Foundation work

[IPSY]

I heard that a faster quicker contact (into a 2o2o) actually causes less stress because they are moving so fast by the time they stop the weight is shifted onto their HQ as well as their shoulders - nearly equally. Like if a dog jumped the apex of the AF, touched the contact and landed directly into a 2o2o, it would be better then a dog that creeped down the side of the AF very quickly and just put all stress on their shoulders. But maybe my information source is wrong? XD. I only do NADAC so there are no steep contacts for mah pooches anyway, was just curious about your theory of the target teaching them to reduce stress on their shoulders by reducing the impact. How did you teach them to rock back with a target though? or was it like naturally with the target.

 

(sorry, kinda slow tonight trying to connect dots)

 

 

For a dog to do a correct touch , they would have to slow down and come to a stop...no rewards for missed ones ...they learn...I find that with my dogs , I never had a missed contact that way . BUT with the puppy , who knows , LOL...

Whatever seems to work for him at the time ..Dogs are all individuals and what works for one , may not work for the other...

[mum24dog]

I'm not strictly Derrett Handling System but to me it makes the most sense. I can logically work things out. I am generally a freestyle person and i would like to be able to follow all the handling rules but i can't. So i keep the generals in mind and if for some reason i do a blind cross, too bad, as long as it worked. Me and Myla can read each other and regarded im on time with my instructions she knows exactly where to go. I think it's a good idea to have a base system to work from but then not be stuck to only that.

 

I think circle work or shadow handling is still extremely important. No matter what system you use your dog still needs to know how to read your body or arm signals. Deceleration helps too.

 

I hate anything that is called a "system". It sets people up to have a closed mind.

Most of what Greg does wasn't invented by him but I agree with you that it makes sense.

I do think many people overcomplicate matters with this and that programme and set ways of doing things that are the current flavour of the month.

Shoehorning any dog or handler into a mould that doesn't fit isn't the brightest of ideas.

 

As for a nose touch - it wouldn't have suited our BC at all. He just doesn't have the build for it. He was first taught to fold back into a down and the backchained into that position. At speed it has developed into a stand but his weight is still shifted back. He's been competing for nearly 2.5 years now and only ever missed 3 contacts (2 in the same class at his first show) and he doesn't slow down. My daughter handles him in competition but I have had an input into his training (although she would deny it, I'm sure.)

 

I don't really understand the rush to train puppies - but then I've only ever had one and that from 15 weeks. If I had one, I would follow the lines suggested by Greg but little if anything more. I have friends who are extremely successful and that's what they do and if it's good enough for them.........Over here I think we have more freedom than in the US to let our dogs develop their own body awareness by just running free and being dogs on a daily basis - or at least that's the view of someone I know who is well familiar with agility both sides of the pond.

[Root Beer]

I do think many people overcomplicate matters with this and that programme and set ways of doing things that are the current flavour of the month.

 

Actually, I have to disagree with you - to an extent. I think that there are people for whom a set system really suits their own personal style. Some people really like to have specific structure and thrive on it. Just as some people really like and thrive in a military kind of life, I think that some Agility handlers really like and thrive with a set "system". (Note: I am not comparing Agility to the military. It's just an example of a specific way of life that everyone is familiar with)

 

I'm not really a "system" kind of person, but I do appreciate learning parts of systems. Then I take away what works and don't use what doesn't. I like to get creative out there, but some people really do better with rules they can count on.

 

I think that handling systems, like everything else, will change and develop. But I think that they are here to stay. There are people for whom they really work.

[mum24dog]

Actually, I have to disagree with you - to an extent. I think that there are people for whom a set system really suits their own personal style. Some people really like to have specific structure and thrive on it.

 

Which is why Rank Reduction Programmes became so popular. People like a list of instructions to follow whatever spurious reasons are given for doing so - happy to be in the box rather than thinking outside it.

 

Of all the top handlers over here who are promoting their training methods, I could be wrong but Greg Derrett is the only one I can think of who has labelled what he does a "system" and it rather jars to us. I'm sure he did it for the US market. Just a cultural difference.

