This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Schznd on 05 June 2013 - 19:06
"Mike West gives higher scores because he awards points for task performed according to the standard. If every dog fully meets the standard and gets 100 points that is just fine so long as he adheres to the standard or exceeds it. Steve1 uses terms like the bite could be harder .. harder than what?? If the bite meets the IPO standard it is 100% of points for that task and there are no style points or style deductions.”
This has nothing to do with performance style or judging styles, it is a total misunderstanding of the current FCI-IPO rules (which everyone in the world adheres to). You have a total disconnect when it comes to understanding how IPO in general or National level competitions are judged, or you write this crap just to amuse yourself.
You would not give every figure skater at the Olympic selection a 10 just because they completed a double axel. There are EXCELLENT and GOOD double axles and the scores reflect this. You cannot give the same points to the skater that launches and lands perfectly and effortlessly and to the skater whose ankle buckles just slightly but still looks really good and completed the task. Competition doesn’t work that way and this holds true for any competitive sport.
There is EXCELLENT guarding and GOOD guarding. If a dog bites full and outs and sits in front of the helper (silent guard) with his tongue hanging out waiting for the handler to arrive, you cannot award full points for the guarding, it may be low SG or even good, but it can never be EXCELLENT. The back transport is a guarding exercise, if the dog is looking at the handler, crowding or forging it can never be excellent. At the AWDF very good back transports received sufficient or insufficient if the dog broke concentration or checked in and these FCI judges have nothing to do with USCA. The blind search is not just running blinds and because the dog runs 6 blinds doesn’t mean it is an excellent exercise and he should be awarded full points. Years ago nobody cared how you got between exercises in protection, there were no secondary obedience points, now you are judged throughout, and even heeling to the setup for the long bite is judged.
“Mike West gives higher scores because he awards points for task performed according to the standard. If every dog fully meets the standard and gets 100 points that is just fine so long as he adheres to the standard or exceeds it”
Mike is a good guy, I’ve trialed under him, always got along, but all the rules have changed and with the new rules (the FCI ones that USCA had nothing to do with writing) even more so, you have mandatory point deductions. Example: not saying GO on the escape grip is a MANDATORY 1 point deduction. When a dog misses a blind, has a bad grip on the re-attack, bumps after the out, forging and looking at the handler on the back transport, no basic position or sits in the transports……it can never be a V-rating, I don’t care who the judge is, what organization he is from, nowhere in the world would it be V-rating and all this nonsense about adhering to the real IPO rules and awarding points for tasks performed and these ridiculous algorithms trying to connect the 2012 Qualifier to what happened in 2013, is a giant load of bullshit.
This type of misunderstanding of the rules and labeling judges as cheaters and criminals does nothing positive for the DogSport. New comers to the sport should have an open mind and look at what is really going on in the world of IPO. Get out and ask questions, go to the big events and see the routines, listen to the critiques. Have a judge seminar; it is the best money a club can spend. Learn the rules inside and out and make your own decisions.
If you don’t know your points (+-) when you walk up to the critique you need to study more. And if you don’t know your points, you are doing your dog a huge disservice because you can never highlight his strong points and make his weaknesses better if you don’t know the point structure or the rules of the game.
A statement to me from a well known German Judge years ago when I asked for clarification on obedience. “There is a sit in motion and then there is A SIT IN MOTION, do you understand the difference”
I'm Gone........
This has nothing to do with performance style or judging styles, it is a total misunderstanding of the current FCI-IPO rules (which everyone in the world adheres to). You have a total disconnect when it comes to understanding how IPO in general or National level competitions are judged, or you write this crap just to amuse yourself.
You would not give every figure skater at the Olympic selection a 10 just because they completed a double axel. There are EXCELLENT and GOOD double axles and the scores reflect this. You cannot give the same points to the skater that launches and lands perfectly and effortlessly and to the skater whose ankle buckles just slightly but still looks really good and completed the task. Competition doesn’t work that way and this holds true for any competitive sport.
