# Do you think the way judging is....



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

Do you think the way judging is now days is causing breeders to breed the "extreme drive" dogs? It seems that at most trials(at least ones I have been to), the judges want to see the Mal type drives in the GSD's. It would then be only natural then for someone wanting to go far in the sport to get an extreme drive dog. Breeders wanting to supply the "sport" crowd then produce these dogs. It seems like a downward spiral. It almost seems pointless to breed to standard when judges don't want to see that. They want to see a mal in a gsd body.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Judges in show and sport have a big impact on the direction of the breed in terms of breeding!


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

That goes in all venues! IPO/schutzhund, AKC Show ring, German show ring....people breed to what wins. Same in the horse world. Problem is that in judging, there is human error and human failing - what they miss, who they know....sometimes to the exclusion of the performances they see.

At a trial one time - there was a dog who had many many flaws in it's routine - it was given a generous 92. The next dog up had a nearly flawless routine....the only criticism in the critique was for slight forging in the back transport. Score? 92. Same as the very faulty dog. Next dog - came off the sleeve at a stick hit. Score? 98.....It all came down to the field, hosts and handlers. In reality the first should have been about an 83-84, the second 98, and the third, being generous, an 85 S. 

Quite a few litters were bred from the first and third males. Because of who owned them and their apparent quality as shown in their scorebook. Competition for those breedings in a club is often very political, and to stay on the right side of the helper/trainer/owner/host, you use their males to breed. And as a good club member, you buy your puppies there. This is not always conducive to good breeding. So even indirectly, the judges have impact on breeding.

Lee


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

My dog isn't a sport dog, and I know we'll be judged for that vs what he actually IS! 

I have to live with him, and don't want a kennel dog...so I'll take the points(lack of) because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me the scores/but how much fun we have during training and working together.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

wolfstraum said:


> That goes in all venues! IPO/schutzhund, AKC Show ring, German show ring....
> Lee


 

I Could not agree more. I have discovered it's not the dog being judged. I have also learned that scores don't really reflect how good or bad a dog is. I was at a trial where the judge commented on how nervy the dog was but that dog still scored the highest in the trial for it's class that day. It drove me nuts! Now when I see scores like 96-97-98 I just laugh. It really doesn't mean anything. It's my biggest issue with sport right now. Oh and I definitely agree it's all about who you know. I have some stories about that too!


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

If the judges want to see these prey monsters, but you(general you) produce balanced GSD's, where are these dogs supposed to go? Pet homes? That seems like a waste. If I'm trying to produce the ultimate utilitarian, then I would want to see my dogs proven in multiple venues and real life work. But if the people actually capable of doing something with one of my dogs wants a dog specialized for there field then I would be screwed.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I've had a few experiences where I hear a judge say one thing and then they judge completely differently, so yes it is confusing especially for someone relatively new to the sport. I don't think a dog that is not a prey-monster or not an "extreme" dog is going to not get the points he deserves, but I do think some dogs can put on such a show that they are judged based on that performance and not what might really be there. Also I don't think this is purely based on judging but on what people like to breed and train. Whether the judging informs this trend sounds like what you are asking....chicken or egg? I don't know, I think a little of both. It seems that before I was born, people had different priorities when they chose dogs to train for SchH and now I see many of my friends very intentionally choosing dogs that fit a different, more extreme style of training. Since I do so many dog sports at once, I am always looking more for the total package since there are many, many aspects to what I do that are never tested in any way during SchH (dog aggression, for example) and I don't really have time to worry about getting a super flashy points dog for SchH because most of the dogs I personally know who would fit that description have some major shortcomings as far as the other sports I participate in. If that's what other people want to train and attempt to live with....whatever! I don't think my dog has been unfairly judged or scored even though he's quite laid back, more medium or medium-high drive, and high threshold. I will leave the "v" scores to people obsessed with getting them. I was telling someone in my club last weekend I am thrilled to have a high "G" or "SG" dog, that means he's very good!!


----------



## björn (Mar 5, 2011)

Yes, judges influence what types of dogs are the "best". A super fast dog that comes very fast into the decoy is going to get high points for this, even if the dog is quite boring to see besides that.

Then maybe we shouldn´t judge a dog too much on what it does on a given day in a trial, seen dogs in bigger championships either hesitating a bit in the reattack or even run away, same dogs that previously or after this had competed with high scores in WUSV or national championships. Is the dog not strong or was it just some lack in training, a bad day or similar that made for these not so good performannce that day? I don´t know but I suppose dogs aren´t machines either.


----------



## robk (Jun 16, 2011)

A breeder that I really respect told me that it is a bad idea to make a breeding decision off a trial performance. He said you need to see the dog in training. Some dogs have very good trainers and live a very easy life and score well in trials. Other dogs go through very harsh training and are still standing to go to trial. Those are the dogs that he wants to breed too.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

robk said:


> A breeder that I really respect told me that it is a bad idea to make a breeding decision off a trial performance. He said *you need to see the dog in training.* Some dogs have very good trainers and live a very easy life and score well in trials. Other* dogs go through very harsh training* and are still standing to go to trial. Those are the dogs that he wants to breed too.


I agree with the breeder...trial is just a picture of the dog.
Yet, how many allow people to watch the training? I think many don't want an audience viewing their sessions.


----------



## Ocean (May 3, 2004)

onyx'girl said:


> I agree with the breeder...trial is just a picture of the dog.
> Yet, how many allow people to watch the training? I think many don't want an audience viewing their sessions.


I've never experienced being told not to watch a particular dog train. I really don't think it is part of the etiquette in the community. 
It would be interesting to hear from someone who has actually had this experience of not being allowed to watch.
I've never met a breeder that I respect who also breeds purely on the score or trial performance. Sometimes, people may also breed to a dog they've never seen, particularly studs coming from Europe, but they've asked the opinion of experts they trust who've seen the dog train first hand. Sure, there also people who breed solely based on the big name of the dog or the handler (as if the handler's genetics are relevant) or the scores, but they're usually new to the game.


----------



## Ocean (May 3, 2004)

There are also a wide variety of judges. The last trial I saw the judge actually tried to tease out the differences between the training and how the dog is. He would comment on how good the dog is but because of the training he had to deduct points. I like this approach because he seemed to be trying to retain the breed test aspect while still having to come up with scores.

