# Training Progression



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

What would you train and in what order if you wanted a non-competition, obedient dog with excellent off-leash reliability? I'm not worried about perfect positioning etc. I just want her to listen.

I started with sit and recall, then down, then stand. I did it with hand signals, then once those were at 90%, I added the voice commands. 

I was thinking about teaching these items next, more or less in this order:

Focus
Stay
Formal Recall (she can already recall from 25+ meters @ 4 months old with ~95% reliability - we'll see if that sticks when she's a bit older lol)
Heel

The reason I ask is I have had great success teaching dogs with marker words, luring, hand signals etc. I was looking for a trainer in my area to "take my dog and me to the next level", so to speak, but quite frankly I found almost all of the trainers I have talked to to be rather arrogant and ego centric. If they weren't those two things, then I found that their training was lacking in discipline and their dogs were all over the place (with a couple of exceptions of course). Many seemed to have a very strong "you NEED me, I don't care about you" attitude and I will not give my money and time to someone who needs to learn humility. Since I have had good results doing it myself, I have decided to train my dog in more advanced commands on my own. Besides, it is useful to be able to do this oneself and since I'm not looking to compete I am not worried about "perfection". If my pup downs when I say, I don't really care if her legs are off to the side a bit or not.

Any advice about what to train and when is most welcome! Also, any literature recommendations would also be appreciated.


----------



## sagelfn (Aug 13, 2009)

I would train with the goal of at least getting a CGC title.

leave it and wait are also great commands. Teach some tricks too


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

Brandi, would you define Wait, please?


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

CGC is definitely a goal, but frankly except for the stay command she can just about get it already.  I figure she'll be able to get that as we progress through her training because everything in the CGC test is very basic. She's calm around other dogs, distractions such as loud noises etc. don't bother her, she accepts other people easily and happily... about the only things she can't do from the CGC test are stay and accept being brushed, and that's only because neither has been taught to her. 

I haven't had to attach a word to "leave it", but she knows that in the form of "ah-ah". If I say "ah-ah" she stops whatever she's doing.

Hmm, I haven't thought of doing any tricks yet. Any suggestions?

I need to add retrieval to the list. She sucks at it. That'll be a pretty high priority I think...






sagelfn said:


> I would train with the goal of at least getting a CGC title.
> 
> leave it and wait are also great commands. Teach some tricks too


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

the first things I work on with a puppy, is ALWAYS 'come' and "watch me"..I do alot of free shaping, when they do ANYTHING I want, without asking, it's a chance to reward good behaviors

Sit is usually easy to teach puppies, down may be a little harder for them to comprehend, but that's where a clicker or free shaping comes in. Stay, I work on when the other 'easier' commands are accomplished. 

I would say recall is highest on my list to start with


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

We seem to have very similar priorities. 

What do you mean by free shaping exactly? Is that sort of like conversationally training your dog? So for instance, when you're gonig inside, and you say "come on let's go in" and they listen you reward them? Or hopping into the car, you say, "hop in" and they do so you reward that behaviour?

I'm using the sticky at the top of this forum for teaching focus - I haven't done much work on it though and it is proving a bit harder than I expected, but I think it clicked with her a couple of nights ago. Tonight I'm goign to try to add more time between when she focuses on me and when I reward her.

Recall was my first priority too, and I'm actually surprised she picked it up as quickly as she did. I am not sure that I'll even need to do a "formal" recall with her. We'll have to see how she does on that when she's older, as I've noticed once dogs become adolescents they tend to not want to come when called as reliably. 



JakodaCD OA said:


> the first things I work on with a puppy, is ALWAYS 'come' and "watch me"..I do alot of free shaping, when they do ANYTHING I want, without asking, it's a chance to reward good behaviors
> 
> Sit is usually easy to teach puppies, down may be a little harder for them to comprehend, but that's where a clicker or free shaping comes in. Stay, I work on when the other 'easier' commands are accomplished.
> 
> I would say recall is highest on my list to start with


----------



## sagelfn (Aug 13, 2009)

paulag1955 said:


> Brandi, would you define Wait, please?


Wait is different from stay. 

Stay means if you are sitting you stay sitting (do not lay down or stand up) and are not released until I come back to you and touch you to release. That way when I come back to you I reward you for having stayed.

Wait means if I say wait then you may sit,stand,lay as long as you do not move forward until I call you to come or give a release word. I use wait when we get out of the car so he doesn't try to jump out, before we go in or out a door, before he gets to eat his food, etc...


