# Titling and Training



## Courtney Guthrie (Oct 30, 2007)

So, 

I've gotten the feeling lately, the last day and a 1/2 or so, that a lot of people on here think that if you have NOT titled a dog then your advice and training are shit. How does this work? I mean I personally have only titled to a BH although I have a dog that without her health issues could easily have a 2 by now. However, her health is more important to me and keeping her around longer as she is the one that got me going into this sport. 

So, just because someone hasn't titled a dog yet means that they don't know anything or even enough to give someone advice(about something that they know well and are having no problems with training wise)? 

Do you consider newbies inadequate trainers because they have not titled a dog? Does you opinion lessen of someone in the sport of your choice if they haven't titled a dog? 

Just curious.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: 
Do you consider newbies inadequate trainers because they have not titled a dog

Pretty much.


----------



## Courtney Guthrie (Oct 30, 2007)

So that means that EVERYONE in this sport at some point was an inadequate trainer? 

I don't understand how people think that just beacause someone hasn't titled a dog means that person is an idiot about training in general. 

That attitude just pisses me the hell off. BUT I'd rather be considered an inadequate trainer by some than a f8ck-all who knows just enough to screw shit up. (speaking in general terms here, not about anyone in particular)


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Courtney Guthrie said:


> So,
> 
> I've gotten the feeling lately, the last day and a 1/2 or so, that a lot of people on here think that if you have NOT titled a dog then your advice and training are shit. How does this work? I mean I personally have only titled to a BH although I have a dog that without her health issues could easily have a 2 by now. However, her health is more important to me and keeping her around longer as she is the one that got me going into this sport.
> 
> ...



How would you gauge the training competence of a group of strangers on the internet?

Really, not sarcastic --- how would you?


----------



## Courtney Guthrie (Oct 30, 2007)

As far as the internet goes. You wouldn't or at least shouldn't IMHO. But having a titled dog DOES say something about the person as a trainer. I get what you're saying Connie. Point proven.


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Courtney Guthrie said:


> So that means that EVERYONE in this sport at some point was an inadequate trainer?
> 
> I don't understand how people think that just beacause someone hasn't titled a dog means that person is an idiot about training in general.
> 
> That attitude just pisses me the hell off. BUT I'd rather be considered an inadequate trainer by some than a f8ck-all who knows just enough to screw shit up. (speaking in general terms here, not about anyone in particular)


your only a idiot if you don't do as your told


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Courtney Guthrie said:


> So,
> 
> I've gotten the feeling lately, the last day and a 1/2 or so, that a lot of people on here think that if you have NOT titled a dog then your advice and training are shit. How does this work? I mean I personally have only titled to a BH although I have a dog that without her health issues could easily have a 2 by now. However, her health is more important to me and keeping her around longer as she is the one that got me going into this sport.
> 
> ...


 
How about all those Police Dog Trainers/Agency Trainers, etc, who choose not to compete in a sport venue or have the time, what about them?

How about a trainer who has titled a dog and is still a crappy or inadequate trainer, may of got lucky? Done well, does it make him a good trainer???

How about a trainer who has been training other people and their dogs, he doesn't get the title, the handler does?

How about someone who has trained 20+ years with no title? Or someone training 2 years and has a title?

Just because you train dogs and have been doing it for years doesn't mean you are a great trainer, if you titled a dog, it only means you did what you had to to title that dog in that sport, so yes, you were good at that, but overall a good trainer? Maybe a good trainer in a specific sport, break it down more and can be justified.

I keep an open mind and if someone is good at what they do and I can learn and/or appreciate a training session with them, I will. Time doesn't mean squat, it's the quality of that time that matters.


----------



## Courtney Guthrie (Oct 30, 2007)

> I keep an open mind and if someone is good at what they do and I can learn and/or appreciate a training session with them, I will. Time doesn't mean squat, it's the quality of that time that matters.


This pretty much sums up my thinking. I usaully keep my ears open and my mouth shut and learn things that way. I have a lot to learn and plan on continuing to learn. 

Just something that got me thinking. In the end, to me, the internet doesn't matter, it is a useful tool when used properly but in reality, that's all it is. That's why most of us work with trainers and clubs in real life and take most of our cues and advice from hands-on learning.


----------



## Meng Xiong (Jan 21, 2009)

Jody Butler said:


> I keep an open mind and if someone is good at what they do and I can learn and/or appreciate a training session with them, I will. Time doesn't mean squat, it's the quality of that time that matters.


I like!





p.s. can anyone tell me how many dogs Chuck Norris has titled?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: 
So that means that EVERYONE in this sport at some point was an inadequate trainer? 

Yes. That is how it works, then you get better, but maybe not competent.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Some people think if you haven't titled a dog, you don't know anything. Others believe you have to title a dog to the highest level in your choosen sport before you know anything. 

I think people in either of those categories might be surprised at the competition resumes of some of the people they look up to.

I don't know anyone who will disagree that Michael Ellis is an excellent trainer. He's one of the best I know. But how many people know that until 2010 he had never titled a dog at the III level? Does that suddenly mean he's a "newbie" or invalidate his training experience. I sure don't think so. Probably means he was to busy coaching other people to the III's to take the time out for himself and his own dog(s).

I think people might be surprised if they looked into the "title background" of some of the people out there giving seminars. 

Titles are one way to judge a person's knowledge, but definitely not the only way. Some of the worst trainers I know have titled dogs to the highest levels, and some of the best trainers I know, haven't. And sometimes, the newbie is the one with the best ideas, simply because they aren't stuck in the same rut that people who have been doing it forever are. They think outside the box, because they don't know the box exists.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Courtney Guthrie said:


> This pretty much sums up my thinking. I usaully keep my ears open and my mouth shut and learn things that way. I have a lot to learn and plan on continuing to learn.
> 
> Just something that got me thinking. In the end, to me, the internet doesn't matter, it is a useful tool when used properly but in reality, that's all it is. That's why most of us work with trainers and clubs in real life and take most of our cues and advice from hands-on learning.


'Zackly. 

Again, for a group of strangers on the internet .... there isn't much in the way of tools for gauging training competence.


----------



## Courtney Guthrie (Oct 30, 2007)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Titles are one way to judge a person's knowledge, but definitely not the only way. Some of the worst trainers I know have titled dogs to the highest levels, and some of the best trainers I know, haven't. And sometimes, the newbie is the one with the best ideas, simply because they aren't stuck in the same rut that people who have been doing it forever are. They think outside the box, because they don't know the box exists.


I like this. I'm by no means the best trainer nor even am I good all the time, but I think I'm fair, willing to listen and learn and open to trying pretty much anything that won't harm the dog. 

I don't know, I think that sometimes newbies are pushed to fit inside the box to gain respect from others around them in the sport. Me, I'd rather gain respect through my training and willingness to learn rather than my willingness to conform to fit inside the box to please others. 

This is something that has been bothering me, partly cause I'm sick of people telling me that I know nothing cause I don't have a titled dog. Compared to some trainers and competitors, they are right, I don't know anything but compared to others I do. Just because my dog is almost 3 and just now getting ready to title for his 1 doesn't mean that I'm stupid or don't know anything.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

](*,) I´m still a newbie with 4 yrs IPO ( and 2 titles, vzh (BH) flunked IPO 1) and 7 yrs KNPV training. Oh well I haven´t trained since I got pregnant of my oldest, summer 2008. Want to, but not able to train myself. Still go and watch as much as possible though.


----------



## Tamara Champagne (Jan 20, 2009)

Well said, Kadi...I agree!


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Courtney Guthrie said:


> So, .......
> 
> although I have a dog that without her health issues could easily have a 2 by now. ......
> 
> .......


 Not trying to be a smartass here (I'm really not)...but I hear stories similar to this all the time. Not saying health issues weren't true at all...not at all...it just seems that a lot of times I hear about such-and-such dog that could have *easily* got it's 2,3,FH...etc..(take your pick) and the person still has never put a title on any dog, but that same person has very strong opinions about what others should be doing. If you are a new person working towards your very first title, I just think the smart thing is to be a little humble and show a little humility until you have actually accomplished it.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: Some of the worst trainers I know have titled dogs to the highest levels, and some of the best trainers I know, haven't.

This is complete crap. You need to show some examples of the worst trainers titling dogs to the highest levels, and the best that don't. Otherwise it really doesn't work as a statement.

I think Mike Ellis is the trainer he is because he was able to apprentice for some time, and then got to make his "mistakes" on others dogs. I am not saying this in a bad way by any means, but what a huge advantage to be able to go around the country and work on your method of training.

I also think that he is the exception to the rule. He is a rare example of talent winning the day, and not all the other BS.


In todays society, people are always making up their own definitions, trying to get over, rather than do the work, take a political office, and magically get better scores that EVER before, ect ect. That is why I say that a trainer that titles generally should be listened to over someone who has not.