The thing is because it is a sport with winners based on a point score, judges have to come up with ways to give higher points to one team over another. Most of the time, the point differentials boil down to training issues or judge preferences, or simply how the dog was feeling that day.

I have also seen judges who treat it purely as a competitive sport and hardly talk about the dog. I think there are judges who are not even interested in the breed at all. 
I like to see judges who are also active at breeding GSDs. Particularly, if that judge also works GSDs in a real life job. For example, a German judge I know who has won the BSP, breeds, and also works GSDs for the Customs agency. Although, I've heard some clubs don't like to invite him because he's too old school.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

You are all bringing up some really good points. I personally think what the judges want to see is what people are not just breeding to but training to as well. I recently had a conversation with a training director of a club that's prepping for a trial. She asked me what specifically the judge was looking for(they are using the same judge) so they could train to that. So instead of training for correctness they wanted to cut corners and train to the flashy things that caught the judges eye. Kinda silly but I bet they will have nice scores. 

As far as watching training, I have heard people not allowing it. I have not experienced it though. I have been asked to stop filming someone during a trial before. That was weird, you're trialing so you're already on public display.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Only a fool trains to please a specific judge. Most of the people I train with train to achieve the best performance out of their dogs. Yes, some specifically choose dogs that will be impressive and score high in points, but others work their rears off to achieve the same with a different type of dog. I train with two of the top dogs in the USA. They are two very different types of dogs. One is sportier, fast, drivey, sometimes difficult to handle do to drive leaking. The other is a very serious dog, far from a sporty type dog. Both dogs have exceptional handlers working with a great and supportive team. 

IMO how dogs are judged has not changed that much in the 21 years I have trained and trialed in SchH. I have trialed under what I call "point" judges and I have trialed under "breed" judges. I have been given a few gifts because the judge liked the power in my dog, but mostly I get the scores I deserve based on the dog and performance that day.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

"I get the scores I deserve based on the dog and performance that day."

This is the way it SHOULD be! I appreciate a judge with a sharp pencil as long as it's equally sharp for all competitors. I like knowing the scores were earned. I just don't see too much consistency in Judging. I watched a video of a 99pt IPO1 obedience routine the other day. I was able to catch a few mistakes. Now granted I was not there live and the camera person was not standing where the judge was so maybe angles affected that. Now don't get me wrong it was a beautiful routine definitely in the 90's but a 99? To me that means that team was perfect! It just seems as of late, I have seen a ton of scores for all phases in the high 90's and I don't buy it.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

I've seen and heard that what is judged on the WUSV Championship is different than what you see on the all breeds World championship. I even know people who would bot compete at the World ones because they feel it's too much malinois like oriented. 

I had been judged only by GSD judges until last year, when I was judged by a malinois handler and breeder, world level. The experience was interesting, some comments he made about the speed of the execution of the exercises I really don't care to train for, given other priorities I need to train to. Otherwise I loved a more strict judging.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

One, a judge does not have the advantage of playing a performance over and over again. No watching a video in the club house like in some sports to check their judgement on the field. Judges miss things (I have seen it go both ways, points taken and points given). Yes, there are also some judges that are not that good. 

Also each component of each phase only has so many points that can be taken for each type of mistake. The judge looks at the overall performance (the training and the dog) and then decides if what they see is "V", "SG", etc and take the points based on this. For example, a dog with power and shows joy in the work, despite some mistakes will often score better or even the same as a dog that lacks joy yet is 100% correct. 

Another good example is in protection. The H&B is an aggression based exercise. The dog should show power and be convincing in his barking. I remember a dog that had a very correct overall performance yet only got 95 pts. The handler was upset. As far as the judge was concerned (and I believe how the rules read) the dog could not "V" because he lacked power in the H&B. The dog looked and sounded like he was barking for his toy.


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

I think it is pretty irresponsible of the breeders to blame the judges for the direction of the breed. In the past it was always said, "you don't breed to the dogs that win, you breed to the dog that comes in 15-20 because he is too strong to control and maybe not as flashy"... Now Breeders want to point the finger of blame at the judges for their decision to breed to the dogs that win....How about you look in the mirror and see who you are breeding to, the dogs that are winning are getting many many many breedings. But I guess that is also not the breeders fault but the judges fault......We are judging a competition that showcases TRAINING and genetic traits, but it is a Performance COMPETITION, not a breeding showcase. (at the National level) 
When you take a very strong powerful correct balanced GSD (and a GOOD stud) and breed to him, they can (and usually will) produce dogs that are better than themselves (part of being a good stud). These can be the dogs that win competitions, as well as producing other well balanced dogs....I was always taught and still believe that the dogs that win are not necessarily a "stud dog" just because they won a "performance competition"....

Breeders should do their research, and don't be swayed into breeding to a dog just because he won a competition or is the internet hyped stud dog of the moment and they have "produced" nothing.

Look to the past, almost all the Big producers were not high level competition dogs... Yes, there are a few (VERY few), but that is the exception and breeders now act like it is the rule.


Frank


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

schh3fh2 said:


> I think it is pretty irresponsible of the breeders to blame the judges for the direction of the breed. In the past it was always said, "you don't breed to the dogs that win, you breed to the dog that comes in 15-20 because he is too strong to control and maybe not as flashy"... Now Breeders want to point the finger of blame at the judges for their decision to breed to the dogs that win....How about you look in the mirror and see who you are breeding to, the dogs that are winning are getting many many many breedings. But I guess that is also not the breeders fault but the judges fault......We are judging a competition that showcases TRAINING and genetic traits, but it is a Performance COMPETITION, not a breeding showcase. (at the National level)
> When you take a very strong powerful correct balanced GSD (and a GOOD stud) and breed to him, they can (and usually will) produce dogs that are better than themselves (part of being a good stud). These can be the dogs that win competitions, as well as producing other well balanced dogs....I was always taught and still believe that the dogs that win are not necessarily a "stud dog" just because they won a "performance competition"....
> 
> Breeders should do their research, and don't be swayed into breeding to a dog just because he won a competition or is the internet hyped stud dog of the moment and they have "produced" nothing.
> ...


