Serious hard GSD - Page 18

Don't let IPO bug you so much Prager, just let others put titles on the breeding stock you market, everyone is happy then.

@Prager....good post....and saying that in no way means I am demeaning sport training or sport dogs.....just means that the view/values of sport people are often differing from those of work people. No right or wrong attached to either, but each is right in their respective way/goal.
@Duke....I agree!

Hans...stop making things up. You have no idea why the dog was trained the way it was FROM THOSE VIDEOS. More than likely it's trained that way because the handler doesn't have any other way of training it or just reverts to what he was taught 30 years ago instead of doing it a different way. Luckily for the handler, the dog can take that type of correction and keep going.

I've already covered the "pussyfication" word in another thread. But it tells me all I need to know (already knew) about you. A word used by has been old men, that has been spread to the new generation of IPO trainers who don't have the skills and abilities to compete with people who know what they're doing. Deeply rooted in jealousy. Not sure how these new people who can't train their dog to pass an IPO1 in the "pussified" version believe they would've been able to train some of the "more difficult" exercises in Schutzhund...but they believe it. Or maybe they just know that the old school scoring where no control was necessary in bite work, a dog could look around in the blind, take half grips every time and still come out of it with a V would've at least made their mess of a dog look half way decent on paper when the judge gives them a gift.

It always amazes me with dog people, that they can be so dogmatic in their feelings about dogs/training.
It's like a person can't appreciate " both" sides of a coin.
If I say I like working dogs, than somebody in sport world gets all defensive, and if I don't feel that show dogs are good source of working stock, then show people get bent out of shape not realizing that I can appreciate them in their realm. It doesn't have to be either/or.......their are shades, degrees, and variations of things. Yet, we are continuously subjected to those uncompromising folks about their approach/perspective to dogs/training. I personally think it says more about individuals than the dogs or the training......such is the problem with topic of hard dog, imo.

Btw, my last post was written BEFORE I read the from BW, so please do not think my post is written in response to any singular post by any singular person, because it wasn't. But, I do feel the need to write this disclaimer because people( not BW ) do get so defensive.

Gustav...it happens because the dog training world and in particular Schutzhund has always been...find a mentor that's been doing it for longer, and never question anything they do. Most information people pass on has been "learned" because people just accepted what others told them. Rarely have I seen someone actually question a mentor or a teacher on a comment or analysis they've made about a particular dog or a particular behavior. Why? Questioning your all-knowing mentor is a sure fire way to start a search for a new one. People hate being questioned, they think they already know it all, hard for them to accept there might be a different way to look at things.

In this case...basic logic was used to rebuff what someone stated. Once it's posted on the internet...you can't take it back, and instead of just admitting the statement was incorrect most people will start digging a bigger hole and trying to grasp for anything they can to show how their statement might've been right in even the slightest way. When that fails? Time for an attack on the person who's statement made theirs false. Usually by attacking their experience (if known) and if not, it's the "you just don't understand and are making things up." Except they never provide concrete details on what is made up.

BW not sure I really understand what you are saying, but sometimes it takes a while for me to absorb. In case of Sch, I first titled a dog in 1980 under a completely mindset than that of today. That was under a mentor of that time, Bill Alexander. I then titled a dog in 2001, under different mindset and even some rules altered. The training approach was entirely different and that was reason I joined club and learned this approach. ( I have primarily trained LE dogs but LE approaches started shifting to newer methodology especially with increase in Mals) So, I wanted to understand from experience as well as theory. In the past 15 years I have seen yet another shift in training, especially in obedience to " shaping" behavior in foundation work. I train periodically with Marty Segretto to understand this approach and will put my obedience foundation work on new pup through this way for learning purposes only.
My point is I think a good trainer never stops evolving, and in dog training experience is necessary for thorough understanding, imo.
Does this mean that I have cut loose the methodology of the 80's ( compulsion) or the early 2000's (use of tugs/balls) and will only employ shaping by balls? NOOOO!
I reserve the right to use the methodology that best suits the DOG and the PURPOSE for what I am training for. There is no right or wrong from my perspective........everybody is fallible to a degree, just like there are some gifted people in dogs, experience notwithstanding.
So, with really hard dogs, there are various degrees and definitions of just what are serious dogs.....and certainly more than one right type or way. So, I don't see reason for the exclusivity that some seem to proclaim....there's room in the tent for many ways and types,imo.

Gustav

"If I say I like working dogs, than somebody in sport world gets all defensive, and if I don't feel that show dogs are good source of working stock, then show people get bent out of shape not realizing that I can appreciate them in their realm."

The moment you state an opinion you offended someone. That's the world we live in. People choose to go to the ridiculous. They are fear biters, throw them a treat and move on.

Lol @ gigante ^^^ most profound thing you've said here.

I’m not against other training methods at all. Train the dog in front of you. But the first thought I have when I see someone physically correcting their dog in the way we saw in the video isn’t “that dog must be really hard so that’s the only correction that will work.” The truth 99% of the time is that the handler just doesn’t have the skill or knowledge to use another method. I also don’t believe that any dog that can take that type of correction and still work is a hard dog. To me…a truly hard dog is one for which physical corrections don’t matter much. Heavy physical corrections don’t cause the dog to change it’s behavior. Because the physical correction doesn’t matter to the dog, it’s not a reason for the dog to avoid the behavior that caused the correction. In the video…the dog clearly cared about the correction, therefore, probably not as hard of a dog as people seem to think. Does he take corrections well? Absolutely. Is he probably able to work through very heavy corrections? Sure. But name a dog at that level…top twenty at the BSP…that can’t take that kind of correction and work through it.

Most of the time trainers lacking in skill and ability like to call dogs “hard” when they can’t get the dog under control or actually train it. It’s not that their ability is lacking…it’s that the dog is so great that no matter how hard they try to train it, it will never take because its such a strong dog. The truth is that those dogs are extremely rare and it’s just a hit to the ego of the trainer to admit that they’re lacking in ability.

“This dog is way too strong to title in IPO!” Funny how that always comes from people that like to diminish IPO and talk about how much harder it once was. Schutzhund was harder 10 years ago? And yet you can’t title in it today? How does that make any sense?