Doesn't mean I am going to be right. But generally speaking I will be right.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Skip Morgart said:


> Not trying to be a smartass here (I'm really not)...but I hear stories similar to this all the time. Not saying health issues weren't true at all...not at all...it just seems that a lot of times I hear about such-and-such dog that could have *easily* got it's 2,3,FH...etc..(take your pick) and the person still has never put a title on any dog, but that same person has very strong opinions about what others should be doing. If you are a new person working towards your very first title, I just think the smart thing is to be a little humble and show a little humility until you have actually accomplished it.


even if the dog could have been trained to a III or win the nationals, doesn't mean the owner the dogs has is gonna be able to do it..My dog could probably be KNPV titled by now lol...and I didn't know what the electronics in a KNPV field box were for until Mike told me...LOL..


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

There are plenty of people that have titled dogs but have no real clue how or why. The just may have been good learners with someone watching over them.
There are a lot of book trainers out there and on the web (no $#!+ :-D) that couldn't put a title on a dog if they wanted to. 
Go to any AKC club,Schutzhund club and probably any other dog training club and you'll see the whole spectrum.
There are people who title, people who teach and people who train. Being good at one is no guarantee they are worth a crap at the other two. 
For me to give anyone credibility as a trainer I want to see what they've done with THEIR dog, titles or not.
I also put a lot of value in someone that has good "truck dogs". This is a dog that can go anywhere with you off lead and just does what you want without the need to be barking commands at it.


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> ....doesn't mean the owner the dogs has is gonna be able to do it...


 
yep..so in the meantime the owner needs to realize they have a mountain of shit to learn, instead of talking about dogs that could have EASILY accomplished whatever with them, and someday he/she will learn that it is hardly ever, ever easy even with a good dog , even if you've titled a dog before. The more I learn, the more I see how small my knowledge base is compared to what I hope to know someday. Newbies should suggest, and ask questions, but to be confrontational with an opinion at this stage is just stupid. But then, it's always easier to do that at the computer....I've never seen new people do that in person at my club.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Bob, my dogs are great "truck" dogs. Well the two new dogs I don't think so, the one is a pain in the butt, and the other.... we will see. He behaves pretty good so far.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

I like precise definitions. To me anyone who trains a dog from pup to SchH3 and qualifies for Nationals is a TRAINER. Rationale being that this person strives to get the best out of the dog not "just enough" to title. I'm sure other sport trainers could be defined similarly. Without definitions there is less black n white and a huge grey area.

Now so called trainers with zero accomplishments, are not trainers (in my mind).


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Bob, my dogs are great "truck" dogs. Well the two new dogs I don't think so, the one is a pain in the butt, and the other.... we will see. He behaves pretty good so far.


Bringing in an older dog is a different story but those tell me a lot also. They probably have developed their own habits, good and bad. 
Making a good truck dog out of something like that is harder but can be done. More often then not they have been "controlled" but former training.
It just requires more knowing about what those good or bad habits are. 
Finding out on the fly can make it...interesting. :lol:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Today I am learning that I know 5 french words, and it just isn't working for me. He is gonna get a crash course in english.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Courtney Guthrie said:


> So, just because someone hasn't titled a dog yet means that they don't know anything
> 
> >It does mean they don't know EVERYTHING, which seems to
> > be the attitude of everyone giving advise on the internet.
> ...


----------



## Mike Jones (Jan 22, 2009)

If you are competing in dog sports, you are a trainer. Of course, there are different levels of trainers, some better than others. Most of what I do in Schutzhund is just me and my dog. Yes, being in a club helps you pick up good things and bad things but a good trainer knows the difference and what works best for that particular dog. 

A title gives person some degree of competency that a newbie can rely on. However, not at trainers are good teachers. I watch people train their dogs to do amazing things but, they have a difficult time telling you how they achieved that result. Sometimes people just have a magic touch with dogs and they do what they do because of the overall relationship that they establish with that dog. That's why dogs work well with one person but will not work with the same intensity with another person. 

Just my two cents.:-\"


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Courtney Guthrie said:


> So,
> 
> Do you consider newbies inadequate trainers because they have not titled a dog? Does you opinion lessen of someone in the sport of your choice if they haven't titled a dog?
> 
> ...


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Mike Jones said:


> A title gives person some degree of competency that a newbie can rely on. However, not at trainers are good teachers. I watch people train their dogs to do amazing things but, they have a difficult time telling you how they achieved that result. Sometimes people just have a magic touch with dogs and they do what they do because of the overall relationship that they establish with that dog. That's why dogs work well with one person but will not work with the same intensity with another person.


That's definitely true, Mike...I'm not a good handler, but I'm a pretty good teacher, always have been. I get way more satisfaction out of having people I've helped (say someone I worked with to pass their CGC to go on and be a therapy dog) have success than my own, though I don't like trialing much.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Great thread Courtney. Interesting for sure. 

I think 95% of the board has something to offer, trainer or not. And it sucks when they are made fun of, told that they shouldn't own a dog, and bashed for trying to help.....it is much better when it is discussed on a professional level with the people that DO KNOW explaining why something would not work, and what they would do to train it. 

Health, diet, medical, hunting, pet, sport, LEO, service, SAR and other things. We as individuals are all at different levels, but that does not make one person better than the other. (although some think it does). 

Watching someone get handed a title or certification has got to be one of my biggest peeves. Rates right up there with a team that should have won but didn't due to politics. Grrrrr.....LOL


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Carol Boche said:


> Great thread Courtney. Interesting for sure.
> Watching someone get handed a title or certification has got to be one of my biggest peeves.


How come?


----------



## jack van strien (Apr 9, 2009)

Back in the old country a lot of people see a title on a dog as being a neccesary evil,without a title they can not compete.After receiving a title some teams enter a competion once a month or even more.Of course this is more easy to do in a small country.Other people train for years and never get any title,reasons can be many and sometimes has nothing to do with being a good trainer or not.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Carol Boche said:


> Great thread Courtney. Interesting for sure.
> 
> 
> Watching someone get handed a title or certification has got to be one of my biggest peeves.





Chris McDonald said:


> How come?


Sorry Chris, should have been clearer....watching someone get handed a title or certification when it is clear that they really did not achieve it, has got to be one of my biggest peeves. 

I love seeing people that have worked hard and completed what is required get their spoils....that is for sure.

I don't think a title or a certification makes someone a trainer......for me it just means the dog and handler did well on that day.

There are a ton of people here I admire and respect, some have titles and certs, and some don't. Heck, some are pet owners. I don't dismiss anyone who offers advice, comes here to learn, and actually puts forth the effort to have a valid discussion.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I will add another category to this discussion.
Handlers
There a top level competitors that have dogs not trained by themselves. A lot of people might trash that concept but the best dog in the world is crap without someone "handling' it correctly. 
Also, any LEO K9 trainer can tell you about some great handlers that aren't necessarily good trainers and the opposite also. 
Each category has it's levels of competence from great to useless.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Got it Carol


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

There is nothing worse than watching a dog pass because the work was pathetic.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

And on a different note: Only those with college+++ degrees are the smart ones? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...right!


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> There is nothing worse than watching a dog pass because the work was pathetic.


 
Got no respect for a title, pink slip or any other thing that has a minimum standard, Don’t think there is anything wrong with getting one just think they are all worthless. In most cases counterproductive.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Howard Gaines III said:


> And on a different note: Only those with college+++ degrees are the smart ones? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...right!


I always though collage is like SCH it makes everyone cookie cutter objects.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> I will add another category to this discussion.
> Handlers
> There a top level competitors that have dogs not trained by themselves. A lot of people might trash that concept but the best dog in the world is crap without someone "handling' it correctly.
> Also, any LEO K9 trainer can tell you about some great handlers that aren't necessarily good trainers and the opposite also.
> Each category has it's levels of competence from great to useless.


Its took me a while to see this, but I have seen good k9s go to a-hole handlers and two months later the dog was an a-hole. And a-hole K9s go to good people and two months later the K9 was a good dog. I want to see what happens when an a-hole dog goes to an a-hole handler. Do you get a super duper a-hole dog?


----------



## Keith Jenkins (Jun 6, 2007)

Actually the titles do mean something. Regardless of venue people can say I can train my dog to xyz or my dog is ready for abc but until there is actually a score that goes in the book it's all conjecture. To me there has to be a standardized test to measure a dog's ability in your given venue and trialling is the way to do it for most. 

I tend to find the people who don't find a use in titles/tests/trialling are the ones who can't, haven't and probably never will step on the field to have their dogs tested by a recognized judge from an organization that isn't headquartered in some-one's backyard.


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Keith Jenkins said:


> Actually the titles do mean something. Regardless of venue people can say I can train my dog to xyz or my dog is ready for abc but until there is actually a score that goes in the book it's all conjecture. To me there has to be a standardized test to measure a dog's ability in your given venue and trialling is the way to do it for most.
> 
> I tend to find the people who don't find a use in titles/tests/trialling are the ones who can't, haven't and probably never will step on the field to have their dogs tested by a recognized judge from an organization that isn't headquartered in some-one's backyard.


 
I agree Keith.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Chris McDonald said:


> I always though collage is like SCH it makes everyone cookie cutter objects.


Chris,

I'm going to risk being accused of being a smart azz................
but it's CollEge 

Collage is a French art form
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collage

I'm curious if you've ever been to College or titled a dog in schutzhund?


