G
Guest
·Is the term "best" appropriate for non-competitive events like the MN? I don't think it is. No matter how high the MNRC raises the standards there could always be dogs that meet that standard and dogs that exceed that standard. It is not possible to determine the best dogs in the field without head to head competition, winners and loosers. If the MNRC is looking for a certain # of qualifiers to prove the worth of their program, then why not just place 1st,2nd, 3rd, 4th, hand out another 5 or 6 jams and call it a Q?
If you want to run something more challenging than a propperly setup and judged master test then why not suck it up and enter a Q? Then if you succeed you will actually have something to pound your chest about.
I don't like the way that the MN tends to steer how some weekend master tests are run. You see the same goofy MN judges trying out some goofy ideas week in and week out. There is nothing wrong with the master standard aside from some inconsistancy in a few regions.
A noncompetitive national title to declare the best of whatever makes about as much sense as a soup samich.
If you want to run something more challenging than a propperly setup and judged master test then why not suck it up and enter a Q? Then if you succeed you will actually have something to pound your chest about.
I don't like the way that the MN tends to steer how some weekend master tests are run. You see the same goofy MN judges trying out some goofy ideas week in and week out. There is nothing wrong with the master standard aside from some inconsistancy in a few regions.
A noncompetitive national title to declare the best of whatever makes about as much sense as a soup samich.