RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Should previous winners of the National Retriever Championship be qualified for life?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 57.9%
  • No

    Votes: 8 42.1%
21 - 32 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,256 Posts
My point is, opposition to the rule seems to be quite strong. Then how did it pass unanimously?

Edit - Reasons I have heard for opposition to the rule.

As Mike mentioned, It detracts from the accomplishment of past dogs having qualified multiple times. Valid point

The way the rule was passed. Some feel it was slipped in under the cloak of COVID. Seriously? Again, how did it pass unanimously?

A dog that wins the NRC is not magically set to that level for life, wins and points should be earned yearly by all dogs. Why aren't you offended that winners are automatically qualified for multiple nationals in the following year; without the need to accumulate the 7 points and a win that other dogs must accumulate in that venue for that qualifying year?

And my favorite; Why? We have enough rules and don't need silly new ones. Any other "silly rules" you favor eliminating?

I am opposed to the rule myself but I am surprised by how adamantly opposed many people are. If the opposition is so adamant and widespread, how did the rule pass unanimously?
I can see both sides of the argument, and in reality don't believe it would have much effect in practice; as most owners would realize and respect their limitations of their dogs current abilities.
I would hate to see an old dog try and struggle to do more than currently capable.
I would wholeheartedly support allowing an old past Champion { if capable} take a bow and victory lap and pick up a flyer prior to the first series.
It is a nice tribute and wouldn't take up much if any time, as the flyers for the 1,or 2 or 3 old dogs could be substituted for flyers typically used to scent the area prior to the start of the actual competition
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,220 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
I can see both sides of the argument, and in reality don't believe it would have much effect in practice; as most owners would realize and respect their limitations of their dogs current abilities.
I would hate to see an old dog try and struggle to do more than currently capable.
I would wholeheartedly support allowing an old past Champion { if capable} take a bow and victory lap and pick up a flyer prior to the first series.
It is a nice tribute and wouldn't take up much if any time, as the flyers for the 1,or 2 or 3 old dogs could be substituted for flyers typically used to scent the area prior to the start of the actual competition
Hi Marc, how the hell are you?

Apparently you missed this;
Edit - Reasons I have heard for opposition to the rule.
I posted the reasons others have given for opposition to the rule. I agree with them but was surprised at how adamantly opposed they are. From talking to people I know and hearing what the people they know have said, I get the impression there are many opposed and very few in favor of the rule.

Your questions;
Then how did it pass unanimously? From what I hear it was pushed through without prior notice under the veil of COVID.

Why aren't you offended that winners are automatically qualified for multiple nationals in the following year; without the need to accumulate the 7 points and a win that other dogs must accumulate in that venue for that qualifying year?
Nothing about the subject at hand offends me. Not having researched it, I believe that a dog winning the national being qualified for the next year is a long standing rule. I'll speculate the reason being that the dog has completed 10 series against the best dogs in the country and that's every bit as good as 7 points and a win a week or two later.

Any other "silly rules" you favor eliminating? Rotation in the minor stakes is pretty silly and meaningless. No real harm in it other than potentially opening the door to complaints.

I would wholeheartedly support allowing an old past Champion { if capable} take a bow and victory lap and pick up a flyer prior to the first series.
Me too and a great one did just that at this years NARC. He also met the same qualifications for the event as the rest of the field.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,256 Posts
Hi Marc, how the hell are you? I'm doing good Stan, and hope you are too.

Apparently you missed this; I saw it, I also saw this line you wrote immediately preceding it.,,,,,

:"My point is, opposition to the rule seems to be quite strong".


I also read your post #5 where you responded to Windjammer stating that Randy Spangler opposed the rule and wrote; .......

"I and everyone I have talked to agree with Randy"



I posted the reasons others have given for opposition to the rule. I agree with them but was surprised at how adamantly opposed they are. From talking to people I know and hearing what the people they know have said, I get the impression there are many opposed and very few in favor of the rule.

Your questions;
Then how did it pass unanimously? From what I hear it was pushed through without prior notice under the veil of COVID. Again, SERIOUSLY?!!?
That is a pretty serious charge
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar


Why aren't you offended that winners are automatically qualified for multiple nationals in the following year; without the need to accumulate the 7 points and a win that other dogs must accumulate in that venue for that qualifying year?
Nothing about the subject at hand offends me. Not having researched it, I believe that a dog winning the national being qualified for the next year is a long standing rule. I'll speculate the reason being that the dog has completed 10 series against the best dogs in the country and that's every bit as good as 7 points and a win a week or two later. Pretty inconsistent arguments IMHO. Dogs who win the National {especially at an advanced age} can deteriorate rapidly both mentally and physically over a years time

Any other "silly rules" you favor eliminating? Rotation in the minor stakes is pretty silly and meaningless. No real harm in it other than potentially opening the door to complaints. I wasn't aware of such a rule. Can you tell me where in the rule book it requires a rotation in the minor stakes? If there is one it is regularly violated
Assuming there is such a rule, I actually think such a rule could be a good one for many reasons



Me too and a great one did just that at this years NARC. He also met the same qualifications for the event as the rest of the field. Your argument here seems to be inconsistent, as Mully was in fact qualified. Your argument basically bolsters my point as to how a dog can deteriorate rapidly in a years time
My thoughts in red
Your point about minor stakes is IMHO, worthy of a seperate thread.
Getting the Friday minor stake in on Friday sure can facilitate a smoother running trial.
I'm not so sure mandating a change in rules is the solution though
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,220 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
My thoughts in red
Your point about minor stakes is IMHO, worthy of a seperate thread.
Getting the Friday minor stake in on Friday sure can facilitate a smoother running trial.
I'm not so sure mandating a change in rules is the solution though
Just an example of another silly rule we don't need and has no effect other than potentially causing headaches for clubs judges.