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Keith Jenkins said:


> Actually the titles do mean something. Regardless of venue people can say I can train my dog to xyz or my dog is ready for abc but until there is actually a score that goes in the book it's all conjecture. To me there has to be a standardized test to measure a dog's ability in your given venue and trialling is the way to do it for most.
> 
> I tend to find the people who don't find a use in titles/tests/trialling are the ones who can't, haven't and probably never will step on the field to have their dogs tested by a recognized judge from an organization that isn't headquartered in some-one's backyard.


 
Your right titles mean you can get a dog to do what is needed to get a score of some sort. Maybe I will someday, but it’s unlikely I ever spend much time on a sport field. Don’t see nothing wrong with it, but the only sport I have seen is SCH and its just not what I wanted to do. I see and understand your point regarding the standardized tests in a sport venue. Playing with dogs is very broad and there are venues that are not covered by sports. I have asked on here in the past if there were any tracking clubs but did not get anyone who knows of anything.


----------



## Ellen Piepers (Nov 6, 2008)

Obtaining a great certification in itself doesn't say anything to me about how well a trainer somebody is. Simply because in KNPV, you can't do it on your own. It depends on the whole team around you.

I don't care very much if somebody is considered to be a good trainer or not. In the end, what I want is to learn as much as possible from lots of sources, so I could learn both from very capable trainers as from people who are less so. It's not just the successes that you learn from, the failures can be reveiling too, including (and especially) your own.



Skip Morgart said:


> If you are a new person working towards your very first title, I just think the smart thing is to be a little humble and show a little humility until you have actually accomplished it.


Being a little humble and showing a little humility doesn't look bad on anyone  (or maybe that's just a dutch thing to think) I know some people who are considered to be good trainers by many, and I don't see them bragging about it.


----------



## Alan Fielding (Dec 7, 2009)

I think there is a wide range of knowledge that is represented on the Forum and I do not necessarily think that you have to have titled a dog within a certain discipline in order to disseminate this knowledge. I believe however the problem arises when someone of a different discipline tries to give advice from his particular area of expertise and assumes it relates to the one being discussed. I found this to particularly prevalent in a recent thread concerning Schutzhund tracking . Many people were full of "ideas" but many were not relevant to specific requirements of this very specific form of tracking. People who have done police style tracking or SAR tracking etc. exclusively and do not have any knowledge of Schutzhund tracking can easily provide information to the inexperienced novice that would in fact be deleterious to their learning and training process. It is therefore somewhat necessary to "filter" through the posts and "keep" what is relevant and discard that which is not.It is true that a "title" does not necessarily mean that you will get good advice but at least posts coming from an individual who has titled in the discipline would be somewhat more relevant to the sport being discussed.


----------



## John Campbell (Jul 25, 2010)

Im a complete and total new guy to the entire dog sport world, but i will put my two cents in on this topic. titling a dog is one mesure of a persons commitment to the sporting world but if you are taking advice from people based on the titles that they have you are making a mistake find a trainer see how they work, see if it fits with you and your dog. as far as forum advice is concerned without knowing the trainer their methods background attitude titles mean jack and all advice should be taken with a grain of salt. Just from looking at the posts of some of the people on this forum tells me that any advice i would get from them is at best suspect and it has nothing to do with the titles they have earned.

John


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

My replies to this thread have to do with the confrontational, in-your-face advice from new people that have never titled a dog. Sure, we can all learn from anybody, and everybody needs to keep that door open...but if someone new that has never titled a dog wants to push their new opinion down anybody's throat....well, I stand by my statement that they would most likely never pull that shit in person at their own training clubs because they would probably be shown the door. I know that would be the reaction and consequences at my club. "Internet Bravery" I've heard it called.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Keith Jenkins said:


> I tend to find the people who don't find a use in titles/tests/trialling are the ones who can't, haven't and probably never will step on the field to have their dogs tested by a recognized judge from an organization that isn't headquartered in some-one's backyard.


I agree with your observation 100%.=D> 

I also saw some "collage" bashing on this thread from those that don't have degrees and feel the same way. To those folks I have an FYI. A college master's degree is worth $1.3 million more in lifetime earnings than a high school diploma on average. That's a fact. And it's bordering on retarded to believe that college grads are not smarter than the average population. Not only that, but it shows that they some type of work ethic.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Mike Jones said:


> If you are competing in dog sports, you are a trainer.


Can I respectfully disagree with you here?

I have the utmost respect for people who get out there and work their dogs. However, competing does not equate to being a dog trainer. I'm a n00b, so feel free to disregard all of this, however . . . I've still seen people handle dogs and even be good at it, but still competing that are able to do well with their dogs and follow direction but not necessarily be able to explain why things work and why they don't. To me, they could be good handlers, but that does not make them "trainers."



Mike Jones said:


> A title gives person some degree of competency that a newbie can rely on. However, not at trainers are good teachers. I watch people train their dogs to do amazing things but, they have a difficult time telling you how they achieved that result. Sometimes people just have a magic touch with dogs and they do what they do because of the overall relationship that they establish with that dog. That's why dogs work well with one person but will not work with the same intensity with another person.


Maybe this is just a difference in vocabulary. To be a "trainer," I'd argue you are those people who have, or can achieve, that "magic touch" because you know what makes dogs work. You can read it, or dig and figure it out, and to be good at it you are able to show & preferably explain it to others. As a bit of an outsider, I differentiate between those who are good handlers and able to take input from trainers to get something out of their dogs, and those who are trainers that are able to really read dogs and know what is going on inside the dogs' heads, then know how to apply the skills they've learned to make the dog do whatever and build the dog up.



Faisal Khan said:


> I like precise definitions. To me anyone who trains a dog from pup to SchH3 and qualifies for Nationals is a TRAINER. Rationale being that this person strives to get the best out of the dog not "just enough" to title. I'm sure other sport trainers could be defined similarly. Without definitions there is less black n white and a huge grey area.
> 
> *Now so called trainers with zero accomplishments, are not trainers (in my mind).*


I'd argue that is a very limited view of the subject. For the sake of argument:

1) What defines "accomplishments?"

2) What are your thoughts on people that work their dogs, are good at it, but for whatever reason do not participate in dog sports?



Keith Jenkins said:


> Actually the titles do mean something. Regardless of venue people can say I can train my dog to xyz or my dog is ready for abc but until there is actually a score that goes in the book it's all conjecture. To me there has to be a standardized test to measure a dog's ability in your given venue and trialling is the way to do it for most.
> 
> I tend to find the people who don't find a use in titles/tests/trialling are the ones who can't, haven't and probably never will step on the field to have their dogs tested by a recognized judge from an organization that isn't headquartered in some-one's backyard.


There _is_ a lot of truth to this. On the one hand, I would there are people who do not care about dog sports but still work their dogs (be that in protection work, the dreaded field of "personal protection", or do S&R, Police work, or whatever) and from watching them work certainly appear to know how to work dogs and have good results doing so. On the other hand, yeah, there seems to definitely be a lot of people who do lots of talking and especially on the Internet, without titles if you haven't met somebody & their dogs, really, what else can you objectively go on? Still, if somebody has years of experience doing something, even if they have never been interested enough to get into dog sports, I would think one might at least go check them out and see what they are about. Connie's point is well taken; on the Internet, who knows how good you are/aren't. Titles tell you something, but they do not tell you everything, and you are probably just as good immediately AFTER you trial as you were leading up to it. Getting the title itself is not what makes you good, it's the ability & work that went on all along, isn't it?

I'm new to this, but I have seen at least a few trainers that haven't done much of squat in the sport world that did, however, seem to know just as much as the people who had, and actually worked their dogs outside of organized sport. That is not to say it is the rule, I am just saying there are more shades of gray than some of you are indicating; logistically, I would think there would _have_ to be. FWIW, I also don't consider myself a trainer, just trying to absorb as much as I can.

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> I agree with your observation 100%.=D>
> 
> I also saw some "collage" bashing on this thread from those that don't have degrees and feel the same way. To those folks I have an FYI. A college master's degree is worth $1.3 million more in lifetime earnings than a high school diploma on average. That's a fact. And it's bordering on retarded to believe that college grads are not smarter than the average population. Not only that, but it shows that they some type of work ethic.


Hey Chris,

Actually, according to Gardner (amongst others), there are lots of different intelligences. The kind rewarded by our schools are largely the logical-mathematical. To some extent you are right. By a specific definition, you are absolutely right.

By another perspective, you are dead-wrong. Some of the brightest minds do end up coming out of school. However, you can easily find examples of bright people who got through school because it rewarded their specific intelligence and they were intelligent enough to see doing so had enough of a payoff for them to do so, but still got out of college without a great work ethic. Actually, I knew several highly intelligent and very well-educated people that are lacking in several other areas of intelligence, some lacking the practical side in some areas (typical "book smart" types) a/o excelling in their areas yet very much lacking in other content areas, while I know of a few people who were by all intents & purposes poor students who struggled under the formal education system, then went on to succeed in other areas. Some of these flunkies work long & hard* hours, do very well at their jobs, are passionate about it, and according to current educational theory are just as smart as your college grads. The system is set up to reward certain intelligent types, however education theory is more-or-less pointing out flaws in our education system and how we view different styles of learning (much less how we actually teach to these kids).