:thumbup:


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Frank are you saying that a significant amount of people DoNot breed to winners in show and sport events. Because if they do, then factually it is accurate to say Judges have influence on the direction of the breed. Now if they don't then I stand corrected and both realms have changed dramatically over the years. 
Many people breed after much information and not based on results of shows or trials...but I dare say that if you compare breedings to winners of shows and trial , especially regional, national, world, events, I think there may be a correlation. So whether the Judges purposely or inadvertently influence breeding decisions and thus the direction of the breed, I still believe it happens especially in show ring. 
Your post seems to attach a blame game here, there are many unintended consequences in life....or at least that has been my experience.


----------



## schh3fh2 (Oct 12, 2011)

cliffson1 said:


> Frank are you saying that a significant amount of people DoNot breed to winners in show and sport events. Because if they do, then factually it is accurate to say Judges have influence on the direction of the breed. Now if they don't then I stand corrected and both realms have changed dramatically over the years.
> Many people breed after much information and not based on results of shows or trials...but I dare say that if you compare breedings to winners of shows and trial , especially regional, national, world, events, I think there may be a correlation. So whether the Judges purposely or inadvertently influence breeding decisions and thus the direction of the breed, I still believe it happens especially in show ring.
> Your post seems to attach a blame game here, there are many unintended consequences in life....or at least that has been my experience.


 
Hey Cliffson


My post was intended to NOT allow the attachment of the blame game...Maybe I failed in that attempt and wasn't clear.....

I'm saying that breeders should NOT breed to a IPO winner, just because he won. The show ring I think is a slightly different story but this thread was about the extreme prey drive that is winning IPO competitions. The IPO National Championships are a "Performance Sport Competition" NOt a breeding suitability showcase. A lot more of it is the handler's training ability than the genetic traits of the dog. I'm saying that blaming the judges for the decisions the breeders are making is a cop out. Judges in a sport competition place the dog with the best performance on that day based on their training and execution of the exercises on that particular day.

I do agree though that the show judges have a greater influence in the direction of the show dogs breedings. Maybe that is why some working breeders have choosen to follow suit in breeding to the winners. I don't know. Having just spent the weekend at the Seiger Show, I think a lot of what wins there is genetic. Training in the SS obviously helps a lot but it can only hide so much.


But a great IPO trainer can hide a lot of genetic weaknesses in a IPO competition.

I always tell the people that train with me, "You want to score good in IPO. Look at your dog honestly, see his weeknesses (because they all have them) and train to hide them......

My only point was to blame the Judges for the decisions the breeders are making is a cop out, in my opinion. When a breeder makes the decision to breed their female it is their responsibility to choose the right male for their female based on many many factors, not just who won. And too many breed to the dog that won because he won, or to the internet hyped dog that hasn't won or produced anything but is constantly hyped on the internet.

I was not intending to point blame at anybody, just trying to defend IPO Judges that we shouldn't be blamed either.



Frank


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Gotcha!, and I misunderstood your post....and though I would agree with everything you just wrote, I still think the whole aspect of rewarding the flashy obedience, and flying long bite has had an impact in breeding decisions....still I agree with performance events being more reflective of what Judge sees!.


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

seems like a logical strategy to train to what that particular judge wants to see on the day... the judge is the one doing the scoring?


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

x11 said:


> seems like a logical strategy to train to what that particular judge wants to see on the day... the judge is the one doing the scoring?


I think that training to please a judge may look like a shortcut, but at the end it sounds like a lot of wasted time because you just can't please everybody. I find more smart to train for what I think is correct and while I'll have more fun training at the end I can choose with which judges trial (Or at least with which organization, in this small corner of the world we have politics too).

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

never trialled but don't organisations in different venues pick the judges?

heard judges demanding to much for this orgs dogs don't get invited back etc...level playing field? 

a title/score at this trial is exactly the same standard as an equivalent title score at that trial? 

place a lot of stock in titles and you could be comparing apples and oranges for the same title?

so now newbs don't only have to sift thru parent's titles when considering a pup they also got to have an intimate insider knowledge of the judge's performance and local politics as well?

i think my next dog will be a cat.


----------



## robk (Jun 16, 2011)

I am training my dog to please me not a judge. By pleasing me he needs to perform each task correctly when commanded. If he does well on trial day, Great! If he doesn't do well on trial day but passes, I will still be delighted. If he does not pass, well, I will go back and work on the areas that we did not do so well in then we will try again.


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

mycobraracr said:


> If the judges want to see these prey monsters, but you(general you) produce balanced GSD's, where are these dogs supposed to go? Pet homes? That seems like a waste. If I'm trying to produce the ultimate utilitarian, then I would want to see my dogs proven in multiple venues and real life work. But if the people actually capable of doing something with one of my dogs wants a dog specialized for there field then I would be screwed.


The facts are that only a small percentage of experienced handlers want puppies...more want a dog old enough to have hips/elbows done, ready to jump into training. That is not only sport people, but LE for patrol, drugs, bomb, etc. 

Ultimate utilitarian dogs are not sought out as 8 week old pups...too much risk....I would love to be able to raise up 2 male pups from every litter to sell at 10-24 months old...that is where the market is most demanding...I could have sold 4 young males in the last 2 or 3 months if I had them available to sell....no matter the color or pedigree...just based on drive, temperament and hips. 

Bottom line is, with a few exceptions of 'name' people, most puppies go to pet homes, many of which are interested in some sport (IPO, agility, rally/ob) and a few of those interested may even do something with their pups...this is why it behooves us to produce good tempered, solid dogs who can function in society as well as be trained for some activity...I have sold several pups to LE people (not police officers - FBI) gung ho on training - and those dogs got started but too much time commitment for the people with these careers; and other people who specifically wanted dogs for IPO - then could not/did not follow through...and pups to people as companions who are now entranced and committed to training...so my goal is to produce all around dogs who can live as companions and who can do any sport chosen by the owner at some level. I look at the "big names" to breed, and have used them, but also at total unknowns - and gotten equally good pups from both! But the names help sell - and that is the bottom line.....people breed to what is popular and sells.

