Agility as a sport

There is another side of a high drive dog besides the benefit of speed you get control/focus issues. Its about consistency. It took my instructor's dog Zippity 2 years to her MACH. She has a lot of control issues because Zippity it does not take much for her to go over the top. Her other dog Zachary isn't as drivey and is sort of a thinker/soft.

However, its all how your train your dog to create drive and speed regardless of breed but its all up to the personality of the dog. Anyhow, she was showing me what to do with my JRTs and there is a big difference on how they perceive the game in the way you train. Remember its a game for you and your dog. There are those that are content with that thinking and there are those that are not.

750 points, at an average of say 35 seconds under a SCT of 75, thats 21 trials. Now if you can get the QQs, it would be icing on the cake.

Now becoming a big time addict in this sport, I have to save my pennies for the Linda M seminar that will be happening at our facility in February.

Yeah, my little guy Kota, is a soft, fast dog.  Tasha is a soft, exact dog.  We're working on speed and confidence with her.  ;) 

I also don't want to see people breeding BC's FOR agility because I love the breed in it's original form as a herder, so breeding for more and more speed would go against what the breed's foundation is and I think they would lose a lot of the best characteristics of the breed.

But this was about agility.  Training plays a big part in this game, but if only the top trainers can achieve titles, then it's not as much fun for the rest of the community, imo.  It definitely takes skill and patience and training to reach the top levels, but if you make it that much harder to get there, you will have fewer people trying to get there.  Make sense?

I'm saving my pennies for the camp this May. 

A similar discussion regularly takes place in the dressage world -- Back in the '70s, when dressage really started to gain a foothold in this country, Thoroughbred horses were the most commonplace breed in the ring, along with a smattering of other breeds like Saddlebreds, Arabs, etc.

In the 90's there started to become an ever growing population of "warmblood" breeds, many which were imported from Europe.  The warmbloods were bred for the sport and had the movement & gaits to excell in dressage.  By the year 2000, many people were complaining that "average" horses couldn't compete against the warmbloods and that if you didn't have one, you were nothing.

The fact is, warmbloods do better BECAUSE of how they are built.  How can you fault them for this?  It simply takes less effort for them to move up the levels because the movements come naturally to them.  They score high because they have lovely lofty gaits that hide a lot of other minor flaws.  Most people who are "serious" about their dressage career/hobby end up buying a warmblood breed at one point or another -- although there is definitely a hard-core contingent of folks plugging along with their non-traditional breeds.  That said, the number of non-traditional breeds at the highest levels is very, very, very small.

There is a reason why the highest levels of agility are populated by Border Collies -- it is because they are the best.  I see absolutely no reason to be upset that trainers who may have started out with other breeds make the switch to BCs.  If you want to be the best of the best in this sport, that is what you do!  The large dog classes are super competitive and if you want to win in the 20/24/26 class you pretty much need a BC.  So what?  Personally, I don't stress so much over placings and worry more about getting a Q for myself and Luke.  If he places in a large class of of 20+" dogs then that is icing on the cake.  And FWIW, a clean slower run is still better than a lightning fast run that knocks a bar or takes an off-course because the dog was going so fast.

I think if it's possible for a BC to come in 40 seconds under SCT at the excellent level, those course times are WAY too lenient.  While I don't think that every dog needs to be as fast as a BC to be successful, I do feel that the dog at least needs to be running as fast as it can for the entire course.  While any & every dog should be able to play agility, I don't necessarily feel that any & every dog should be able to be successful at the excellent/elite levels.  It takes a special dog to be successful at the upper levels and I don't think that qualifications should be dumbed down just so that "any" breed can do it.

In watching the videos on the other thread, I did note that a LOT of the issues with the slower dogs were handler-related.  If the handling were to improve, no doubt the dogs would run much faster.  Late crosses, missed cues & absent handling will cause dogs to be very slow.  This is a matter of TRAINING.  If you can't handle your dog properly around an elite/excellent course, you should stay at the lower levels longer.  I have a feeling many of those handlers on the videos got the minimum number of Q's and moved right up, even though they and their dogs were clearly not ready for it.  There is a DRASTIC difference in the handling skills of the people who were running the BCs and the people running, say, the Malamute, Basset Hound & Scottie (just off the tip of my head).  Those handlers flumbed & bumbled and made errors -- errors make your dog not trust you, and thus run slow.