All this from a guy with a Master's Degree. Who'd have thought?

-Cheers

* And yes, that's what she said.


----------



## Courtney Guthrie (Oct 30, 2007)

I just wanted to say that I'm 10 credits away from a degree in Microbiology with a minor in Psychology. Will be finishing that up this fall. I have an AAS with an emphasis in Psychology. I don't consider myself smart persay, just a good learner and listener. 

I DO plan on competing and trialing with my dog, at this point, we just haven't gotten there yet. He could have already had a title had he been with a better handler/trainer. He is a good dog. I lack the confidence with him to trial(I get way nervous) and time just hasn't been on my side. One day he'll get titled and hopefully soon but I'm not sweating it as to me the title doesn't mean everything but it does prove some things. 

I'm newer to the sport world but I ain't shoving my advice down anyone's throat, no need for me too. They are usaully choking on the advice from older more seasoned members cause instead of their ears being open listening, their mouths are open running. 

This has been an interesting thread.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Yes courtney, it is lovely when people come ad admit that they know **** all, and then proceed to argue with you. This is why I don't do pet training. It is usually after the first week, and the person is the lazy get over the system kind of person.

That baggage often comes here as well. 

To train someone that loves their dog, and goes out and does the work every day is something else. They make me happy. There are just very very few of them anymore.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Chris,
> 
> I'm going to risk being accused of being a smart azz................
> but it's CollEge
> ...


----------



## Courtney Guthrie (Oct 30, 2007)

Jeff. I get what you're saying. 

I don't know much about dog training, other than what I've learned from lurking and listenting whether online or in the real world. I try and ask questions that make sense and aren't stupid. 

I tried a "shortcut" for training a nice heel by screwing with the timing and reward etc. I created myself a forging dog that I need to fix the behavior now. First and last time, I didn't listen and tried to find a "better, faster" way to do things. In my mind, there is no such thing as "Better AND faster" just one or the other. 

But just because I'm a newbie, doesn't mean that you(general) should dismiss my ideas and thoughts either just because I'm a newbie.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> I agree with your observation 100%.=D>
> 
> I also saw some "collage" bashing on this thread from those that don't have degrees and feel the same way. To those folks I have an FYI. A college master's degree is worth $1.3 million more in lifetime earnings than a high school diploma on average. That's a fact. And it's bordering on retarded to believe that college grads are not smarter than the average population. Not only that, but it shows that they some type of work ethic.


 
You can get pretty deep into this.. its all about being well rounded. My friends that I would consider the most well rounded came out of the Naval Academy, some of the smartest people I know spent a whole bunch of time getting all sorts of degrees bust to sit at home with mom at 40 because they are just to lazy to go to work. I wasn’t busting on school, I was trying to make my point of those who cant do often teach. I never did go to CollEge. I think College is good for many people its not like I look down upon their degree when I go to hire. I did hire someone with a masters in business two years ago that worked for me for a little over a year. There background was not in my industry and increasing revenue and decreasing profit did not agree with me. Was a smart guy though. 
So this all goes back to that I can learn to track SCH style from a SCH guy but then I might have some habits that I might have to break. But I still did learn something… so now I am just going in a big circle to nowhere.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Well, "I" (specific) have done this long enough that you (n00b) have nothing for me as far as training. Might be a bit painful to hear, but you train a few thousand pet dogs, and how much is there ?

I grew up with a different system. If I talked like so many people talk here about how they should get their shit for free, AND you have to say it in a way that they approve of, ect ect, I would have been laughed off the property and told not to come back until I learn some respect.

Here, I think that the majority of the posters don't train dogs, but have them.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Even though Ive titled a dog, I dont consider myself a "trainer". Im not a trainer. Ill personally listen to anyone who "gets it" previously titled or not. Some folks can train all day long and never truly "get it". Some folks can go around listening and regurgitating the information.... but they dont "get it" and dont understand the what is at the core of what they say. They just spit out someone else's thoughts. Some folks I have met... and Id humbly like to think I am one of them lol.... seems to just "get it". They can read and problem solve, doesnt mean they will always have the answer, but they at least understand the "whys" and can can get to the core or closer to the core than "the others". Some of you will know EXACTLY what I am saying... ah and yet others... just wont "get it". lol

t


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: And it's bordering on retarded to believe that college grads are not smarter than the average population.

I know too many college grads to see this as true. The "average" population is much larger than the "college" population, so your example is probably off.

A college grad may have more infomation, and better networks depending on if they went to a school that doesn't SUCK, but smarter ? I doubt that.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Here, I think that the majority of the posters don't train dogs, but have them.[/QUOTE]

Im kina one of these. Im just trying to learn some handling skills. I don’t know if trying to track through the woods is training… ill put that in handling


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

It is training. People forget that if you are adding to the amount of understanding, you are a trainer. I just don't think most of the people here do anything with dogs. Heck, the majority don't post.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Chris,
> 
> I'm curious if you've ever been to College or titled a dog in schutzhund?


 

Sorry didn’t read the last line … I kind of answered the College thing above. Took a few classes when I was younger at a local goof ball college. Did well, wasn’t for me. Had a small family business to go work in, branched off on my own, still doing it.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Chris McDonald said:


> Sorry didn’t read the last line … I kind of answered the College thing above. Took a few classes when I was younger at a local goof ball college. Did well, wasn’t for me. Had a small family business to go work in, branched off on my own, still doing it.


When I was looking for a dog a few years back I went to a SCH field a few times. All fat guys in silk sweats blowing whistles wasn’t for me. Didn’t have any other sport clubs around. No never titled a dog, don’t plan on it right now. Having fun learning what I am and doing what I am doing. Maybe in 20 years when I am fat in a silk sweat suit.


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Chris McDonald said:


> When I was looking for a dog a few years back I went to a SCH field a few times. All fat guys in silk sweats blowing whistles wasn’t for me. Didn’t have any other sport clubs around. No never titled a dog, don’t plan on it right now. Having fun learning what I am and doing what I am doing. Maybe in 20 years when I am fat in a silk sweat suit.


This explaines your confusion you have with Schutzhund there are no whistles in Schutzhund 
You were watching ring there the fat guys in silk sweats blowing whistles


----------



## Keith Jenkins (Jun 6, 2007)

Can't recall ever seeing anyone use a whistle in Schutzhund.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> How would you gauge the training competence of a group of strangers on the internet?
> 
> Really, not sarcastic --- how would you?


Sounds simple enough but I think the trainers will recognize one another pretty quick. Even the nubes should be able to see through all the BS if they see enough of it.
A BSer doesn't mean a bad trainer and a straight shooter doesn't either but look long and hard enough and you WILL see it.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Yes courtney, it is lovely when people come ad admit that they know **** all, and then proceed to argue with you. This is why I don't do pet training. It is usually after the first week, and the person is the lazy get over the system kind of person.
> 
> That baggage often comes here as well.
> 
> To train someone that loves their dog, and goes out and does the work every day is something else. They make me happy. There are just very very few of them anymore.


FWIW, at least speaking for myself, a lot of times when I post something questioning somebody with more experience (e.g. virtually all of my posts that come across that way on this forum, I'd imagine), it's more for gathering somebody else's perspective on things, and to see if I'm clear-cut consensus wrong on something. That and to discuss training ideas & philosophies. I'm not intending it to argue in an "I'm right, you're wrong" fashion though, so much as a "here's my experience and what I've gathered based on what I've been able to do and from watching others."

To put it succinctly, I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong, but I also like to know why and how that gels with whatever else I've learned or observed. For what it's worth, I'd imagine I'm not unique in this, so maybe some of those people are in the same boat. That is also not just for Jeff, but for anybody I've questioned, here or elsewhere on the board. If people are arguing & not listening to their trainers in real life, that seems kind of foolish. On the Web though, I see it as being more open and bouncing ideas & experiences off of others, and to some extent being open to having your beliefs questioned or probed (if not flat-out criticized). I mean, I discuss this stuff with my trainers, but with them I can see that they say something, then they do it with their dogs, and it works, so it's not like I'm going to argue about it so much as have a nice discussion of the merits or possible shortcomings of different tactics.

Just so you (as in the larger more general "you") don't think that I (myself, and possibly/likely the more general n00bs and those learning) are necessarily asking to be argumentative so much as for clarification and to see how/where/why I am wrong. Personally, I'm hear to learn and discuss things, not try to prove myself right.

-Cheers


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I had five yrs of high school. Can I count the last one for college?