Lee


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

wolfstraum said:


> The facts are that only a small percentage of experienced handlers want puppies...more want a dog old enough to have hips/elbows done, ready to jump into training. That is not only sport people, but LE for patrol, drugs, bomb, etc.
> 
> Ultimate utilitarian dogs are not sought out as 8 week old pups...too much risk....I would love to be able to raise up 2 male pups from every litter to sell at 10-24 months old...that is where the market is most demanding...I could have sold 4 young males in the last 2 or 3 months if I had them available to sell....no matter the color or pedigree...just based on drive, temperament and hips.
> 
> Lee


 
This is very true. I have thought about raising puppies up to 12-18 months as well. This still brings up my question though. Even at 12-24 months, what are they looking for? The prey monsters? I maybe you can take a well balanced litter and by then build them into something like a prey monster. I don't know. 

I didn't start this thread to start an argument. I'm sorry if I offended any Judges/Breeders out there. It was just a question I had. If prey monsters are winning, then how are we suppose to fix the breed by breeding utilitarian dogs that no one wants? People are competitive and want to have the best car out there to win the race. If you give them an SUV and they're racing against sport cars then....


----------



## björn (Mar 5, 2011)

I think it´s quite safe to say that what is wanted/desired in sport is influencing what breedings take place, why else is people breeding to top sport dogs, or dogs who have the traits that is more important for sport than service. The points often goes to the very fast and flashy dogs, at least it doesn´t pay to have a dog that is not able to perform a very flashy obedience and super fast attacks, even if the dog shows a convincing protecionwork that is not only about being fast and correct. However, not all are of course focusing only on this, but it seems a more flashy and not so stable type of GSD is more common nowadays than it was 15-20 years ago, at least according to the oldtimers in the breed


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Yoschy von der Döllenwiese - working-dog.eu

One of the most influential dogs on today pedigrees, who did 52 points on protection... yet hear the public


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Liesje said:


> Since I do so many dog sports at once, I am always looking more for the total package since there are many, many aspects to what I do that are never tested in any way during SchH (dog aggression, for example) and I don't really have time to worry about getting a super flashy points dog for SchH because most of the dogs I personally know who would fit that description have some major shortcomings as far as the other sports I participate in.


Big big co-sign to that.

I don't even do IPO/SchH (yet), but I'm very wary of getting one of the 'prey monsters' I read so much about on this board. That type of dog is not going to work in my actual life and is _definitely_ not going to work in the sports I know for sure I want to do.

Yesterday, just on a whim, I looked up the numbers of dogs who have won various AKC titles by breed. Since 1999, there have been 506 golden retrievers who earned an OTCH. In that same timespan, only 32 German shepherds.

Since 2005, 466 golden retrievers have earned the RAE. By comparison, only 176 German shepherds have gotten the title.

That is a _big_ gap between the #2 and #3 most popular breeds in the U.S., particularly considering that German shepherds used to have a formidable reputation in competition obedience and should, by all rights, still be pretty darn good at it. They're still used as working dogs, and there are still breeders ostensibly focused on producing those working lines.

But it seems like very often, when I scratch the surface, those sport and working breeders are focused heavily on protection sports. SchH shouldn't even be that different from obedience -- it _has_ an obedience component, it's not exactly an incompatible skillset here -- but I am really starting to wonder if whatever is being rewarded in the sport right now (which I don't even know anything about) is producing a lot of dogs who aren't always capable of winning in other rings.

I don't know. I'm just speculating, and I'm a novice, so I could easily be looking at the wrong things or attributing them to the wrong reasons. But it's weird to me that the disparity between the breeds' results is so huge.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

Merciel said:


> Big big co-sign to that.
> 
> I don't even do IPO/SchH (yet), but I'm very wary of getting one of the 'prey monsters' I read so much about on this board. That type of dog is not going to work in my actual life and is _definitely_ not going to work in the sports I know for sure I want to do.
> 
> ...


 



What you have to remember when looking at stats like that is people with GSD's do many other things with their dogs. How many Goldens do protection sports? Most people doing AKC stuff are the American lines people.


----------



## Ocean (May 3, 2004)

I would guess probably because Goldens are just much easier and worry free to live with. Most AKC obedience people that I've met are not really into protective dogs for their home. They're good trainers and handlers but don't want to deal with dog aggression, people aggression, fencing, etc. The ones that do AKC obedience with GSDs do often use working line shepherds rather than AKC showline. I know a top AKC showline breeder that uses a DDR female for tracking and obedience, the only european dog in her kennel. There are the usual snide remarks from AKC obedience GSD people that showlines are pretty but dumb; and the usual jokes from the show people that the obedience dogs are ugly.


----------



## KJenkins (Aug 29, 2005)

While a good trainer can cover some of the weaknesses of a dog they still can't make chicken salad out of chicken crap.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

mycobraracr said:


> What you have to remember when looking at stats like that is people with GSD's do many other things with their dogs. How many Goldens do protection sports? Most people doing AKC stuff are the American lines people.


Yeah, I know. But Goldens have their own breed specialties too (field and hunt tests), and it's not _just_ golden retrievers who have better numbers than GSDs do. Poodles, shelties, Labs -- they all outnumber the GSDs in the rankings.

My point is just that you don't see a lot of working line GSDs doing much outside of protection sports (although a lot of breeders who are active on this board _do_ participate in other sports with their dogs, which makes me really happy, because as a puppy buyer that's exactly what I'm looking for). Even in the related AKC sports like obedience and tracking, the number of dogs completing titles is lower than their popularity would predict. And historically it hasn't always been that way.

So I just wonder if maybe that ties in with the thread's original point that the emphasis on super flashy/predatory SchH performances might be pushing the breed away from excellence in other things. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I don't know enough to say. I do actually see a fair number of Malinois cross-training in other sports, so to the extent that Mals are even more flashy/predatory, that might tend to undercut my hypothesis.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

ehhhh I dunno Merciel.

A well trained SchH dog (even with a lot of prey drive) could probably ace at least a CDX if not UDX.

A good friend of mine put UDXs on her Goldens and I loved watching them perform but now that I've been learning and training SchH OB, I agree I don't think it's that big of a leap to AKC OB.

I had discussed this with a protection trainer too. Now this is admittedly 'hearsay'  but the trainer told me AKC judges sometimes don't like SchH dogs.....

Also I don't think, *generally speaking* that people who spend the time and effort training in SchH, which can be so much more intensive and time consuming if you're doing all three phases OB/Protection/Tracking can (or want) to invest the additional time into AKC OB. A good many get what they want/need from SchH sport alone. 

