# A Really Nice Take on Ringsport



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

I thought this was a nice quote regarding Ringsport. It was taken from another thread, and I asked permission before making it into its own thread.



Francis Metcalf said:


> Ringsport's are all about the improvement of dogs, thats why it's important to title other breeds than the Malinois. The avarage Malinois handler is not improving the breed they are just utilizing them. If you train Off breeds in Ring you might not end up on the podium but you are participating and contributing deeply in the true spirit of Ringsport and using your knowledge of working dogs for the greater good.
> 
> Unfortunately too many people see Ring as a way to better themselves rather than the dogs. For me Ringsport and all Dogsport, in the end has no meaning unless you are using your hard won skills for the greater good. Personally that includes training service dogs, helping shelters and shelter dogs, and being a resource for people in my community dealing with dog aggression. It also includes working with a group of dedicated trainers, breeders and handlers who are interested in creating an American Working dog and fighting BSL.
> 
> When I see someone with experience who might be interested in the same thing, especially someone who wants to do a cool and honorable thing like work dogs with his son as a family; I just have to reach out. Plus I can relate, after working for years with Herders it's fun to have a change. And it's fun to see what the same selective pressures that formed the great European working dogs do to our local dog breeds.


I think it is a great way to look at it by focusing on the dogs and improving them, not just utilizing them.

A few notes. First, this is not meant to be a Malinois vs. Others sort of thread. That is not my goal, and it seems to very much NOT be Francis' goal in the least. Second, I just believe it is a good attitude to have of using the various sports or working events as ways to test the dogs to evaluate and then work to improve them (as well as improving yourself as a handler, acknowledging for me that is projecting on myself and my desire to better myself), not necessarily just getting the dog that will get you to your III.

I just simply thought it was a very good take on the utilization of Ringsport and I hope if it leads to any discussion it does not turn into a Malinois vs. Off-breeds or anything of that nature. Hopefully this ends up being productive, but I thought it was a cool take on the subject and a good attitude for people to have for getting involved in this sort of stuff.

-Cheers


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

*Re: A Really Nice Take on Ringsport - the test must fit the breed.*

French ring has been crafted to favor the medium sized,
very quick, intense pray oriented dog.

In other words, a Malionis out of French Ring lines.

It is just plain stupid to think you are going to improve
a breed intended to be large and powerful - such as the
Rottweiler for instance - by failing or barely passing at
French ring.

French Ring is at the extreme end of the spectrum,
and thus only of use for dogs also at that extreme.

Any test of any utilitarian functionality must correlate
with the real world needs of that function.

In what real world application must a dog walk
between the legs of a waddling potential adversary ?

All sports over time deteriorate in the sense that the
scoring gradually is influenced by things of no real or
practical importance, such as ultra straight sits and
so forth.

If French Ring is such a good system, why are there
no police breeds of French origin ?

Why are the French Breeds, the Beauceron, 
the Picardy Shepherd, the Briard, ceasing to exist
as serious dogs ?

Schutzhund has also degraded, is becoming
tracking obedience, trick obedience and protection
obedience.

How else could the outcome of a major event hinge
on the fact that one dog lost three points for failing
to look into a blind he knew to be empty and another
dog lost three points to fail to make the long bite ?

Yes, we need to test and trial our dogs.

But we need to return our trials to be focused
on things fundamental to the purpose of the
dogs, not trivialities and entertainment, such
as the elaborate French Ring basket game ?

It is not perfect, and is out of date in some
ways, but go look at a KNPV trial to see what 
I mean.


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

*Two more points.*

We seem to have a lot of cops on this list, which is a good
thing. Because the single biggest problem for working dogs
in America is that the police and the breeders are in separate
and diverging worlds.

How can we expect the cops to take us seriously if our
training, our trials and our breeding have less and less to
do with what they really need in their dogs ?

How can the cops get better if we as a country do not
produce good dogs, and a system where young guys can
grow up learning dog training that really matters in their
world ?

Point 2.

Thirty years ago French Ring changed from being a
German Shepherd sport to being a BELGIAN Malinois
sport.

Because the equipment changed, and the helper
work changed.

Now I love it when the Malinois sneak in and eat
a nice lunch intended for the German Shepherds 
at the major IPO competitions. I love it because
it is good for the Malinois, and I love the Malinois.

But I love it even more because being whipped
where they have always won is good for the
German Shepherd, and I love the German Shepherd
too.

