RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

1 - 20 of 60 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So here is the scenario:

Dog A and Dog B are both Black Labs born the same day in the same city. Both are male and have the same health clearances.

Dog A has a pedigree with at least 75% of the dogs being FC/AFC.
Dog B has a pedigree with only 20% of the dogs being JH or SH level, the remainder have no titles.

By 8 weeks, both dogs have been introduced to live pigeons, swimming, and gunfire, and they both have a strong desire to retrieve.

Both dogs are bought by one person and sent to the same professional trainer with an open checkbook when they are 6 months old after having had basic obedience training. The owner wants them trained and run in as many field trials and hunt tests as realistically possible. (Local trials/tests)

The question is this.... At the end of two years, which dog would be further along in their training, or would it be safe to think that both would progress at about the same speed, understanding that each dog may have it's own "sticking points" along the way.

All I'm asking is for thoughts from those who have been in this game awhile.

My thought is that both dogs would probably be at about the same level, even tough they have two very different pedigrees.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,045 Posts
I think that you may have a better chance with dog A, but dog B "could" be just as good (or A could be just as "bad"). You might stand a better chance of unbiased training if the trainer doesn't have knowledge of either of the dog's pedigrees.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,252 Posts
You're saying that pedigree doesn't matter. It's all training. I disagree, but it would be hard to know because the folks with the open checkbooks aren't inclined to spend $20k sending a pup from a SH x JH litter to a top pro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,189 Posts
I think some people underestimate what type of dog it takes to become an FC/AFC.

Odds on Dog A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,577 Posts
I think some people underestimate what type of dog it takes to become an FC/AFC.

Odds on Dog A.

Good for you, but Dog A could be a washout....Too many varibles(sp) involved, especially if I am the one whose has the blank check and I think most folks do understand what it takes for a dog to become a FC. JMO of course.;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,189 Posts
Good for you, but Dog A could be a washout....Too many varibles(sp) involved, especially if I am the one whose has the blank check and I think most folks do understand what it takes for a dog to become a FC. JMO of course.;-)
The 'variables' hardly need explained. That's why odds on Dog A. Good for you if your odds are otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,802 Posts
Either one has a great chance. Had a dog last year that only had JH and SHR dogs for 2-3 generations before finally getting into the MH titles. One of the finest dogs I ever trained. Unfortunately, owner took him back after his Started title because of HD, but he was an exceptional dog and a pleasure to train.

Train the dog you're training,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,624 Posts
The only difference is the pedigree?
My money is on Dog A every time, and I'll be the winner in the long run.

JS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,189 Posts
HNTFSH: You continue to assume the other dogs weren't capable, instead of the other option, which is they weren't run. Not enough facts to make the call with certainty.

Yes, the odds are better on the known factors of the line with titles, and if you want to hedge your bets that's the way to go, but without concrete evidence that the other dogs couldn't hack it, you can't know for certain that line B doesn't have the next NFC/NAFC....


I am not assuming anything. The ODDS are with a pedigree that spells 75% FC/AFC dogs.

Read the OP's post again. I'll put odds on proven over unproven any day.

This isn't rocket science. Take the original post at face value.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Does the trainer have more experience training for HT's or FT's? If I wanted my dog to be an FC, then I would send it to someone who trains more for those. I don't think most trainers are equally skilled as HT AND FT trainers. Not saying it can't be done because it sure is, but might be more interesting question if you included the trainers in there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Hey guys, sorry to start such a debate.

My line of thinking is more along with FinnLandR. Maybe I should try to rephrase the question, because I know there are always variables.

After two years of the same training regiment, would both dogs be at about the same stage.... If I went out to observe training on a Tuesday morning without knowing which dog was which, would they both be able to do the same, or similar set-ups.

I know there are dogs that just can't do the work, which is why the titles are not in their pedigree, but I also know dogs who are more than capable, but don't have titles because they were never entered into a field trial.

I used to have four Goldens, two of which loved to hunt, and the other two wouldn't even play fetch with a tennis ball and hated the water. That is why I started the thread with the fact that both dogs had the drive.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,624 Posts
But FinnLandR, what is the difference between "certainty" and "odds" when there is only one variable? You cannot say ANYTHING with certainty.

You are introducing a new variable when you suggest that Dog B may not have been campaigned as much. But hey, maybe Dog A was not campaigned much either ... maybe in different hands he would have been a 3x National Champion.

Here's his question:

The question is this.... At the end of two years, which dog would be further along in their training ...
Given the info you have, how can you say anything except "Dog A ".

Geez, you can take 2 pups from the same litter and one may be an FC at 3 yrs old and another may be afraid of ducks. But still, you gotta go with what you KNOW.

JS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,098 Posts
Mark L, you are putting no value in genetics and only value in training. Both are important components.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,624 Posts
..... 9 out of 10 times you will probably be correct

.....
Given the scenario presented ... all other things are equal ... I'm sayin' I'm correct more like 99 out of 100. :p

One of the traits present in that line of FCs is trainability and that is more likely to be passed on along with the other talents.

JS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,389 Posts
Give me the pedigree every time. I don't know how it is even a debate. Titles approve ability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,252 Posts
Mark L, you are putting no value in genetics and only value in training. Both are important components.
Exactly.

If you did this one time, either dog may be ahead of the other. I've seen 3 littermates (from litters with titles), on two separate occasions (that's six dogs), raised together by the breeder (diferent breeders), sent to the same pro, with the same open check book. At the end of the day (two years) the worst of each set of three was pretty good, and the best of each set of three was very good. If there would have been a dog born on the same day from a litter with minimal titles, but same trainer, same open check book, etc. It very well could be better than the worst and likely wouldn't be as good as the best.

Bottom line is that if you took a sample of 100 such instances, 9 times out of 10, the dogs with the titles in the pedigree will be ahead. Its all about doing what you can to get the odds in your favor. Because the fact of the matter is, the vast majority of dogs started on field trial path, even those dogs with stacked pedigrees and endless funds behind them, will never make it to FC/AFC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,389 Posts
You go start your own line and get back to us when you have it filled with fcs. I'll stick with lines that have a proven record with success.
I can say with certainty that some day I will die. Some people probably wish it were sooner rather than later.
I can say with certainty that some day the sun will die and fade. Hopefully long after we're all dead and gone.

I'm not suggesting that Dog B lines were campaigned less or Dog A more. I'm saying WE DON'T KNOW.

With what we do know in the post, you can't say either way. Sure, you can guess. Go for it. 9 out of 10 times you will probably be correct. But to state with certainty it will always be dog A? Hogwash....

Now, which dog would I buy given unlimited funds? Dog A. Which dog can I realistically afford? Dog C, who has a sprinkling of both FT and HT titles in the mix. ;)

My point is this: the first FC/AFC titled dog had zero FC/AFC dogs in the pedigree. So to blindly follow the premise that only dogs with an FC/AFC titled dog in the pedigree can go on to become an FC/AFC dog is ludicrous. Further, there a danger in overlooking a whole lot of talent potential based on looking at titles alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Travis,

I am not putting "no value" in genetics. I understand there is value in the genetics. I am just wondering how much more should be put into the genetics then in a solid training program in the hands of a capable trainer. I just think that often times, like was said in an earlier statement, if a person is going to spend a large amount of money in the training, they will start with good genetics to try to better the odds. That then takes a number of dogs out of the running just due to genetics. They start out never having a chance, based on the beliefs of the owners/handler/trainers.

I guess it is like being born on the wrong side of the tracks....

Mark
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
Top