[Lil Dikens Kennels]

Since the cone thread was hi-jacked to a different plateau ,i would like to hear opinions on the following,

What makes a Trainer succesful ? Are the soley responsible for taking a dog and making that dog look good by virtue of their own personal training program or Is it really the Dogs that make the trainer look good ?

If all these pro trainers who at times are legends in their own minds are so great,why then are there washouts from their training program ?
Is any one trainers methods so great that all others pale in comparison?

I feel it is a combination of the two leaning more in the Dogs direction.
I think some trainers search for dogs that will make them look great then take all the credit.

My vote goes to the Dogs :wink:

 

[txrancher]

It appears you already have it figured out.

 

[BamaK9]

A wise man said "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken chit", and I'm fairly positive the same principle holds true with dogs. :wink:

 

[Franco]

What makes a Trainer succesful ?

If all these pro trainers who at times are legends in their own minds are so great,why then are there washouts from their training program ?

Is any one trainers methods so great that all others pale in comparison?

I feel it is a combination of the two leaning more in the Dogs direction.
I think some trainers search for dogs that will make them look great then take all the credit.

Successful trainers not only understand how a dog thinks, they are also good at reading the individual dog. Also, successful trainers have a well-thoughout training program and have learned their program through years of trial and error. They take the Force program and modify it to their skills and their dogs.

Yes, the A-List Field Trial Pros knowledge of retriever training is heads and shoulders above others. They train dogs to a level others can not reach. The FC AFC animal is the most highly-trained, naturally-talented retriever there is. There are some very naturally talented retrievers in the HT game but the level of work is not nearly as difficult. The A-list FT Pros have a natural talent for what they do. They are born with it!

Because it takes naturally talented dogs combined with great training to WIN, not all dogs are born with the talent it takes to be successful in FT's. Therefore, there will be washouts, no different than NFL coaches cutting players they feel they can't WIN with.

Yes, the very special ones can make their trainer look better than they are but, it is the trainer that got them into that position to demonstrate their very special talent.

 

[rbr]

2 truths come to mind.

1, You can't polish a turd
2, A diamond in the rough doesn't shine until a craftsman makes the right cut.

Bert

 

[john fallon]

A third would be "Are they(the dogs) where they are because of you(the trainer) or in spite of you"

All great dogs would/do not acheive the same level greatness with each and every "A' list Pro.

I know of a case of a "washout" with one "A"lister going on to get over 150 AA points with another pro who was yet to be considered an "A" lister at the time.

 

[GG]

A well trained dog with a bundle of talent will not be successful if the trainer/handler cannot get it out of the dog. However, if a dog that has an average amount of talent is coupled with a talented, welll schooled handler the team can be successful. It's best to have both!!!!!!!!!!
GG

 

[Granddaddy]

The old time A-list trainers from the 50s-60s seemed to think a good dog trainer is one that gets the most out of the dog rather than whether titles were achieved. It was implied that the good trainer would always adapt/modify as necessary his approach with a particular dog to achieve the dog's potential. Reading what several of these old timers had to say gave me the impression they got just as much satisfaction out of training Joe Nobody's hunting dog out of modest breeding to sit still & retrieve a duck on command as they did in titling a well-bred retriever.

Also, Charlie Morgan (one of those yesteryear A-list pros) has written (or D.L Walters wrote what Morgan said) that the "then" beginning trend of some trainers to take only AA/near-AA dogs into training would result in the jobs of trainer and handler becoming separate vocations in the years to come. He predicted that the AA pro in years to come (like now) would become very accomplished handlers yet not really know much about training a dog from basics to advanced work - and that that trend would result in a lot of talented dogs being washed out because the pro would have his system and not be inclined to adapt his approach to the dog. Ever wonder if Morgan was right?

Of course, Morgan probably didn't think we'd be asking our AA dogs to do some of the things we are demanding today either.....

 

[Bob Gutermuth]

What amazes me is how one pro can take another pro's reject and turn it into a top notch dog. Dog and trainer have to click and become a team, no matter how talented the dog is, no matter how good the trainer is, if they don't work together.

The other part of the equation is that the top trainers don't take on palookas, they don't have to. Whether we are talking Mike, Danny, Dave or any other A list pro, its a given that they only take their pick of the cream of the crop. They can pay the bills without the goats.

 

[Waterdogs]

I agree with Bob. But as a trainer you sometimes get more credit for the dogs that are great than for the dogs that you work your but off trying to figure out what is going to make them better. After working for some different levels of Pros working different type of games Ive given most of my skills to the learnings of being able to polish that turd. Sometimes those are the most gratifying and most appreciated. I think a good trainers job is to make the dog better. Ive seen to many nice dogs washed and later turn up at the helm of someone else and do great. Life of a football coach and a dog trainer.

 

[Ted Shih]

I believe that competitive FT dogs are the result:

- Good genetic material;
- Good training; and
- Good handling

All three are required to win.

As for why some dogs do well with other trainers, I think it is good to remember that trainers have their choice of what dogs they want to train. Dogs leave trainers for a variety of reasons:

- Trainer fires client
- Client fires trainer
- Trainer does not want to put up with the issues a particular dog brings to the table

In each of those scenarios above, the dog might well be very talented, but nevertheless transferred from one trainer to another.

As for the "common" dog, I believe that the truly great dog trainers can make any dog better. It's just that some dogs are more limited by their genes - and their owners - than others.

 

[Gun_Dog2002]

I believe that competitive FT dogs are the result:

- Good genetic material;
- Good training; and
- Good handling

All three are required to win.