----------



## sagelfn (Aug 13, 2009)

JakodaCD OA said:


> the first things I work on with a puppy, is ALWAYS 'come' and "watch me"..I do alot of free shaping, when they do ANYTHING I want, without asking, it's a chance to reward good behaviors
> 
> Sit is usually easy to teach puppies, down may be a little harder for them to comprehend, but that's where a clicker or free shaping comes in. Stay, I work on when the other 'easier' commands are accomplished.
> 
> I would say recall is highest on my list to start with


:thumbup:


Some easy to teach tricks are shake, high 5, and catch. Tricks are a great way to keep training fun!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

I think that you also ought to be ready for the usual "hard of hearing" affliction that attacks most puppies between about 6-9 months. they seem to lose all ability to hear a command when they are doing something real interesting!


----------



## Elaine (Sep 10, 2006)

People make some strange connection that competition training isn't necessary for the well behaved pet. The point of the training is to teach you how to communicate well with your dog and get reliable, consistent, off-leash control. Do you need a straight sit in real life? No. But by expecting it in training, you are raising your level of control of your dog and by expecting a straight sit in training, you might get some sort of sit when you ask when you are out and about in the real, very distracting, world. Whether you chose to compete after that is up to you, but you will end up with a well behaved, well controlled, dog.


----------



## sagelfn (Aug 13, 2009)

Good point Elaine. Also, some people (not saying the OP) think once the dog learns A,B,C,D etc that they can stop training. I see training as a constant for the life of the dog


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

I disagree. Competition training is *not* necessary for a well-behaved pet. Using that logic, competition training at a driving school should be required to get a driver's license. My dog so far will do the commands she knows as quickly and as reliably as the dogs doing advanced competition obedience that I was watching at a club not too long ago. In fact her recall was significantly better in many cases, and the trainer was impressed when she came from about 30 yards away on the first call, with no repeated commands of any kind, while she was in the middle of being loved on by some small children. I was shocked when I found out they start training recalls at 10' or so. I was teaching a sit from 10' away first day and her first recall lessons were from 25' - 30'. What's even better is that unlike the competition dogs, who acted like they had no life left in them, mine does it eagerly and happily. It isn't just because she's a puppy, this also goes for the older dogs that I have worked with. I do not often see (not that they do not exist, because they certainly do) competition dogs who also come across genuinely as excited. They're too damned serious. If that's your thing then great, but there is no need to press this upon others.

I feel that the elitism which propagates the idea that any training less than competition training is somehow of lesser value is completely ridiculous.

I require that my dog do the commands I give immediately, enthusiastically and with great gusto. Is it always straight? No, but her ass will hit the ground every time just as quickly (and often faster) as some of the competition dogs I have seen. You don't need perfect form to establish great communication and obedience with your pet. What you need is perfect consistency in how you teach and reward. It is the consistency that establishes trust with your dog, it is the consistency that creates reliability, and it is consistency that gives you obedience.

I am not sure why, but the dog training world is filled with a lot of elitist assholes and that's why I am not choosing to give my money to any of them. 

I apologize for coming across strongly here, but if I, as a non-professional, can learn (and in some cases figure out on my own) and apply effective, non-compulsory, positive training methods with great success, then I believe anyone can do it. Competition training is not *necessary*, and I would argue that for many dogs and their owners it is not desirable.[/I][/B]





Elaine said:


> People make some strange connection that competition training isn't necessary for the well behaved pet. The point of the training is to teach you how to communicate well with your dog and get reliable, consistent, off-leash control. Do you need a straight sit in real life? No. But by expecting it in training, you are raising your level of control of your dog and by expecting a straight sit in training, you might get some sort of sit when you ask when you are out and about in the real, very distracting, world. Whether you chose to compete after that is up to you, but you will end up with a well behaved, well controlled, dog.


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

I agree here. A big part of why I posted this was in order to find out more things to teach her so that I don't run out. 