But French ring is different. They win because
the French have stacked the deck, not because
the Malinois is better.

The Shepherd is a more moderate dog in terms
of size, more to the side of power and aggression
and bulk. 

So the best Malinois are always going to beat
the best German Shepherds at French Ring.

And to breed German Shepherds to win at 
french ring would be to abandon their heritage,
to try and make them something they are not
and were never intended to be.


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

"In what real world application must a dog walk
between the legs of a waddling potential adversary ?"

Must?

What exactly has changed? The dogs or the Requirements?

A large powerfull breed CAN score as well as any other dog in FR as long as they can do the exercises and the jumps. There is NO point deduction for lack of speed.


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

Excellent post Jim. A friend of mine who's a K9 handler says they want a good sniffer dog over a duel purpose any day because the detection dogs brings cash back to the program.


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Absurd nonsense.

Your statement is just as silly as saying the 320
pound defensive tackle could make the team as
a corner back or wide out if he just had a good
attitude.

Tell ya what. From now on, the rules say that
when the dog makes his grip, the helper, and the
helpers would be six two and 220 pounds, and
their suits would weigh in at 60 pounds to keep
any winnie boys out, the helper does what he is
supposed to do.

Since the exercise is to stop the man, he
escapes. Drags the dog.

Two points for every meter. Disqualification
when the helper touches the fence around 
the field.

In three years you have 30 mastiffs and
Rottweilers at the cup finals.


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

Your Analogy doesn’t apply Jim, FR is NOT a Team sport, or maybe you will change the Rules so that the 320 pounder can Check, bump and Hit the Wide out all the way down the Field?

Remember we are talking about FR and the Rules, AGAIN, there is NO point loss for lack of speed.


BTW, Care to answer any of the qustions?


----------



## Robin Van Hecke (Sep 7, 2009)

Kyle Sprag said:


> "In what real world application must a dog walk
> between the legs of a waddling potential adversary ?"
> 
> What about the esquives? is a 120# rott going to maneuver like a Mal? once the momentum is lost the barrage or whatever opposition the decoy gives is going to tbe harder to overcome.
> ...


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

*Re: Two more points.*



Jim Engel said:


> French ring has been crafted to favor the medium sized,
> very quick, intense pray oriented dog.
> 
> In other words, a Malionis out of French Ring lines.
> ...


Sorry, I guess I'm the village idiot. ;-)

Pretend I'm not for a minute (I know it's hard, but give it a shot just for a minute). Sure it could help you improve the dog. By doing something difficult, even failing, it can show you the dogs shortcomings or how it handles under pressure even if it can't physically perform/pass according to the rules. 

I could also have meant Mondio Ring or Belgian Ring, and in fact meant that mainly as French Ring AND Mondio Ring since those are the two available in the U.S.



> Any test of any utilitarian functionality must correlate
> with the real world needs of that function.
> 
> In what real world application must a dog walk
> between the legs of a waddling potential adversary ?


I have seen stranger things done in basic OB. In what real world application must a dog do a ladder walk or climb into a garbage bag or go through a plastic tunnel or walk across a see-saw when there's a perfectly good floor right there? For one, it is to challenge the dog. For another, it is to build trust in the handler that the dog can do what you tell it to do and things will be o.k. Sure, that may not all apply to Ringsport or protection work, but it's the best I could come up with. I couldn't tell you how or when that particular exercise came into being though.

As for the utility, I'd accept the above exercise as an exercise in obedience. Just to train for something to see if the dog can get it. Again, I've seen weirder things done in dog training and if done properly can have a purpose (not a directly applicable analogy, but still quasi-relevant in my mind). If you're really arguing about the utility of sports though, that's energy that would be better spend developing the APPDA or an American version of something similar to the KNPV or a Police Dog Trial or something.



> All sports over time deteriorate in the sense that the
> scoring gradually is influenced by things of no real or
> practical importance, such as ultra straight sits and
> so forth.
> ...


Then what's more important, the points of what the dog and the test are telling you based on their performances? And I'm not defending any of that stuff you mentioned.



> If French Ring is such a good system, why are there
> no police breeds of French origin ?


I am aware of police who use FR as a style of foundation. It's just a tool. As for French breeds, France and Belgium aren't all that far apart, and the Briard and Beauceron have been used for those purposes.



