[Steve Bean]

From another post it has been discussed whether or not Master titled dogs should be required to achieve at minimum a 50% success rate before being awarded the title MH. In other words, should a dog be allowed unlimited entries to acheive 5 (or 6) passes for the title?

 

[john fallon]

Steve, or anyone in favor of this.
Conceptually. How would it work?
I mean after the dog has been mathematically eliminated ie. less than 5 out of 10 or 6 out of 12, then what?
john

 

[Julie R.]

I thought some very good points, were brought up in favor of the 50 percent pass rate, on another thread.

And obviously, esp. if you were breeding, the dog that goes 5/5, than the one that goes 5/11, is a better candidate.

But, in the end, who does the pass percentage rate really matter to? The dog's owner and whoever is interested in breeding to the dog. The former knows and the latter should do his homework. I don't think the title for a dog that goes 5/20 cheapens the title for the dog with the 100 percent pass rate. HT aren't supposed to be competitive. There is another sport for that.

 

[larrynogaj]

50% pass

The dog is never out until it dies or his owner's common sense takes over. You could start with 10 failures. Then pass on the next 10 for a total of 20 attemps and 10 passes = 50%

 

[achiro]

And obviously, esp. if you were breeding, the dog that goes 5/5, than the one that goes 5/11, is a better candidate.

Not always.
What about the dg that is going through an issue and fails 2,3,4 but works through it then passes the next 5? It could be trainer error, etc, etc.

 

[kjrice]

I thought some very good points, were brought up in favor of the 50 percent pass rate, on another thread.

And obviously, esp. if you were breeding, the dog that goes 5/5, than the one that goes 5/11, is a better candidate.

But, in the end, who does the pass percentage rate really matter to? The dog's owner and whoever is interested in breeding to the dog. The former knows and the latter should do his homework. I don't think the title for a dog that goes 5/20 cheapens the title for the dog with the 100 percent pass rate. HT aren't supposed to be competitive. There is another sport for that.

Is the dog that goes 5/5 really a better candidate? A newby with a kick butt dog can easily mess up on tests, training, etc... If I were serious about breeding to a dog, I would look at the bigger picture: can he/she mark, tractable, style, intelligence, pedigree, accomplishments of others from the same litter relative to the owner/trainer...

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

Geeze, let's not even go down that road!

5/5 under "pass 'em all" judges vs 3/8 under "let's see how we can blow the dogs' minds this week!" judges. Which dog is better for the gene pool?

Too many vairables to make it truly meaningful. Read my sig line.

Lisa

 

[Bob Gutermuth]

My first master candidate, Gunny took 15 tests to get the 5 legs. She fubared a couple, I really fubared a bunch and she got shafted by bad tests the rest of the time. This dog also completed 50% of the Qualifyings she entered with ribbons, including a second, 2 thirds and2 fourths.(and an Open Jam). By the 50% standard she would never have gotten her MH.

Like I was at the time, there are beau coups newbies in the master at any one time and a fair number of them have good dogs. ANY change in the 5/6 pass to a title rule that makes things tougher would eliminate more than a few of these folks from finishing a dog. What it would do is make the master a totally pro dominated game as these newbies would either give up or send their dog out to be trained and run. I have no problem with pros running hunt tests, BUT the game was invented for Joe Sixpack to run his dog.

 

[Julie R.]

What I should have said instead of the 5/5 dog being obviously a better bet is that on paper it looks like the better dog. A 50 percent rule might exclude some dogs from titling that were better dogs but victims of bad luck, newbie owners, etc. Which is why I voted no.

 

[john fallon]

Why stop :?: Once you get your Title .
Just to be sure that it wasn't a fluke.
Make it so you must maintain that 50% pass rate or lose your Title :wink:
john

 

[ErinsEdge]

All you'll have is shopping for easy judges. Work on the inconsistent judging. Wait for the results from raising the bar on blinds. You'll have a difference in pass rates.

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

I'm not sure any pass percentage rate is necessary. I don't believe HT should be used as a means of "improving" any of the retriever breeds. No game that is based on simply meeting a minimum standard should be. Here's why.

To "improve" a breed, you need to constantly push the upper limits of that breed's gene pool, and to select at that top level, to cement those genes into the gene pool. Then, as generatuions come down from this "cream" those genes become more widely distributed among the breed. This will create a pull in the opposite direction of the "drag of the race" which always trends toward the middle (mediocre, if you must). A "minimum standard" game does NOT select at the top of the gene pool. HT will improve the bottom of a breed, but will not create a better gene pool overall. The bottom will drop out, but that's about it.

HT have improved training, and handling to a certain extent. Are the dogs better? Indubitably, but they are overall better trained animals than days of yore. Lots more resources for everyone to learn to improve their game. But neither training nor handling improvement will make their way into the whelping box. As others have mentioned in this and the other thread, if you are looking for breeding stock, don't rely on the title(s). Ask the nitty-gritty questions.