Once I "finish" with her obedience I would like to start doing some tracking work. I may seek a trainer for this as from all I have seen it's not the easiest thing to teach, but we'll see how things go. Then from there I can do all sorts of other things. Just like humans, dogs should always be learning something new. It keeps the mind sharp, focused and calm.



sagelfn said:


> Good point Elaine. Also, some people (not saying the OP) think once the dog learns A,B,C,D etc that they can stop training. I see training as a constant for the life of the dog


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

I am ready. I've been through it before. Very, very frustrating.  It's all good though. I have found if you just keep on working through it and continue being consistent that they emerge from this phase more eager and more obedient than they started. My chihuahua goes through this regularly and she's 3. lol

It's really frustrating when they're 2' away and still don't seem to hear you. ARGH!




codmaster said:


> I think that you also ought to be ready for the usual "hard of hearing" affliction that attacks most puppies between about 6-9 months. they seem to lose all ability to hear a command when they are doing something real interesting!


----------



## jakeandrenee (Apr 30, 2010)

LOL..."hard of hearing" We are entering that stage as we speak!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Superhero said:


> I am ready. I've been through it before. Very, very frustrating.  It's all good though. I have found if you just keep on working through it and continue being consistent that they emerge from this phase more eager and more obedient than they started. My chihuahua goes through this regularly and she's 3. lol
> 
> It's really frustrating when they're 2' away and still don't seem to hear you. ARGH!


Sounds like you are ready for anything!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

BTW, I wonder how would the rest of you would define "competition training"?

Does that mean anyone who wants to show in the AKC obedience (or rally also) show?

OR would it mean someone who is real serious about showing and looking for 1st place or even HIT scoring?

There is a great difeerence between the two approaches usually. I have shown in the obedience ring and really enjoyed it but never had any aspirations to winning my class (unless I was the only one entered!) or anything like that. If I got a green ribbon (qualifying score), I was very happy and pleased with both me and my dog.

But some folks make obedience a very competetive sport and that is fine for them if they can enjoy it and have their dogs enjoy it also. 

But a few people take the sport much too seriously.


----------



## Elaine (Sep 10, 2006)

Superhero, your idea of competition training being less than home training because the competition dogs are too serious and those of us that do it are elitist a-holes, clearly shows your complete lack of knowledge and how insulting you really are. You may have the concept of consistency in training, but the vast majority of people that don't go to school do not. I don't know what you think goes in in dog school, but if you want to continue to live in your little bubble, go right ahead, but I will have absolutely nothing to do with you again.


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

If that's all you got out of my post then you completely missed my point. Also, as regards "idea of competition training being less than home training because the competition dogs are too serious and those of us that do it are elitist a-holes" - you're totally off-base and I have no idea how you could reach so far as to think that's what I meant. Did you actually read what I wrote? I did not say that at all, nor did I insinuate it. 

Since you failed to get the point, I'll make it very clear: competition training is not *necessary*, and in many cases, it is not desirable.

Oh, if it makes you feel any better, elitist assholes aren't confined to dog sport. They exist everywhere, in every hobby, profession and field. Don't be so defensive.




Elaine said:


> Superhero, your idea of competition training being less than home training because the competition dogs are too serious and those of us that do it are elitist a-holes, clearly shows your complete lack of knowledge and how insulting you really are. You may have the concept of consistency in training, but the vast majority of people that don't go to school do not. I don't know what you think goes in in dog school, but if you want to continue to live in your little bubble, go right ahead, but I will have absolutely nothing to do with you again.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

jakeandrenee said:


> LOL..."hard of hearing" We are entering that stage as we speak!


Heh! Heh!


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

Doggie hearing aids for the win!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Superhero said:


> If that's all you got out of my post then you completely missed my point. Also, as regards "idea of competition training being less than home training because the competition dogs are too serious and those of us that do it are elitist a-holes" - you're totally off-base and I have no idea how you could reach so far as to think that's what I meant. Did you actually read what I wrote? I did not say that at all, nor did I insinuate it.
> 
> Since you failed to get the point, I'll make it very clear: competition training is not *necessary*, and in many cases, it is not desirable.
> 
> Oh, if it makes you feel any better, elitist assholes aren't confined to dog sport. They exist everywhere, in every hobby, profession and field. Don't be so defensive.


Get a grip! No need for such language to make a point!

BTW, did you ever define what you meant by "competition training"?


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

My bad, you're right. I do tend towards a dirty mouth - my mom didn't wash it out with enough soap when I was a youngster!

I felt it defined itself. It's really no different than any other sport. How you define the training is based on the intended goals of said training. For instance, if you intend to compete in AKC obedience trials, you would go to someone (if you didn't do it yourself) who is familiar with the ruleset and what is required of the dog. You would then train the dog to do precisely what the rulebook says the dog must do, in the way the rulebook says to do it. This is preparation for competition because you are trying to do what the rulebook says to do better than other people can do it.

