[john fallon]

John,

I also am in agreement when it comes to finding a clear cut winner, but coming from a different mind-set. In those three different situations, who exactly threw the birds for you?

In most cases it was paid help

After a club hosting a three day event, AND not planning on having anyone there for an extra day, how exactly would you expect a club to respond to your request for Monday set-up?

When a club applies for and is granted license to hold a FT, the licensing body ( the AKC) expects nothing less than a clear cut winner in a stake in which championship points are awarded. The club is obliged to see that this happens.

Did you get any push-back? Was there enough help to put on the series on Monday?

We never had to run on Monday .

And lastly, why after 4 different series, was there not enough evidence to provide you with a clear cut winner. I have not been in this dog thing for very long, but I can honestly say that in the few chances I have had to watch the dogs play (be it derby / q / open), I can always say that I saw one dog that was better than another.

After watching every dog on every bird and commiting the work of the dogs to paper in both sketch and word(notes) form, then two days later mentaly reconstructing this work ftom these pages, It is entirely possible that for two of these pages, one appears to be a carbon copy of the other.

Or, above you referenced having no major faults. That means there were minor faults committed, right? Why would these minor faults not be considered when making the decision (although I think I understand your basis for saying that considering minor faults is the same as pencil whipping)?

Correct and correct

I am not a judge, and since I am only on my first dog, will most likely not be a FT judge for a long time as I do not feel I know enough, however, I am willing to take this chance to try and learn, why some things are considered, and others are not

.

Good luck and enjoy your dogs

john

 

[J. Walker]

Chad,
This pertains quite a bit to the original post but it seems to be an issue in which judges are divided. If you're judging, do you feel higher credit is due to the dog who took the straighter line to the area of the fall but hunted or the one that didn't take a straight line but seemed to more clearly remember the location of the bird, provided the latter dog didn't seem to intentionally avoid a factor like a ditch, point or land, etc.?

For instance, dog A sort of banana lines it into the area and hooks the gun but immediately turns the correct direction and puts on a quick, purposeful hunt (nose down, tail wagging, in the "I know it's here" mode.) Dog B makes a beeline for the fall, overruns it, gets deep of it and has to put on a longer hunt that "disturbs more cover," as far as you're concerned which one gets scored higher on that mark and that mark alone?

 

[Chad Baker]

John I am going to look at 7 or 8 marks and hopefully I will see a pattern. Most importantly to me is did I as a judge put up 7-8 marks that were hard to get too and if so the cream will rise I promise you that. I can't judge dog a and dog b over one single I'm sorry.
Chad

 

[Rick_C]

Chad,
This pertains quite a bit to the original post but it seems to be an issue in which judges are divided. If you're judging, do you feel higher credit is due to the dog who took the straighter line to the area of the fall but hunted or the one that didn't take a straight line but seemed to more clearly remember the location of the bird, provided the latter dog didn't seem to intentionally avoid a factor like a ditch, point or land, etc.?

For instance, dog A sort of banana lines it into the area and hooks the gun but immediately turns the correct direction and puts on a quick, purposeful hunt (nose down, tail wagging, in the "I know it's here" mode.) Dog B makes a beeline for the fall, overruns it, gets deep of it and has to put on a longer hunt that "disturbs more cover," as far as you're concerned which one gets scored higher on that mark and that mark alone?

There's a good discussion on this in the "How was the seminar" thread.

 

[john fallon]

Chad,
This pertains quite a bit to the original post but it seems to be an issue in which judges are divided. If you're judging, do you feel higher credit is due to the dog who took the straighter line to the area of the fall but hunted or the one that didn't take a straight line but seemed to more clearly remember the location of the bird, provided the latter dog didn't seem to intentionally avoid a factor like a ditch, point or land, etc.?

For instance, dog A sort of banana lines it into the area and hooks the gun but immediately turns the correct direction and puts on a quick, purposeful hunt (nose down, tail wagging, in the "I know it's here" mode.) Dog B makes a beeline for the fall, overruns it, gets deep of it and has to put on a longer hunt that "disturbs more cover," as far as you're concerned which one gets scored higher on that mark and that mark alone?

Your hypothetical is easy to answer. Hypothetically Dog A's work indicated to me that it had the best "mark".

Lets make it a little less cut and dried ...Dog B does not over run the AOF but has a similar hunt to Dog A in the AOF.
OH, one more thing the gun is retired

john

 

[J. Walker]

Your hypothetical is easy to answer. Hypothetically Dog A's work indicated to me that it had the best "mark".

