This is a placeholder text
Group text
by wscott00 on 12 June 2006 - 21:06
disregard the following:
Wallace Payne will typically score 97 - 100 in protecton, are you saying that an average trainer would score 95 - 97 in protection at national events.
you addressed the the average trainer would get 270 while a top trainer would be 283.
how do you look past bad training, or do you only look at the dogs accomplishments?
by wardawg on 12 June 2006 - 22:06
I disagree with the premise that 50 dogs could win. Only a handfull have the ability to win regardless of the handler/trainer. Personally, I don't look at the training, only the preformance. If a person trains poorly then that reflects on the dog. That might not be fair to the dog's true genetics, but you can't assume that a poor preformance is due to training only. You then give the dogs of poor trainers too much credit.
To get top scores requires both good training and good genetics. There is a chance that a dog with good genetics has poor scores because of training, but the best that could be said about these dogs is that the quality of their genetics is still unknown. It just seems more logical to go with a dog with proven good genetics.
Very few quality dogs can "V" with top training. So no I don't believe a quality dog can over come poor training. However, I do believe when a competitor enters National events, that person is willing to bang heads with the top trainers. National events will expose charater weakness in the dogs, and also in the training. If a competitor is willing to compete at this level, then he/she is doing so knowing that it is going to be tough. Their training had better be good, and the dog's genetics had better be good. If you know that your training is not up to par, don't enter.
by VHDOOSEK9 on 12 June 2006 - 23:06
<<< Their training had better be good, and the dog's genetics had better be good>>>
Everyone made some good points. Things we all look for in a working stud dog.
As for the above statement I agree as far as competion dog is concerned, yes. But also some mediocre dogs make Regional and National level in the hands of Good trainers. I had a dog I competed with at the Regional championships and did fairly well. But I would never breed him because genetically he didn't have it. Not that I'm the best trainer out there, it was just ALOT of work. He went through 2 trainers over 3 yrs before I got him with a BH, but it was an up hill battle all the way, lots of training and fortunatly I had an excellent helper at the time.
But as for a BREEDING Stud I don't put as much emphasis on how many trophies a dog has, But one that has KKL, a decent structure, also I look at what his litter mates have, SchH Titles, KKL, Good Hips, health etc. then I like to see the dogs performance tracking he should be track sure, intense, obedience he should have good pack drive, willingness to work, and in protection POWER/SOLID NERVES, a dog that has presence when he walks on the field, always under the control of the handler but yet ready to fight the helper in the drives and stop the helper in escapes. A dog that you could walk through a crowd of people and he's not concerned about it. Again SOLID NERVES. Also A dog that actually has a masculine head and good bones, it's very hard on my eyes seeing so many of these shepherd lately with fine bones and pineheads. AND then above all a dog that produces the same with different females.
<<>>>
I can respect that.
But some of the best producers were not necessarily top scoring dogs i.e. Yoschy, failed 94' BSP but yet got booked 50 breedings in a year. Didn't see the SG points but did see pure raw genetic POWER. And there are a lot of others that never made high placings but produced very well.
<<<>>
Agree. You do the math. ie. USA members 4000 give and take, National competitors about oh 60 per year. Good dogs out of that 10 - 20 and then trainers that can actually handle some of the more serious dogs and make high level placing 3 - 5 sounds about right.
<<>>
That is why you would have to actually go and watch the dog at the events in person. If you know what you are looking for you can see if the performance is reflective of training or genetices or both.
by wardawg on 13 June 2006 - 00:06
VHDOOSEK9, that is a very good position.
by wscott00 on 13 June 2006 - 01:06
VHDOOSEK9,
all very good points. Ive noticed that the majority of those that breed will breed to a resume and not neccessarily to drive to the dog that may be the best producer. I agree that you can tell a lot about a dog by seeing it trial. But i think if you can spend a little more time w/ a dog and watch it train several times you will get a clearer picture of hte dog as a whole.
Hands down the dog w/ the most drive and best nerve ive ever seen is sitting a kennel in Henderson NC. Darco barely got his sch1, then his owner became ill and got out of the sport. do you think there comes a time when you should breed to the best dog and perhaps the best dog may be in someone backyard chasing rabbits.
