Jump to content


Photo

Agility Handling Systems

agility

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21 Root Beer

Root Beer

    I'm east bound, just watch ol' Bandit run!

  • Registered Users
  • 7,527 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 13 April 2017 - 01:32 PM

  
I am at a loss on that one as well, in their promo material they say the system can be used for any dog/handler team but I haven't seen it yet. OMD have become all about slick marketing,

 

What I have found is that since all of the instructors stated teaching using OMD, the courses that we work on in class have morphed into very tight courses with a lot of wraps, tight turns, backsides, and back forth back forth back forth, and very little flat out running through long, straighter, or more flowing, sequences.  And that is all we work on now.

 

Bandit did his first CPE trial this past weekend and he was literally glowing after we left the ring.

 

I realized that it was the first time in his life he had ever actually RUN Agility on a full course!!! 


So, yeah, it can work for every dog on a super tight course with a lot of wraps and backsides and so forth that prevent the dog from ever getting much ahead.  (I guess that's what AKC courses have become?)

But I am at a loss to see how it can work on the kinds of courses that my dog and I are actually going to be running in competition . . .


Kristine
And Dean Dog, Tessa, and the Bandit
In Memory:  Sammie, Speedy, and Maddie

 

Tessa's Training Blog - Our Training and Experiences in Musical Freestyle, Agility, and Rally FrEe

 

Tessa+Snooker.JPG


#22 CptJack

CptJack

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,762 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NRV, Virginia

Posted 13 April 2017 - 02:02 PM

But I am at a loss to see how it can work on the kinds of courses that my dog and I are actually going to be running in competition . . .

 

I will tell you bluntly that my agility instructor has told me quite directly that systems designed for international style courses do NOT work for NADAC.   Period, the end.   That there are some bits, yes, but they're mostly crossover bits, and I'm honestly inclined to agree with her.  NADAC requires some specialty stuff and doesn't require other technical skills.  Obstacle performance is the same, but a lot of things that you'll encounter there aren't present anywhere else, and there's a ton of things you just don't need (like backsides).

 

I do not know CPE well but from what I've seen it's probably somewhere between AKC and NADAC in that it's just not stuff you're going to use the way you would on an international style course.



#23 CptJack

CptJack

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,762 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NRV, Virginia

Posted 13 April 2017 - 02:04 PM

And, yes, marketing. 

OMD has a lot of 'rebranded' things in there - amongst their crosses and turns there's a lot of stuff that's existed for half of forever with a shiny new name.


Tandem turn: 

https://www.onemindd...hnique/?lang=en

 

Switch - which is the most basic nadac thing ever.



#24 gcv-border

gcv-border

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 4,464 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:SW Virginia

Posted 13 April 2017 - 03:03 PM

 


So, yeah, it can work for every dog on a super tight course with a lot of wraps and backsides and so forth that prevent the dog from ever getting much ahead.  (I guess that's what AKC courses have become?)

 

AKC courses have become a bit more like the European courses (tighter, backsides, etc.), but the novice courses tend to be quite wide open.  And even at the higher levels, there can be a sequence that allows the dog to run flat out ahead of the handler. Not always, but still allowable under the rules. Some judges like to incorporate it because they know that everybody is training for the tighter courses, and it can be very challenging for dogs trained on the tight turns.


Jovi

"Folks will know how large your soul is by the way you treat a dog."  Charles F. Duran


#25 alligande

alligande

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,906 posts

Posted 13 April 2017 - 11:08 PM

 
What I have found is that since all of the instructors stated teaching using OMD, the courses that we work on in class have morphed into very tight courses with a lot of wraps, tight turns, backsides, and back forth back forth back forth, and very little flat out running through long, straighter, or more flowing, sequences.  And that is all we work on now.
 
Bandit did his first CPE trial this past weekend and he was literally glowing after we left the ring.
 
I realized that it was the first time in his life he had ever actually RUN Agility on a full course!!! 
. .


I am currently stuck in grade 1 in FCI with my experienced dog due to this phenomenon, outside of grade 1 the only time you see a flat out sprint across a course is as a trap for grade 3 dogs (grade 3 is harder to get in you need 9 clean runs in the same year and they call everything) in grade 1 we usually have a flat out sprint all round the course, I have run one without needing to do a real cross! So all our fancy training means nothing when your dogs head has exploded and he doesn't want to weave as it's stopping the fun, got one of my precious points on a course where only two dogs had a recorded time (the other was my training/traveling partner) as you had to handle, nothing challenging but there were some reall control points.

There is very little you can take from OMD and many of the other handling styles and use in NADAC. NADAC has eveloved into its own branch of agility, most of the other flavors are variations on "standard" agility that competitors the world over would recognize and the techniques work for. NADAC is evolving in a different direction. I started in NADAC in 2009 and then it still looked like "agility" very few hoops and by the time I started competing with Rievaulx in 2011 hoops had started to become standard, I last competed in 2014 and it has changed substantially since then.

#26 mum24dog

mum24dog

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 2,949 posts
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Agility.<br />Clicker training.

Posted 14 April 2017 - 05:50 AM

I don't know what you guys are used to if you think European courses are tight. UK courses often used to be tight but we now have increased min / max distances between obstacles of 5-10m. FCI are 5-7m. Makes quite a difference.

