Teaching the long attack - Page 4

Well som interesting thoughts and ideas. First and formost I am honored that this question was even addressed by someone of Mr Paynes caliber. He answered one of my questions by addressing the "value" of a dynamic entery as it pertains to the scoring and the sport of Sch. So that in an of itself answers my question.

This "value" is something that varies between sports. In PSA (I know we are the guys in the trailer park teaching our pit bulls to crash through garbage cans) the entry or the "hard hit" is 10 points in given scenarios, so it has a high value in that particular sport. In French Ring, the dog has to have a fast entry to avoid the esquive, but you will see some of those dogs gather to a certain degree because they know te decoy is going to try and avoid them. In the same vein, you can't have long launching, high fliers in FR because that makes them to easy to esquive. So like everything, I guess it depends on what sport you participate in and the "value" a particular trait or technique will bring you.

someone bought up PPD trainers who do not train a long entry for fear of the dog missing the bad guy. Well that is a good thought but not practical and shows a lack of experience. Anyone familiar with FR knows and understands the art of te "esquive". You can see many amazing displays of athleticism in FR trials. However, even with the best trained, fastest, and most agile decoys in the world, you will see them esquive a dog maybe 3 times. Do we really think a run of the mill "bad guy" in the stress of an on-coming dog will know how to make the dog miss? In the event they do get so lucky, I doubt theywould be able to do it a second time and at that point their focus would be completely off the human and onto the dog, giving the human a tactical advantage. So IMHO in a PPD or PSD venue I would prefer a high flying, hard hitting dog that is going to take the "bad guy" to the ground or at least knock them silly. In this situation, the "value" of the entry is high. 

I laughed when I heard Christopher bring up the term "forward flight" I have not heard that term in awhile. I believe it is an acurate description of certain dogs reaction to threat. Which is a point John also raised saying the dog does not see the threat, so no need to come with full comitment.

con't

The term "nervy" is seen as such a negative, I am thinking about not even using the term anymore. I agree 100% with the idea that a dog sees the threat. experiences fear (which we all do, dog, human, bear, goat, etc) when confronted with a threat, and reacts accordingly to it's training and genetic make-up. So the term "forward flight" is a good one. I want all my dogs to have "forward flight".

One thing I find interesting which conflicts with this thought is, in my experience, many of the dogs who take things very seriously are not flyers. They tend to stay on the ground and target center mass. So I agree with Christophers point on the "forward flight" but in my experience the dogs that take the threat more serious, do the opposite. They stay on the ground. Not all of them, which leads me to believe it has a genetic basis.

So with the ideas I have heard hear, My theory is several fold. I stick by my initial point of sleeves being inherently dangerous to hard hitting dogs. In such experienced Sch dogs have been influenced by this and tend to slow their entry as they go along in their career.

One thing I have to address is the whole "GSD's are "thinkers" or have more inteligence. Sorry folks I have to call bulls!@t. Most Malinios (yes I have run accross some very dumb ones) are just as "smart" if not smarter than the average GSD. IMO they are far more trainable and pick things up much quicker than a GSD. The whole my dog is a "thinker" I have found to be a big fat excuse. In the real world when shit hits the fan, there is no time to think. You go on instinct and training. If soemone jumps out of a car with a bat and comes after me, I don't have time to "think". I either confront the threat, or create distance. Both of which are instinctual fight or flight responses and both are tactics we are trained for. If I have a PSD or a dog I expect to protect me, I don't want them to think. They better do. It's my job as a handler to control my dog and prevent an unjustified bite. "My dog didn't go in full force or went around that obsticle instead of through it because they are "thinking" about a better way is a BIG FAT EXCUSE.

They are thinking alright. They are thinking about if they really want to do it.

One of my favorite movies is "Bull Durham". When Kevin Costner first meets his new pitcher he puts him in a stressful  position. Tim Robbins "thinks" about it too much and fails. Costner tells him "Don't think. It can only hurt the ballclub." Then thoughout the movie he says, "Hey meat. Don't think. Just throw."

If you have never seen this movie, go get it. It is great.

Anyway, I am glad this topic got such experienced and insightful responses,but I was really looking at it from a training standpoint. I now understand the value in the point scoring of Sch. But I find it hard to believe that if you have two dogs being equal and one comes in full force flying high, there would not be some sort of "point" given to that dog. Even if it is on a sub-concience level.

I can also understand someone not wanting to injure their $25,000 sport dog. Completely understand that. So for Sch the risk to gain ratio does not justify it. Totally understand that.

So back to training. Would anyone like to share there technique for training the entry? What makes a dog score well on a Sch long attack and how do you all train for it?

    Let me preface my comment by saying that I'm NOT a professional trainer, nor have I trained SchH dogs. My experience is limited to one PPD.  I've heard the comment both from the man I worked Shiloh with, and from other trainers that a lot of Shepherds view bite work as a game, and the sleeve as a ball.  It's fun... pure and simple. Shiloh LOVED doing the bite work, and was 4 years old before ever being introduced in any way towards tug play, sleeves etc.  The trainer made that comment that Shi came on the sleeve with a firm full bite, and held very well durring the struggle. His training was to release and watch if the assistant stopped fighting.  If however durring a weapons search, or escorting the assistant they broke away, pushed me or swung at the dog Shiloh would come back on the sleeve with a completely different bite. One the trainer felt would have broken an unprotected arm.  It was like the initial catch was fun and a game, but the  second was in response to a threat, and meant to be punitive. 

  When I saw the title of this thread I thought it referenced the attack from across a field, rather than getting the dog to leap from a distance.  While the flying leaps are awsome for the audience I'm not sure that it's the best for the dog. Both for risk of injury to them, and also I doubt that they get as firm a purchase on the initial bite. A dog that watches for the best grab and takes the time to get a good hold rather than leaping and just hoping to grab something I'd think would last longer, and be of more value in a true working environment such as police, or military work.

