Sportism - Page 20

Susie yes to some logic is "kind of weird" you have no clue what I am teaching and how many dogs I train yet you make innept remarksanyway, so please do not go there.

If you would you would understand what I am saying or even actually read it, then you could not post first part of the post ( starting "Even a wolf does have....")which I totally agree with . If you would read what I am saying for example in my post above you would see that I am saying what prey is  then you could not post his as some disagreement. You are making nonexistant straw man.  That is since  I totally agree with you on prey and defense and am saying that they are 2 sides of the same coin and as such both have to be developed. The second part of your post ( starting with words:"So why do you ( try to ) ...")above indicates that you even after 19 pages did not grasp the point of what is sportism and what I am against in it and what and how I train. I just say this because the statement is off base thus I need to response to it. I am not denying prey or defense. I have said ad nauseam that I go along with the dog as they show prey and defesne . Thus I am developing drives of the dog as he is ready for it. Can you please tell me or show me where I have said that I am "denying to the pup the possibility to learn " or that I"suppress" prey drive  to learn??? In future I will just stop responding to such ignorant posts. It is a waste of time to discuss the topic with someone who does not take time to understnad it . I use word ignorant because they criticize something without knowing what is being said.

 

SMH 

Susie:

Why do you ( try to ) deny the pup the possibility to learn how to grip, how to hold, how to feel comfortable, how to ( re ) act to your own goals accordingly?

Mother nature also invented grip, and how to hold its taught in pack & transferred genetically as well, it was not left out of the curriculum. :)~ Any dog fight will show you this proof the difference is our want to hold grip by our rule. The only way to feel comfortable in fighting is by fighting. Sparring for a thousand days and fighting a person outside the gym on day 1001 without the rules after training does not often end the way we visualize it and you wont be made comfortable by your sessions in a controlled environment. That's the disconnect between sport and life, sport has rules and life tells you where your rules can go. Most often the most realistically trained equals most proficient at the task. Not a vs comment, just a life observation.

Prager, I guess I do "have a clue" - and I always try to get "the best" out of my dogs.

Gigante, it´s not about "rules", it´s about techniques - given that there are 2 boxers with the same "drives" ( I use this example because of your term "sparring" )

the first boxer learned all the boxing techniques ( how to hit, where to hit )
the second one wasn´t trained at all

Who do you think will win? They do have the same drives...

Innept remarks - ( guess it´s "inept", had to google that word ).

While rereading your posts I come to the result that a lot of YOUR posts are inept, and criticizing something without knowing what is being said ( I`d never had said this without your latest post, because normally I am well educated, and try to stay polite - thank you ).

There is a difference between defending a personal point of view, trying to convince people, versus behaving like a "know it all". You do write a lot, and you don´t stop to repeat your point of view, until people are tired to even discuss any longer, no matter if they are right or not. You do "kill" honest people with hundreds of words.

I don´t tend to ridicule people, I don´t tend to make "innept remarks", but I tend to think about dogs and dog training, and I hate to see dogs trained not according to their capacities - and right now I am exhausted - so go on with your explanations, I won´t bother you any longer.

susie:

the first boxer learned all the boxing techniques ( how to hit, where to hit ) the second one wasn´t trained at all Who do you think will win? They do have the same drives...

 

 hans:  This question  is a straw man argument. You see that is your problem you think that if you do not use sportism you do not train. That is not so. We do not have 2 dogs  where one is trained and one is  not trained. They both are trained but in a different way.  The muscle memory and practicing is one thing but what it is worth if  the  physically skilled fighter is not mentally    able to use such techniques. To bring up  the same question / issue at hand  back to dogs.
What is it worth when  dog knows how to do all the gripping and so on, if he targets such skill only at sleeve? And since sportism builds default on equipment such dog will prefer to target equipment for rest of his life. Now he can be trained to target  man but that is not his preference and that will show when the dog is suddenly under strong stress of real civil fight. In stressful situation the dog goes to default which in Sportism is equipment where in my AlpineK9 training the default is the man.Thus when dog is  facing stress I want the dog to target the man and not to look for equipment- that costs lives. I do not wan to have that on my consciousness when I train police dogs. 

 Also you are stuck thinking  that I do not train prey bites and where and how to bite. I most definitely develop prey on toys and grips on toys.  I do that while in parallel fashion, in separate venue, and with separate decoys  and even different commands I teach the dog a default to bite the man and not a toy - which equipment is a toy to a Sportism way trained dog .  Then when the dog has default of targeting the man permanently and firmly set then I    for the first time use equipmenton decoy and I use the equipment only for protection of the decoy and not as an object to be targeted  as sportism does.  Acter estblishing the civil default to target the man  the dog now will  target a man regardless of any equipment. 

