I humbly suggest that the course you refer to is much easier than the round 1 course we've been discussing though it isn't quite appropriate to compare a JWW course to a STD course. Your course has a nice flow to it, and I'd be confident in running it in about 18 seconds. The Round 1 standard course would be about 30 seconds worth for us, but I'd be less confident on achieving that.
Difficulty of AKC Invitational Courses
- Thread starter k9kreationz
- Start date
I humbly suggest that the course you refer to is much easier than the round 1 course we've been discussing though it isn't quite appropriate to compare a JWW course to a STD course. Your course has a nice flow to it, and I'd be confident in running it in about 18 seconds. The Round 1 standard course would be about 30 seconds worth for us, but I'd be less confident on achieving that.
k9kreationz
Forums Celebrity
That's my point. If this was the "hardest" JWW course I had seen in Open, even though I was a noob, imagine what I am running now. Well, I'm sure you have run some of them, they're not difficult, are they?
Ditto with standard. The one we are talking about, yes, is a tad more difficult than what we normally run in this area (due to the start and the 180s), but do you really feel that the Round 1 course is difficult?
Now, Round 5's standard course has more directional changes than what we typically see, and 17-20 is a nice mess. I love it! I would LOVE to see courses like this at trials. It'd drive me nuts, but I'd have so much fun running them and feeling really challenged. But I guess I'm the crazy one around here. I suppose it's true then, USDAA is overall more challenging as a sport due to their more involved courses. Time to finish my MACH so I can move onto that venue (one venue at a time).
Last edited:
corbinam
Moderator
I definitely agree.
k9kreationz
Forums Celebrity
I hope everyone knows I'm not trying to be an arse about all this. We all love different venue's for different things. I wanted titles on Koji's pedigree so I went AKC. I also thought, that NADAC/ASCA/CPE were so easy because of what people would say here, that AKC would be more difficult than those venues. When I first started it was more difficult because it was so different from NADAC. And yet, here I am, I get to Excellent and see all these nice flowy simple courses...just like NADAC, but a bit tighter (which means less running to me). I just don't get it.
We trained for 180s, 240s, threadles, backside jumping, tight courses, and I haven't see that in AKC yet. I have seen pinwheels and serps (not overly often). I was thinking that what I had seen at Nationals, INvitationals, whatevers you want to call those elite of the elite, that I'd be doing something like it, but definitely nothing that difficult. But we're not.
Maybe in different areas, because there are a ton of different judges, I don't see the harder courses. Or maybe I don't think they're hard because I was expecting crazy courses that you see the International Teams run. I have no clue.
I am not saying every Excellent course is easy peasy and I am not saying easy equates Q's (because follow through is very dependent on dog/handler training). But I am saying that so far, all my Excellent courses have the same pattern to it. No variety really. Only two judges have stood out that have had "more difficult" courses than the rest...during my entire AKC career so far. Don't you think that's sad? Wouldn't you want more? Or is it just me?
Or maybe my dog is just too slow so he's "easy" to run through any course (because I can keep up)? Or he's a handler focused dog, so AKC is somewhat easy (because pulling him off things isn't a major task)?
After reading through this thread, I realized it should make you think twice about saying a venue is "easy", because to others, it's not. Just like I may feel AKC is easy, others think it's not and look at what this has caused (all because Sharon decided to throw it out in her thread and repeat what I said). Ditto with CPE, NADAC, USDAA, etc. Actually, I don't know anyone that feels USDAA is easy, hehehe. This has definitely taught me to keep my mouth shut about what I feel is "easy", because I should know better and should know that for others, it may not be, for whatever reason.
If I offended anyone, I'm sorry. If you all feel this is a simple discussion, great, move on from this post.
I'm actually enjoying this discussion, but I felt like I was might be coming off as arrogant about AKC and I'm not trying to be.
We trained for 180s, 240s, threadles, backside jumping, tight courses, and I haven't see that in AKC yet. I have seen pinwheels and serps (not overly often). I was thinking that what I had seen at Nationals, INvitationals, whatevers you want to call those elite of the elite, that I'd be doing something like it, but definitely nothing that difficult. But we're not.
Maybe in different areas, because there are a ton of different judges, I don't see the harder courses. Or maybe I don't think they're hard because I was expecting crazy courses that you see the International Teams run. I have no clue.
I am not saying every Excellent course is easy peasy and I am not saying easy equates Q's (because follow through is very dependent on dog/handler training). But I am saying that so far, all my Excellent courses have the same pattern to it. No variety really. Only two judges have stood out that have had "more difficult" courses than the rest...during my entire AKC career so far. Don't you think that's sad? Wouldn't you want more? Or is it just me?
Or maybe my dog is just too slow so he's "easy" to run through any course (because I can keep up)? Or he's a handler focused dog, so AKC is somewhat easy (because pulling him off things isn't a major task)?
After reading through this thread, I realized it should make you think twice about saying a venue is "easy", because to others, it's not. Just like I may feel AKC is easy, others think it's not and look at what this has caused (all because Sharon decided to throw it out in her thread and repeat what I said). Ditto with CPE, NADAC, USDAA, etc. Actually, I don't know anyone that feels USDAA is easy, hehehe. This has definitely taught me to keep my mouth shut about what I feel is "easy", because I should know better and should know that for others, it may not be, for whatever reason.
If I offended anyone, I'm sorry. If you all feel this is a simple discussion, great, move on from this post.
I'm actually enjoying this discussion, but I felt like I was might be coming off as arrogant about AKC and I'm not trying to be.