----------



## Mike Jones (Jan 22, 2009)

tracey delin said:


> Even though Ive titled a dog, I dont consider myself a "trainer". Im not a trainer. Ill personally listen to anyone who "gets it" previously titled or not. Some folks can train all day long and never truly "get it". Some folks can go around listening and regurgitating the information.... but they dont "get it" and dont understand the what is at the core of what they say. They just spit out someone else's thoughts. Some folks I have met... and Id humbly like to think I am one of them lol.... seems to just "get it". They can read and problem solve, doesnt mean they will always have the answer, but they at least understand the "whys" and can can get to the core or closer to the core than "the others". Some of you will know EXACTLY what I am saying... ah and yet others... just wont "get it". lol
> 
> t


So, are you saying that you are incapable of teaching a new dog what you learned while titling your other dog? If that's the case you are definitely not a trainer. Trainers are on various levels some are better than others. 

For example, there is a lady at our club that is an excellent tracking trainer, she know every trick in the book. She has titled over 2500 dogs in tracking in both Schutzhund and AKC. However, she's not that good of a protection dog trainer. She looks to other with more experience in that area for help when she needs to overcome a problem. 

I know for a fact there are certain things that I know how to train and overcome even with difficult dogs. There are also things that I have problems with and look to others for solutions. A good trainer does not stay within a box, they are constantly looking for solutions to difficult cases. Each dog should be trained according to what works for that dog...that's my philosophy.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Mike Scheiber said:


> This explaines your confusion you have with Schutzhund there are no whistles in Schutzhund
> You were watching ring there the fat guys in silk sweats blowing whistles


They were blowing whistles as they were walking down the center of the field with the little tee-pee blinds. That’s all they did was SCH. They were blowing the whistle and pointing to the next blind.. Maybe it wasn’t everyone doing it, but I do remember it being done. Maybe it was just one guy who did it. im telling you some fat guy had a whistle... I think!


----------



## Mike Jones (Jan 22, 2009)

David Ruby said:


> Can I respectfully disagree with you here?
> 
> I have the utmost respect for people who get out there and work their dogs. However, competing does not equate to being a dog trainer. I'm a n00b, so feel free to disregard all of this, however . . . I've still seen people handle dogs and even be good at it, but still competing that are able to do well with their dogs and follow direction but not necessarily be able to explain why things work and why they don't. To me, they could be good handlers, but that does not make them "trainers."
> 
> ...


I believe that there is a difference between a trainer and a teacher. A trainer trains desired behavior to a dog and a teacher teaches a handler how to train a dog to perform a behavior. I'm a better trainer than teacher. That may have a lot to do with my lack of patience. When I tell someone how I accomplished a behavior and they ask me the same question more than 3 times, I become annoyed. 

When you are competing in dogs sports 90% of what you do with your dog is between the handler and the dog. Yes some one can show you what to do but it is up to the handler to work with the dog daily to teach it that desired behavior. Eventually as a handler you learn how to train with constant repetition. When you are out tracking your dog and learning to work through problems you are training behavior. I say if you are competing in dog sports and you don't learn how to teach a dog to heel, sit, down and come than you are really, really, really slow!](*,)


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> I had five yrs of high school. Can I count the last one for college?


Hell ya, that’s the same thing as a masters. Just cost you less


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Of course I am better today than yesterday :-k. I guess I look at it differently. I dont get paid to teach other people or to train dogs for other people, I dont have a group of people that I work at schooling with pay or no pay, Im no professional. I am a single "handler" that "trains" my own dogs and loves to train and talk training with other handlers that also like to dissect.... am I "training" yes, but I dont consider myself to be a "trainer". You can call me one if you want though lol.:-D

t


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> Of course I am better today than yesterday :-k. I guess I look at it differently. I dont get paid to teach other people or to train dogs for other people, I dont have a group of people that I work at schooling with pay or no pay, Im no professional. I am a single "handler" that "trains" my own dogs and loves to train and talk training with other handlers that also like to dissect.... am I "training" yes, but I dont consider myself to be a "trainer". You can call me one if you want though lol.:-D
> 
> t


You are in training to train to be a trainer just give it another 20 years and 1000s of dogs and you’ll be there. Once you get there and if you’re successful at it you shouldn’t feel the need to put anything about it in your tag line. What you then can do is listen to all the other people who list the few dogs they titled in there few years of experience tell you the right way to title a dog….. I m telling you that’s the way it works


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Actually at this point, I have to desire to be a "trainer" …. But if the economy continues, I may add that to the resume lol. 

OK maybe I should list my “stuff” in my tag line then, since Im not there yet and then take it off again when I get there lol.:-#

Not making fun of those that do, they are proud and should be.... had to add that "clause" lol


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Even if I wanted to I aint got nothing to list… its all in fun :-D


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

meant to say "i have no desire to be a trainer".... oops


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Well, "I" (specific) have done this long enough that you (n00b) have nothing for me as far as training. Might be a bit painful to hear, but you train a few thousand pet dogs, and how much is there ?
> 
> I grew up with a different system. If I talked like so many people talk here about how they should get their shit for free, AND you have to say it in a way that they approve of, ect ect, I would have been laughed off the property and told not to come back until I learn some respect.
> 
> Here, I think that the majority of the posters don't train dogs, but have them.


This is about as close to right as Jeff ever gets, so ya'll need to soak it in. 

How can you have an opinion when you don't have have the information? You don't have the knowledge. You might not even have enough knowledge to know you don't know. Your like a computer without any programs. You might have a zillion gigs but you don't have the information to make an informed decision. You need to see a lot of dogs. You need to screw up some dogs. You need to show success with some dogs. 

And we also have the divide of the different sports. If you have never TITLED a dog in that sport you don't know what it takes. You might have a good idea and a lot of conjecture. But you don't KNOW. If you went in for brain surgery tomorrow and they sent you a gynecologist would you let him pop off the top of your skull? Why not; he's a MD? 

Lastly you have to look at time. Time is the best teacher. How can a person that has been in dogs for a few years ever think that they know more than someone that has a 20 or 30 year head start? And even if you think you do think you know more, SHUT UP AND RESPECT YOUR ELDERS!!! There is a woman in my area that looks to be about 189 years old. She always has super nice GSD and I have known her since I was 16 years old (I'm 43). Last year she rolled up on me while I was tracking, watched my dog track and gave me some suggestions. I didn't feel that her suggestions were very good for my dog. Did I tell her that she was wrong or try to argue with her? No, I asked her some questions about her suggestions and thanked her. Even though I don't think she's a better trainer than I am, it would be disrespectful to give her grief and a bunch of static. Then she asked me to lay her a long ass FH track. I gave her the only correct answer, "Yes Ma'am". And in return she bought me lunch and a dropped some serious knowledge on me. That's the way the dog game should work, IMO.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> Lastly you have to look at time. Time is the best teacher. How can a person that has been in dogs for a few years ever think that they know more than someone that has a 20 or 30 year head start?


I respectfully disagree with this part of your post. As said before, some people don't "get it" no matter how long they've been doing it. Or they've been doing the same ole crap training for 20 years.

Someone explained it to me that some people involved in whatever sport may have been involved for ten years, but they're like ten first years. They never progress. 

Laura


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> I respectfully disagree with this part of your post. As said before, some people don't "get it" no matter how long they've been doing it. Or they've been doing the same ole crap training for 20 years.
> 
> Someone explained it to me that some people involved in whatever sport may have been involved for ten years, but they're like ten first years. They never progress.
> 
> Laura


 
This goes for anything.. I seen people in my industry doing things wrong for 30 years. But they get to say they been doing it for 30 years


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> This is about as close to right as Jeff ever gets, so ya'll need to soak it in.
> Lastly you have to look at time. Time is the best teacher.
> 
> Time sucks as a teacher, working hard works a bit better


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: This is about as close to right as Jeff ever gets, so ya'll need to soak it in. 

But then again, late at night, you watch Buko's B&H and just shake with jealousy. Especially since you rant and rave about defense training, and spend hours working on the B&H. Meanwhile, the guy you SWEAR has never done Sch, his dog looks better than anything you have owned, and spent 0 time teaching it. 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Soak that in B**** ! ! ! ! !


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: This is about as close to right as Jeff ever gets, so ya'll need to soak it in.
> 
> But then again, late at night, you watch Buko's B&H and just shake with jealousy. Especially since you rant and rave about defense training, and spend hours working on the B&H. Meanwhile, the guy you SWEAR has never done Sch, his dog looks better than anything you have owned, and spent 0 time teaching it.
> 
> ...



we have to train the bark and hold because a real dog would just bite. :mrgreen:


On the subject of people who have trained a few years vs guys who have train for 20-30 years.... 

Hours matter more than years.

In my real life you could argue that I am talented. I do not believe in talent. I believe in hard work. There are people who have been playing for 40-50yrs vs my 25yrs and yet I am acknowledge as a more advanced player. Those guy do not know more than me but I give them all the respect in the world because they paved the way and made things easier for me. I am experiencing the same thing with my own students. I have a couple of teen aged students one in the US and the other in Russia, both are amazing players for only playing for a 1 1/2 one of them is only 15! In two more years or less they will have the same level of skill that took me 25 years to acquire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkA0T8-tw7Q Jay Gaunt is one of my students and that harmonica company owner is also a student.

Some folk are better students than others.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

There is no way I want that dog biting people. I know that mentality and it is based in insecurity. When you have a dog that actually WOULD bite someone, it is not the fun and games people make it out to be. You don't go on forums and talk about your "live bites" EVER. 