An example of what _isn't_ training for competition: Let's say you want to try snowboarding. You go to a resort and you get an instructor and he shows you how to get down the mountain. You have no intent to compete, so the instructor shows you how to start, stop and turn and let's you loose to figure the rest out. He doesn't show you how to turn better than someone else. There are no strict rules or guidelines to follow - no one is judging your ability to do what you do. This would not be training for competition.

Thus, one could argue that the training itself and the goals define what the training is. If you do not intend to have your dog do xxx better than your friend's dog doing xxx, then it's not competitive is it? However, if you want your dog to, say, fetch a ball a little faster than your friend's, and you work to specifically speed up your dog to do so, then you are training it competitively, because the point is to compete and to best your friend.

What it comes down to is this: if you are trying to beat someone else at something, and you specifically train to beat someone else, then you are by definition training competitively. If you aren't trying to be better than someone else, then you aren't training competitively because there is no competition.

Now, all of that said, how other people usually define and use the term "competition training" may be somewhat different. I imagine most people would define it this way:

Competition training is training your dog to be and respond perfectly. Non-competitive training is allowing a little slack in what is expected, and the dog is allowed to be somewhat relaxed about its response.

I do not like those definitions.

In no way, shape or form should there be any difference in how the dog is expected to perform. If the goal is to have a perfect, textbook heel, and the dog does it every time, then the dog has accomplished its task. If the goal is to have the dog heel, but without regard to specific head/body/etc. positioning, and the dog does it every time, then the dog has accomplished its task. In both cases, the requirement should be that the dog do what is expected, the only difference is _how_ the dog does it. All training should (and to those trainers I know and respect, absolutely *does*) require that the dog be reliable, regardless if the intent is to compete or not. 

Consistency is key - if you allow the dog to slack, then you cannot rely on the dog's responses. Therefore, all training should require perfect responses. Not all training should require perfect posture, form, etc. so long as the response is perfect.

As this relates to Elaine's initial response:

Competition training as defined above (trained to a specific and defined position, posture, etc.) is not _necessary_ nor will it make a difference in the reliability of the command because assuming the dog is being trained properly, the response will still be reliable. Whether or not the dog maintains its legs in the perfect way is irrelevant to the dog sitting. Training to have perfect posture in a sit will in no way affect the ability of the dog to sit with distractions. Training the dog to sit every single time, consistently and on command, regardless of posture, will have a huge impact on the ability of the dog to sit amongst distractions.








codmaster said:


> Get a grip! No need for such language to make a point!
> 
> BTW, did you ever define what you meant by "competition training"?


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Superhero said:


> .............
> I felt it defined itself. It's really no different than any other sport. How you define the training is based on the intended goals of said training. For instance, if you intend to compete in AKC obedience trials, you would go to someone (if you didn't do it yourself) who is familiar with the ruleset and what is required of the dog. You would then train the dog to do precisely what the rulebook says the dog must do, in the way the rulebook says to do it. This is preparation for competition because you are trying to do what the rulebook says to do better than other people can do it. *Not so! Some, in fact many people, simply like to enter obedience trials and don't care what the other people enteredare doing. They only compete with themselves.*
> 
> ...............
> ...


Sounds to me that you are a little confused about the goals of training.


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

Competing with oneself is still competing. Everyone I know assumes this to be the case, so I didn't think it needed to be explained. Self-competition is a big motivational tool for many who compete against other people, and everyone I know (including some professional athletes) will tell you that competing with yourself is still competition, and in some cases your toughest competitor.

Yes, they'd still be competitively training, because the point is to compete in the trials, even if it is against oneself.

It's not confusing or inconsistent. If the dog does it every time, and I'm not concerned if it is a foot in front or behind, then that is just fine, if that is all you require. If the dog only does it half the time, then there is a problem. If the dog's form is a little off, but the dog did the command as requested, and there is no requirement that the form be perfect, then that is fine. If there is a requirement (ie textbook heel in the ring) that the dog be within a specific space on the heel, and it fails to do that, then there is a problem.

It sounds to me that you are confusing individual goals with the goals assigned by others.


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

I'm going to reply to this statement

*What if the dog heels but is a foot too far in front but does this consistently - is that ok for you? the dog is heeling but not in the proper FORM! On a sit stay the dog stays but lays down. Is that ok for you? since the command was done but the dog's form was a little off.*

on its own.