> It is not perfect, and is out of date in some
> ways, but go look at a KNPV trial to see what
> I mean.


I see what you mean about KNPV. That said, that was not my point in this post.



> Thirty years ago French Ring changed from being a
> German Shepherd sport to being a BELGIAN Malinois
> sport.
> 
> ...


That's strange since Schutzhund was meant as a German Shepherd breeding standard test, no?



> But French ring is different. They win because
> the French have stacked the deck, not because
> the Malinois is better.
> 
> ...


There is a difference between breeding to the test and using the test as one measure of evaluation. I just see it as a test, not something to necessarily base the whole breed around (whichever breed that may be).

-Cheers


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

So you are saying that the GSD the Rott, and the Bouv are just so rediculously slow ??

Or are you saying that the decoys are just way to fast ??

Maybe you should be saying that these dogs have been bred too long to be house pets.

Quote: We seem to have a lot of cops on this list, which is a good
thing. Because the single biggest problem for working dogs
in America is that the police and the breeders are in separate
and diverging worlds.

How can we expect the cops to take us seriously if our
training, our trials and our breeding have less and less to
do with what they really need in their dogs ?


Honestly, they don't need the dual purpose nearly as much as they need the drug dogs, and why use a big GSD when you can use a smaller more economical dog ?? THe bite work is used how many times a year, and the drug work is used how many times a year ??

THat is an answer I would like to hear. Lets get real about what they need, and get you off your high horse about "off" breeds and ring sport.

In 2005 a bouvier competed in the MR cup of France. Their is your "one" dog you have been hoping for. LOL The dog fell asleep in most of the harder exercises and got schooled. Other than that he did ok. With the kind of thresholds the bouvs have, the bad guy could probably nice doggy the dog to sleep and get away.

KNPV dogs are cool to watch, but considering the poor guy has had **** all for training, and the dept goes out and gets trained dogs if they are going with KNPV, the guy is in over his head. How many of those dogs get shot for stupid shit ??

They are better off with a FR dog. That is the flat out truth. Anyone can figure that out. THey don't have the handler aggression, and since they are probably used 1 time for aggression, and 50 times for drug work or tracking, how can that not be more obvious ??

Someone needs to come to the realization that cops are not generally speaking, dog trainers of any note. Then maybe you can have a serious conversation about sport and reality and cops.

Maybe you try and help sport keep it's point value in the bite work, and not let the bastages throw the points into the OB side, and stop writing unbelievably long and overly obvious articles on shit we already know all to well.

I have trouble sleeping a lot of the time, but I am going to use your latest article you posted to solve that problem. =D>


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

> How else could the outcome of a major event hinge
> on the fact that one dog lost three points for failing
> to look into a blind he knew to be empty and another
> dog lost three points to fail to make the long bite ?


 Because "failing to make the long bite" is more than three points.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Robin Van Hecke said:


> What about the esquives? is a 120# rott going to maneuver like a Mal? once the momentum is lost the barrage or whatever opposition the decoy gives is going to tbe harder to overcome.


What about a 80 or 90 lb. Rottweiler that looks like this?









If the dog's not able to cut it because it's 120 lbs. that sort of proves the point about needing to work on a better dog for the job, doesn't it?



> IMO training and trialing some of these non traditional breeds does nothing for the sport except water it down.


Why? Some of these "non-traditional breeds" are anything but. They were historically created specifically for this. Additionally, I don't care about the sport, I care about the dogs. Granted, I don't want something that starts out as a legitimate test being ruined so I can feel good getting a certain title on a dog, but these sports exist for training and testing dogs, correct? How is using them for the purpose, with the intent of testing and bettering dogs, inherently watering down the sports? I'm not proposing watering down anything, just that I think it is a nice notion to use the tests as intended and as one measuring stick for evaluating dogs. And maybe getting out there and having fun. I'm also not proposing people turn every breed or line of dogs into wannabe prototypical French-line Malinois for that matter. The original post (what I quoted, and my belief) is that it is more about improving the dogs, and participating in the sports/events to get the most out of them and the spirit of the sports, not watering them down so everybody can win or just using the dog as a vehicle to get your III.

-Cheers


----------



## Robin Van Hecke (Sep 7, 2009)

David Ruby said:


> What about a 80 or 90 lb. Rottweiler that looks like this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have you ever seen a french ring competition at a high level? If not, try to do that and then go train the program in North America for a few years.....then you might understand where I'm coming from.