There is EXCELLENT guarding and GOOD guarding. If a dog bites full and outs and sits in front of the helper (silent guard) with his tongue hanging out waiting for the handler to arrive, you cannot award full points for the guarding, it may be low SG or even good, but it can never be EXCELLENT. The back transport is a guarding exercise, if the dog is looking at the handler, crowding or forging it can never be excellent. At the AWDF very good back transports received sufficient or insufficient if the dog broke concentration or checked in and these FCI judges have nothing to do with USCA. The blind search is not just running blinds and because the dog runs 6 blinds doesn’t mean it is an excellent exercise and he should be awarded full points. Years ago nobody cared how you got between exercises in protection, there were no secondary obedience points, now you are judged throughout, and even heeling to the setup for the long bite is judged.
“Mike West gives higher scores because he awards points for task performed according to the standard. If every dog fully meets the standard and gets 100 points that is just fine so long as he adheres to the standard or exceeds it”
Mike is a good guy, I’ve trialed under him, always got along, but all the rules have changed and with the new rules (the FCI ones that USCA had nothing to do with writing) even more so, you have mandatory point deductions. Example: not saying GO on the escape grip is a MANDATORY 1 point deduction. When a dog misses a blind, has a bad grip on the re-attack, bumps after the out, forging and looking at the handler on the back transport, no basic position or sits in the transports……it can never be a V-rating, I don’t care who the judge is, what organization he is from, nowhere in the world would it be V-rating and all this nonsense about adhering to the real IPO rules and awarding points for tasks performed and these ridiculous algorithms trying to connect the 2012 Qualifier to what happened in 2013, is a giant load of bullshit.
This type of misunderstanding of the rules and labeling judges as cheaters and criminals does nothing positive for the DogSport. New comers to the sport should have an open mind and look at what is really going on in the world of IPO. Get out and ask questions, go to the big events and see the routines, listen to the critiques. Have a judge seminar; it is the best money a club can spend. Learn the rules inside and out and make your own decisions.
If you don’t know your points (+-) when you walk up to the critique you need to study more. And if you don’t know your points, you are doing your dog a huge disservice because you can never highlight his strong points and make his weaknesses better if you don’t know the point structure or the rules of the game.
A statement to me from a well known German Judge years ago when I asked for clarification on obedience. “There is a sit in motion and then there is A SIT IN MOTION, do you understand the difference”
I'm Gone........
by Markobytes on 05 June 2013 - 19:06
BooBoo, I have raised plenty of litters and am writing from experience. I have seen how early interactions with pups molds them into adults and can boost or limit their potential. I have also witnessed breeders who have retained pups and kept them with siblings or their mother too long then tried to train them but the dogs were ruined and any potential they might of had when they were pups is lost.
I do not comprehend how you can make up these wild accusations with zero proof, just because someone belongs to UScA does not make them guilty. Two judges should not be that far apart in scoring, but you can not make the inference of cheating based on that alone. National trials should be stricter than club trials, club trials are a test of breed worthiness and if the dog can perform the routine it should get a passing score. But once you progress beyond this it becomes a competition with every fault observed and deducted to be fair to the other competitors, but every participant should be judged equally. A judge that overlooks faults and gives too high a score in a national competition does the participants an injustice.
BooBoo, I find some of your posts well thought and observant, your thread on the main forum is something that interests me, wish you would limit your posts to subjects you have knowledge. Accusing people of cheating with zero proof just because they belong to a certain organization is very wreck less and serves neither the UScA, the WDA or German Shepherd Dogs and their owners any good.
I do not comprehend how you can make up these wild accusations with zero proof, just because someone belongs to UScA does not make them guilty. Two judges should not be that far apart in scoring, but you can not make the inference of cheating based on that alone. National trials should be stricter than club trials, club trials are a test of breed worthiness and if the dog can perform the routine it should get a passing score. But once you progress beyond this it becomes a competition with every fault observed and deducted to be fair to the other competitors, but every participant should be judged equally. A judge that overlooks faults and gives too high a score in a national competition does the participants an injustice.
BooBoo, I find some of your posts well thought and observant, your thread on the main forum is something that interests me, wish you would limit your posts to subjects you have knowledge. Accusing people of cheating with zero proof just because they belong to a certain organization is very wreck less and serves neither the UScA, the WDA or German Shepherd Dogs and their owners any good.
by Mystere on 05 June 2013 - 20:06
Quote by Booboo: "This forum is about 100 people or less who dominate the discussions. I don't write for them."