This is just some of my observations from having run in and around both worlds.

Personally if I could do it (financially and timewise) I'd enjoy the challenge of putting AKC OB and SchH titles on a dog. 





Merciel said:


> Big big co-sign to that.
> 
> I don't even do IPO/SchH (yet), but I'm very wary of getting one of the 'prey monsters' I read so much about on this board. That type of dog is not going to work in my actual life and is _definitely_ not going to work in the sports I know for sure I want to do.
> 
> ...


----------



## LeoRose (Jan 10, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> ehhhh I dunno Merciel.
> 
> *A well trained SchH dog (even with a lot of prey drive) could probably ace at least a CDX if not UDX.*
> 
> ...


I've been in discussions about this on another board, and the thing that strikes me is that a lot of people who say how _easy_ AKC obedience is, and that a good Sch dog could _easily_ be titled in AKC obedience have never competed in AKC obedience. 

I'm _not_ saying that a Sch dog can't title in AKC obedience, nor am I saying that an AKC obedience dog could be a Sch dog. But to say that it would be "easy" to put an AKC title on them because they have a Sch title is kind of unrealistic. Since you have a friend who puts UDX's on their dogs, you know the requirements for a UDX. It sounds pretty simple, really. You qualify in both Open B and Utility B at the same trial 10 times. The reality is a bit harder, though. 

For example, in Open, your dog, instead of going over the high jump both ways for the retrieve, doesn't jump on the way back. You just NQ'd. You could have perfect scores in every other exercise, but that one single "oops" just canceled everything else out. 

For Utility, let' s say you have a perfect score going until you get to the signal exercise. Right as you give a signal, the dog gets distracted by something outside the ring (meh, it happens to all dogs at one time or another) and it doesn't do the down, sit or come, and you have to give another signal. Guess what. That's another NQ. So, you've got two NQ's, so no leg towards you UDX. 

But wait, what if you Q in Open, but not Utility (or vise versa) That counts, right? You got a Q in one class. Nope, you have to Q in _both_ classes to get a UDX leg. Depending on your placement, you might get OTCh points, though. Maybe even get High in Trial. Just not a UDX leg.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

I have done both. Maybe some day will do AKC OB again. For me it is both a money issue and also a venue issue. After doing SchH for so long I find the AKC OB rings tight and confining. I was always far more stressed and nervous in the AKC ring because of this. 

AKC OB is challenging. Single phase, nit picky only points count challenging compared to SchH. Different even if some similarities.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

I do schutzhund, SDA and recently got into AKC obedience. This is where my comments come from. Now I haven't been to too many shows so my AKC experience is limited. The group I train with does all three as well. I do think the AKC people look down on the "other sport" people. Also, for an AKC title, you have all the chances in the world. Just in a 100 mile radius of me there's an AKC event every other weekend. So lots of opportunities to title. Schutzhund not so much. As someone else said, schutzhund is more time consuming as you have three completely different phases to work on. Honestly, I don't think you can compare the two. They are completely different. AKC is tough. I'm not knocking it. Just not the same.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> A well trained SchH dog (even with a lot of prey drive) could probably ace at least a CDX if not UDX.


Maybe, maybe not. Those group Stays can be tough for a dog who's not real comfortable around other dogs. And I've seen SchH dogs get dinged pretty hard on heeling exercises because their default heel position is considered wrapping/forging by AKC standards. I suspect you would have to train, or at least fine-tune, the exercises specifically for that venue to do well -- I doubt a dog would be able to turn in a decent performance if you just jumped cold from one venue to the other.

But I honestly don't know if my original question was even the right one to ask. I think the numbers pretty clearly show that there's a steep decline in how well GSDs are doing in obedience relative to their population, but if working/Schutzhund-line dogs are only a tiny fraction of the competition GSDs out there, then the decline might be attributable to the remaining dogs doing worse as a group.

_Something_ is up that is causing GSDs as a breed to not attain the higher levels in competition. What that is, though, I don't know.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I think you're imputing a lot more context then was actually meant in my statements. Not sure about the other forum but it's interesting that it's an ongoing discussion. 

I try to choose my words carefully which is why I prefaced with "*well trained* SchH dog" and I don't mean that you could simply jump from one to the other without some interim training adjustments. I also mentioned how much I enjoyed the AKC OB my friend did with her Goldens, so to be clear I have nothing against it. I just don't thing being a higher prey drive SchH dog is an automatic disqualifier either.

All things being equal I think my statments in a general sense were fair to both worlds.





LeoRose said:


> I've been in discussions about this on another board, and the thing that strikes me is that a lot of people who say how _easy_ AKC obedience is, and that a good Sch dog could _easily_ be titled in AKC obedience have never competed in AKC obedience.
> 
> I'm _not_ saying that a Sch dog can't title in AKC obedience, nor am I saying that an AKC obedience dog could be a Sch dog. But to say that it would be "easy" to put an AKC title on them because they have a Sch title is kind of unrealistic. Since you have a friend who puts UDX's on their dogs, you know the requirements for a UDX. It sounds pretty simple, really. You qualify in both Open B and Utility B at the same trial 10 times. The reality is a bit harder, though.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

(in red) Yup, that's what my trainer was referring too....

In blue, my thoughts as well. It's not really a representative population and as I mentioned earlier people who get a working line are just probably more interested in SchH to begin with and that does require a lot of investment in time and often money on it's own. So even if someone is interested in AKC OB they simply may not have the time or funds to do both and that would affect numbers as well.

Now the question is, in my mind, why aren't there more American SHOW lines doing OB then?




Merciel said:


> Maybe, maybe not. Those group Stays can be tough for a dog who's not real comfortable around other dogs. And I've seen SchH dogs get dinged pretty hard on heeling exercises because their default heel position is considered wrapping/forging by AKC standards. I suspect you would have to train, or at least fine-tune, the exercises specifically for that venue to do well -- I doubt a dog would be able to turn in a decent performance if you just jumped cold from one venue to the other.
> 
> But I honestly don't know if my original question was even the right one to ask. I think the numbers pretty clearly show that there's a steep decline in how well GSDs are doing in obedience relative to their population, but if working/Schutzhund-line dogs are only a tiny fraction of the competition GSDs out there, then the decline might be attributable to the remaining dogs doing worse as a group.
> 
> _Something_ is up that is causing GSDs as a breed to not attain the higher levels in competition. What that is, though, I don't know.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

In blue, that's what I've heard but again, only what I've heard so....