Thanks


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

*Robin my boy*



Robin Van Hecke said:


> Have you ever seen a french ring competition at a high level? If not, try to do that and then go train the program in North America for a few years.....then you might understand where I'm coming from.
> 
> Thanks


Actually, I have been in attendance at a number of club level
trials in Europe, various training sessions and at the Cup Finals
at Lauriant in 19866.

And I do know where you come from, Fan Boy Land.


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

> What about the esquives? is a 120# rott going to maneuver like a Mal? once the momentum is lost the barrage or whatever opposition the decoy gives is going to tbe harder to overcome.
> 
> IMO training and trialing some of these non traditional breeds does nothing for the sport except water it down.


What about the Esquives? Of course a 120lb dog is not going to maneuver like a 60lb dog but that doesn't mean he/she is any more susceptible to an exquive. In fact some times the spead deamons help Esquive themselves. Any 120lb dog worth a shit should be able to go through a barrage.

What waters down "non traditional" breeds is doing NOTHING!


----------



## Robin Van Hecke (Sep 7, 2009)

*Re: Robin my boy*



Jim Engel said:


> Actually, I have been in attendance at a number of club level
> trials in Europe, various training sessions and at the Cup Finals
> at Lauriant in 19866.
> 
> And I do know where you come from, Fan Boy Land.


Read the thread...I was addressing David Ruby


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

Robin Van Hecke said:


> Have you ever seen a french ring competition at a high level? If not, try to do that and then go train the program in North America for a few years.....then you might understand where I'm coming from.
> 
> Thanks


I have and Understand quite well you are making excuses for non traditional breeds based on BS and not the truth which is NOT flattering. The fact IS they should be able to have much more sucess than they do.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Robin Van Hecke said:


> Have you ever seen a french ring competition at a high level? If not, try to do that and then go train the program in North America for a few years.....then you might understand where I'm coming from.
> 
> Thanks


Not in person (I missed the Chicago FR trial this year, would like to go next year). Francis, who I stole the quote from, produced this year's NARA FR I champion though, so I think he's pretty well versed in the sport as well as the abilities of Malinois and American Bulldogs. I'm impressed by the FR stuff I've seen, generally Malinois-based (obviously), and all on video. I can guess what the Malinois can do that the "off-breeds" I'm familiar with can't. That said, I don't see the problem in keeping the sports at the intended high level and letting it be open competition. Even if that means I get an off breed and crap out at a Brevet, or a I, or even a II. Or for that matter a Malinois that is more moderate in drive or that fits my needs better while being a less-than-optimal FR/MR candidate and has to struggle more to get to a certain level than another dog might.

Maybe it's just my admitted inexperience, and the sports have reportedly been watered down in at least some instances, so you might be totally right and I think I get what you are saying. That said, I do not think it has to be that way, or should be for that matter. I just approach it from the standpoint of thinking it is good to let everyone compete and rise to whatever level they deserve to be at and use whatever the dog shows them as an indicator of what they've got. If that means I try an off-breed and fail to get a Brevet, then so be it.



Jim Engel said:


> Actually, I have been in attendance at a number of club level
> trials in Europe, various training sessions and at the Cup Finals
> at Lauriant in 19866.
> 
> And I do know where you come from, Fan Boy Land.


I think he was referring to me, and actually agreeing with you (more or less).

-Cheers


----------



## Robin Van Hecke (Sep 7, 2009)

Kyle Sprag said:


> I have and Understand quite well you are making excuses for non traditional breeds based on BS and not the truth which is NOT flattering. The fact IS they should be able to have much more sucess than they do.


BS? ok, then let's just agree to disagree then....you've already decided it's BS so what's the point?

thanks


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

Robin Van Hecke said:


> BS? ok, then let's just agree to disagree then....you've already decided it's BS so what's the point?
> 
> thanks


 
Reversal, why do most Malinois stomp the Bull Dogs in IRON dog when they decide to show up, because it was designed for a Malinois? ](*,)

Size is just One small component of a exquive.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Kyle Sprag said:


> What waters down "non traditional" breeds is doing NOTHING!


So very true .. 

There is people taking Rotts, Beaucerons and the like to high levels of competition. People should stop making excuses for any of these breeds and just train, they will get a better dog because of it. 

As per this link there still are some 'real' Rotts .. they do exist. 

http://www.hexental.be/AMBULL.htm


----------