 

On the subject of what pre agility training to do with puppies, Silvia Trkman has some interesting views -

 

http://www.silvia.trkman.net/

 

Click on Our Training then read

 

Points 1-10 (Everything you need to know about agility).

 

Then click on the links towards the bottom of that page Agility is good for dogs (and the link with in that to scientific evidence) and Agility is good for dogs II.

 

Ironically, although I am referring to her views and have a Grade 7 dog (top grade over here) with a reserve Championship Certificate that does running contacts, I actually prefer to teach 2o2o. But then that is consistent with her point no 6.

 

I've seen people who've been training with Dawn Weaver (our own running contact expert) come back fired with enthusiasm for the method, only to find that it either doesn't work for their dog or they don't have the skill or patience to train them properly - so back to the good old 2o2o for them. (My dog's running contacts were not trained deliberately so I can't claim that I'm any better than anyone else at training them.)

[topnotchdog]

Ironically, although I am referring to her views and have a Grade 7 dog (top grade over here) with a reserve Championship Certificate that does running contacts, I actually prefer to teach 2o2o. But then that is consistent with her point no 6.

 

Generally speaking I am a fan of 2o2o. This is a ways off for my new puppy, but I am toying with teaching 1RTO (one rear toe on) for his contact behavior. Does anyone have experience with that, pros or cons?

 

Thanks,

Barbara

[Root Beer]

Of all the top handlers over here who are promoting their training methods, I could be wrong but Greg Derrett is the only one I can think of who has labelled what he does a "system" and it rather jars to us. I'm sure he did it for the US market. Just a cultural difference.

 

I'm pretty sure that Linda Mecklenberg (spelling?) calls her program a "system". I think it's official name is the Awesome Paws Handling System. She is the other "big" one over here. And - what little bit I know of it - has worked very well for me. I can physically do what Mecklenberg teaches without feeling like a super clodhopper. For me that's worth a lot more than following a "system", but it just so happens that those handling techniques are part of her system!! And my dogs can follow the handling really well. It's extremely fun - a lot of it really appeals to the Freestyler in me. I like to feel like things flow and are graceful.

 

And, in Clean Rrun there has been articles about a system by Jenny somebody or other (don't have my magazines at hand to check the last name - sorry!) Not sure if she herself calls her own program a "system", but it was defintiely written up as one in the magazine.

 

Might be a cultural difference, but there are people over here who don't like the idea of a set "system". Like I said, there are people to whom such a thing appeals very much and they definitely aren't going anywhere. And there is a significant contingency of those folks. But there are others who prefer to use no "system" at all, and a lot more who like to learn bits and pieces of handling systems and then pick and choose from them.

[mum24dog]

I'm pretty sure that Linda Mecklenberg (spelling?) calls her program a "system".

 

I think one problem with calling something a "system" is that it gives the impression that the proponent is claiming credit for all its components.

There really isn't that much that is totally new in agility (if anything) for that claim to be made.

I know of top handlers who have freely shared their experience with others only to see the recipient of their generosity cashing in and not acknowledging the help. It does cause bad feeling.

 

I'm not familiar with what Linda Mecklenburg is doing - just been looking at a few you tube vids of her to see if I could get a clue from the end product.

 

Could you explain how it differs from other training methods please? Always willing to learn.

[Northof49]

Generally speaking I am a fan of 2o2o. This is a ways off for my new puppy, but I am toying with teaching 1RTO (one rear toe on) for his contact behavior. Does anyone have experience with that, pros or cons?

 

Thanks,

Barbara

 

I have seen several dogs trained for this in my area. I briefly read the article on this when it first came out in CR, but that is it. Since it didn't interest me, I didn't study it in depth. The only thing I can comment on is that these dogs are contiunally running down the contacts. come off of them, stope and then step back to put their foot back on the contact, so keep getting called for "off course". Since I am not familiar with teaching this method, I don't know if they have missed steps, gone too quickly, or reinforced one step too much.