Last edited:
corbinam
Moderator
Looking at the Round 1 course with my "Lexi lens" on, I am very perplexed as to how to handle it. It is definitely above her experience level--and she is in Advanced. If we trialed more, she would be in Masters by now, but this is too hard for her.
I think Ortegah makes a good point that having a very fast dog certainly adds a layer of difficulty.
My issues with this course are as follows (and I think Ortegah mentioned a few of them already)
1) 3-5 is tough. One option is to accelerate to get past the weaves to get a FC in, which would easily cause the dog to read the acceleration and hurry and grab 14 (not to mention makes a very tough angle to the teeter, and changing leads to the teeter is something Lexi is not good at) or push and FC, which is probably what I would choose, and trust my teeter contact to let me catch up and do a FC there.
2) Lots of crosses. Firstly from 10-13 I'd do a RC from 10 to 11, a FC from 12 to 13, and then another FC from 14 to 15. That's cuing a lot of deceleration and handler focus--not Lexi's forte!
I think Ortegah makes a good point that having a very fast dog certainly adds a layer of difficulty.
My issues with this course are as follows (and I think Ortegah mentioned a few of them already)
1) 3-5 is tough. One option is to accelerate to get past the weaves to get a FC in, which would easily cause the dog to read the acceleration and hurry and grab 14 (not to mention makes a very tough angle to the teeter, and changing leads to the teeter is something Lexi is not good at) or push and FC, which is probably what I would choose, and trust my teeter contact to let me catch up and do a FC there.
2) Lots of crosses. Firstly from 10-13 I'd do a RC from 10 to 11, a FC from 12 to 13, and then another FC from 14 to 15. That's cuing a lot of deceleration and handler focus--not Lexi's forte!
HopeShelties
Forums Enthusiast
Funny thing is I'd consider that one pretty easy. I love pinwheels with my fcs and distance dogs. Send out, get into position, go to the next. I used to see that type from Laura English a lot... Though had one from christy bowers a few months ago.
I can send to the tunnel from a distance, but don't like the idea of trying to force the cross. To me, it is just showing the dog a lot of forward and then slamming the breaks. If it were closer, yeah I could see it, but on course, I think two would be fairly down wind. My old trainer used to say if you have to force it, it isn't really the best option.
If you want more challenging, try ISC. I do it when I have the opportunity. You see things there that you won't see on typical akc excellent standard courses. I will have to see if I can find the two I had at the cluster. They were downright tricky.
I have also been to trials where very few dogs q due to the difficulty of the courses. We had Jamie Ramirez at Princeton a few years ago and said his courses were designed with international flair. There was one in Indiana I believe two years back where something like five dogs q'd. there was one at pawsitively partners in indianapolis which was just ridiculously hard to q on. So yes, the truly hard courses are out there.
You may be right on why you feel they are easier. I have always felt a slow handler focused dog can be easy to q with, though not always easy to make time with. A fast, driven dog with an early commitment point is a much harder animal to run. You can borrow my ember or Kai and I don't think you would find it near as easy.
I can send to the tunnel from a distance, but don't like the idea of trying to force the cross. To me, it is just showing the dog a lot of forward and then slamming the breaks. If it were closer, yeah I could see it, but on course, I think two would be fairly down wind. My old trainer used to say if you have to force it, it isn't really the best option.
If you want more challenging, try ISC. I do it when I have the opportunity. You see things there that you won't see on typical akc excellent standard courses. I will have to see if I can find the two I had at the cluster. They were downright tricky.
I have also been to trials where very few dogs q due to the difficulty of the courses. We had Jamie Ramirez at Princeton a few years ago and said his courses were designed with international flair. There was one in Indiana I believe two years back where something like five dogs q'd. there was one at pawsitively partners in indianapolis which was just ridiculously hard to q on. So yes, the truly hard courses are out there.
You may be right on why you feel they are easier. I have always felt a slow handler focused dog can be easy to q with, though not always easy to make time with. A fast, driven dog with an early commitment point is a much harder animal to run. You can borrow my ember or Kai and I don't think you would find it near as easy.
Last edited:
corbinam
Moderator
I hear this from my trainer all the time. She competes in AKC and USDAA...but admits that USDAA is her favorite venue, but there just aren't a lot of competitions up here so most everyone does more AKC. She is always trying to explain the differences about USDAA to people in our classes.
She is always saying "you might not see XXXX unless you do USDAA" referring to certain types of technical maneuvers. AKC is a lot stricter about the course building rules as well (no tunnels to a-frames, for example).
I do think that qualifying (in general) is MUCH easier with a slow/handler focused dog. Bentley moved up from Starters to Masters faster than any other dog that he started out with. A starters jumpers course with him was a piece of cake (he was glued to my side the whole time!) Lexi is in Advanced, and every Starters Jumpers course was fast, furious, and chaotic. You never knew when one little hesitation, or a cue that came out a millisecond too late would cause you to NQ. Timing is CRITICAL with a fast dog, and slower dogs give you a little leeway for mistakes or just a half second extra to think/react.
(And I'm enjoying this discussion, too, since I know little about AKC)
corbinam
Moderator
I usually like pinwheels too, but I think that there is less space for me to get into position to make a FC, so I think using distance is harder on this course.
I'm late to the discussion, so I'm not going to bother with a blow by blow analysis of my perception of course difficulty based on merely looking at a course map. However, I do want to say that the best way to determine how easy or difficult a course actually is, would be to set up the course and run it yourself. That's the only real way to have a valid opinion about difficulty. Also, remember that even if you're successful in running the course, you're not running with 1,000 barking dogs, another ring right next to you, a judge and lots of other competitors milling about. You're in your practice field, on familiar turf. JMO