 If you or someone else who  wants to discuss  my points here, then  I would urge you and others to read this well since I have tried in this post in my the best way to explain the logic of AlpineK9 civil training and I am really tired of  keep repeating same thing  only because people pay no attention to what I have already said many times before and only want to be antagonistic to me. 

Hans  . 

IF a person spent half as much time training and learning to train, rather than trying to convince everyone they know how to train, then that person would be a much better, more knowledgeable dog trainer. But, I guess it's easier to be bombastic and emphatic about one's own prowess than it is to actually get out there and train - that would mean having to step away from the keyboard and do something.

I do not think I am "know it all'. Far from it. I am trying to learn as much as I can and I learn all the time, i work with different trainers and LE units often on my dime because I want to learn. I am like a sponge. Which is more then I can say about some others over here who just want to defend what they learned some time ago - right or wrong. Where I am just trying to convey methods of training which I have developed and learned in my almost 50 years of training. I am "writing allot" since it is possible that some here may be interested to learn this. I am willing to discuss concerns and questions some may have. I personally am very concern with this since I have seen people being killed if trained by sportism. I have also seen and heard countless LE K9 handlers with what the dog may do during its 1st situation on the street. And also I am concerned with how to avoid as much as possible dogs failing their first assignment on the street. I am often fixing such dogs . I have seen dogs trained in sportism who were send after the bad guy and run full bore only to stop and piss on the tires because the bad guy did not have sleeve or wear body suit. I am concerned with developing a method which would avoid that. I am not the only one who uses these principles thus I do not want others to think that it is only me who train like this or in similar way. in the end I would like to say that if you do not like what I do then DO NOT DO IT. I am willing to help the rest.

Koots do not worry about it. I have trained hundreds iof PP/LE and sport dogs to say the least,... literally and I still train and decoy being 63 now. I am sorry that may language sounds bombastic to you. English is my second language and I write the way I have learned. But I understand if you can not discuss the contend then at least you need to attack the person or his English. I totally get it. I am used to it.

I think we can all agree that bombastic is fun to say.

Some time ago I was answering this post on my forum. I think people can benefit from reading it.
Poster:
It's actually perfectly logical to train a dog to bite on equipment first and then work on biting "for real." When you look at that training as teaching a skill, that is, HOW to bite. The default won't be the equipment when it's time to bite for real but rather the default will be to how the bite was trained. Just like muscle memory in an athlete. You don't start a young boxer in the ring sparring. You first teach him the proper punching mechanics and movement. You then have him start applying those skills to pads and bag work. Once he gets in the ring you don't want him to think about technique but have it be instinctual..:


Hans:
Actually that is a great question which is used as an argument against my AlpineK9 system of PP training by people who are using sportism approach.
let me start with saying that humans are not born masters of fine art of fleuret fencing, boxing or Hwarang-Do. On the other hand dogs instinctively know how to bite That is why all dogs bite and they do it quite well.. You do not need to teach them to bite. There is no muscle memory involved in dogs response to stimuli to bite. That is inherited response.Thus the bite is an inherited reaction governed by instinct. Thus task of training dog protection is not about teaching him to bite, but it is about whom to bite and when - it is about teaching him the when and whom and not as much about mechanics of bite.
Thus when we train the dog protection, we teach them and try to communicate to them use of what they already instinctively know so they do it on command and do it at specific by us designated target. And the target in civil protection is a man and not the sleeve. That is what the teaching civil bite work is all about. For dogs this is not a matter of reasoning where man learns how to aim a rifle and then he does it consciously at specific target, but in the dog it is a matter of inherited instincts which kick in automatically as a reaction to outside stimulus which in this case in trained dog eventually is our command. Thus when I command the dog I want him to look for a man-enemy and not a toy.

Then when we establish the default on when to use it ( on our command) and on whom ( man/person/bad guy), then we can practice minor intricacies of how the bite. Like we can go and teach them the more or less significant art of a full bite deeper grips and so on. - which really means to teach the dog slightly differently then what mother nature would want them to do. If they do bite naturally perfectly well according to our desires, which many dogs do, then there is not much else to be taught to such dog- as far as the bitework goes. Now and only now we can start establishing the how and the muscle memory of it so that they do not miss evading prey or enemy. Now the dog already has default to bite the man and nothing ever for rest of his life can make him prioritize the sleeve happy or otherwise equipment prioritization.

Also if you want to teach the dog from a pup how to bite and build better eye to muzzle coordination and coordination in general and develop muscle memory then you can do so from a get go - from a pup. I do that too. I am not against that. However that IMO and experience is best to be taught separately from teaching the dog to develop default to target the man. Why separately? Because I want the dog to develop targeting of a man as a default which he prefers to use in the time when I command him with command which was used to build the default in the first place.
The problem with sportism is that it teaches linear succession from toy to equipment to man. That builds the default to target equipment since that was what the dog learned first. And what the dog learns first he likes the most, does the best and REVERTS TO UNDER STRESS.