The term "dumbed-down" has been applied to the Qual in various contexts. What would you consider a "dumbed-down" Qual?
Doesn't the judge have the option of not giving awards? Could you set up a fair test and if the dogs don't do it, NOT give placements?Gerard Rozas said:Have judged 6 dog Qs and 65 dog Qs. Big difference.
You are always trying to blend pushing the dogs with being a nice guy in the minors. It is kinda of a art - seeing who is there - how many - what you have to work with. This way you get a gut feel on what to start with and learn from that.
6 dogs - I tried like hell to have everyone back to the watermarks - standup doubles both land and water. Still had one "No Here" as I recall.
But have done a double in a 50+ dog Q. I think Shayne and Mark will remember that one. So there is no fast rule. I for one try to let as many dogs play for as long as possible in the minors if time permits.
Yes they do. But why do that in a game that everyone is supposed to be doing for fun? From Sec 13 in the Supplement to the Standard:Doesn't the judge have the option of not giving awards?
Sec 41 from the Standard:Judges should be reminded of Section 41 in the "Standard" wherein they are encouraged to make a "Judge's Award of Merit" to those dogs which have completed all series, and which show evidence of being well trained and thoroughly qualified retrievers. However, in stakes where a Judge's Award of Merit qualifies a dog for a Limited or Special All-Age stake and, thus, makes him a starter eligible to enter future stakes carrying championship points, such awards should not be given unless the dog's work merits this recognition.
42. The awarding of a Judges' Award of Merit to dogs which have passed every required test in a stake and have shown themselves to be well trained and qualified retrievers, should be encouraged.
What about Dog "A" JAMing a 25 dog Alaska AM vs. Dog "B" Winning a 50 dog Texas Qual?Meleagris said:To answer Lisa's question about breeding:
I personally would want to know how the dog has fared in AA competition as well. One qualifying win or second no matter how big the field isn't enough info for me to make a decision. For me, a dog won a 10 dog qual but has placed in AA competition would be chosen over a qual winner of a 70 dog field but no AA placements.
Now THERE is a post!Meleagris said:OK Shayne you got me!!!!
But that is what I was getting at. A title is just a title (or in the case of QAA a non-title). When you are looking at the merits of a particular dog as stud/mother(trying not to get filtered) a lot more than a title comes into play(at least for me). I personally want to know as much as possible about those parents and even better previous litters from them. The characteristics of a certain dog come into play. Maybe you like a fast dog, maybe smart is what you are looking for, maybe you are looking to avoid a dog with the potential to be vocal. None of this can be told by a title (although much is assumed).
In most trials, that (Blue vs Green) is the difference between a "very good" job on every mark and blind... and a "perfect job" on every mark and blind. I'm ok with very good winning sometimes.WAH said:If having a Owner Handler Qual does not dumb-down the Qual.... Then having a Owner Handler Open would not dumb-down the Open. You are knocking out the toughest competition in both.
By making the Qual O/H you would not have the "quality" or "quantity" of dogs. If it is a "specialty" or "less than 20 dogs", you could still have the "quality".
In some trials a pro will win 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th in the Qual(and Open). Others get JAMs. If that pro was not allowed to run then the people that "only"(JAMs are nice) deserved JAMs would have won all placements. That ain't right. It may be right one day but not now. IMHO
This already exists. It's called an Am! :lol:Then having a Owner Handler Open would not dumb-down the Open. You are knocking out the toughest competition in both.