Well I got my Dog Round
Many have asked recently if courses are getting harder ,the question was a general one and opened debate particularly around the lower ends of the grading system, I have run a young dog in G 3-5 classes this year, and at this level its difficult to comment because competing at G7 means that you have the ability to negotiate the test at the lower level and whilst you may regularly fail, as I often did ,it is normally because of some handling error or training issue in a young dog, rather than a course that cannot be negotiated by conventional means. I can comment though on the more senior courses put before me and whilst the majority were very enjoyable and as always testing I detect a growing trend of courses where there was no logical way of handling nor flowing path to navigate and as I reflect in an attempt to uncover the reasoning behind this trend I will name names in my search for an answer.
Starting with the good ones and I name, Christine and Nick Robson, Mike Bye, Stuart Harmes, Wendy Fairlamb, Jo Rhodes, Dave Hutchinson, Dave Deauville, Janet Jackson, Lee Windeatt, Enid Buckland Evers, Kate Howard and Gwyn Roberts,
The stinkers were designed and judged by, ………., well apart from one whose notoriety goes before her ( or him), I can honestly say that before I ran them I had no idea who the judge was nor their credentials to judge at that level. As I know the majority of the better handlers and most competent judges I assume these are handlers from the lower grades and less experienced judges.
Do we see a pattern here ? The former list contains either Senior level handlers or Championship judges ,the latter does not. Now I am not suggesting that one has to be a super handler to become a good judge, as far as I know Kate Howard does not run a dog and we regularly hear that Jill Spurr has had 4 clear rounds in her life, both are superb judges, and we could add countless names to this list which makes finding a solution to the problem difficult, particularly as we are led to believe that judges are in short supply.
There can be three reasons for the production of such courses, inexperience, innovation in freefall, or worst of all the belief that the contest is a challenge between judge and handlers with superior skills to themselves. The first problem is easy to understand, here we have the well meaning inexperienced handler who wants nothing more than to produce a suitable test for the contestants, the problem is however their experience of courses, speed of dogs, and handling techniques is limited to the lower grades, they proudly declare they got their overweight Labrador round the complex design , and assume that all these handlers in the senior echelon must be able to do the same, they probably repeat the process and then decide the course is too simple so add further complications. What they fail to understand merely because they have never experienced it is that the top dogs move at a speed that they cannot imagine and the triple pull thro they completed from close range is a much more difficult, prospect when attempted from 10 yards behind the dog. The “well I got my dog round brigade also fall 2 into categories” I saw one such character work her, ( or his),grade 3 collie over a prospective 6/7 jumping course, I cannot confirm whether the dog got round or not , as supper called and I left the scene, I accepted their word when walking the course, but it may have done so with the aid of a miners helmet because it certainly had not achieved its goal before twilight descended despite numerous attempts and major obstacle movements by the judge. The idea is to get the dog round first time not two hours later. Other exponents of this self justification of silly courses again eventually get their dogs round but I recollect one attempt vividly. We awaited the final class of the day and eagerly eyed the judge who emerged from the scoring tent in customary flowing dress and wide brimmed hat, our eagerness to begin was curtailed somewhat when she ( or he ) signaled to a colleague who duly led a large brown heavy crossbreed into the ring, she ( or he) then proceeded to test the course with this at very best Grade 0 dog. Well the dog got round, but the 20 obstacles were completed in over 10 minutes and in sequences of 4-5 obstacles at a time, each section commenced by a perfect sit stay and lead out into position, any pole dropped was replaced and the sequence repeated, fortunately this was a jumping course so there was no need to test the contact equipment. Well, she ( or he) got their dog round but how does this validate the suitability of a course. An early handler actually downed her dog, imitating a perfect obedience send away, while she caught up, we frowned, not in the spirit of agility FIONA, I found 2 unique ways to negotiate the toughest part and my 2 clears were a result of the worst handling I have ever completed. The first was to stand still in the middle of the sequence, scratch my head confused while the dog spun repeatedly awaiting direction, then once the multiple spins had slowly passed the 2 traps I completed the course. ( I should have been ED in the weaves much earlier but that’s another story). The second method was even more drastic, a perfect start to the challenge brought visions of a win with only the most difficult trap avoidance to come, this time my plan was to commit very early and trust the dog ,it would have worked but a torn calf muscle brought an end to any victory parade, in my distress however ,Meg had wandered towards my colleague outside the ring taking a perfect line through the trap, lining herself up for the finish, to frantic encouragement from outside we duly completed the test but these are not techniques I would recommend nor were these displayed by the judge who got her dog round.