There is talent, there is hard work, and there is innovation. All the hard work in the world will not beat talent. innovation is a talent as well, but even fewer have that.


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> There is talent, there is hard work, and there is innovation. All the hard work in the world will not beat talent. innovation is a talent as well, but even fewer have that.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUuJo_DeyI


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Yes, I will be taking advice from that dick. Not EVER.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Chris Michalek said:


> we have to train the bark and hold because a real dog would just bite. :mrgreen:
> 
> 
> On the subject of people who have trained a few years vs guys who have train for 20-30 years....
> ...


There is actually educational theory & research that would indicate there is a quantifiable (within reason) quality to talent. Just in how people are mentally wired, how fast they get it, their ceiling for learning something. I doubt "dog training" would qualify, but musical intelligence and a latent talent for music does exist. Hard work will obviously factor into it, and some people that might naturally get things (we'll say music, they get the scales, or just have a feel for the instrument and making good music by ear or whatever), but unless they keep up the hard work, they will never get as far as less-talented individuals who keep working and pushing themselves.

How does this pertain to dogs . . . Not as a direct analogy, but some people do seem to "get" dogs better. They still have to put the work into whatever field they want to go into, and actually work the dogs no doubt. More or less though, I do sorta disagree with the total dismissal of talent, however hard work will be the big difference maker for most things for most people since you can cover a lot of the distance talent gives you if you are willing to work harder at something than somebody else.

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> This is about as close to right as Jeff ever gets, so ya'll need to soak it in.
> 
> How can you have an opinion when you don't have have the information? You don't have the knowledge. You might not even have enough knowledge to know you don't know. Your like a computer without any programs. You might have a zillion gigs but you don't have the information to make an informed decision. You need to see a lot of dogs. You need to screw up some dogs. You need to show success with some dogs.


Who says you don't have "the knowledge?" There is a bit of a range, isn't there?

I'll admit, yeah, if you're talking about n00bs giving advice over that of more experienced a/o qualified people sure. That said, you kind of have to evaluate each person on their own based on their own mix of talent, experience, and all the other intangibles.



> And we also have the divide of the different sports. If you have never TITLED a dog in that sport you don't know what it takes. You might have a good idea and a lot of conjecture. But you don't KNOW. If you went in for brain surgery tomorrow and they sent you a gynecologist would you let him pop off the top of your skull? Why not; he's a MD?


O.k., so if you're trialing in SchH, you don't go to a Ring or KNPV guy for specific advice. However, if you are an oncologist working on a possibly malignant brain tumor, and a gynecological oncologist (yes, I realize I'm comparing dogs with cancer, just roll with it for a moment) had a similar tumor and tried a specific medication, would you not possibly consult or at least listen to the gyno-oncologist to see if their findings had any relevance for you? Sure, the guy that's successfully completed said venue is going to be seen as the expert. I don't think anybody's arguing that (in said example, the handler who's earned a SchIII being the expert, over the guy who's going to someday try for the BH). However, if somebody hasn't actually titled, but had trained/worked their dog and offers some interesting observation or idea, I would at least hear them out and weigh it to see if it might be something possibly useful. That's just how I process things.



> Lastly you have to look at time. Time is the best teacher. How can a person that has been in dogs for a few years ever think that they know more than someone that has a 20 or 30 year head start? And *even if you think you do think you know more, SHUT UP AND RESPECT YOUR ELDERS!!!* There is a woman in my area that looks to be about 189 years old. She always has super nice GSD and I have known her since I was 16 years old (I'm 43). Last year she rolled up on me while I was tracking, watched my dog track and gave me some suggestions. I didn't feel that her suggestions were very good for my dog. Did I tell her that she was wrong or try to argue with her? No, I asked her some questions about her suggestions and thanked her. Even though I don't think she's a better trainer than I am, it would be disrespectful to give her grief and a bunch of static. Then she asked me to lay her a long ass FH track. I gave her the only correct answer, "Yes Ma'am". And in return she bought me lunch and a dropped some serious knowledge on me. That's the way the dog game should work, IMO.


I'd agree to the respect your elders. As for the 20-to-30 year head start, the experience counts for something, maybe quite a bit. So yeah, I would (and do) listen to people with more experience than me.

I would argue that it's not about knowing more, it's about what you know. Period. Who knows what somebody might or might not know. In the real world, I'm not discounting anybody, I'm engaging, observing, asking (even if it's just internally) a lot of "why" questions. I would also argue message boards are different. While I still listen to people's advice, I also feel a bit more comfortable asking questions a/o at least accepting people are going to banter and question things. It's a message board. That's kind of what it's here for. More to the point, of only the people with 20-30 years experience could chime in, it would be a pretty lonely place. Additionally, at least speaking for myself, when I question people on the Web, it's not to be disrespectful, it's to dig a bit deeper into what you're actually saying. Also, when I present my opinion, to some extent I am actually agreeing with your assessment that I'm a n00b, thus laying it out there in case there are flaws in my logic. At times there have been, so I sort of sift through the suggestions/criticisms/etc., weight them against my experiences and the thoughts of my real-life trainers I trust (all I really have to go on, really), and then use what makes sense & is practical, disregard or just not use what doesn't work.

Anyway, I'm tired, but I am mostly agreeing with your sentiment, with a few caveats.

-Cheers


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

A friend and mentor once told me: "you can be a trainer with 20 years of experience or a trainer with 1 year of experience 20 times."

DFrost


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

David Ruby said:


> There is actually educational theory & research that would indicate there is a quantifiable (within reason) quality to talent. Just in how people are mentally wired, how fast they get it, their ceiling for learning something. I doubt "dog training" would qualify, but musical intelligence and a latent talent for music does exist. Hard work will obviously factor into it, and some people that might naturally get things (we'll say music, they get the scales, or just have a feel for the instrument and making good music by ear or whatever), but unless they keep up the hard work, they will never get as far as less-talented individuals who keep working and pushing themselves.
> 
> How does this pertain to dogs . . . Not as a direct analogy, but some people do seem to "get" dogs better. They still have to put the work into whatever field they want to go into, and actually work the dogs no doubt. More or less though, I do sorta disagree with the total dismissal of talent, however hard work will be the big difference maker for most things for most people since you can cover a lot of the distance talent gives you if you are willing to work harder at something than somebody else.
> 
> -Cheers


where are you reading this David? Talent vs hard work is a topic that if often talked about in the music world. I simply do not believe that I was somehow born with he ability to play the harmonica better than most people. That doesn't makes sense. What does make sense is the fact that I play the damn thing 2-10hours per day. I have a bit of an obsessive quality to me and that created supreme focus on a single task. 

I can see how it translate into dog training for me, just like music, I break everything down into the smallest components I can imagine and train that way. I have a tendency to work very specific things at a time. I did the same thing with music where I might take a five note passage and listen to it for 20hour non stop at various speeds and then spend the next 20 hours practicing it. 

To me, talent doesn't exist. Hard work and paying attention to details does.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

As a "fellow artist" I'm suprised to hear your view on talent. I believe in talent. I think there are variables in how much "true talent" is needed to accomplish something. A harmonica? Some talent for sure but it is not as a dynamic of a task as others. The instrument doesn't change, you blow into a harmonica the sound comes out. I would guess anyone playing or wanting to play a harmonica has some level of musical talent. Of course there are always the people who really think they can "sing" lol. Its not as dynamic as other areas where talent is needed and is probably flooded with folks who have some level of musical talent so maybe that is why you say this?


I'm my industry (landscape architecture) talent is seen clearly. I have it ( not to brag ok a lil lol) I don't feel like I have ever had to work too hard at it. I didn't struggle through college and came out with high honors (which is really hysterical if u knew how much I hated school) there were definitely kids in my courses who didn't and never will "get it". 
I have had "artistic talent" sine I was a very young child, it was just there. I see talent or lack of it today. People in my industry who have been there longer coming to me for opinions, questions, ideas... Or they have just flat out basic ideas and designs. When it comes to new computer programs, I'm the guinea pig, I teach myself by playing around in it and then the rest of the team, I'm the go to person. In our industry it is all about problem solving and pure talent. Every project and client is differnt and has different challenges and inspirations.

Dog training requires talent it is dynamic and a truly talented person knows how to problem solve, they get it. Every dog is different and brings different challenges and is inspired by different things. You could not train every dog or even more complex every team exactly the same everytime. This doesn't come as easily to some as it does to others. 

On a side note I've often wondered if the better trainers/ handlers are "puzzle" people. May sound stupid to some but anyone love puzzles? Problem solving in whatever form?

And yes of course time and time put in is important. Even with a natural talent, you only get better with time. You get more complex, more refined but that's only if you get it to begin with.