There are some wickedly fast Goldens, Labs, Vislas, Weimeraners, etc. out there.  It comes down to breeding, training & drive.  It's possible to excell with any breed, but you're just "more likely" to do well with a BC.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  Kaiser is an Alaskan Klee Kai and you don't get any more UNtraditional than that in the agility world -- but he is wickedly fast and I can't wait to get him started in competing this summer.

FWIW, I'm sure I'll end up with a BC one day if I keep on with this obsession.  I want a b/w smooth coated male. 

KarissaKS

Personally, I don't stress so much over placings and worry more about getting a Q for myself and Luke.  If he places in a large class of of 20+" dogs then that is icing on the cake.  And FWIW, a clean slower run is still better than a lightning fast run that knocks a bar or takes an off-course because the dog was going so fast.

I think if it's possible for a BC to come in 40 seconds under SCT at the excellent level, those course times are WAY too lenient.  While I don't think that every dog needs to be as fast as a BC to be successful, I do feel that the dog at least needs to be running as fast as it can for the entire course.  While any & every dog should be able to play agility, I don't necessarily feel that any & every dog should be able to be successful at the excellent/elite levels.  It takes a special dog to be successful at the upper levels and I don't think that qualifications should be dumbed down just so that "any" breed can do it.

But at the same time, I don't think the sport should be tightened down any.  That's my concern, that at some point they might do that.  I think somewhere, England maybe? they already have a BC only class.  I believe in Masters Snooker you have to get a pretty high placement in order to earn the Master's title, or something along those lines.  I would like to see the sport remain a challenge between your team and the course set for you, not a contest between your team and another team.  Placements and titles are not what matters but they help to set goals for training for me.

KarissaKS

In watching the videos on the other thread, I did note that a LOT of the issues with the slower dogs were handler-related.  If the handling were to improve, no doubt the dogs would run much faster.  Late crosses, missed cues & absent handling will cause dogs to be very slow.  This is a matter of TRAINING.  If you can't handle your dog properly around an elite/excellent course, you should stay at the lower levels longer.  I have a feeling many of those handlers on the videos got the minimum number of Q's and moved right up, even though they and their dogs were clearly not ready for it.  There is a DRASTIC difference in the handling skills of the people who were running the BCs and the people running, say, the Malamute, Basset Hound & Scottie (just off the tip of my head).  Those handlers flumbed & bumbled and made errors -- errors make your dog not trust you, and thus run slow.

There are some wickedly fast Goldens, Labs, Vislas, Weimeraners, etc. out there.  It comes down to breeding, training & drive.  It's possible to excell with any breed, but you're just "more likely" to do well with a BC.  I don't see anything wrong with that.  Kaiser is an Alaskan Klee Kai and you don't get any more UNtraditional than that in the agility world -- but he is wickedly fast and I can't wait to get him started in competing this summer.

Oh no doubt!  But there are also dogs out there that are not as fast but run well and clean.  I'm not asking for longer SCT mind you, not at all!  I just don't want to see them get any tighter!

KarissaKS

FWIW, I'm sure I'll end up with a BC one day if I keep on with this obsession.  I want a b/w smooth coated male. 

My dream is a semi-rough, red and white male.  :)

I've only been doing agility for a year and a half, but honestly I wouldn't care if it was harder, faster, more selective.  Some dog breeds in general are better at certain functions, and I'm OK with that.  Plus there are always "easier" venues.  For example in agility I think CPE is pretty easy, most of the courses we did in pre-competition level training were more challenging than the CPE courses we did in competition.  If the easier venues get harder too, I'm sure new opportunities will pop up, or people like me who aren't super competitive at agility will do show-and-goes (I do agility for fun and as a way to supplement the types of training and exercise I really focus on).

My main dog "sport" is Schutzhund, and you will NOT see them bending the rules to be more inclusive (though over the years a few things have been dropped).  The sport was developed to test the breed worthiness of the German Shepherd dog, and while other breeds like rotts, dobes, pitts, mals, even heelers routinely participate, the GSD still excels.  In fact if anything I think the sport needs tighter judging.  A dog having a SchH3 title really doesn't mean much any more, there's a huge spectrum of how advanced the dog's drive has been developed and how he has been trained even at the highest title.

I guess I'm just not sympathetic at all, lol.  Before I was into dogs I was a competitive gymnast.  You either have it or you don't.

 But agility was not developed for one breed.  It was developed as a "fun thing to do between shows" back in England at dog and horse shows.  So no, I don't want it to get more competitive because at the higher levels, it is very competitive.  And for those folks that want to go to Nationals or be on the World Team, they have lofty goals to achieve.