Suppose Fero or Mink had been stepped on as a 2 day old puppy, broken a leg and live the rest of thier lives as house dogs. would they have still produced good dogs?
wardawg
I agree that national and regional events will uncover any and all problems. the dog is unsure in the blind or had a lot of pressure in the blind or the track it will show up. From my personal experience i know that all my training flaws show up at big events. most people dont understand how hard it is on a dog to travel 8 hrs away, basically live i na crate for 4 days and be around all the noise and excitement of a national event. Only the most stable dogs work thru it. But i still say everything being equall the top trainers can win w/ a lesser dog. how many people have purchased a dog that scored big points in europe, and when they get here the score go down, down, down. i think its due to training and not the dog. ive seen several people take a 280 dog and train it down to a 265.
by wscott00 on 13 June 2006 - 01:06
i also need to add that you wont know how good of a hadler you are until you go to a national event. i think that local trials have given us a wrong idea of what "good" looks like. you may score a 285 at alocal trial but only 260 at a nationals
by VHDOOSEK9 on 13 June 2006 - 03:06
<<>>>
EXACTLY! Seeing the dog several times, trial, training sessions, etc. will also give you a chance to see the dog not only on his bad day or good day.
<<<>>
Like a 1969 1/2 Firebird TransAm with matching numbers rusting away in some farmers barn. You can never appreciate the car like the ones that are fully restored and shown.
<<>>
Yes and for those that cannot financially or time wise make it to the Nationals, then you bring in the tough Judges for the club trials. Not exactly the same as the Nationals but definitly a reality check for those that are used to trialing under the easy Judges.
by wscott00 on 13 June 2006 - 13:06
"Like a 1969 1/2 Firebird TransAm with matching numbers rusting away in some farmers barn. You can never appreciate the car like the ones that are fully restored and shown."
I see what your saying but that is my point exaclty. 98% of the population can only see the Fireird ('68 mustang in my case) as beatuful when it is completly restored. but its the true connoisseur that drives 5 or 6 hours to the farmers back field, looks past all the rust, the tree growing where the front seat was, and see's a thing of beauty. Not for what it is, but what it was and perhaps can be.
im starting to think that most folks judge a book by its cover. they will only look at the scores and who owns a dog. and not say well the dog shows some stress on the dumbell, why is that , how did he teach that. Or the dog shows awsome power in the blind, but in the field it does and out/sit and the dog seems stressed. Is it due to bad genetics or from the handler correcting the dog so much that the dog is now concerned w/ the approaching handler.
i think if you say that the dogs w/ the best genetics will end up on the podium you'll sell yourself and your breeding program short
SG Mink vom Haus Wittfeld came in 80th in the '89 BSP
* Troll von der bösen Nachbarschaft came in 23rd in the '90 bsp, 72nd in the 91 BSP and 48th in the '93 bsp and he never "V"'d protecion. and i dont see where Nessel showed in BSP.
It seems to me that mmany of the great producers had soo much drive and hardness that they were not able to give the corectness on a consistant bases to win the big events. but they passed on a good portion of thier drive the next generation.
Today people are proud of the fact they have a troll grandson or mink great grandson, but those very same people would never breed to the dog that came in 22nd at a national event. It seems a bit ass backward. if a dog that does not place high in beg events is genetically flawed then all of our mink, troll, fero, and nessel progeny are flawed.
just my 2 cents
by wardawg on 13 June 2006 - 19:06
A 260 in a national event is a decent score, dogs with this type of score could have some merit. I agree that you have to see the dog in person to really get a true vision of the dog. However, the best trainers in the world can't take 70% of the dogs entered into a National even and come close to winning with most of the dogs. To get a "V" score takes more than good training, and most of the dogs even at National events don't have it. But this is different from breeding.
I understand that maybe some breeders would rather go for more balance, and that producing a winning sport dog is not the most important thing.
by wscott00 on 14 June 2006 - 20:06
i think that the majority of folks at national evnets are club level trainers who enjoy training, trialing and showing a big event if its possible. I think 260 is a good score, but for me a good performance starts at a 275. i figure 90-90-90 is 270 so if i was gonna judge dog purely on a score id like to see a higher score.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