Then how did it pass unanimously? From what I hear it was pushed through without prior notice under the veil of COVID. Again, SERIOUSLY?!!?
That is a pretty serious charge
That is how some people see it. I am making no accusations.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar Sometimes not, Monica Lewinsky :oops:

Nothing about the subject at hand offends me. Not having researched it, I believe that a dog winning the national being qualified for the next year is a long standing rule. I'll speculate the reason being that the dog has completed 10 series against the best dogs in the country and that's every bit as good as 7 points and a win a week or two later. Pretty inconsistent arguments IMHO. Dogs who win the National {especially at an advanced age} can deteriorate rapidly both mentally and physically over a years time So can a dog that qualifies with a win and points. It is a long standing rule and I have never heard a complaint about it.
A good friend lost a qualified dog to cancer before this years NARC. They gave him a numbered hat, which I thought was a very cool gesture.


Rotation in the minor stakes is pretty silly and meaningless. No real harm in it other than potentially opening the door to complaints. I wasn't aware of such a rule. Can you tell me where in the rule book it requires a rotation in the minor stakes? If there is one it is regularly violated
Assuming there is such a rule, I actually think such a rule could be a good one for many reasons

Had it saved, can't find it. Rotation probably not the correct word. Starting dog for minor stakes now selected with Dow same as AA. Minor stakes still secondary to AA so it doesn't mean much, nor was it needed IMO.

Me too and a great one did just that at this years NARC. He also met the same qualifications for the event as the rest of the field. Your argument here seems to be inconsistent, as Mully was in fact qualified. Your argument basically bolsters my point as to how a dog can deteriorate rapidly in a years time
Not arguing and I clearly stated that Mully qualified the same as every other dog entered. I also saw him run as test dog several times this year and deteriorated was not how I would describe him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
"If it's not broke, don't fix it" should definitely be the guidance here.
This is a significant change to the rules, is there some problem or unfairness that would be resolved by this change? Absolutely not.
Would it make a big improvement to National FT competition?
Can't see how it would.
Sooo...., why make this change?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,782 Posts
IMO, the devil is in the details. I voted "no" within our club, as written.
What I proposed is simply a lifetime exemption, allowing past winners to compete, but with annual qualifications for each National recorded as-is today. This honors previous champions, while maintaining the existing record-keeping for the purposes mentioned herein when comparing to other dogs, consideration for HOF, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,220 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Am I correct?
Under the current rule, a dog with lifetime qualification for the NRC might not be eligible to enter a Special All Age Stake at a weekend trial.

A Special All-Age Stake at a Retriever trial shall be for dogs that, during the period comprised of the previous calendar year and the current calendar year prior to the date of closing of entries for such trial, have been placed or awarded a Judges’ Award of Merit in an Open All-Age, Limited All-Age, Special All-Age, Restricted All-Age, Amateur All-Age, or Owner-Handler Amateur All-Age Stake carrying Championship points in each case, or have been placed first or second in a Qualifying Stake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,013 Posts
Randy Spangler gave a pretty impactful statement in the Retriever News about why he beleives "qualified for life" is a bad idea. If memory serves (might be wrong), he focussed on how it would not be fair to dogs from the past, and would devalue the hard work that previous NFCs or NAFCs had to go through to re-qualify after their National win.
The National Champion, by winning the National, has always received automatic qualification for the next year, nothing more is warranted. Giving lifetime qualification would cheapen the records of those dogs who earned their qualifications every year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,782 Posts
The National Champion, by winning the National, has always received automatic qualification for the next year, nothing more is warranted. Giving lifetime qualification would cheapen the records of those dogs who earned their qualifications every year.
Hence, my suggestion of a lifetime honorary exemption for National winners. An exempt NFC may enter, though not having qualified for subsequent Nationals. Similar to what the PGA does for winners of the Masters and other major tournaments. This way, records pertaining to number of National qualifications is maintained.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
In my opinion there is many reasons to oppose this rule change, and I have yet to have anybody give me one good reason other than its a feel good thing.
Here's a couple fo examples of what I mean. The previous rule has been in place for almost 80 years with only the previous years winner being invited back for the the following year to defend his or her title. All the dogs in the past previous to this rule change had to earn there way back to the dance with a Blue plus 2. To work for and earn that privilege to be qualified required an extreme amount of training, talent and luck.
When you look at those historical records and see those great dogs that qualified for 8 or 9 or 10 nationals in their lifetime, that was a huge accomplishment.
Now after winning this thing, ( and that is a huge accomplishment) all you need to do is keep that dog alive and those years start to accrue. Now the amount of Nationals the dog qualified for is a skewed number in comparison to everyone else that has not won a National. Or is someone going to go back and do the historical due diligence on when all those previous winners passed away and adjust their records?
And how about this: A nice young dogs wins this National Open event. Now that in and of its self is a once in a lifetime experience. Now that same National winner for whatever reason struggles at weekend trials and can never get qualified with the Blue and 2. ( and this has happened several times in the history of this game) But they continue to come back to this event because of the Lifetime qualification rule. Now 2 or 3 years later this same dog gets lucky and has a good week at the national event. And He or She wins this thing again. Now what do you call that? The dog never qualified for the event like all the other dogs were forced to do.
Add to this the possibility that this National Champion now only has to train to run the National events and never has to go thru the grind or the rigors of the weekend events. You would never ever have to train on a poison bird blind because there will not be one of those at a National. You never have to train on huge water blinds because they cannot afford the time it takes to run those in a National. All you have to train on is big marking setups. Nobody else has that privilege or luxury.
Someone give me one good reason...........
Thanks for letting me vent
Randy
 
  • Like
Reactions: drunkenpoacher
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top