Difficulty of AKC Invitational Courses

[k9kreationz]

Even after the ugliest of runs, I've never had anyone be rude to me. Even some of the best handlers out there have said at worst "If you could get a little more control, he'd be an amazing dog!" which I still consider a compliment to him and an encouragement to me to work with him more.

There are great people out there who are supportive and tactful. And there are those who are downright rude. I have heard people say loudly enough so the handler walking off the course could hear, "they should quit while they're ahead" or "they shouldn't be doing agility" or "that was the worst run I have ever seen". Yes, I have heard it. Scared the heck out of me when I started AKC because I don't want to have a bad run and hear that...even if it's true.

If a person came up to me when I still had my adrenaline flowing and told me that my Q wasn't a good Q or I somehow didn't deserve it, I'd probably hurt someone.

IMHO, I think you're generalizing my comments here and applying them as you want. I set up a specific example and even that, you responded to as if I didn't say it was a friend who said something specific, not "a person". If saying "dirty Q" in your mind means "you didn't deserve it" then we definitely have different ideas of the definition and until we define the word, neither of us will understand one another.

So with that, I'll define "dirty Q" for anyone who is misunderstanding me. A dirty Q that me and my friends talk about just means it was an ugly run. That you had a lot of mistakes or dog made a ton of mistakes, but you still Q'd. You pulled it off, got them on track, but it definitely didn't look pretty. If anything a dirty Q means you had to work harder in the ring to get that Q because the dog was all over the place. If all of you don't agree with this, then I totally understand why you feel saying it is the most horrible thing in the world. If you do agree with it, then I'm curious, why would you get offended if someone said you got a dirty Q? Especially if it's a friend?

 

[Silaria]

I've been following this discussion with interest but haven't really been able to put into words what I've been thinking. I'm still having trouble really putting the thoughts together into comprehend-able written statements but I'm going to try.

First and foremost, I think I understand where Cheryl is coming from regarding the difficulty of courses. It is highly possible the judges that have been brought in for the trials she's been too design flowier courses vs super tight twisty courses. On the surface "flowy" courses appear to be easier because there is a flow to them; I personally prefer a flowy course. A well designed flowy course should still present a certain level of challenge. I've seen both flowy Excellent courses and really tight twisty ones here in the Pittsburgh area.

Honestly, some of the Open level courses I've run in the AKC trials locally HAVE been more of a handling challenge than the Excellent courses simply due to design (tight vs flow). I've also run Excellent courses where people, other Sheltie people to be specific, where saying how hard the course was (a tight twisty course) where I really didn't find it all that difficult. I'll admit right out I didn't Q the courses but NOT because the course was too hard but because I made stupid handling mistakes. Handling mistakes aside, like nearly colliding into my dog as he came out the tunnel resulting in him missing the next jump, I still finished the Ex courses 5 - 10 seconds UNDER course time.

Cheryl does have a point though that certain challenges like Threadles and 270's aren't common. I can count on one hand the number of Threadles I've seen and I've never had a 270 or course at any level. One thing I love about Blair Kelly's courses is that he DOES use the broad jump in upper levels because it can be a challenge for the dog since they don't see it often, if at all, once they get out of Novice.

All that aside, what is difficult for one handler/dog team may be easy for another. Personally, I don't find tight courses difficult though I prefer flowy courses; but I also have a moderate speed dog who knows how to collect, which is important on tighter courses. I can go out with Edan and Q 8 out of 10 runs on average.

Pulling this thread back to the ORIGINAL TOPIC of the difficulty of the AKC Invitational courses, based on course maps alone (and I know a map versus walking the real thing are different) the courses did surprise me in their simplicity ONLY from the point of view that they aren't all that different from other Excellent course maps I've seen over the years. (And yes, I've always looked at the course maps for Excellent even when I was in Novice. If there were extra maps by the end of the day, I'd take a copy so I could build sections of the course to try.)

