially the Open, far too many people are afraid to handle assuming that they'll be out. .

The reality is 9 times out of 10 - maybe 19 times out of 20 - except at the Nationals - handle and you are gone.

 

[Steve Amrein]

I did not see the test or care to comment on it.

What I have asked before is with the way our current trials are done I am really not sure the best dog is awarded the blue. A test (1st series) that runs all day is not the same for every dog. Lighting, throws, wind, flyer dragback and trails or paths made make it different. Its easy to look at call backs for that series and see when it was the best time to run. Ted is right if I have had to handle in the 1st series and more than 10 dogs have done it I am in the truck on my way home. I also understand that its the best dog that weekend. Its to bad that weekend trials can not be judged more like the nationals. BTW I dont subscribe to the cream rises idea as I have seen 30 titled dogs in a row including a NFC pick up only to have a dog just out of the Q do it. Then to have the same dog miss a point by a back leg get dropped. Really.....? Dropped on a water blind 300 yds long by the 1/2 the width of a dog.

Weekend trials are about time and a reason to eliminate a dog.

 

[moonstonelabs]

Barry, I just do not understand your thinking about taking the judging out of the equation by virtue of the set up/call backs. The set up was brilliant. The set up is part of judging. I just gave Jeff Lusk a brief breakdown of the set up..suprised more of you are not more interested in how the judges constructed the test.

They did call back two or three handles.

The 4th serries was almost as good as the first. With 15 dogs after the first the judges still had to find a winner.

The open is the highest level of competition that I know of in the retriever world. Expectations are extremly high in what we expect the dogs to do. Nothing about the set up in the first serries was out of line with those expectations.

Getting penciled out...to me...just sucks!

Bill

 

[Malcolm]

I did not see the test or care to comment on it.

What I have asked before is with the way our current trials are done I am really not sure the best dog is awarded the blue. A test (1st series) that runs all day is not the same for every dog. Lighting, throws, wind, flyer dragback and trails or paths made make it different. Its easy to look at call backs for that series and see when it was the best time to run. Ted is right if I have had to handle in the 1st series and more than 10 dogs have done it I am in the truck on my way home. I also understand that its the best dog that weekend. Its to bad that weekend trials can not be judged more like the nationals. BTW I dont subscribe to the cream rises idea as I have seen 30 titled dogs in a row including a NFC pick up only to have a dog just out of the Q do it. Then to have the same dog miss a point by a back leg get dropped. Really.....? Dropped on a water blind 300 yds long by the 1/2 the width of a dog.

Weekend trials are about time and a reason to eliminate a dog.

?? Yes, trials are designed to eliminate dogs.
I assume everyone who competes understands that.
The question is how you go about it. Strong tests or scribbled lines.
No one is titling a dog who can't do the work. It's to dam hard!!!

No one dog is on, all the time!!

If you miss a key point in the blind you are cheating the test. You're out!!!!!!
The obstacles are there to force you to handle and control your dog.
If you avoid them you haven't proven your dog can handle.
Blinds are about you and your dog navigating obstacles in a pleasing manner.
A good blind will influence and expose dogs weaknesses.
A good handler will know his dogs weaknesses and have a plan to counter them.
Reinforce want you want before you 're in trouble. If that doesn't work you have another concept to train on.
It is a competition not a pizza party. It's also, why I love it!!!

Believe me!! I have screwed up things when i know my dog could have done it.
That's another variable that we as contestants seem to forget.
Good dog with handler era's flop every weekend, this includes pro's.

 

[Barry]

Barry, I just do not understand your thinking about taking the judging out of the equation by virtue of the set up/call backs. The set up was brilliant. The set up is part of judging. I just gave Jeff Lusk a brief breakdown of the set up..suprised more of you are not more interested in how the judges constructed the test.

They did call back two or three handles.

The 4th series was almost as good as the first. With 15 dogs after the first the judges still had to find a winner.

The open is the highest level of competition that I know of in the retriever world. Expectations are extremely high in what we expect the dogs to do. Nothing about the set up in the first series was out of line with those expectations.

Getting penciled out...to me...just sucks!

Bill

The set up is part of the judging process. It is up to the judges also to determine if it's to easy or to hard. Either way you make adjustments or change the test to suit your needs. Obviously these judges thought that this test suited their needs. And that's fine. I just think that there is other ways of getting results. A good sound 10 min triple In my mind would have achieved just that and taken a lot less time.


The set up in your mind was brilliant and I'm not saying that it wasn't. One thing I do know is that usually there are four series to be judged. I'm not willing to send 85% of the dogs home after the first series. I do know that there are some who want to see that kind of test. The reason being that the less dogs that are left the odds are better for them and the judges don't have to make any decisions on who to bring back or drop. Just get the chicken mentality. Problem is that there are still 3 series to go. I'm not willing to go to the last series with only 2 dogs. I would like to test the dogs not eliminate them. IMO dogs run against a test not one another. At the end of the trial I want to determine along with my co-judge who the winner and places should go to relative to their performance through out the whole trial.

All that being said when you come back with so few dogs I find it very hard to think that you would not want to finish with as many as you could for fear of everyone talking like they are now so you back off and except sloppy work. Not only that to finish all that you brought back after the first doesn't sound right to me. JMO

Penciling really does suck, when it doesn't go your way. What do you think the judges do when they are doing call backs. Determine who should stay and who should go. This term penciling is really over done. If nobody does the test the judges still determine the results. That's the job of the judges. Being that there is two judges it keeps the penciling on the up and up. You of all people should know this you have been around for awile and have done your fair share of judging.