The question I thought was, in general, can a 'high prey' drive SchH dog do well in AKC OB?

Would the genetics of the sport SchH dog make it harder? 

I know it would take some 'gear shifting' in the training but is there anything genetically prohibiting them from doing well in AKC OB? 




mycobraracr said:


> I do schutzhund, SDA and recently got into AKC obedience. This is where my comments come from. Now I haven't been to too many shows so my AKC experience is limited. The group I train with does all three as well. I do think the AKC people look down on the "other sport" people. Also, for an AKC title, you have all the chances in the world. Just in a 100 mile radius of me there's an AKC event every other weekend. So lots of opportunities to title. Schutzhund not so much. As someone else said, schutzhund is more time consuming as you have three completely different phases to work on. Honestly, I don't think you can compare the two. They are completely different. AKC is tough. I'm not knocking it. Just not the same.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

One more note on the group stay, at the last SchH trial I was at they did something close to a group stay in the BH.

Granted the dogs were tied to fence posts and not within inches of each other but it was close proximity. They had to hold their down stay as the judge walked closely past them. So somewhat simliar.

When I was training OB in a group we down stayed the dogs during our exercises as well, close to each other.....



Merciel said:


> Maybe, maybe not. Those group Stays can be tough for a dog who's not real comfortable around other dogs. And I've seen SchH dogs get dinged pretty hard on heeling exercises because their default heel position is considered wrapping/forging by AKC standards. I suspect you would have to train, or at least fine-tune, the exercises specifically for that venue to do well -- I doubt a dog would be able to turn in a decent performance if you just jumped cold from one venue to the other.
> 
> But I honestly don't know if my original question was even the right one to ask. I think the numbers pretty clearly show that there's a steep decline in how well GSDs are doing in obedience relative to their population, but if working/Schutzhund-line dogs are only a tiny fraction of the competition GSDs out there, then the decline might be attributable to the remaining dogs doing worse as a group.
> 
> _Something_ is up that is causing GSDs as a breed to not attain the higher levels in competition. What that is, though, I don't know.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

*@leorose* this was the context to which I was referring, to be clear. Sometimes we move the pegs on these discussions from one post to the next...so I'm going to go back to Merciel's original question.

I wonder if others find this to be true or not?

After having been around trials and training with SchH dogs .... I do think they would be capable of doing AKC OB if trained for it. Of course not every dog but then I'm sure not all goldens make the cut for high level AKC OB either. 

(Then there's the additional question of whether the AKC judges like to see SchH dogs doing the AKC sports, now I've heard from two different sources they don't?)





Merciel said:


> <snipped>
> 
> But it seems like very often, when I scratch the surface, those sport and working breeders are focused heavily on protection sports. SchH shouldn't even be that different from obedience -- it _has_ an obedience component, it's not exactly an incompatible skillset here -- but I am really starting to wonder if whatever is being rewarded in the sport right now (which I don't even know anything about) is *producing a lot of dogs* who aren't always capable of winning in other rings.
> 
> I don't know. I'm just speculating, and I'm a novice, so I could easily be looking at the wrong things or attributing them to the wrong reasons. But it's weird to me that the disparity between the breeds' results is so huge.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

Merciel said:


> Maybe, maybe not. Those group Stays can be tough for a dog who's not real comfortable around other dogs. And I've seen SchH dogs get dinged pretty hard on heeling exercises because their default heel position is considered wrapping/forging by AKC standards.
> 
> _Something_ is up that is causing GSDs as a breed to not attain the higher levels in competition. What that is, though, I don't know.


 

In schutzhund you get dinged for forging as well. You cant compare the "heeling" exercises. They are completely different. To be honest for AKC, it seems the dog just has to be in a general heeling position. Zero focus is needed. Add in focus and see how easy it is to keep a dog in position without forging. 

Again, I think GSD's are much better represented in many other venues. Plus it would seem a lot of the WL GSD's in the sport clubs I have been to are not AKC registered. They only have there green/pink papers. Only if they where going to be bred do they register with AKC. I really don't think you can look at those stats as an indication. Until recently I had zero interest in AKC. I decided to go watch some friends do it and thought it could be fun. But I just like to play with my dogs so... I will do anything I have access to. Also, all the AKC obedience shows I have been to we were the only WL people there. Everyone else had ASL's. If people are like me they can only handle being told that their KKL1, SchH 3, IPO 3 and multiple SDA titled dogs are "worthless and ugly" so much.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Now the question is, in my mind, why aren't there more American SHOW lines doing OB then?


There were a lot of them at the trial that I went to earlier today, actually. I saw probably around 10 GSDs who looked like American show line dogs to me (not that I'm an expert), one that looked like a sable working-line dog, and one that I don't know the breed well enough to identify as to subtype.

I didn't get to watch all of them doing their runs, but the couple that I did catch showed lots of stress displacement behaviors and obvious discomfort in the ring. One of them had very wobbly hind legs to the extent that the poor thing actually had difficulty maintaining heel position. That's the first time I've seen one in real life that actually had such extreme configuration that it could not walk properly.

I didn't see any stress from the sable, fwiw, but I also didn't catch that dog in the ring. I wish I'd talked to the owner -- I would have liked to know more about that one!

Anyway, those are my very limited observations from one isolated trial on one isolated day with only a couple of dogs actually watched in the ring. It does make me think that maybe I posed the wrong question earlier in this thread, and perhaps the more correct question should be "what's changed in American show line dogs" rather than "what's changed in 'sport-bred' GSDs," but I still have way too little information to be comfortable drawing any conclusions.


----------



## LeoRose (Jan 10, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I think you're imputing a lot more context then was actually meant in my statements. Not sure about the other forum but it's interesting that it's an ongoing discussion.
> 
> I try to choose my words carefully which is why I prefaced with "*well trained* SchH dog" and I don't mean that you could simply jump from one to the other without some interim training adjustments. I also mentioned how much I enjoyed the AKC OB my friend did with her Goldens, so to be clear I have nothing against it. I just don't thing being a higher prey drive SchH dog is an automatic disqualifier either.
> 
> All things being equal I think my statments in a general sense were fair to both worlds.