Just for fun, I printed out the Round 1 map and worked out my pre-walk-through plan for the course. This is based strictly off of what's presented on the course map and Edan's strengths and weaknesses on a course. The segment on the map from 9 - 15 is a little tricky but not real difficult to handle through for my dog's speed and ability. Again, it's not all that different from other Excellent courses I've seen over the years.

(No offence intended to ANYONE on this thread but the discussion of "dirty Qs", "dirty MACHs" and whether or not it is right/fair to use that term or not has really pulled this thread WAY off topic. Maybe that discussion should also be spun off from this one.)

 

[Sharon]

AKC Invatationals

We are all entitled to our opinons and we are all not going to agree with one another.I do not think Ortega took your post and generalized it .I do not think nor like the term "Dirty Q" or Dirty MACH"and it is not acceptable term.I think what Stacey said said it all.

 

[ClantyreSheltie]

If you do agree with it, then I'm curious, why would you get offended if someone said you got a dirty Q? Especially if it's a friend?

Dirty Q's to me are runs with faults. They only exist in Novice and Open.

Anything else is "Karma". If you have a handler/judge eclipse, where the dog blows a contact but it's not called (bonus!), or some other Q where you think you should have been faulted but weren't, don't worry, it will balance out at a time where you are sure your dog hit that contact and the judge called it. Karma is simply the law of averages, so you will get both good and bad. It all balances out in the end.

 

[k9kreationz]

We are all entitled to our opinons and we are all not going to agree with one another.I do not think Ortega took your post and generalized it .I do not think nor like the term "Dirty Q" or Dirty MACH"and it is not acceptable term.I think what Stacey said said it all.

I thought you were going to stop posting because it's useless.

 

[k9kreationz]

Dirty Q's to me are runs with faults. They only exist in Novice and Open.

Anything else is "Karma". If you have a handler/judge eclipse, where the dog blows a contact but it's not called (bonus!), or some other Q where you think you should have been faulted but weren't, don't worry, it will balance out at a time where you are sure your dog hit that contact and the judge called it. Karma is simply the law of averages, so you will get both good and bad. It all balances out in the end.

Thank you for defining it for me. I understand now what you mean. And you're right, according to your definition, there is no dirty Q in Excellent. Which then means no such thing as a dirty MACH and I will totally agree with you based on your definition.

Sometimes, it's best to define things first and I failed (big time) to do that.

 

[Sharon]

AKC Invatationals

I thought you were going to stop posting because it's useless.

Yeah, I thought I was to but can't help myself.

 

[k9kreationz]

Cheryl does have a point though that certain challenges like Threadles and 270's aren't common. I can count on one hand the number of Threadles I've seen and I've never had a 270 or course at any level. One thing I love about Blair Kelly's courses is that he DOES use the broad jump in upper levels because it can be a challenge for the dog since they don't see it often, if at all, once they get out of Novice.

I never even realized that no one used them except in Novice. I just wondered why I never saw it.....ever again. I'd probably love Blair's courses with all the different things in it. Crazy, but fun. Didn't someone say he used 9 poles in a course?

All that aside, what is difficult for one handler/dog team may be easy for another. Personally, I don't find tight courses difficult though I prefer flowy courses; but I also have a moderate speed dog who knows how to collect, which is important on tighter courses. I can go out with Edan and Q 8 out of 10 runs on average.

Better said than me. NADAC was flowy fast and fun. I wanted more when I went to AKC. I expected more since most people here felt NADAC was easy. When I first started AKC it was very hard because I wasn't used to the tight courses and I loved it. Now that I'm used to the tighter courses I'm up for a new challenge (minus all of Koji's contacts). Well, I'll be up for it after I fix all our "foundation" stuff. Ugh!

Pulling this thread back to the ORIGINAL TOPIC of the difficulty of the AKC Invitational courses, based on course maps alone (and I know a map versus walking the real thing are different) the courses did surprise me in their simplicity ONLY from the point of view that they aren't all that different from other Excellent course maps I've seen over the years.