Each venue has it's own rules and fans.  Lower level CPE is easy, but it does get harder as you move up.  This is my opinion.

"AKC is easy because you only need Q's in 2 classes, compared to 4 in USDAA."

"NADAC is easy because the courses are long, open and flowing, so you don't have as many tight turns and changes of direction as USDAA and AKC."

The above in italics are all things I've heard from other people that compete in those venues or disdain them.    I don't think one is better than another, each has it's own merits and that's why I compete in the ones I do.

Look at this way. there will be a time if one gets serious enough that the trials are just 'practice' because you look at the big picture if you're goal is to get to nationals or even the world team. for most people it is not. I guess it is what you make of agility. I have seen Denise, Linda, and other notables have bad runs and keep in mind, they participate in a lot of trials! Denise wants me to go to my first USDAA trial up in Medina I am really thinking about it.

I'll admit when I handled one of my instructor's dogs, Zachary, it was a blessing! Not saying my JRTs are so difficult but the BC made things a lot more easier for me to reach my goal. They are a lot more attentive and biddable versus a terrier. Come on now, a terrier you are not the focal point in their world as you are lucky just to be in it while the BC wants to be in your world. I do plan to get one to accompany my 2 JRTs.

I like to compete and I am competitive. I do like speed but I also like doing things correctly but I can't be short-sighted and forget about the fun fact. The fun factor is what motivates their drive.

When agility was first created there was only a 30" jump class.  Your dog either jumped 30" or you didn't get to play AT ALL.  Agility has made many, many concessions over the years to make it accessible to other breeds.  Good heavens, in NADAC there is a 4" class, so *any* dog can do agility.  Any dog.  Novice times are so lenient that a hamster could probably make time.  If you are in agility "to have fun" then stay at the lower levels.  There is nothing wrong with that!  I think it should be more difficult at the excellent/elite levels and that dogs who are successful at that level should have a goodly amount of speed & drive.

In my opinion (and we all have one), USDAA is the most difficult/competitive venue out there.  AKC seems pathetically easy (although UKC is even worse).  I would hardly call NADAC "easy" at the elite level, as the times are tight and the distances long -- and definitely not everyone is capable of both of those.  Some of us enjoy the fast, flowing courses and prefer them to the herky-jerky style of AKC.  There are a lot of AKC dogs who would never make time in NADAC because they just don't know how to run.

The point is that we are supposed to do agility because it is fun.  If you think that "fun" means being competitive and winning at the highest levels then you will eventually conform and do what the other successful people are doing.  But a good number of people think it's "fun" to simply go out and compete at the lower levels and play with their dogs and don't care if they ever get a MACH, NATCH, etc.  That is why we have novice & open levels.  People are welcome to play at the lower levels forever.  Nobody requires that you move up -- therefore I don't think we need to worry about making the upper levels accessable to everyone.

FWIW -- Lies, I'm sure you were in the novice classes at the CPE trial you attended, yes?  Don't judge an organization by their novice classes.  Things get a lot more difficult as you move up, regardless of the association.  Novice classes are there for a reason -- to be an easy introduction to the sport and keep things light & fun for both dog & handler.  CPE still offers plenty of its own challenges.

tashakota

 But agility was not developed for one breed.  It was developed as a "fun thing to do between shows" back in England at dog and horse shows.  So no, I don't want it to get more competitive because at the higher levels, it is very competitive.  And for those folks that want to go to Nationals or be on the World Team, they have lofty goals to achieve.

Each venue has it's own rules and fans.  Lower level CPE is easy, but it does get harder as you move up.  This is my opinion.

"AKC is easy because you only need Q's in 2 classes, compared to 4 in USDAA."

"NADAC is easy because the courses are long, open and flowing, so you don't have as many tight turns and changes of direction as USDAA and AKC."

The above in italics are all things I've heard from other people that compete in those venues or disdain them.    I don't think one is better than another, each has it's own merits and that's why I compete in the ones I do.

I just plan to stay at the lower level.  When I got Kenya she was already trained and running courses, her previous owner has been running CPE for years, but we started back at level 1.

If the lower levels are easy and the higher levels are difficult and competitive, I guess I don't see the problem.  There's no pressure to be super competitive if you want to stay at the lower levels, and if you do want to go far, you can. 

I also agree that a lot of the issues are training/handling, not necessarily a dog being held back by breed or speed.  The people I trial with are obsessive about clean handling.  Kenya's son has completed all the courses/games of Level 1 at three different jump heights.  Anyone simply wanting to clean up and earn titles could be on Level 3 or 4 by now with him (probably NQing here or there) but his owner wants to make sure SHE is clean and that the dog fully understands every obstacle and the handling before moving up.