What if I define a heel as within 1' to the front of me and 1' to my rear? If the dog is 30' away, and I yell "au pied" and it comes within my specified range immediately, then it has accomplished its task and that is ok for me.

If I require that the dog have its nose in my crotch, with its shoulder perfectly placed against my kneecap, and I call it over and it is 1' ahead of me, then that is *not* ok.

In my first example, form is not a consideration, but positioning is. Therefore, if form is not perfect, but positioning is, then it's fine.

In the second example, form _and_ positioning requirements are very specific - if either of those requirements are not met, regardless if the dog responds immediately, then that is absolutely not acceptable.

If I issue a sit/stay and the dog sits then goes into a down, that is a problem, because the idea behind a sit/stay is that the dog sits and stays in that position. If I issue a sit/stay, and the dog sits but one leg sticks out a bit, but I don't require that the legs be anywhere specific, then that is ok, because the fundamentals of the command have been performed. Namely, the dog sat and maintained its sitting position. If I issue a sit/stay, and I require the dog to tuck both legs perfectly under itself, and it has a leg sticking out, then regardless if it stays or not, there is a problem. If I issue a sit/stay, and the dog sits, then runs off, there is a problem.

A sit/stay command is much more specific in its required actions than something that can be more broadly interpreted, such as recall. Some consider a perfect recall to be one where the dog immediately sprints to its handler, stops and sits. Others only require that the dog come to the handler immediately. Neither is incorrect. Only the expectations are different, and so long as the expectations are met, then in both cases the training would be successful.

Much depends on how the individual defines each command

I hope this helps to clarify things.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Superhero said:


> Competing with oneself is still competing. Everyone I know assumes this to be the case, so I didn't think it needed to be explained. Self-competition is a big motivational tool for many who compete against other people, and everyone I know (including some professional athletes) will tell you that competing with yourself is still competition, and in some cases your toughest competitor.
> 
> Yes, they'd still be competitively training, because the point is to compete in the trials, even if it is against oneself.
> 
> ...


Actually you are the one who is confused with defining competition training and something else (whatever it is that you are trying to define). 

Let me try again - as an example, I am training my dog to do a recall. I want my dog to do a recall quickly and under any distraction and I want him to sit in front of me not just come somewhere close to me. Is that competetive training in your view?

Or would you be satisfied if he came reliably but only came close to you and did not sit right in front of you? how about if your dog only came three fourths of the way back to you? In other words if you don't care about form, how do you define doing the exercise properly? You can train your dog to do it any way you want to of course, but you really shouldn't make fun of or denigrate those folks who train their dogs to do the defined exercises as they have been defined by the AKC.

Have a nice day!


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

I am not confused at all. 

It's competitive training if you choose to compete with it. It's really in how the individual defines it, not someone else. As defined by most people, I still maintain that competitive training, for example, as the AKC would define it, is not _necessary_. The reason is because a leg sticking out in a sit, for instance, has absolutely no bearing on the ability of the dog to be in a sitting position with distractions. Elaine's point was that using the standard of perfect form as set forth by the AKC (assuming the AKC - it could be anything or anyone) helps to instill more reliability and discipline, and this is not true. What instills reliability and discipline is consistency. The leg sticking out has absolutely nothing to do with it. The leg has _everything_ to do with form, and if form is something you care about, then by all means be concerned about the leg sticking out. Do not, however, try to give more value to the leg (form) than actually exists. Teaching the dog to tuck its legs perfectly in a sit will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on its ability to move into a seated position with distractions.

I would be satisified if my requirements were only that he come reliably. If I required what you do, and he failed to do that, then I would not be satisfied.

Form is different from positioning. 

If I recall, and the dog comes halfway, and I require that it comes all the way, then as I described in at least one example in a previous post, it would not be acceptable. If I recall, and my only requirements are that the dog comes halfway, and it comes halfway, then that is acceptable. That's reaching a bit, because I don't know anyone who would define a recall as being halfway, but you never know, someone might...

I'm not denigrating anyone who uses the AKC rulebook. In fact it is quite the opposite. I have a copy somewhere and intend to pull it out for reference on several commands that I _personally_ require to fit with the AKCs definition.

I am also supporting the decision of each individual to define what it is they want to do with their dog and to define what they want out of each command. In the case of the AKC's rules regarding these commands, if someone wishes their dog to perform these commands perfectly, I wholeheartedly and 100% support it. I have not once put down those who wish to use these standards for their training. 