Lets make it a little less cut and dried ...Dog B does not over run the AOF but has a similar hunt to Dog A in the AOF.
OH, one more thing the gun is retired

john

Unlike some, I don't think "going as sent" and marking/memory are the same thing. Isn't good marking more about recognizing the depth and area of the fall, not just a line with no regard for depth? Going as sent but then disturbing more cover with a longer, less precise hunt indicates to me that the dog that hooked the gun and immediately started a tight hunt was more sure of the actual location of the bird. A dog that takes straight lines could only be 10 feet off-line but blow right through the area of the fall for 50 yards and then have to work his way back, always more or less on-line. The dog that hooked the gun (or gun station) may have never gotten farther away than 20 yards from the bird and therefore found the bird more quickly after first entering the area of the fall. I'm not a judge but I'd have a hard time scoring a dog higher when, ultimately, he took longer and had to cover more ground to find the same mark.

 

[john fallon]

Unlike some, I don't think "going as sent" and marking/memory are the same thing. Isn't good marking more about recognizing the depth and area of the fall, not just a line with no regard for depth? Going as sent but then disturbing more cover with a longer, less precise hunt indicates to me that the dog that hooked the gun and immediately started a tight hunt was more sure of the actual location of the bird. A dog that takes straight lines could only be 10 feet off-line but blow right through the area of the fall for 50 yards and then have to work his way back, always more or less on-line. The dog that hooked the gun (or gun station) may have never gotten farther away than 20 yards from the bird and therefore found the bird more quickly after first entering the area of the fall. I'm not a judge but I'd have a hard time scoring a dog higher when, ultimately, he took longer and had to cover more ground to find the same mark.

Sounds like we are in agreement, at least to the point of which dog indicated that it had the better mark for your one bird hypothetical .However, the dog that gets to the bird on a straight line on its first cast hence "more accuratly" than a dog missing the bird or one taking a more roundabout route--- that has done so for the entire trial, hence ''consistently" may eventually get the nod from me................... Now what about mine ?

john

 

[scott spalding]

You have to consider the affect of the water/cover/terrain.

 

[J. Walker]

Sounds like we are in agreement, at least to the point of which dog indicated that it had the better mark for your one bird hypothetical .However, the dog that gets to the bird on a straight line on its first cast hence "more accuratly" than a dog missing the bird or one taking a more roundabout route--- that has done so for the entire trial, hence ''consistently" may eventually get the nod from me................... Now what about mine ?

john

In your hypothetical, if the only difference is a dog hooked a gun, as per the rule book, the dog that hooked the gun "should not be appreciably out-scored by a dog that pinpoints the fall." In other words, even the rule book says it would basically be splitting hairs.

 

[john fallon]

In your hypothetical, if the only difference is a dog hooked a gun, as per the rule book, the dog that hooked the gun "should not be appreciably out-scored by a dog that pinpoints the fall." In other words, even the rule book says it would basically be splitting hairs.

We are again in agreement for one bird in the abstract... but in the rule book, you will find, the dog that over the course of the trial gets to the birds on a straight line on its first cast hence "more accuratly" than a dog missing the birds or one taking a more roundabout route should more often than not prevail.This secton of the RB seems to support that.

"Ability to “mark’’ does not necessarily imply “pinpointing
the fall.’’ A dog that misses the “fall’’ on the
first cast, but recognizes the depth of the “area of the
fall,’’ stays in it, then quickly and systematically “hunts-
it-out,’’ has done both a creditable and an intelligent job
of marking. Such work should not be appreciably outscored
by the dog that “finds’’ or “pinpoints’’ on his first
cast. However, a dog which consistently, i.e., during an
entire stake, marks his birds in a closer area, hence,
more accurately than another dog, should be judged
accordingly"
john

 

[Happy Gilmore]

John,

Can you enlighten the crowd on how many extra series were run last year due to the hypothetical situation you have described?

Or how many times it has ever occured. I'm honestly curious? I didn't see that you ever acknowledged my prior question regarding not making placements. Rick made the comment that first must now be awarded but, in the past, to your knowledge, how many occurances of no first or seconds have been made?

I don't know the answer but, I seem to recollect some stories of it happening. It would be a judges decision to only award first as Rick mentioned and the potential for it happening seems to be relevant to this discussion... Doesn't it?