 

I am sure there are people out there that have trained it and like it.

[Root Beer]

I think one problem with calling something a "system" is that it gives the impression that the proponent is claiming credit for all its components.

 

I don't see it that way at all. A "system" may well take things that are already in existence and simply arrange them in a new and specific way. Or perhaps, mix some new elements with established elements in a way that is unique.

 

Maybe that's a cultural differece.

 

I can say that when I was first introduced to the Mecklenberg system, it felt WEIRD! Something was definitely new to me. That's not to say it's new in the sense that Ms. Mecklenberg pulled it out of the sky and her techniques are brand new to everyone, but I can say that her stuff took some learning and adjustment on my part.

 

But, again, I don't really consider it necessary for any "system" or "program" to be completely new.

 

I'm not familiar with what Linda Mecklenburg is doing - just been looking at a few you tube vids of her to see if I could get a clue from the end product.

 

Could you explain how it differs from other training methods please? Always willing to learn.

 

I really can't. I don't actually know a whole ton about it. I've only learned bits and pieces in my classes and I've only started incorporating those bits and pieces into my own handling at competitions fairly recently. I'm definitely not knowledgable enough to go into any depth about it.

 

I do know, though, that it's a handling system, not a training method. I guess it's a training method, but for the handler even more than for the dog. The dog, of course, still has to learn how to weave, how to do contacts, how to jump properly, etc. The handling system doesn't address those things specifically. It addresses how to move the dog most efficiently through a course, taking for granted that individual pieces of equipment are already trained.

 

I know that her system relies on body motion instead of trained cues to direct the dog and that you use both arms to give the dog information. That is different from what we were doing before.

 

I know that there is no "blind cross line" and that you are actually allowed to move past the jumps in places where other systems don't allow it. I've had to be trained out of stopping dead where I think I'm "supposed to" in a few instances.

 

Another thing that has struck me is that there is a great emphasis on lateral motion. Again, not to say that's "new", but a lot of the uses of lateral motion that have been presented to me as part of the Mecklenberg system have been brand new to me. And surprisingly effective with my dog.

 

I'm not really concerned about what might be "new" in her system. All I really care about is that I can actually pull it off physically, my dog can understand it, and it seems to work well for me.

 

Clean Run just had a series of articles that compared the Mecklenberg and Derrett systems. That might give you more of the detailed kind of info that you're interested in. I just don't know enough about it to go into any more depth! I just know it's made me a little bit better of an Agility handler. And I like that.

[mum24dog]

I know that her system relies on body motion instead of trained cues to direct the dog and that you use both arms to give the dog information.

 

Ah - that explains why I couldn't spot anything unusual in the vids I watched. Using both arms has been around a while here - don't know who or where it came from though.

 

I know that there is no "blind cross line"

 

The idea of a blind cross line never made much sense to me. Dogs will do whatever they are used to doing with the handler.

 

I just don't know enough about it to go into any more depth!

 

That's fine thanks. I think I get the picture. I've tried it on dogs that are used to being handled differently and they catch on pretty quickly.

[mum24dog]

Is it something like this?

 

[topnotchdog]

Could you explain how it differs from other training methods please? Always willing to learn.

 

FWIW I think people should do what they're comfortable with and enjoy the sport with their dogs however they choose, system or no system, or something in between. (Pretty sure Marcus Topps did not study anyone's system when he and Juice were already well into doing their thing

. But I am weighing in b/c APHS is the system with which I'm most familiar.

 

She has stated herself on her forum and elsewhere that she is always tweaking it (over the years) as she understands more about how dogs read our motion, as the sport evolves, etc.. The key with her system is that the dogs already know how to follow motion, direction, changes in speed and location. It is we as handlers who need to learn to capitalize on that for clearest possible communication with the dogs. So to my mind the "system" aspect of it is that she clarifies for the handler how to use slowing down or speeding up, how to use lateral motion, how to use eye contact to cue collection, for example, and how to combine the cues for different results. I think I've heard her say that even if one prefers another system, understanding these underpinnings can help improve communication. I find it pretty intuitive (not always easier, but more intuitive! ) than other approaches I've seen. The one requirement of the handler is that they need to be able to run. But even those who do not run can potentially benefit from understanding how their motion at a distance affects their dog.