Of course you do, Booboo, you ARE them!!
Of course you do, Booboo, you ARE them!!
by Mystere on 05 June 2013 - 20:06
Zdog: You are here on this thread for the same reason that I am: CHEAP ENTERTAINMENT! Booboo is very entertaining. Although, I feel a bit bad about it, because I believe that Markobytes hit the nail on the head ( no pun intended). Still, booboo is like a wreck on the highway: traffic becomes snarled, because everyone slows down to look at the wreck. How many people on the last couple of pages have stated that they were directed to come see this wreck? That is all most of us are doing when it comes to Charles Finley aka booboo, on this thread or others--looking at a wreck. None of you can seriously believe that you can reason with him, do you? Keith Grossman: You know full well that this is cheap entertainment for you. But, perhaps, we should not be so entertained.
The obvious obsession with USCA is disturbing and perhaps provides a peek into the minds of people who finally get off the keyboard and start blowing up things. They , e.g., Islamic jihadists, are obsessive about some perceived wrong (however baseless and however not really their business) and it takes over. Markobytes may well be correct about the mental state, given the sheer number of dogs, as well. Personally, I am done with responding to this thread, because booboo is only going to regurgitate over and over and we are going to engage in a folie a 100 him. Ultimately, it will reflect as badly on us for continuing to engage as it does on him for his rantings. I am done...and I hope that the rest of you are, as well.
Adios.
The obvious obsession with USCA is disturbing and perhaps provides a peek into the minds of people who finally get off the keyboard and start blowing up things. They , e.g., Islamic jihadists, are obsessive about some perceived wrong (however baseless and however not really their business) and it takes over. Markobytes may well be correct about the mental state, given the sheer number of dogs, as well. Personally, I am done with responding to this thread, because booboo is only going to regurgitate over and over and we are going to engage in a folie a 100 him. Ultimately, it will reflect as badly on us for continuing to engage as it does on him for his rantings. I am done...and I hope that the rest of you are, as well.
Adios.
by isachev on 05 June 2013 - 21:06
Well done Schznd!!! Well done 
by Western Rider on 05 June 2013 - 21:06
Mystere I do believe you are so right and so are your actions and your advice to the others. I hope they follow it.
For those that wish to continue on with this thread Stop the name calling, the low class remarks that really just show everyone how low you are.
Western Rider Admin
For those that wish to continue on with this thread Stop the name calling, the low class remarks that really just show everyone how low you are.
Western Rider Admin
by Rik on 05 June 2013 - 21:06
Rik sent you a PM
by Dobermannman on 05 June 2013 - 22:06
Rik,
There is more then one person resorting to personal attacks and it isn't
Bubbabooboo. You can disagree with his position or the frequency of his posts BUT the nasty personal comments are coming from the same old gang of PDB regulars and Admin stands by and does nothing :-(
Thomas Barriano
There is more then one person resorting to personal attacks and it isn't
Bubbabooboo. You can disagree with his position or the frequency of his posts BUT the nasty personal comments are coming from the same old gang of PDB regulars and Admin stands by and does nothing :-(
Thomas Barriano
by bubbabooboo on 05 June 2013 - 22:06
Thomas .. the admin has it under control .. I can defend myself if need be
by Rik on 05 June 2013 - 22:06
Thomas, the guy, by his own admission and deeds, breeds underage and dysplastic dogs, does not believe in health certs (other than his own opinion) or breed surveys.
I don't know you, but I am closing in on 30 years with the GSD in the U.S. GSDCA, WDA, UScA, SV, I've done them all. UScA is not perfect, but they pulled the GSD in the U.S. back from what the GSDCA created. I'm behind them 100%.
I don't know you, but I am closing in on 30 years with the GSD in the U.S. GSDCA, WDA, UScA, SV, I've done them all. UScA is not perfect, but they pulled the GSD in the U.S. back from what the GSDCA created. I'm behind them 100%.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