Regarding the thinking aspect again - I disagree.  Most mals I see don't think, they simply repeat patterns of behavior that brought them success in achieving reward.  This bypasses thinking and reasoning and is exactly in my opinion why they are so easy to train, especially in OB.  They don't think, question, reason - they simply do "X" to obtain "Y."  This leads to very nice, predictable, repeatable results - which I admit to being envious of when I watch a mal doing OB.  I don't think this means they are smarter or dumber, just not as apt to not be bothered with much beyond what their goal is and what it takes to achieve it.  I have heard from many people who enjoy shepherds and who have delved into mals (and been unhappy) that they simply are not "handler" dogs in that they are working for themselves (specifically drive satisfaction) - not for/with the handler.  I see this as further support for my opinion that they are short term goal fixated/driven.  This is a true strength in one way, but not in others.

I would also say that the long attack is not the same as "someone jumping out with a bat" in that the dog well knows the routine and has plenty of time to prepare (even during the run down the field) for the confrontation.  The threat from the long attack comes from the presence of the helper and there is no element surprise requiring immediate fight or flight.  So, to me the long attack is similar to when a LEO chooses how and when to take a person down and restrain them.  The dog knows what he is going to do and if slowing *should* only be doing so to achieve the best tactical position.

As a final thought, for years mules were considered to be stubborn and "dumb" compared to horses based only on the observation that horses are much easier to train than mules.  Scientific intelligence testing has shown that mules are actually MORE intelligent then horses.. The assumption is now that much of the "stubbornness" encountered when training mules is really the trainer running into the "self preservation" wall, in that the horse can be taught to do things that might imperil its well being/health/etc, while the mule (with higher intelligence and there a better sense of self awareness) can be much more difficult to work with.  Supposedly, standardized intelligence testing has shown the Doberman breed to be one of the most intelligent dog breeds.  They also seem to be the most cautious in physical confrontations such as protection work- yet good ones are not cowardly  and in fact are the only breed purposely developed from inception for patrol work.  Unusual that they also are the most aware at all times, especially during fights, yet were actually developed for the work?  I don’t think so.  I like to watch mixed martial arts.  Almost all successful fighters circle looking for openings, the least successful are the ones with great knockout punches but only know one route – forward. 

Anyhow, this takes me back to what do we want?  Missiles or partners?

-Calvin

Partner for night walks and missiles for the podium!!

Geat A real dog, you said it yourself, that the dog takes off 6-7 feet froma decoy (flying attack), are you saying to me that there is not increase chance of a decoy, bad guy, move away from a bite? I am 6-2 (230lb) I am pretty surre I would be able to make quite bit of dogs miss, they may get my shirt, my sweatshirt, jacket but the will not get a whole bite. My PPD dog I expect to lunch right infront of the bad guy, and get a full grip on him, I don't want him to need to reangage, I see that a lot of dogs after missing and reingaging go into rage, and are less effective. But like I said this is my opinion, and I am surre that there are far more knowledgable people on this board that will have theirs, which will differ.

I don't know much about males but I hate make a st atment of one dog being more inteligent than other, I think the kind of statments are subjective so I don't go there. Male I seen quite few and I like them, but I simply prefer GSD and is because of their personalitys that fit with my style I don't want to call it inteleigence.

Hey let's ask Wallace Payne how likely is someone escaping an attack (if their life is depending on it) if a dog lunch at him 6-7' infront of him comparing to shorter lunch? He cought quite few dogs in his life he should be able to shead some light on it. Thanks.

the point losses can be for shallow grips, not outing or being dirty (bumping or rebithing the helper after the out or not outing cleanly.

There are a lot of things that come together in this exercise targeting, outing, bite development.

Ideally you want a dog that comes quicly to the helper,takes a full mouth (not chewy) grip and then outs cleanly without bothering the helper.

hope this helps 

 Whether a dog launches or not is not as important to me as is whether it slows down immediately before the catch. I have had dogs keep all four on the ground but they keep the speed and run through me….others launch…and then there are the dogs that gather/slow up before the bite. I prefer a dog that runs or launches through the helper.

As for training the long bite, I think that the long bite, as it is done in a trial, is practiced too much and some dogs will begin to anticipate the catch and will slow down or “gather up” before the bite. For every 10 long bite’s I do, 9 end with backups immediately prior to the catch….and before the dog begins to slow up. The 10^th long bite will be a normal long bite exercise but the dog is now expecting me to backup and is more likely to run right through me. For younger dogs that ratio goes up to 1 out of 20 or more.

What intelligent creature wouldn’t slow down some if it always had some big crazy dude repeatedly running at it waving a stick and yelling…but if it thinks that dude is going to turn and run, it better keep the pedal  to the metal.

If you are into the launch, I have seen and used an agility tunnel where the helper stands on one side of the tunnel and the dog has no choice but to launch over the tunnel to reach the helper.

This is mental masturbation.

As they say in golf...Drive for show, put for dough

For Sport, is another matter in & of itself.  Often the twain will meet, but often not. 

Long attack is for the audience and show, its not applicable to reality,  that I can ascertain, maybe a K9 officer can chime in with his thoughts...Im sure about 10+ other important criteria take precedence over a dog that has a stellar & audience favorite.. 'long attack"  :)

In hunting dogs, there is a Jump Docking contest (televized & prizes the whole 9).  In reality, most hard core hunters & guides,  will have nothing to do with big entries, they discourage them in fact.  Gets a dog impaled ona stick & killed or hurt. Balance is the key.   I think the same applies to Shepherds for real purposes in protection work.