Serious hard GSD - Page 17

Katsumoto indeed Hans, nice read between the lines!! Yes I agree those principles are enduring and the foundation to just about everything extraordinary before them and since.

Talk about training hard...Hans might have picked up a thing or two from someone whose name has often been dragged through the mud on this board.

Back in the days when Tina Barber (Ma Shiloh) was still doing schutzhund with German shepherds, she would train a level above the one she was planning to compete in. So, if she wanted to put a Sch1 on the dog, it would already be doing a Sch2 level routine.

Wow sunsilver. That is exactly what she said!!!!! She got is from George Theriot basically a father of USA Schutzhund by starting first US Schutzhung clob - NASA ( North American Schutzhund Association) whose Guild member I was. That is where I was introduced to Shutzhund in USA.

So right…the only place you can “tell” the dog is hard is when the guy kicks him and the dog still continues to work. Awesome. Good to know what the others on this forum consider a hard dog and what kind of “correction” is needed to prove it. Not only did Hans decide not to point out that the dog pinned his ears to his head during the “kicking” but also believed that a hit by the thigh from 6 inches away was “hard.” I can kick each and every one of my dogs like this and they’d all still continue to work, especially during protection and over something stupid like not running a blind correctly. By the time they get into the blind, they won’t remember a thing about the correction and will go in just as powerful as they always do.

The dog is without question an excellent dog and there is nothing but good things to be said about his accomplishments…but to call the dog hard off of that video? People just want to say something to prove a point to those that read this forum and don’t know any better. It’s a video shown and analyzed for the sake of winning an argument without actually having REAL back up. Puts it into perspective from now on though what some of the people on here consider “hard” for future discussions.

In regards to training for an IPO2 when you plan on only doing a 1? There isn’t a single high level trainer I know that doesn’t train for an IPO3 from the get go. The only level you can “compete” in is IPO3. No one “competes” at IPO1 or 2. At this point, the levels are so similar, it’s almost difficult NOT to train for the higher levels while still working on a BH or an IPO1. This is in no way a strange principle that has been forgotten. To me…when you see a dog, especially a male, that has been “retired” at only a 1 or a 2, it signals something wrong with the nerves more than anything. Maybe a little bit of owner laziness (mostly due to tracking), but the obedience and protection routines aren’t that much more involved that the handler shouldn’t have been able to train them unless the dog has nerve issues and can’t handle the extended pressure at the higher levels.

BW, I get your point, but also wanted to point out I said Sch 1, 2 and 3, not IPO. This was back in the days when they still had the 2 metre scaling wall. Things were a bit different. I wasn't around during those days, but Hans will remember.

I really don't think the exercises matter. I don’t believe the age limits for the titles have changed from SchH to IPO…an 18 month old dog is just as capable of doing a wall as a 20 month old…you don’t need to physically wait those 2 months to teach such an exercise. Most people I know who have a high level goal will train for the highest level from the beginning no matter what sport they're training in. New people...tend to set their goals at the various intervals as IPO1 seems achievable when just starting. When the higher levels are harder, the lower levels shouldn’t matter if there are small changes. If your dog can retrieve a 3 dumbbell on the flat, it can for sure retrieve a 1, ect. I really don’t get how that’s “training hard” it’s just regular training. Maybe she was the first person to realize it’s better to train for the higher level than have to go back and fix or reteach something, which is good on her. But I don’t see how it’s “training hard” if you’re teaching a young dog higher level exercises which they are more than capable of physically doing. No more pressure is necessary to teach a dog the exercises it sees in the 1 than the exercises it sees in the 3.

The scaling wall was 1,80 metres, and there happened to be a lot of accidents...

At least since the seventies things were not different, a good male was SchH3 rated, a SchH1 male offered for sale was fishy ( WHY only IPO1 ? ) = no difference.

Either the dog was ( is ) not worth the training temperament wise and/or structure wise, or the breeder was ( is ) plain lazy ( in that case you should know the sire/dam in question prior to buying a puppy ).

SchH1 / IPO1 males were/are more than seldom bred, females unfortunately are different. A lot of breeders really are lazy in case of the females ( but in this case I want to see the female personally, and it´s my personal choice if I want to support a "lazy" breeder with my hard earned money or not ).

@BW the only way is to tell that the dog is hard when you kick him? Where did you get that crap? You made it up! That is where. Also you completely missed my point. I was not talking about dog being hard but about why the training was done the way it was done. Which of course you completely misunderstood. Or maybe you did not read it yet that did not stop you from criticizing it.

 And And then you point  that everybody trains for IPO3.  There again you missed the point expressed  or implied which is, that the dog was ready for  SchH 2 ( we did not have pussyfied IPO then.) when t he was going to compete for 1 and was   ready 

for 3 when competed in 2.  Of course everybody trains form 3. ( well not everybody either) byt the opperasnt word is  word READY. :) 

Susie do not forget that Schtzhund was originally not a sport but it was TEST and one of the evaluations of ability of the dog to be bred where originally only "fail" and "pass" was awarded. That is how it ought to be. JMHO. However the test then degenerated into sport competition which is better then nothing but in long run it restructured GSD into something which it was not originally intended to be. Sport toy, instead of a working dog.
Most breeders do not give a damn about competition they put title on the dog only because they are forced to do so, so that they can breed and register the pup. Thus lower titles absolutely do not necessitate assumption that there is something wrong with the dog. That is only what sport people with dogs with high titles would like you to believe. Not everybody has ego which would demand to show the world that someone is better person just because his dogie got SchH3 by 4 years of age it is bred and then discarded for new model. BTW that alone leads to shorter life span of the breed since top sport people do not want to keep a dog past breeding age thus if he dies early if it OK. And especially breeders who bred dogs for work despised the demand for complicated titling which takes more then year to train or longer but yet good for nothing but ego of the owner of the dog and his wallet . If you talk to these people it is according to them just waste of time especially the higher titles. For breeders who bred dogs for work where their life and life of their fellow officers and police to whom they sold the dogs depend on the quality of the dog which for honest breeder of working dogs is enough to produce quality - or it should be. Where more titles especially today are in no way proof of dog being breed able or actually being working dog. Sport people like to call their sport routine performing trick dogs, working dogs just because they have title. Where title proofs no such thing. Thus to say that higher titled dog is better dog is IM humble opinion crock of crap since even police today does not want dogs with higher titles or really no titles and the reason is not only higher cost of titled dogs. But that leads us to sleeve dogs and sportism again.
Oh well:)
Prager Hans

agree with you on that one Hans, police find several problems in trained behaviours in dogs with titles/training

one big problem for example is in KNPV trained dogs, where only the bad guy fires a gun, and the dog allways bites the guy after he shoots, led to multiple policeofficers getting bitten by their partners dog after drawing a pistol

trained bark and hold,in KNPV the dog is send in the forrest to find bad guy but is NOT allowed to bite him ,,, police want the dog to bite if send in, etc etc

these routines are shaped in for several years and hard to untrain,

I dont think the KNPV program changed much since it started, where I think it should have, times change