Joined
·
1,166 Posts
What criteria do you use to decide whether you feel a test was easy or hard, "good" or "bad"?
Lisa
Lisa
Amen!! Challenge me, keep it on the up and up...I hate tricks...believe it or not a solid, fair and challenging test will eat up and spit out more dogs than plain ol' tricks.Peake said:"Dawgs Dawg, Handlers Handle and Judges Judge!"
No, not a good junior test. There are other ways to test perserverance in a junior dog, like a very wide line of cover that's impossible to cheat, but that they must enter or cross to get the mark, etc. The only reason to throw a cheating bird is to test perserverance (since a dog can still show marking and trainability even if he cheats the bank to a mark). And to expect a junior dog to persevere on an extremely cheaty mark is unfair...Dick Shrum said:If you've got a dog that is running in the JR division and the test is set up so the dog can easily cheat (run the bank), would you consider it a good test for these dogs? Seems to me this is encouraging the dog to cheat??
Dick Shrum said:If you've got a dog that is running in the JR division and the test is set up so the dog can easily cheat (run the bank), would you consider it a good test for these dogs? Seems to me this is encouraging the dog to cheat??
I like a straightforward, difficult test.
I do NOT like a test(s) that a certain Judge sets up that requires the Handler to have a Secretary in order to keep up with the instructions. Way too many moving parts to his tests.
Jerry
Amen Ken. Sadly the people who need to see themselves in your post won't--so they will continue to ruin the weekend for the other contestants and the workers who give so much of themselves and their time.Gosh I miss Unca Jerry!
I was just a readin' his posts and thinking about him.
He was so right on, on so many posts. Like this one.
Now to Miss DamLoo, as Jerry would refer to you....
I have observed, at times, driving home from an event. Even with a ribbon or two hanging from the gun rack and happy memories from the field. You can still be chafed and still think it was a bad test. Sadly, sometimes it is the people you interact with at an event that really rub your rhubarb. Rude people, pushy people, self proclaimed experts, sand baggers, work shirkers and gallery gripers can, at times, truly spoil an event for some. Nothing worse than a person who does nothing to help yet will complain about every aspect of an event. From grounds choice and bird placement to judges chosen and handlers running. Sometimes I wonder why folk like that bother to run dogs at all. If everything is so terrible...... stay home!
.
This is a great comment. The only thing that I can add is that I assess a test based on what I have trained for, and if I think the dogs can do the work. I then run what I brought and hope for the best. There have been tests as Kristie mentioned where I ran the dog, and the dog's performance flat out surprised the heck out of me. Sometimes talent wins out, sometimes training wins out, and sometimes a dog just has to be a dog.The use of factors, resources and mechanics, as well as (in hunt test) whether it appears to be a decent hunting scenario. I also take into account safety as far as who's shooting where and any hazards the dogs may encounter in the test. Finally, the efficiency and common sense with which it's run as far as rebirding, location of holding blinds, honor dog location, etc. etc.
I would say that "fair from a dog's perspective" is the closest thing to whether or not something is a good test in my opinion. I've run a handful of things that I thought were fantastic tests, yet I had never trained on anything like them. First example is a duck being shot en route to a blind (over the dog's head, mind you -- so he's running under the arc AS the bird is shot). Second example is a double coffin blind working/honor situation -- very scary, but fun test (thank you Davis Arthur). I've walked up to a few tests like that and gone "oh, crap, I've never done this", but it's legimitate and good.
-Kristie
I prefer that the test be appropriately challenging and difficult for the field
However, anymore, I only seek four things from a Field Trial
1) Tests are safe for the dogs
2) Dogs can see gunners and birds
3) Dogs should be able to see and hear the handlers
4) The trains should run on time
Think of how wonderful it would be if those four simple criteria could be met
Sadly, sometimes it is the people you interact with at an event that really rub your rhubarb. Rude people, pushy people, self proclaimed experts, sand baggers, work shirkers and gallery gripers can, at times, truly spoil an event for some. Nothing worse than a person who does nothing to help yet will complain about every aspect of an event. From grounds choice and bird placement to judges chosen and handlers running. Sometimes I wonder why folk like that bother to run dogs at all. If everything is so terrible...... stay home!![]()