T


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Maybe it sjust me but I definitely hear similarities in how you train your dog ;-)

T



Chris Michalek said:


> where are you reading this David? Talent vs hard work is a topic that if often talked about in the music world. I simply do not believe that I was somehow born with he ability to play the harmonica better than most people. That doesn't makes sense. What does make sense is the fact that I play the damn thing 2-10hours per day. I have a bit of an obsessive quality to me and that created supreme focus on a single task.
> 
> I can see how it translate into dog training for me, just like music, I break everything down into the smallest components I can imagine and train that way. I have a tendency to work very specific things at a time. I did the same thing with music where I might take a five note passage and listen to it for 20hour non stop at various speeds and then spend the next 20 hours practicing it.
> 
> To me, talent doesn't exist. Hard work and paying attention to details does.


----------



## Martine Loots (Dec 28, 2009)

"Titles"... "trainer"... to be honest they're just empty words to me. I will judge someone when I see him on the field and interact with his dog. 
Nothing easier then titling a dog... so this doesn't mean a thing. 

No matter the title, this is what I ask myself:

How was the performance of the dog? Was it worth watching?
Did he train the dog himself or bought it "ready made"
What type of dog is it?

I prefer to believe "my own eyes" and don't care at all about "titles"

Take Bart Bellon for instance. He never titled a dog for IPO but still a lot of trainers want his advice and I can't blame them...


----------



## Keith Jenkins (Jun 6, 2007)

Martine Loots said:


> Nothing easier then titling a dog... so this doesn't mean a thing.


How condescending. Make sure you tell that to all the people who have tried and never succeeded.


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Martine Loots said:


> ....
> Nothing easier then titling a dog... so this doesn't mean a thing.
> 
> ...


 
...and yet, some take years to do it...and some never are able to do it even after trying for years. To each his own though. "Nothing easier" huh? Then everybody here would have multiple titles on every dog...and nobody would ever need to come on here and ask for advice.


----------



## Martine Loots (Dec 28, 2009)

Keith Jenkins said:


> How condescending. Make sure you tell that to all the people who have tried and never succeeded.



I don't know how it works in your part of the world, but over here getting a title for the lowest level (speaking about Ring) isn't hard at all.
Now they even have Ring 4.... where the dog only has to do a few basic exercises.

As for titling Cat3, if your dog "more or less" knows the exercises and you attend 1 trial then, no matter the result, he's titled cat3... Are you going to say this is difficult??
I know a dog, bought in France and titled FR (don't know which level). Well, his owner did just 1 NVBK cat3 trial (the dog ended last with a very bad score), only to put "titled NVBK" on his homepage...

I'm not talking about the higher levels because there you have to QUALIFY to get the higher level title, but this isn't the fact for the lowest level.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

How is she supposed to know how hard it sucks ass over here ?? Martine, logistically, many many people drive a couple hours every time they go to train with their clubs. 

Granted, a lot of people here have dogs that suck, but many times it is the distance that gets them, and the lack of a decoy or helper. We really are doing this by the skin of our teeth here. That is why we explode sometimes and go after each other. : )


----------



## Keith Jenkins (Jun 6, 2007)

Hey if you say your chosen sport is that easy over in Europe I guess it is. 

My sport is schutzhund and in America while it's not rocket science it's not exactly easy regardless of level.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Plenty of SCH 1 titles are handed to people. If judges were strict to the rules many wouldn't pass. Lots of freebies in Sch over here


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Martine Loots said:


> I prefer to believe "my own eyes" and don't care at all about "titles"
> 
> Take Bart Bellon for instance. He never titled a dog for IPO but still a lot of trainers want his advice and I can't blame them...


that's a good point. On this forum alone people shoot the question,"how many dogs have you titled" as if that determines there worthiness. Many people are not in situations to title dogs. As jeff said logistics and Decoys are the biggest problems. You can easily see if someone knows what they're doing by watching them with their dog.


----------



## Martine Loots (Dec 28, 2009)

Keith Jenkins said:


> *Hey if you say your chosen sport is that easy over in Europe I guess it is*.
> 
> My sport is schutzhund and in America while it's not rocket science it's not exactly easy regardless of level.


I wasn't saying my SPORT is easy, I was saying getting a lowest level title is easy if you don't care about the score...

I think NVBK Ring is one of the most demanding sports for both dog and handler and even for the lowest level, the dog has to do all the exercises. 
It's not like MR where some exercises only have to be done in the highest level.
What I was trying to point out was that it's not the TITLE that matters (referring to the thread title), but the RESULT.

If you want to get good results in no matter what sport, then this means a lot of effort and sacrifices.

And I know some really knowledgeable and experienced people who don't care about titling a dog. At our club we have a guy who I consider as one of the best coaches around, with tons of experience and he doesn't even own a dog anymore... He's there just to help and coach the handlers and doing a great job. Do you think anybody cares about the fact that he isn't interested in titling a dog anymore?


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Martine Loots said:


> What I was trying to point out was that it's not the TITLE that matters (referring to the thread title), but the RESULT.


Correct, and newbies have no results. So what would you judge them on?


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

tracey delin said:


> As a "fellow artist" I'm suprised to hear your view on talent. I believe in talent. I think there are variables in how much "true talent" is needed to accomplish something.


I agree with Tracey. I grew up with a brother who was very musically talented. Hand him an instrument, something he'd never seen before, and he could play it within minutes. Give him a few weeks and he could play it really well. 

I've seen the same thing with decoys. Some guys spend hours in the suit, week after week after week and year after year and achieve just a minimal level of competence. They can work a dog, but they aren't great. Other guys get in a suit and look as good as the first guy in just a day or two, because they have a natural feel for it, ie talent.

Actually Chris didn't you mention a couple of your students who in just 1-2 years will be as good, or better, then you? Wouldn't you subscribe that to a natural talent? Sounds like they aren't putting in any more work then you do, so what else could it be?


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: This is about as close to right as Jeff ever gets, so ya'll need to soak it in.
> 
> But then again, late at night, you watch Buko's B&H and just shake with jealousy. Especially since you rant and rave about defense training, and spend hours working on the B&H. Meanwhile, the guy you SWEAR has never done Sch, his dog looks better than anything you have owned, and spent 0 time teaching it.
> 
> ...


WTF are you talking about?


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Chris Michalek said:


> *where are you reading this David?*


Largely the Theory of Multiple Intelligences.



> Talent vs hard work is a topic that if often talked about in the music world.* I simply do not believe that I was somehow born with he ability to play the harmonica better than most people. That doesn't makes sense. * What does make sense is the fact that I play the damn thing 2-10hours per day. I have a bit of an obsessive quality to me and that created supreme focus on a single task.


Sure it does. Perhaps you are better at seeing the patterns of music and putting them together than other people. More after the break; I'll try to tie it into how you think about dogs.



> I can see how it translate into dog training for me, just like music, I break everything down into the smallest components I can imagine and train that way. I have a tendency to work very specific things at a time. I did the same thing with music where I might take a five note passage and listen to it for 20hour non stop at various speeds and then spend the next 20 hours practicing it.


Look at the Theory of Multiple Intelligences. I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, but for a summary version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

Some are more controversial than others, but they are generally accepted and each person has some level in each of them.

According to Gardner, and several others in the field, people are wired differently. You stated more or less that you understand music by generally breaking it down, perfecting those smallest elements, then reconfiguring them however. You work very specific things in a very logical manner. I am guessing you might have been good at math, logic problems, had an interest in music (o.k., that one's a no-brainer), picked up things in songs others might have missed. Your way of thinking sounds like it is perfect for that manner of musical reconstruction. Being a bit OCD about it probably does not hurt. I would also bet you a beer you're right handed; sure that's playing the odds, but it also fits in with your very left-brained picture of things.

The point is, your brain is wired that way. You might listen to that five-note passage and play with it for 20 hours. Musical Intelligence would come into play with what you do with it. It has little to do with being able to play a five-note passage so much as what you do with it, your understanding of it. Another person might hear that five-note passage and turn it into something akin to Mozart. Another might listen to that same passage and just get frustrated because they just don't get it. A more abstract, left-brained person might listen to the passage once, have it down, and be able to do things with it immediately and in ways you might spend your whole life and never come up with.

Haven't you ever had students or other musicians that pick up on stuff more naturally, quicker, are able to do more things faster than you? Musicians or students that just "get it"? THAT is what I call "talent." If I was totally wrong, and talent did not exist, there would be no musical prodigies. However, hard work is often more important. Look at that former classmate than was able to breeze through Math, Biology, English, because they just got it faster. That is (at least in theory) their mind being wired to make those connections. They probably had a higher ceiling than most of us. However, if you keep working at something, you can learn to do almost anything. Hence, I might be a great improv/Jazz musician, just naturally get things, hear patterns, be able to do amazing things. But if I do not constantly challenge myself, another less-talented musician who has to work harder (but DOES) will eventually surpass me because I'm lazy and never really achieve my full potential. I also find it interesting the right vs. left brained way of thinking and how it does or might effect musicians, particularly the more abstract right-brained thought patterns and how that might relate to left-handed musicians. But that's another story, eh?