I think that's what shocked me when I pulled up Round 1. My initial response was, "what? Are you kidding me? Shouldn't it be harder?" As I pulled up the rest, I was thinking, "that's more like it".

Just for fun, I printed out the Round 1 map and worked out my pre-walk-through plan for the course. This is based strictly off of what's presented on the course map and Edan's strengths and weaknesses on a course. The segment on the map from 9 - 15 is a little tricky but not real difficult to handle through for my dog's speed and ability. Again, it's not all that different from other Excellent courses I've seen over the years.

Love your mark-ups of the paths, crosses, etc. I think that'd be a good path for Koji too. Not sure if I'd make the FC before the weaves, but since he's letting me FC afterwards, I would think about that option too.

 

[HopeShelties]

I agree with Clantyre. It really does balance out. Athena got called for an aframe contact when I had video proving she was well into the yellow. Still didn't change a thing. Nearly lost ten Mach points due to a scribe error but thankfully the judge was Mary Mullen (one of the nicest judges who wants people to q- I personally know Mary and highly recommend running at a trial she is judging if you get the chance) who went back through the times to give Athena her rightful time and points. Lost a q that was a bar setter fault not setting the bar right... Bar fell two jumps after she took it. She never touched it in the video, and it seems to just blow off. Kai lost one for a teeter because the judge said it hadn't hit the ground yet, but I had video showing otherwise. I think the only gimme q I have was one where a missed weave entry wasn't called on kai and I didn't know until later when I checked my legs. So really, I've lost more as I felt I shouldn't have than gained on ones I shouldnt.
A friend of mine has a very talented bc, who consequently is very difficult to run. She had been having a hard time Qing with him. When she finally got one this past spring, a friend came up to her and told her her run could've been better. It was highly inappropriate and my friend was very hurt by the comment.
I also feel unless you have run the dog, specifically on that day for that q, you don't know and it isn't your place to make that call. Another friend had a rough run with her bc. He is super fast (beat Linda ms bc) but also tends to get wild on course. On one course he got particularly wild at the end, and because of how talented this dog is, a bunch of women came down on her telling her how her what all they felt she did was wrong. All it did was make her mad. Especially when the comments came from people running 8" dogs and super slow dogs. They truly don't know. I feel that unless it is asked for, comments such as what I've referenced shouldn't be made. Often we know about our mistakes. On a less than perfect run, we don't need someone else to come pick it apart and rub it in unless critiques are solicited.

 

[corbinam]

A couple things, one, threadles aren't a legal course set up in AKC. You guys might be aware of that--but I thought I'd point it out just in case. I always thought that was interesting.

Two, it sounds like some people are debating semantics. I have a different definition than Rachel, and have definitely had courses where I handled poorly, the dog didn't get my cues (whether it was my fault or theirs) and I somehow recovered and qualified.

Here is my definition of an ugly Q (or if we want to use the term "dirty"). I even named the video "Q (ugly)! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5NYiQzddgA

I think the problem that people are having is the connotation of the word "dirty". Dirty seems like it might be sullied, or undeserved. In that example of DH and Lexi, it wasn't a beautiful run. In some venues it wouldn't even be considered a Q. But, it was deserved because it was a Q based on the rules of that venue and that event.

It still demonstrates a tremendous amount of training, teamwork, and skill on both the handler and the dog's part (though obviously in more beginner stages), so by saying it was "ugly" I don't think I'm detracting from that.

I'm guessing (and Cheryl, please correct me if I'm wrong) is that Cheryl is saying that she would rather train than trial and avoid having a run like that. It's a little hard to envision because in Masters (again, I'm speaking from a USDAA perspective) it's hard to not be clean and Q, but I'm thinking that most people would rather have a MACH built on runs where you're totally in sync the whole time, rather than Qs that exhibit certain mistakes that just don't cause an NQ.