So I guess for a lot of people, agility still is a fun thing to do between shows.  Now one can force me to move up if I don't want to.

KarissaKS

FWIW -- Lies, I'm sure you were in the novice classes at the CPE trial you attended, yes?  Don't judge an organization by their novice classes.  Things get a lot more difficult as you move up, regardless of the association.  Novice classes are there for a reason -- to be an easy introduction to the sport and keep things light & fun for both dog & handler.  CPE still offers plenty of its own challenges.

Right, so I don't see the problem.  Easy levels for non-competitive folk with slower dogs, harder levels for competitive folk who are truly talented handlers and have excellent dogs.

 I gotta say I too hope we don't keep upping the requirements w/o providing an outlet for those that want to have fun, too, nor do I want to see BCs bred exclusively for sport - I think both would cause major problems.

That being said, I would welcome additional levels of competition in venues like USDAA that are even more difficult, etc. if safety isn't sacrificed.  I run a dog in Performance for that very reason - no reason why we can't add another division like Performance and Championship. 

Ziva is DARN fast if I do say so myself and once we're working better as a team, she's going to give the dogs in the 16" class a run for their money no matter the breed.  I always want to have her competing against the best if she can. 

I'd like to see more mixes in competition in general - they can be just as fast and drivey as a purebred and I hate seeing the sheep mentality of the "gotta get a BC to win" ranks.  I think I'll ALWAYS run mixes just to give the BCs some unique competition. ;)  Even if the times get tighter I'm sure I can find a dog to meet my desires.

I still consider myself a newbie at agility. While we have been training for a while, we only started competing last April. I have watched and listened to other handlers at the trials I go to and all I can say is some people are so competitive. Sure I like to do well, we all do, but like Tashakota I am in it for the training and the fun with my dog, titles along the way are icing on the cake. I see some really fast border collies (and other like breeds) they can be too darn fast for their own good. What good are fast dogs if they can not "Q"? I see a lot of dropped bars, wide turns, and just taking off on their own. It takes a special handler to handle these type dogs and I know I am not it. 

I get questioned all the time why we run Belle preferred. Belle is LARGE, and while the jump height is not a problem, why would I want to "make" her jump higher? Besides she started competing 1 month before her 5th birthday. I really want her to last. Belle has climbed the title ladder quickly, what difference does it make if she gets her PAX instead of her MACH? Is it less of an achievement? Not in my mind. Sure we don't need the speed MACH points to earn the PAX but still, she has to get her "Q's". 

I will stick with my labs and goldens. These are my house dogs too, not just competitors. I want to have FUN WITH my dogs. That does not mean we won't look for different things in the dogs we pick in the future to accomodate the sports we enjoy. 

Karissa I know EXACTLY what you mean in your comparison with the horse industry. The warmbloods have taken over the hunter/jumper scene too, and my personal opinion is because you can push them. You can not push a TB. You can have a WB move up the ranks quickly and have hours of practice time for a child who needs to jump a million jumps. A TB would tell you when your quarter was up and that would be it. Give me a TB anytime. Again it is about competivness, and money. I am glad in the trials I have done there is not prize money to make things worse amongst the competitors. In agility you really only compete against yourself, sure there are other dogs in the class, but I can say I have not ever seen a dog in my class and thought "I must beat that one". In the horses I competed like I run agilty. I would try to better myself, usually the results were I would win. I would hear the comments all the time. People trying to tear apart my ride. I LOVED it when better people showed up to compete with, I had to raise my game. How else do you improve. 

In agilty I watch the good handlers, and the bad handlers trying to improve my skils. I love running the corgi I have taken on. She is a unique challenge and she will make me a better handler with future dogs. That owner wants this dog to earn her MACH. Time will tell. I know I will take it one step at a time, if that is not what this owner wants, I am sure she will find another handler. In the mean time, I will enjoy the lessons. 

If that is the case, then the sport WILL become full of BC's and the like because the competitive people will get those kinds of dogs.  So will the sport then cater to them? 

I don't go to USDAA trials because around here at USDAA trials all you see is a sea of BCs and JRTs with the occasional sheltie/aussie, and the handlers all appear to be super-competitive and not having enough fun.
You want to have fun and see a wide assortment of breeds/mixes you go to NADAC, CPE, and DOCNA.

The changes I've seen in the sport tend to occur to improve safety not to cater to a specific breed- lower jump heights, less dangerous obstacles.