 

[john fallon]

John,

Can you enlighten the crowd on how many extra series were run last year due to the hypothetical situation you have described?

Or how many times it has ever occured. I'm honestly curious? I didn't see that you ever acknowledged my prior question regarding not making placements. Rick made the comment that first must now be awarded but, in the past, to your knowledge, how many occurances of no first or seconds have been made?

I don't know the answer but, I seem to recollect some stories of it happening. It would be a judges decision to only award first as Rick mentioned and the potential for it happening seems to be relevant to this discussion... Doesn't it?

I, like you, have never seen it happen . Again, Like you, I have heard that it has at a few isolated trials......... Perhaps that is a function of the uniqueness of a situation where more testing after ten birds is necessary , Perhaps not

I dont think that you have to award any placements but if you do,and only one, it must be a First place.

If you award more than one placement you cannot skip over any.That is to say you cannot award a First a Third and a few JAMs. It must be First Second Third and so on..............

john

 

[Happy Gilmore]

Seems as if there is some possible confusion upon what awards must be made then?

If you can't decide between first and second then, just go for the blue...right?

 

[john fallon]

Seems as if there is some possible confusion upon what awards must be made then?

If you can't decide between first and second then, just go for the blue...right?

If you can decide between them who gets the blue, just give the red to the other one

john

 

[Chris Atkinson]

I've never been a fan of partial quotes. This thread was originated by a partial quote.

I think that the posting of a partial quote frequently tees up an angle or position that the original author did not intend. When the syntax of the quoted line or lines is removed, the "re-seller" of this text, can spin it.

I'm even more not a fan of partial quotes when the partial quote is from a formerly active user of the resource, who currently is not involved.

KG may or may not be in agreement with the things that are written in this thread. I don't feel that the use of a partial quote by KG in a thread as long as that one, is setting the appropriate stage to frame up Keith's words.

I've found the thread, though, a poll from 2004.

Here's a post from KG in that thread, in its entirety, not partially quoted. Check this one out:

K G quote 1

It seems that this thread had died in December of 2004, back when it had originated. It had 115 posts at that point, and as near as I can tell, nobody was suggesting a 2nd series.

Keith made the above post 6 months later after someone bumped the thread back up. (I wonder who bumped it)

It looks like the thread went to sleep again after less than a dozen posts.

Then the thread got bumped back up, 2 years after it was originated. Here is yet another full post by Keith Griffith....no partial quoting.

K G quote 2

Let's look at yet another full post by K G. This one, made shortly after the one above, was made.

KG quote 3

K G post 4 has some other commentary.

Guys and gals. If you enjoy feeding into this stuff, have at it. I just wanted to point out that this is a beehive that someone's been poking at for nearly 8 years.

It was propped up by a partial quote that I am confident the person partially quoted would likely not support in this thread.

It's your forum to use as you like.

I'd just as soon use it for productive stuff. I don't see this thread as productive.

This will be my only comment in this thread. If you guys see it as productive, have at it.

Chris

The original "Dog A versus B" poll: http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9700&highlight=dog+a&page=7

 

[Ted Shih]

Guys and gals. If you enjoy feeding into this stuff, have at it. I just wanted to point out that this is a beehive that someone's been poking at for nearly 8 years.

It was propped up by a partial quote that I am confident the person partially quoted would likely not support in this thread.

It's your forum to use as you like.

I'd just as soon use it for productive stuff. I don't see this thread as productive.

This will be my only comment in this thread. If you guys see it as productive, have at it.

Chris

My New Year's Resolution: Don't feed the trolls.

 

[john fallon]

Ted

In my estimation you never seem to fail to take the opportunity to duck the tough questions, this "don't feed....." thing is just one such example......

If I take a position which is contrary to yours and you can prove me wrong, do so. So to prove me wrong in the position that I have taken on this thread just post up and do so.

john

 

[john fallon]

Here, take a stab at this one.

In the reincarnated Dog A v Dog B poll now running concurrently with this thread 205 people(enough for102 judging panels), are ostensaibly"Knotted Up" as to which dog is the winner after four series.......

Dog A (nailed the hard mark, hunted the easy mark) 104 50.73%
Dog B (hunted the hard mark, nailed the easy mark) 101 49.27%

john

 

[ErinsEdge]

Oh nuts, not again from the Peanut Gallery. Make it Stop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQEqLUtp9Bg