Like I said, it's just that a lot of people who knock AKC obedience as being "easy" have never tried it. Personally, I've never done Sch, but can definitely appreciate the difficulty of it. Having to pass all three phases in one day is no small feat. And like I said, just because a dog is a fantastic AKC obedience dog, that doesn't mean they would be a good Sch dog. 

It is kind of funny, though, that GSD aren't better represented in AKC obedience. In 2012, GSDs earned 220 CDs, 76 CDXs, 41 UDs, 12 UDX, and 2 UDX2s. There were 176 All American CDs, 19 CDXs 1 UD, 1 UDX and 1 UDX2. Seeing as how GSD are the second most registered breed, you'd think there would be a lot more. Of course, most people who list their mixed breeds do so strictly to compete with them, not just so the dog has "papers".


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Where did I knock AKC? I loved watching my friend's Goldens do their thing and I wrote up a nice report about an AKC show I went to....but it got little notice... :shrug: (except for Merciel who commented... )

anyhoo...

You're referring to training aspects, I'm referring to the earlier comment about the breeding i.e. genetics. I contend if a dog bred for SchH** is well trained FOR AKC OB it can do it. Why not?

(**that isn't off the wall DA or unbalanced and I've seen some nutty goldens too...btw) 

I came into SchH with a lot of misconceptions about the dogs. One thing I've learned the hard way is to stay away from generalizations. 

...and why aren't there at least more ASL dogs in AKC OB then? 



LeoRose said:


> Like I said, it's just that a lot of people who knock AKC obedience as being "easy" have never tried it. Personally, I've never done Sch, but can definitely appreciate the difficulty of it. Having to pass all three phases in one day is no small feat. And like I said, just because a dog is a fantastic AKC obedience dog, that doesn't mean they would be a good Sch dog.
> 
> It is kind of funny, though, that GSD aren't better represented in AKC obedience. In 2012, GSDs earned 220 CDs, 76 CDXs, 41 UDs, 12 UDX, and 2 UDX2s. There were 176 All American CDs, 19 CDXs 1 UD, 1 UDX and 1 UDX2. Seeing as how GSD are the second most registered breed, you'd think there would be a lot more. Of course, most people who list their mixed breeds do so strictly to compete with them, not just so the dog has "papers".


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

At the AKC show I was at I noticed variations in conformation as well, pretty pronounced. My friend who used to show Huskies pondered about what the standard was.

I saw a couple of dogs like that (in red) and then a male who I would have sworn had some DDR in him....I talked with the owner/handler and she said no, 100% ASL. So I saw similiar differences amongst the dogs, but this was in the conformation ring. It was raining very heavily so we didn't venture out to the other events....unfortunately. It's been a long time since I've been to an AKC OB event, I need to make an effort to go out and see a couple again. 




Merciel said:


> There were a lot of them at the trial that I went to earlier today, actually. I saw probably around 10 GSDs who looked like American show line dogs to me (not that I'm an expert), one that looked like a sable working-line dog, and one that I don't know the breed well enough to identify as to subtype.
> 
> I didn't get to watch all of them doing their runs, but the couple that I did catch showed lots of stress displacement behaviors and obvious discomfort in the ring. One of them had very wobbly hind legs to the extent that the poor thing actually had difficulty maintaining heel position. That's the first time I've seen one in real life that actually had such extreme configuration that it could not walk properly.
> 
> ...


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> You're referring to training aspects, I'm referring to the earlier comment about the breeding i.e. genetics. I contend if a dog bred for SchH** is well trained FOR AKC OB it can do it. Why not?
> 
> (**that isn't off the wall DA or unbalanced and I've seen some nutty goldens too...btw)


Well, because that was the original question in this thread (at least as I understood it): whether breeding for extreme flash and prey drive could be causing some of the lines to _become_ unbalanced.

To which I don't begin to have an answer. I don't often see Schutzhund dogs in other venues, and when I do they're either Dobermans or Malinois (who generally do great, btw, so obviously there's nothing about Schutzhund _training_ that would cause a dog to perform below expectations, other than sometimes they get dinged for heeling in the "wrong" position like I said earlier). But I wonder about it, so I asked.

Anyway I've gone full circle so I'll be shutting up now.


----------



## LeoRose (Jan 10, 2013)

Gwenhyfair, I'm sorry if you thought I was saying that you specifically were knocking AKC obedience. (I did see the thread about the show, by the way.) I've just encountered several people who thought Sch was the "be all and end all" of all things dog sport, and that a Sch titled dog could just be waltzed into the ring with no further training and walk out with a HIT ribbon.

I've had to retire my mutt from competition because I can't trust her in the stays any more. She has two legs of her CD. She's a lousy obedience dog. She'd make a lousier Sch dog. 

And to the original question about over the top dogs, I think breeding for extremes one way or another in any breed is not good.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

A lot of things have changed over the years, especially in the last 10 years.

Rules have changed, and therefore, judging must change to follow new rules.
Training (how to train) has changed for many.
Dogs and breeding to what dog or any dog has changed


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

My take was it was more about judging, the OPs question.

Maybe it's because I'm not around big competitors, just mostly club level dogs, that I just don't see a lot of super extreme dogs? I'm not an expert but I've got a few steps ahead of you in the SchH world and I don't think one needs to be an expert to spot the extremes. 

I think one needs to take some of the content on this site with a wee bit of salt. 

The end of the world is not nigh.....




Merciel said:


> Well, because that was the original question in this thread (at least as I understood it): whether breeding for extreme flash and prey drive could be causing some of the lines to _become_ unbalanced.
> 
> To which I don't begin to have an answer. I don't often see Schutzhund dogs in other venues, and when I do they're either Dobermans or Malinois (who generally do great, btw, so obviously there's nothing about Schutzhund _training_ that would cause a dog to perform below expectations, other than sometimes they get dinged for heeling in the "wrong" position like I said earlier). But I wonder about it, so I asked.
> 
> Anyway I've gone full circle so I'll be shutting up now.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

O.K. I understand. I'm glad you saw my post about the AKC show. I really did enjoy it and found the people to be very nice too.