What I *have* done is to put down those that wish to impose their ideas of a perfect heel, recall etc. onto others. What I *have* done is insult those whose ego cannot accept other standards. What I *have* done is to put down those who are elitists and believe there is only one way to do things.

I do not think you are separating each aspect of a particular command into its constituent parts. You are confusing positioning and form, for instance. Those are totally different aspects to any given command, and the requirements for one may be different than the requirements for another. Likewise, the requirements for both from one person may be different than the requirements for both from another.

Further, there is insufficient differentiation between individual goals and requirements and competitive goals and requirements and the many combinations of those things. I may not have been as clear as I could have been on this point. Ultimately, it's up to the handler to decide which set of rules he wishes to follow and how to define what he wants out of each command. The requirements of someone competing in the AKC ring _may_ have a totally different set of requirements for each command than someone who wants their dog to retrieve waterfowl. As long as the dog does what the handler requires, neither set of requirements would be wrong.

What you are doing is imposing definitions of commands and their interpretation on others. The reality is that a heel can be defined in many different ways. For me, a heel requires that the dog be at my right leg, and I prefer her to be within 1 meter of me. Anything within that, so long as the dog *stays* within that area, is acceptable. However, a friend of mine who does Ring would consider my heel very sloppy, but I promise you he would say that it is just as reliable and consistent as the heel he employs with his dogs.

You are oversimplifying commands in this way:

a heel is this, therefore if one does not train their dog to heel this way, it is no longer a heel, or it is a failed attempt at a heel.

While this prescriptive approach to training is quite useful and obviously widely accepted, it is not the only approach.

It is like the difference between prescriptive grammarians and descriptive grammarians.

I'm not sure I can provide any other examples, as this post is more or less a variation of all my previous posts.





codmaster said:


> Actually you are the one who is confused with defining competition training and something else (whatever it is that you are trying to define).
> 
> Let me try again - as an example, I am training my dog to do a recall. I want my dog to do a recall quickly and under any distraction and I want him to sit in front of me not just come somewhere close to me. Is that competetive training in your view?
> 
> ...


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

Let me address one point here specifically.

Don't confuse my *personal* definition of competition and training and how I am applying the definition used by *others*. 

One of my previous posts described this fully - did you read it? You are misapplying (or not understanding) my definitions and how I am using each one. I differentiate between my own and others' and I am discussing this from both points of view, more or less.



codmaster said:


> Let me try again - as an example, I am training my dog to do a recall. I want my dog to do a recall quickly and under any distraction and I want him to sit in front of me not just come somewhere close to me. Is that competetive training in your view?


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Superhero said:


> I am not confused at all.
> 
> It's competitive training if you choose to compete with it. It's really in how the individual defines it, not someone else. As defined by most people, I still maintain that competitive training, for example, as the AKC would define it, is not _necessary_. The reason is because a leg sticking out in a sit, for instance, has absolutely no bearing on the ability of the dog to be in a sitting position with distractions. Elaine's point was that using the standard of perfect form as set forth by the AKC (assuming the AKC - it could be anything or anyone) helps to instill more reliability and discipline, and this is not true. What instills reliability and discipline is consistency. The leg sticking out has absolutely nothing to do with it. The leg has _everything_ to do with form, and if form is something you care about, then by all means be concerned about the leg sticking out. Do not, however, try to give more value to the leg (form) than actually exists. Teaching the dog to tuck its legs perfectly in a sit will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on its ability to move into a seated position with distractions.
> 
> ...


Gotcha! I understand that you are saying the same thing! Go for whatever you want!


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Superhero said:


> Let me address one point here specifically.
> 
> Don't confuse my *personal* definition of competition and training and how I am applying the definition used by *others*.
> 
> One of my previous posts described this fully - did you read it? You are misapplying (or not understanding) my definitions and how I am using each one. I differentiate between my own and others' and I am discussing this from both points of view, more or less.


More or less is absolutely correct!


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

And, to one more of your points, which actually address my original point, of which this entire redundant conversation has flowed from:

The *only* thing I have said (regarding my response to Elaine) is that it isn't _necessary_ to train a dog to this standard to have a well-behaved dog. I also stated that _most_ people would _probably_ use the AKC standard as a form of "competitive training", and that I did not think that "competitive training", as defined _this particular way_, is at all necessary for a well-behaved dog. I gave some examples of _why_ this would be the case. This was a direct reply to her, and I was very clear when I replied to her. 