Relating that to dogs, there are people that break things down into the exercises and into steps. There are others that seem to be able to just more naturally read their dogs and maybe communicate better to them. It doesn't mean you couldn't go from either style and be great at it. I would argue somebody who just more naturally flows with dogs and is able to create, as Bob put it, good "truck dogs" probably has more natural talent than somebody who had to really work hard at it to get a BH, Brevet, or I on a dog. If the "truck dog" people never apply themselves, it does not matter. If the more mechanical person takes his time and figures things out on their own terms, gets III's, National Championships, or just becomes a really good dog handler, trainer, whatever, then what's it matter? However, if you got the young "truck dog" person early on, encouraged that talent, then also supplied them with the experience and knowledge of dog trainers or at least let them get out there and see what worked and didn't with their way of thinking, arguably yeah, they would at least possibly in theory have a higher ceiling for training dogs and troubleshooting their issues.

It's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully that makes sense.



> To me, talent doesn't exist. Hard work and paying attention to details does.


Well, I would argue evidence strongly suggests they both exist. Just like some might "get" the different scales, modes, and patterns in music, some might be more natural than others, some might have to apply logic to it and then reconstruct things in their own terms. I should also point out, this is not what "I" think so much as it is current educational theory and how we think individuals' brains work. If you're interested, check it out. There are lots of articles & books out there, some on Google Scholar and probably PubMed. But the research is out there, and it at least supports this as one possible explanation for how people learn and heavily implies people are born with different talents. Sure, it's up to us to develop those talents (that's where your 2-to-10 hours a day of practice pay off), but the latent talent is definitely there according to researchers if you believe the theories. But you can check it out yourself and make up your own mind. It's an interesting concept if nothing else.

Well, back to dog stuff . . .

-Cheers


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Wow David, I LOVED that post. Very interesting stuff there. There were times where I was going yes, yes, yes, in my head lol. 

I would be interested in hearing/ reading more on this. Seeing how my dog training relates to my overall personality and such. I'm the dog "reader" type for sure lol, no time for the itty bitty steps of "because" training. I'd love to learn more how that works with my, I'm guessing majority, leftist brain.

Can you post up some links or pm them.

If we ever meet up remind me to talk to you about this stuff lol

Thanks,
T


----------



## Martine Loots (Dec 28, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> Correct, and newbies have no results. So what would you judge them on?



I don't judge a person upon the titles he achieved with his dog. I prefer to observe someone while training his dog. How does he work him, what type of dog is it and how does the handler cope with the issues of the dog.
Someone can have a very difficult dog but still get good results (I don't mean "scores" here). 

Well to me this is a proof of his capacity to handle a dog. Much more proof then someone who buys a trained dog and puts a lowest level title on it.

I'm not saying this to insult _(this isn't the right word. What I mean is "make less important", but I don't know that word in English_) people's effort of titling a dog. I only want to state that good training and a good handler isn't all about "titling". There is much more to it and I prefer to judge someone's qualities upon that.


----------



## Steve Strom (May 25, 2008)

Martine Loots said:


> "
> Nothing easier then titling a dog... so this doesn't mean a thing.
> 
> ...


The first time Martine? Just breezed right through?


----------



## Martine Loots (Dec 28, 2009)

Steve Strom said:


> The first time Martine? Just breezed right through?


I already explained what I meant by this statement...

But to answer your question, well in fact yes. The first time I titled a dog was the easiest.
Why? Because then I was much more easily satisfied and didn't care too much about details. Sometimes my coach was worried about something and I was like "why bother, it'll be ok". And because I didn't get stressed, mostly it did work out.
My first year in competition, I always was satisfied, even if something had gone wrong. I didn't follow my opponents' results too much and when half of the season had passed, I didn't even know on which place of the ranking I was 
And to be honest, I liked it that way, only fun no stress.

Now I have a computer file, where I list and evaluate every single point of each and every dog competing in the same category. I know where and when they succeeded or failed an exercise and how it did happen.
I know from each opponent how many points they need to qualify for the championship or to climb a spot in the ranking. 
And yes, sometimes I do long for the time when everything was laid back and relaxed and nothing had to be proven...


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Actually Chris didn't you mention a couple of your students who in just 1-2 years will be as good, or better, then you? Wouldn't you subscribe that to a natural talent? Sounds like they aren't putting in any more work then you do, so what else could it be?


 
They were capable of picking out better teachers then Chris did as he learned. This kind of helps me with some of the points I was trying to make about those who can’t teaching. The students of these people usually suck at whatever it is they are trying to learn unless they are smart enough to move on. Either that or Chris was just realy, realy slow at picking things up and had to work 20 times harder.


----------



## Steve Strom (May 25, 2008)

Martine, I didnt mean anything by my question. It seems like what you say is that trialing is easy, but I still would think the passing/titling isnt. With the experience to avoid mistakes your training is going to be better and your more prepared. I'm not sure titling is ever easy though.


----------



## Steve Strom (May 25, 2008)

Martine Loots said:


> I don't know how it works in your part of the world, but over here getting a title for the lowest level (speaking about Ring) isn't hard at all.
> Now they even have Ring 4.... where the dog only has to do a few basic exercises.
> 
> As for titling Cat3, if your dog "more or less" knows the exercises and you attend 1 trial then, no matter the result, he's titled cat3... Are you going to say this is difficult??
> ...


I owe you an apology Martine. I completely missed this post. I guess I had a little different impression of your guys trialing.


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Actually Chris didn't you mention a couple of your students who in just 1-2 years will be as good, or better, then you? Wouldn't you subscribe that to a natural talent? Sounds like they aren't putting in any more work then you do, so what else could it be?


No, I chalk it up to the fact that I've done the hard work and just show them the short cuts. Of course they still have to do the work but paving the path for a new generation of harmonica players is a lot of work. 

It's still an up hill battle. When I lived in MN, I was very well connected but when I moved to AZ, I didn't know any of the local players and had to insert myself into the scene. The very first jazz jam I went to, I walk up to the sax player and ask if I could sit in. He asks what tune and I said anything they wanted to play, I know most standards and can read charts so it's not going to be an issue. Then he asked what instrument I played. I told him harmonica. He response was "This is a professional musicians' jam" I said sign me up. The he says, ":you don't understand we're playing jazz, not blues or country" I said sign me up.

When I get on stage, he calls three of the hardest tunes in the book, Spain, Giant Steps and Cherokee. of course, I've been through this BS before and I know them very well. As players like me continue to break certain hard held perceptions, the road only becomes easier for those that come after me. Very much like when Bird, Trane and Miles were coming up... many people hated their music but now they are the standard to which others are measured.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Chris you gave me a pretty hard time for a "training " vid I once showed of carna. You told me how perfect you do everything in life including your harmonica. So I'm wondering where the perfect dog training has gone? I recall you saying how my hand twitched at one minute 17 seconds and all kinds of BS. Just funny looking back on it!


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Chris you gave me a pretty hard time for a "training " vid I once showed of carna. You told me how perfect you do everything in life including your harmonica. So I'm wondering where the perfect dog training has gone? I recall you saying how my hand twitched at one minute 17 seconds and all kinds of BS. Just funny looking back on it!



I watch myself train all the time. I pick apart myself harder than I have ever picked apart anybody else. When I watch training vids, I always watch the dog and the helper. What did each do to cause the other to do what he did. I do it with everything. 

I was at a seminar once and the speaker (I won't say who) was talking about how everybody has body cues and he used me as an example. 

He couldn't find them. Then he got super frustrated.

I'm mostly a perfectionist but I do get frustrated and like to blow up shit.

I'm very much into the minute details of everything. And when I get into things, I get into them deeply. I'm a coffee nut. I know all about beans from around the world. I've sourced my own beans and roast them myself every couple of days. You can't find a much better cup of coffee than you will find at my house. In the general scope of things, I get that coffee is totally meaningless and it's just coffee but I'm nutty that way.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Chris Michalek;
I'm mostly a perfectionist but I do get frustrated and like to blow up shit.
I know all about beans from around the world.
[FONT=Calibri said:


> A lot of people gorge themselves on food when they are frustrated. Especially perfectionists, its good to hear you just make coffee and blow up shit… nothing like a fine cup of coffee with a box of Twinkies. [/FONT]
> Perfectionist… stop it please! This shit kills me, what’s next martial arts. I swear to god im the only normal persona any place I go.


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

Chris McDonald said:


> Chris Michalek;
> I'm mostly a perfectionist but I do get frustrated and like to blow up shit.
> I know all about beans from around the world.
> [FONT=Calibri said:
> ...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I would look at talent as the ability to grasp a concept and adapt it to your needs better then someone else.
Some people are "naturally" talented with this ability. Some can work hard and get the same results. Some will try forever with lousy to no success.
Some can title/train/teach/handle easily. Some have to work at it to be successful and some will never succeed regardless if it's titling, training, teaching, handling.

One of my brothers' first ever AKC OB competition dog was a Kerry Blue Terrier as were mine. 
He and his dog went HIT his very first trail and was never beat in the ring up to and including their CDX title. 
Special dog? Yes, but the boy had the natural talent to bring it out of the dog!! ;-)
At the same time I was showing his dog in the breed ring and finished his CH by going BOW (Best Of Winners) at a National specialty. Also unbeaten in the classes in the breed ring to his CH. The CH and CD were won less then two weeks apart.


----------