As for why some dogs do well with other trainers, I think it is good to remember that trainers have their choice of what dogs they want to train. Dogs leave trainers for a variety of reasons:

- Trainer fires client
- Client fires trainer
- Trainer does not want to put up with the issues a particular dog brings to the table

In each of those scenarios above, the dog might well be very talented, but nevertheless transferred from one trainer to another.

As for the "common" dog, I believe that the truly great dog trainers can make any dog better. It's just that some dogs are more limited by their genes - and their owners - than others.

I think point three is very valid. Few year ago, Lardy explained while working with a very vocal dog, that he at one point decided he wouldn't deal with this particular problem at this level again. He had a dog that he sent home, that went on to become a FC with another trainer. Dog was talented, he just got tired of dealing with it every day. Nice to have that choice...

/Paul

 

[Marvin S]

All points discussed are valid, I think it depends more on timing than anything. You see pro's cleanup for 5-6 years & when that string is gone-nothing. I have noticed that it depends a lot on who their young dog trainer is at the time. Ask this question-if that dog were with a knowledgeable amateur would it do as well or better. The really good amateur trainer-competitors have been left out of this discussion & there are a lot of good amateur trainers who get no professional assistance.

Also the really bad amateurs have been left out. Mr Pro makes a dog's FC at the 4 1/2 to 6 year age. The dog ends up being retired at 9 without an AFC. That credit has to go to Mr Pro for making a marginal dog better. A good dog is one that the owner pays their bill on time.

 

[Ted Shih]

Also the really bad amateurs have been left out. Mr Pro makes a dog's FC at the 4 1/2 to 6 year age. The dog ends up being retired at 9 without an AFC. That credit has to go to Mr Pro for making a marginal dog better.

I would draw a different conclusion.

Rather than marginal dog - good dog, poor Amateur handler.

 

[Miriam Wade]

Since the cone thread was hi-jacked to a different plateau ,i would like to hear opinions on the following,

What makes a Trainer succesful ? Are the soley responsible for taking a dog and making that dog look good by virtue of their own personal training program or Is it really the Dogs that make the trainer look good ?
If all these pro trainers who at times are legends in their own minds are so great,why then are there washouts from their training program ?
Is any one trainers methods so great that all others pale in comparison?

I feel it is a combination of the two leaning more in the Dogs direction.
I think some trainers search for dogs that will make them look great then take all the credit.
My vote goes to the Dogs :wink:

You're leaving out the trainer who takes on the "project" dog who has been washed out & even been driven to the point of not wanting to play the game at all; giving that dog every bit as much effort (& then some) to give the dog a fair shot at what it could have been. No ego on the line-just a lot of personal satisfaction in communicating with the dog & giving him every chance to succeed. A trainer like that brings that same ability to get inside a dogs head, a dog that he's had since day one- & can bring the best out of him because he trains each dog as an individual.

Of course they want the best dogs, but a trainer like the one above likely only washes out a dog because the dog is either a) not bringing enough natural talent to the table to succeed or b) despite every effort to tailor training of the individual dog, just not enough of a team player to adapt to training at the level the owner was hoping for.

There are trainers that (this has been mentioned in this thread) that have a passion for training that has them enjoying training the dog as an individual-whether the dog is going on to be an All Age player or is a dog being given a 2nd chance & who is a success story at whatever level he ends up. Those trainers are a joy to watch.

M

 

[Sue Kiefer]

I agree with Ted.
One more small but I think an important one:
If "A" list Pro. is training 18-22+ dogs does he/she has time/or the amount of type of training required to spend with your dogs issue/issues??????(Example: too noisy)
Or maybe "your" dog just doesn't "click" with this "A" list Pro. Or this "A" list Pro. is a little too this or that with your dog and thus can't bring out the "best" in him/her.
Hurrah for the importunity to go somewhere else to make him/her a FC/AFC.
Food for thought on another snowy morning!!!! :evil:
Sue

 

[Evan]

Then there is the 'program' consideration. A large successful operation must consider the practicality of keeping dogs on the truck with the specific problems mentioned, or any of the many that an otherwise talented dog may have.

But dog personalities are widely varied, and not all will fit the particular program of even a very good pro. When an operation reaches the point at which the sheer number of dogs in it must dictate a fairly set pattern or regimen of training be followed, some dogs don't fit in.

However, in another pro's program one of those dogs may come to camp and work very well. As has been pointed out earlier, they don't necessarily leave one A-lister pro because they aren't good dogs. Sometimes they just didn't fit the program they were in. Making such a change is reasonable and prudent in many cases.

Evan

 

[john fallon]

Also, Charlie Morgan (one of those yesteryear A-list pros) has written (or D.L Walters wrote what Morgan said) that the "then" beginning trend of some trainers to take only AA/near-AA dogs into training would result in the jobs of trainer and handler becoming separate vocations in the years to come. He predicted that the AA pro in years to come (like now) would become very accomplished handlers yet not really know much about training a dog from basics to advanced work - and that that trend would result in a lot of talented dogs being washed out because the pro would have his system and not be inclined to adapt his approach to the dog. Ever wonder if Morgan was right?

I am inclined to think that he was. . ., IMHO to the detriment of the Breed, I might add.

john

 

[Marvin S]

Pro definition of Good Dog = Dog who's owner pays the bill promptly & without questions

IMHO is used. what does it stand for?

 

[Gun_Dog2002]

Pro definition of Good Dog = Dog who's owner pays the bill promptly & without questions

IMHO is used. what does it stand for?

In My Honest Opinion.

/Paul