The second inappropriate course builder is the one who again has the best intentions and I am sure has no ulterior motive in ruining a handlers afternoon, their problem is that they feel that they can become famous for their ingenuity yet in their desire to produce a masterpiece of innovation they invent the square wheel. Obviously the higher grades offer more scope to their vivid imaginations as it is assumed they can handle serpentines consisting of two walls and a well, indeed their creations bear more resemblance to Legoland than an agility course. They do not realize that subtle changes of angle and distances can produce a much greater challenge than any combination of 3 sets of weaves can because once again they have not competed at that level therefore never experienced such tests. Once again I cannot name these judges, not for the obvious fear of litigation, but because I have no idea of their names, and would not recognize them again, but I can confirm that the few I have viewed out of their Sunday best judging attire have not inspired me to change my current trainer as they bumble along in the lower grades.
The final more disturbing individual is the one who sees every judging appointment as an opportunity to enter the Guinness Book of records as producer of the most horrendous agility course ever, they treat every elimination with a smirk and notch another kill as eagerly as any Luftwaffe pilot. We will each have our own suspicions as to the motives of these characters and the charitable amongst us could offer that they do not exist and that their talent fall into one of the first two categories, I however recently experienced evidence of this species at close hand . I had finished my class just before lunch and was urged to look at a course by numerous individuals and comment on its degree of difficulty. It looked difficult for anyone with a fast dog , and as this was again a 6/7 class most people had fast dogs. It was not however the degree of difficulty that took my attention but the glee and raucous laughter emanating from the judge each time a frustrated handler failed to negotiate a particularly difficult sequence and were eliminated with a throat slash that would do Sweeney Todd justice. I had never seen this woman ( or man) before and did not know the name, I was disgusted at her ( or his) attitude and the contempt she ( or he) showed to fellow competitors and eagerly awaited lunch where my plan was to listen attentively to this person and see if my initial character assessment were true. Unfortunately things did not quite go to plan, I was delayed and arrived at the table as she ( he) was devouring a sherry trifle and emptying a glass of wine before the next session of mayhem. I did however hear the tail end of a conversation where she ( or he) boasted of how she had caught out so many top handlers ,who were not as competent as they thought they were. She openly discussed traps set and names snared with the glee of a six year old on Christmas Day and when I questioned if the aim when setting a course was to collect scalps of the bigger names I was met with a withering look, silence and the view of a rather large backside exiting to the Killing Fields of …….for the afternoon.
Solution ???-. Firstly we stop encouraging these characters, and before you retort that they are never encouraged think about the typical reaction to the agility equivalent of a drive to Baghdad. We decide and seek agreement from our colleagues on walking the course that the set task offers similar dangers to the said trip, our loud whispers of disapproval are either music to the ears of judge type 3 ,or more likely unheard as they are elsewhere, we then accept the challenge with a smile and get the dogs, what after all does another elimination matter, we have all had enough in our time for them to be meaningless. Okay no encouragement so far but then we clamor for our deckchairs, line the ring and applaud every clear and mishap with equal enthusiasm at decibels way above even the best Championship Final. Does this not elevate the status of the misguided individual who produced the course. They would never receive such applause as a handler so now we have given them such elevated status that all we have achieved is the likelihood of a similar ,even more, unrealistic test in the future as they plot to improve further.
The other and most realistic solution lies with the show organizers as it is they who originally appoint and ultimately allocate classes . I know it’s a thankless task but we all know the names of the serial killers, the ones who unarguably exist in category three of my inappropriate lists, they should be appointed as a last resort, and let loose only on the lower levels, this may sound unfair to those starting out and perhaps it is but there is a limit to how far even these seekers of mass eliminations can experiment on starter courses, it is my contention anyway that it is the scalps of the famous that these people seek and as such would actually operate well in the lower regions. Secondly when allocating classes please consider wherever possible to commit judges to the grades they run, I judged grades 1-5 recently all shapes and sizes, another more experienced judge and G7 handler judged no higher than grade 3 whilst 4 senior classes were run by lower level inexperienced judges . I thoroughly enjoy judging anyone and would not want to limit myself to the higher levels but once again there was a huge amount of criticism of the senior classes and the plethora of deckchairs affirmed my suspicions. I know many handlers in the lower grades are overawed, even intimidated by the bigger names so this attempt would be better for all concerned
Will I have pricked the consciences of these judges ?, perhaps those in my first category whose best intentions cannot be doubted will accept that courses for the senior grades need not involve all the numbers being set at the alternative sides of the jumps from the starter classes for the course to be deemed suitable and produce challenges that both they and the competitors enjoy. I hope those with the very vivid imaginations continue to be imaginative as we all like new challenges but that they think a little beyond the mere inventiveness and take a little longer to see if their test actually adds to the challenge and I hope those in the third category are not asked to judge anymore.
My final words lie with the show organizers and I ask that they give priority to allocating classes on ability rather than numbers and consider the suitability and competence of judges to handle particular sections. The ability to run your first ever small dog clear but unplaced in a starter class does not qualify one to judge an Olympia qualifier no matter how large the ego.