Lisa

 

[Uncle Bill]

Great post Lisa. As always, just what we can expect from you. Your comments are always appreciated, especially by me.

What is so frequently overlooked by many IN the HT programs is the main purpose of what they were founded for. And just because fewer and fewer of the participants are actual hunters, it hasn't changed the founders view of the reason for the program.

While I'm never adverse to minor corrections to the games, I am at odds with those that see it as their own little mini trial. And when they are blessed with an above average participant, seek to raise the bar for all.

Hopefully, for the benefit of those the game was intended, the never ceasing bombardment to require change will be beaten back, and the standard for each organization will remain staunch.

UB

 

[kjrice]

Great post Lisa. As always, just what we can expect from you. Your comments are always appreciated, especially by me.

What is so frequently overlooked by many IN the HT programs is the main purpose of what they were founded for. And just because fewer and fewer of the participants are actual hunters, it hasn't changed the founders view of the reason for the program.

While I'm never adverse to minor corrections to the games, I am at odds with those that see it as their own little mini trial. And when they are blessed with an above average participant, seek to raise the bar for all.

Hopefully, for the benefit of those the game was intended, the never ceasing bombardment to require change will be beaten back, and the standard for each organization will remain staunch.

UB

:wink:

 

[john fallon]

Great post Lisa. As always, just what we can expect from you. Your comments are always appreciated, especially by me.

What is so frequently overlooked by many IN the HT programs is the main purpose of what they were founded for. And just because fewer and fewer of the participants are actual hunters, it hasn't changed the founders view of the reason for the program.

While I'm never adverse to minor corrections to the games, I am at odds with those that see it as their own little mini trial. And when they are blessed with an above average participant, seek to raise the bar for all.

Hopefully, for the benefit of those the game was intended, the never ceasing bombardment to require change will be beaten back, and the standard for each organization will remain staunch.

UB

UB
While we seldom walk in lockstep, here is one thing on which we agree.
john

 

[Gun_Dog2002]

I don't for a minute believe that any 50% pass rate would ever be adopted. Frankly, as a society we do celebrate mediocrity. I belong to three retriever clubs locally and every single one of them gives out ribbons at picnic trials to every dog, man, women, child that showed up. Lisa?s comments are valid about using HT titles as a yardstick for breeding decisions, because under the current system, dogs that attain HT titles may or may not really have the attributes that we want to develop in a truly great retriever. But they should be a factor when examining the qualities we are looking for. The same really could be said of FT dogs. Not every FC has the qualities we may want to promote in the breed. I find it interesting that what we?re really discussing here is the minimum it takes to get the title. What is the least amount of work to reach what Lisa describes as the bottom of the standard? That?s what people work for. They let the HT standard be the absolute top of their standard, and in the end when they only reach it 20-30% of the time they are satisfied. But let me tell you, when you?re the judge the other 70-80% of the time, what you hear is the test was too hard, above the standard, (translate, above the handlers standard), unreasonable and excessive. Then you get the complaints about the judging being inconsistent, unfair. You get the comments about people finding the ?easy? judges to get their titles. Frankly I?ve heard to many times these comments tied directly on whether or not the person passed. Nobody?s proposing any changes to the standard, no raising of the bar, just mentioning that perhaps we should require that people meet it consistently.

/Paul

 

[john fallon]

I don't for a minute believe that any 50% pass rate would ever be adopted

.

Yes but...........
I haven't seen a proposal so soundly beaten on this Forum since I proposed the Four Day Open :wink:
john

 

[Stylesl]

Just curious...

Does anyone know what is the average number of attempts in regards to getting a master title? or Senior? or Junior? Someone must keep up with that somewhere. When I was training competitive obedience I would hear something like, "the average number of attempts to get a UD title was 25."

BTW am not for limiting attempts on any title.

Lisa

 

[Misty Marsh]

I feel that it would'nt really do any real good for the sport or the gene pool for that matter. The litters that are out there now are for the most part outstanding and to sell puppies these days to anyone thinking of competing you need to have done your homework and brought together two outstanding dogs that gaurentee to better the breed as a whole. The 50% rule would definitely hurt smaller clubs that have troubble getting the entries as people would'nt want to enter just in case "fido" lost his/her head and blew a shot! I believe that the hunt test world should be kept as a place for people to wet thier appetite for the dog competition without putting more pressure on them. If a guy wants to put a half asses effort into his/her dog then thats what he will get out of it and vise a versa. At least the semi serious will get out and meet people and make a monetary contribution to the club.

 

[badbullgator]

What a topic. IS the dog that passed 5/5 better for breeding than a dog that passed 5/15? How many times have you seen a dog fail a HT due to handler error? How many male dogs have lost their mind at HT's because of a bitch in season?
This idea is just bad!