 

Here is Linda's website: http://www.awesomepaws.us/ It includes info on her online Forum, which is incredibly useful if you want to get a handle on what she does and how handlers and dogs fare with it. (FYI---There is a free trial period for parts of the Forum, and then a subscription to participate in all the threads. She responds personally and I found it well worth the relatively low subscription fee.) She does not say this or that is 'not allowed' in the system as she's organized it, but rather wants to clarify some tools people can use. My impression is what makes hers a system, is that she is striving to make things consistent for the dogs, and easier to execute for the people.

 

To watch it in action do a YouTube search for folks like Carrie Jones, Daisy Peel, Karen Holik among many others. I think she has some video on her website as well. AgilityVision (pretty sure that's right, anyone?) also has/had a live stream video of her foundation seminar.

 

Barbara

[Root Beer]

Is it something like this?

 

 

Granted, I'm not basing this on a vast background of knowledge, but generally speaking, I'd say no. I think if that handler was using APHS, you'd see a different type of overall movement. It's not just the arms - there's something about the entire body movement.

[mum24dog]

To watch it in action do a YouTube search for folks like Carrie Jones, Daisy Peel, Karen Holik among many others.

Barbara

 

Thanks for your explanation Barbara.

I've watched some of the videos and it does seem very familiar to me. It's a similar sort of handling you'd see at any show over here from what I can see. That's not to say that everyone does it, just that it's a fairly common style.

I do find the way US handlers work generally is more like ours than European style.

 

I hope this doesn't come across as a criticism (it isn't meant that way) - it's just an observation and yet another of those cultural differences which interest me.

Years ago when first starting out it was apparent from reading Clean Run that there seemed to be a pronounced tendency to want to name everything in the US. Often I came across a term that I didn't understand and when I investigated I found that it was something I knew already, only we didn't have a name for it - it was just one of these or one of those.

I guess there isn't any virtue in vagueness but we got along that way for a long time. Things have changed over the years and more moves and so on do have names but most of us still avoid getting too technical with the vocabulary.

 

Maybe it is just that APHS is kind of what we know - we just don't call it anything, or use it as a "system" as such. I will look into it further, although I do personally try to avoid anything that requires running ability. If you ever saw me you'd know why.

 

Pam

[Root Beer]

I hope this doesn't come across as a criticism (it isn't meant that way) - it's just an observation and yet another of those cultural differences which interest me.

 

Years ago when first starting out it was apparent from reading Clean Run that there seemed to be a pronounced tendency to want to name everything in the US. Often I came across a term that I didn't understand and when I investigated I found that it was something I knew already, only we didn't have a name for it - it was just one of these or one of those.

 

I guess there isn't any virtue in vagueness but we got along that way for a long time. Things have changed over the years and more moves and so on do have names but most of us still avoid getting too technical with the vocabulary.

 

There cetainly are cultural differences in expression. I know I like for things to be named and classified in some way - especially if I'm going to take the time to invest training and effort into something. I not only want to know how to train it, but what, exactly, it is.

 

Of course, I can't say that goes for all Americans. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that there are a lot of American Agility handlers who think more along the lines that you do - they don't want to name and classify things, they want to just do things.

 

When it comes to techniques that are written about, there must be clarity. If I came up with a fantastic way of training a contact and my students were successful with it and people wanted to know how to do it, it would probably need some kind of handle to distinguish it from what others are doing if I wanted to write up instructions and distribute them in some way. That technique would probably incorporate a lot of things that I didn't come up with (say, incorporation of a clicker or a particular prop like a sofa), but the order in which things are done, the amount of time to stay at each step, the way the behavior is brought to fluency might be very specific and that would have been my own creation. So, I might call it the "sofa contact", just so people know what I'm talking about when I am talking about it.