Further, since this isn't about _my_ definition of competitive training, but rather _someone else's_, how I define and use the term is irrelevant.

Since it seems to matter so much, I will repeat myself in fewer words:

my _own personal_ definition of competitive training is any training that one is going to use to compete. 

Again, as I have stated before, this is _not_ the same definition that most people would use, I suspect, and _not_ the definition I am applying in most of this discussion.

Now that I think about it, this is where most of the confusion lies in this conversation. I've already said all of this, but for the sake of clarity, and despite the fact there is a permanent record of me having said it, I have repeated it.

Also, please show me where I have denigrated or made fun of folks who train their dogs to the AKC standard. The only people who could possibly take offense to anything I have said are those that are arrogant and elitist. Otherwise, what I said wouldn't apply to them, and therefore there would be no offense. I didn't make any blanket statements, in fact, I made sure to qualify myself in that not everyone is this way. Therefore, the only reason for someone to take offense (unless one twists my words around as Elaine did) is if they fit the description. In which case, if they do, then yes, I have definitely denigrated those people, as I would anyone who is an arrogant elitist.

Hopefully we can get back on topic now, assuming this thread doesn't die from the massive amount of repetitiveness that it contains.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Superhero said:


> And, to one more of your points, which actually address my original point, of which this entire redundant conversation has flowed from:
> 
> The *only* thing I have said (regarding my response to Elaine) is that it isn't _necessary_ to train a dog to this standard to have a well-behaved dog. I also stated that _most_ people would _probably_ use the AKC standard as a form of "competitive training", and that I did not think that "competitive training", as defined _this particular way_, is at all necessary for a well-behaved dog. I gave some examples of _why_ this would be the case. This was a direct reply to her, and I was very clear when I replied to her.
> 
> ...


We can only hope!


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

You're right here - point well-taken. I appreciate your use of red and blue. 

I'll chalk this up to improving my post count!



codmaster said:


> We can only hope!


----------



## sagelfn (Aug 13, 2009)

Superhero said:


> I agree here. A big part of why I posted this was in order to find out more things to teach her so that I don't run out.
> 
> Once I "finish" with her obedience I would like to start doing some tracking work. I may seek a trainer for this as from all I have seen it's not the easiest thing to teach, but we'll see how things go. Then from there I can do all sorts of other things. Just like humans, dogs should always be learning something new. It keeps the mind sharp, focused and calm.


I'll be honest, I didn't read the majority of posts above so if this was already brought up I'm sorry  

If you plan on doing tracking or maybe agility or some dog sport just for fun just to stay busy and active with your dog you need rock solid obedience. Not solid in your standards but solid by each commands definition.

For the average pet, basic OB where the commands are done but leeway is given in how its done is fine. For a pet that is going to be involved in an activity (tracking, SchH, agility, flyball, etc..) you have to be more strict in your standards to avoid confusion. Even if you aren't going to trials to compete for titles.

There is also more to form than just doing it by definition. Correct form will also help prevent injury (applies to humans and dogs) Example say you teach your dog to come but are not specific on where the dog comes..could be near you could be come to you but does not sit or stay and the dog can run off again. Say you're at a dog park and your dog is off leash playing and there is an emergency and you need to leash your dog immediately. You will have trouble leashing your dog if he doesn't really come to you. My dog has been taught to come to me and sit at my side and wait. We are not doing any competition.

If you want your dog to learn lay down and you reward when his feet are under him ready to pop back up he isn't really learning what lay down means. For an average pet thats fine (although I think its cruel to confuse your dog) but if you're going to do things with your dog you need to be clear and that comes with lay down meaning one thing.


----------



## Superhero (May 15, 2010)

I wouldn't read it either. 

Thanks for the advice! I have some stuff from Leerburg as well as some AKC literature. Despite my stance on the issue, I can definitely appreciate the reasons for the methodology used and I do intend to train her rather strictly in form. 

I did not realize tracking also required the same level of obdeince, but now that you mention it it makes a lot of sense. I'll take your advice to heart as I go further in her training so that she has the proper foundation to be successful in more advanced endeavors!






sagelfn said:


> I'll be honest, I didn't read the majority of posts above so if this was already brought up I'm sorry
> 
> If you plan on doing tracking or maybe agility or some dog sport just for fun just to stay busy and active with your dog you need rock solid obedience. Not solid in your standards but solid by each commands definition.
> 
> ...


----------