Still, we've got mycobracer's comment about the AKC people being extremely judgemental about his dogs....and then yeah, SchH people can be snobs too.

I learned many years ago while a youngster in 4-H (equine) that we humans like to think we operate as a meritocracy but very, very often we do not. We don't like to admit it because it's an uncomfortable reality, we like to think we are fair when often we aren't.

We compartmentalize, judge, categorize, dismiss without giving the benefit of the doubt....and this extends to judges of events as well. I once was told that the only pure form of sport are those events judged only by the stopwatch. No human subjectivity intervenes, the rest of the world is figure skating wherein the judge from the other country has written down a score of 4 before the skater even started into the arena..... 





LeoRose said:


> Gwenhyfair, I'm sorry if you thought I was saying that you specifically were knocking AKC obedience. (I did see the thread about the show, by the way.) I've just encountered several people who thought Sch was the "be all and end all" of all things dog sport, and that a Sch titled dog could just be waltzed into the ring with no further training and walk out with a HIT ribbon.
> 
> I've had to retire my mutt from competition because I can't trust her in the stays any more. She has two legs of her CD. She's a lousy obedience dog. She'd make a lousier Sch dog.
> 
> And to the original question about over the top dogs, I think breeding for extremes one way or another in any breed is not good.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> We compartmentalize, judge, categorize, dismiss without giving the benefit of the doubt....and this extends to judges of events as well. I once was told that the only pure form of sport are those events judged only by the stopwatch. No human subjectivity intervenes, the rest of the world is figure skating wherein the judge from the other country has written down a score of 4 before the skater even started into the arena.....


 


I agree with this. I actually hate competing. I just like to play with my dogs. I want the titles but not the sport. I just don't have another way to put my training to the test for all to see. Honestly, I just laugh when people post scores now days. I'm glad you got 99/99/99 but I have a hard time believing teams were that perfect. Especially at club or even regional levels. Under a different judge those routines could be high 80's so.... I'm happy for the people earning the titles but... Man! Everyone better hope I never go threw the judges program hahahaha.


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

I do think that breeding for extreme drive does affect the balance of drives...I hate the screaming and lack of clarity in so many dogs - dogs that need 1, 2, or even 3 e-collars on so the owner can control and direct them....dogs that are zapped with cattle prods to stop them from being dirty or to make them out....when these dogs succeed at big trials, the market for their pups is stronger, and thus, yes....the cycle continues...


I have done quite a few AKC obedience trials, and attended alot to visit and watch friends show....there are very few GSDs....in this area, the occassional ASL that I have seen is dull and slow....there is one guy who does pretty good with non conformation dogs and who is a judge....there have been some WGSL dogs - and while they are usually OK, they do not show nearly as well as a WL dog....they are trained specifically for AKC and the drive is not the same for obedience just like in IPO training...

Lots of WL dogs bred or trained for IPO can do AKC obedience...I actually have done alot of my obedience foundation for IPO in an AKC club with an AKC judge as the trainer...all the pups I raised would do some baby agility stuff, which included the A frame, thus giving them a good foundation for that exercise....I would do focus, restrained recalls and stays in the AKC club....just sort of run my own program during obedience classes and work more specifics in the advanced competition classes....but it was not my goal, only a tool - did CDs on quite a few dogs, until I took my European trained female, who crowds more than my homebred and trained dogs, to a show and got hit big time for crowding....while dogs who lagged, stopped and viewed the audience, sat crooked or did not sit at all, ambled on recalls and stood for their finish, got better scores than a dog whose sits were straight and fast, whose recall and finish were perfect - bored dogs, horrible performances rewarded over happy, quick, correct obedience because crowding was WORSE? The judge apologized to me for the score....but said that the rules were at fault...

Lee


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I'm with you on that. 

I read your post about how your club, when seeing someone really trying and putting the effort in, works with that person even if their dog isn't going to be a top sport dog. Too bad that's not a more common mentality.


You should go through a judge's program..... 




mycobraracr said:


> I agree with this. I actually hate competing. I just like to play with my dogs. I want the titles but not the sport. I just don't have another way to put my training to the test for all to see. Honestly, I just laugh when people post scores now days. I'm glad you got 99/99/99 but I have a hard time believing teams were that perfect. Especially at club or even regional levels. Under a different judge those routines could be high 80's so.... I'm happy for the people earning the titles but... Man! Everyone better hope I never go threw the judges program hahahaha.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

mycobraracr said:


> I agree with this. I actually hate competing. I just like to play with my dogs. I want the titles but not the sport. I just don't have another way to put my training to the test for all to see. Honestly, I just laugh when people post scores now days. I'm glad you got 99/99/99 but I have a hard time believing teams were that perfect. Especially at club or even regional levels. Under a different judge those routines could be high 80's so.... I'm happy for the people earning the titles but... Man! Everyone better hope I never go threw the judges program hahahaha.


That is supposed to be the focus. This is a sport. People can learn from others at all levels. Problem is, some people want a quick result and do not understand the foundation work, time and practice that goes into the finished (and ever improving) result. That is why you see people jumping from one to another club. Or sending out multiple dogs for training and titling. It is work.

I like Stan Just at OG Buckeye. He is in his mid to late 80's and trains and competes. He is focused, positive and keeps going when other people will cop out of training. His club talks about he motivates people.

That is cool.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I think the problem is that scores (in many sports) are subjective and therefore not consistently a valid representation of the work a handler has put into their dog or the level of performance.

It's been my experience in the horse show world this problem becomes more pronounced in the higher levels of competition, usually because reputations and $$$ are at stake.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> You should go through a judge's program.....


 

I hope one of these faces was because of my spelling error (threw instead of through). I saw it but was too late for the edit option .


----------



## Ocean (May 3, 2004)

Smithie86 said:


> A lot of things have changed over the years, especially in the last 10 years.
> Rules have changed, and therefore, judging must change to follow new rules.
> Training (how to train) has changed for many.
> Dogs and breeding to what dog or any dog has changed


Thanks for those comments! Would you care to elaborate what you mean?
In what ways? How?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Nope, it was not because of your spelling error though ironic... 

I meant it, maybe folks like you getting into the judging ranks is what is needed! 



mycobraracr said:


> I hope one of these faces was because of my spelling error (threw instead of through). I saw it but was too late for the edit option .


----------