 

BTW, that's a random made up example. I have not created, and do not know of, any "sofa contact". I just thought of it because I'm planning to incorporate the sofa into Dean's current contact training. Fun with living room Agility in wintertime!

 

Back to the example. It may be that people in California have been doing the sofa contact for years, but now there is a specific demand for formal sofa contact training, so people start writing articles and they start talking about it, etc. The people in California might say, "Hey! We've been doing that for years!" but in a way that's beside the point. Now there's a widespread demand to learn this technique and it goes mainstream with a name.

 

To me, that's what the names are all about.

 

You might be on to something, though. We do tend to name anything and everything. Maybe that's part of our cultural expression.

[mum24dog]

I was just thinking about the trainer who runs by far the most successful agility classes in the country in terms of show results from students. The things she calls some of the moves she teaches wouldn't get through the profanity filter that I assume operates on here. Her students know what she means but her terminology is hardly mainstream.

Can't see her ever writing a book or producing a DVD (not her style) so I don't suppose it matters.

 

Pam

[Diana A]

I have seen several dogs trained for this in my area. I briefly read the article on this when it first came out in CR, but that is it. Since it didn't interest me, I didn't study it in depth. The only thing I can comment on is that these dogs are contiunally running down the contacts. come off of them, stope and then step back to put their foot back on the contact, so keep getting called for "off course". Since I am not familiar with teaching this method, I don't know if they have missed steps, gone too quickly, or reinforced one step too much.

 

I am sure there are people out there that have trained it and like it.

 

They haven't trained it thoroughly enough if this is happening routinely. I trained my last BC with it (ended modifying to both rear feet on, but taught with back end awareness) and I like it. The dog is lower down in the contact so the back is more level, and they seem to really get it about the goal being to keep the back feet on (vs training a front end behavior that 'accidentally' gets you the back end behavior you want). If dogs are routintely stepping off and backing up then they need more training - rewards for sticking, no reward for the 'run off and step back' technique. They need to gain experience in how to go at a good speed but still judge the distance and stick the contact. If you accept the step off and step back behavior in training, they'll never have an incenive to learn this part. I do A LOT of proofing for this, with throwing things ahead, revvign the dog up, shooting them three tunnels up onto a contact, racing past the dog, and so on.

[Jumpin Boots]

I was just thinking about the trainer who runs by far the most successful agility classes in the country in terms of show results from students. The things she calls some of the moves she teaches wouldn't get through the profanity filter that I assume operates on here. Her students know what she means but her terminology is hardly mainstream.

Can't see her ever writing a book or producing a DVD (not her style) so I don't suppose it matters.

 

So I have to share this, b/c I about died the first time I heard it. So there is a trainer who is about 1.5 hours away from me who I love (sounds like the trainer listed above) and I just can't commit to classes with her, so she has a drop in that I go to every other month or so. She use to train closer and I so wish she still did. Anyway, last week I was over there and she had us walking a course and a few of the women were having problems with how to handle a sequence, then one said 'Oh, I bet the boob squish would work!' Well turns out the trainer was having issues on describing an RFP to a few people and so called it a 'boob squish' so they would remember and be able to better grasp what their bodies should be doing. I just loved it.

 

So back to topic I think people get WAY to firm into calling things specific terms. Even gets me more when they say you can't call a certain behavior something b/c it's something else (like if word was 'speak' and I used it for the behavior sit, hello the dog has no clue of correct context). But I do think that giving commonly used manuevers terms make discussion much easier. Imagine if we all had to try to describe what a front-cross was by never using a term, just description. Ugh, I have a headache just thinking about it.

[mum24dog]

Well turns out the trainer was having issues on describing an RFP to a few people and so called it a 'boob squish' so they would remember and be able to better grasp what their bodies should be doing. I just loved it.

 

Me too.

I can visualise something called a "boob squish" but RFP doesn't conjure up anything in my mind.

What's an RFP - digging deep in my memory is it a Reverse Flow Pivot? Seem to remember something of the sort from a Bud Houston video from years ago.

Even if that's what it is, it still isn't as evocative as "boob squish".

 

Pam

[Northof49]

Me too.

I can visualise something called a "boob squish" but RFP doesn't conjure up anything in my mind.

What's an RFP - digging deep in my memory is it a Reverse Flow Pivot? Seem to remember something of the sort from a Bud Houston video from years ago.

Even if that's what it is, it still isn't as evocative as "boob squish".

 

Pam

When Terry Simons first started coming up here, one of the girls had a hard time understanding that you support the line with your shoulders while you move into position i..e. a pinwheel where you are going to do a front cross at the last jump of the pinwheel. SHe just wasn't getting it so he finally told her to pont her boobs where she wanted the dog to go and that made sense to her. We still tell people that things went wrong because their boobs were pointing the wrong way.

 

THe next time he came up I had a fashion show with training bras that everyone did up. It was hilarious. THere were quite a few different designs - mine was on a native american theme with a detachable tug fur toy in the middle and you could order a fur lining for those cold days you were training outside; my friend had a garden of eden training bra - was a materinty bra so you could store treats and you could chose the specides of snake that sat on your shoulder and the types of apples that were used as "tassles" and the straps were made of ivy. There were about 8 different ones. It was a hoot!

[mum24dog]

THe next time he came up I had a fashion show with training bras that everyone did up. It was hilarious. THere were quite a few different designs - mine was on a native american theme with a detachable tug fur toy in the middle and you could order a fur lining for those cold days you were training outside; my friend had a garden of eden training bra - was a materinty bra so you could store treats and you could chose the specides of snake that sat on your shoulder and the types of apples that were used as "tassles" and the straps were made of ivy. There were about 8 different ones. It was a hoot!

 

Genius - and some practical applications there.

 

Pam

[Jumpin Boots]

Me too.

I can visualise something called a "boob squish" but RFP doesn't conjure up anything in my mind.

What's an RFP - digging deep in my memory is it a Reverse Flow Pivot? Seem to remember something of the sort from a Bud Houston video from years ago.

Even if that's what it is, it still isn't as evocative as "boob squish".

 

Correct; RFP = reverse flow pivot. I think the issue this trainer was having was using the same term (which in my experience most people do) to describe a standing RFP versus a moving RFP.

 

So the case of a standing RFP seems more correct for the term to me. You lead out and say are calling your dog over your left shoulder, then as the dog lands the last jump you are basically doing a front cross (but a pivot one) and will take off in a different direction with your dog now on your right side.

 

The moving RFP (ie 'boob squish') seems more difficult to explain if you have already taught the pivot one. Look at say a theadle situation (jumps laid out vertically along an imaginary line (like serpentine) where the dog jumps the first one going away from you, you call the dog inbetween the two jumps and send him away from you again and so on down the line of jumps). For me hearing the term 'boob squish' I can really see how people learning the manuever would be helped with this b/c that is basically whay you are doing if you don't reverse (squish) the flow of your body after your dog lands over the first jump they are going to take the second jump like a serpentine, which in this case isn't what you want.

 

Happy you enjoyed the descriptive term.

 

Northof49: A friend recently went to agility camp and she was running too forward; so the instructor kept telling her 'get your girls up' At first she didn't understand, until the clinician grabbed her own chest to demonstrate

[mum24dog]

The moving RFP (ie 'boob squish') seems more difficult to explain if you have already taught the pivot one. Look at say a theadle situation (jumps laid out vertically along an imaginary line (like serpentine) where the dog jumps the first one going away from you, you call the dog inbetween the two jumps and send him away from you again and so on down the line of jumps). For me hearing the term 'boob squish' I can really see how people learning the manuever would be helped with this b/c that is basically whay you are doing if you don't reverse (squish) the flow of your body after your dog lands over the first jump they are going to take the second jump like a serpentine, which in this case isn't what you want.

 

What Greg Derrett calls a "false turn".

Thanks for the translation. (Might need quite a few of those.)

 

Pam