 

I don't get on well with too much technical terminology. Keep the flow going, keep connection with your dog and indicate the line it is to take, encourage working on away from the handler when needed. That's about it really as far as basic principles are concerned whatever the system is called.

 

It's a far cry from the days of run and point and always use the arm nearest the dog as it was when I started.



#27 CptJack

CptJack

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,762 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NRV, Virginia

Posted 14 April 2017 - 07:40 AM

I started competing in 2015 and started training early in 2014 and while, yeah, there have been SOME changes, there have been very few outside of the games classes and even those have been things like consolidating the hoopers classes. The only other substantial things I can think of have been that champs had hoops on barrels (not really a thing in regular trials) and some recalculation in YPS requirements (they are very slightly lower) and the allowance of dogs to be entered as vets in non-jumping classes and to receive more time there, and different requirements for Champs.   Oh, and they'll VERY occasionally be a course where they tell you which direction to take a barrel. 

 

Otherwise the big changes were much earlier - not table, teeter, or tire (or chute which is now gone from other venues),  hoops and barrels are things.   No backsides/dog always takes the jump from the direction they are traveling (so no go around to the back).  How many hoops depends to some degree, because hoops CAN be substituted for jumps in a regular course, but that's not a change either - it's always been a possibility.  Barrels are getting more use, I think.  Oh and sometimes the course will do a 180 turn back onto the course via a hoop or jump or something which I don't recall happening before with anything but a barrel.     

 


Regular agility is still contacts, tunnels, jumps, weaves (with barrels and hoops).  Chances is weird, some of the games are very... unique, but I don't think there's been many changes to them overall, either, except again in SCTs (which was little), and maybe in things I don't run like hoopers and barrelers.  

Or maybe I just haven't noticed. What kind of changes have you seen?



#28 alligande

alligande

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,906 posts

Posted 14 April 2017 - 08:40 AM

Or maybe I just haven't noticed. What kind of changes have you seen?

 

There were no barrels last time I competed in NADAC, my first year or two competing you rarely saw hoops in regular agility, but they were becoming more and more common. The extreme games were just really getting going and were not offered regularly, but the influence was starting to be seen. Sharon Nelson had a very clear agenda for what she saw agility as, AKC, FCI, KC agility are very different beasts as they are run by committees and change is slow, that version of agility has evolved through course design rather than rule changes. NADAC at the time being owned and ran by one person she could change it to suit what she saw as right and for a period of time there were continuous minor rule changes. 

To be honest I think NADAC is a love it or hate it organization, I only competed in NADAC as starting out it was the only organization that had a good number of trials locally that was not AKC, then a new indoor soccer facility opened and USDAA arrived, at the time I had no clue how different it was. I only continued to compete in NADAC as I liked the people who put on the trials and enjoyed the atmosphere, but I hated the courses. The only thing I miss is tunnelers which is a blast and maybe one of the funnest things you can play.

It is also a great venue for a dog starting out as you can train in the ring, but with the style of courses diverging that is probably harder to take advantage of. I know with my young dog I would not want to run him on a NADAC style course as it would cause him frustration as his foundation training so far has been geared for a very different style.  



#29 CptJack

CptJack

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,762 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NRV, Virginia

Posted 14 April 2017 - 08:50 AM

I think barrels were actually introduced in 2013 - so just before I came along.  I do remember seeing one the first time and going what do I do with THAT when it was in a course, but being told to treat it like a giant cone resolved it pretty fast. 


I absolutely agree that course styles are very different, and that handling is radically different, and it's a love it or hate it thing -  and I particularly get frustrated with some of the things Sharon Decides Are Changing (and then usually doesn't and ergo everyone is confused - it's just irritating) - and that it requires it's own stuff.   And does NOT require some other things that are necessary in other venues.

 

But it hasn't really changed much in the past few years, which was mostly all I meant.  .  I've seen even very few minor course *style* variations/changes.  In one way it's come back around a little  in that the X-games aren't things anymore and Qs have been rolled back into the regular classes they came from. X-hoopers went this year, but the rest were things I never saw, anyway, so I'm not sure when they went but 'before now'. 



#30 CptJack

CptJack

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,762 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NRV, Virginia

Posted 14 April 2017 - 08:57 AM

 

Looking at this I don't even see hoops used more often in regular now - That's actually MORE than I see in many regular runs, but not shockingly so, either.  Though granted that's 2013, not 2014.  I mostly just found it interesting and decided to share.

 

It's still a very different beast, there are still people who love it and people who hate it and it's all valid.   It just hasn't gone many radical changes lately.  Now, if Sharon would stop tinkering with the minor/administrative stuff ....   (Actually she's created a new Thing separate from NADAC that seems to be keeping her happy and busy.  I don't remember the name of the thing, but I should probably dig it up so I can know in the future)

 

...actually this did remind me of one major change.  There are now markers around the barrels and if you turn wider than that 10 feet marked you get faulted. 



#31 gcv-border

gcv-border

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 4,464 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:SW Virginia

Posted 14 April 2017 - 11:28 AM

Tunnelers!!!! ❤❤❤❤❤😊

Jovi

"Folks will know how large your soul is by the way you treat a dog."  Charles F. Duran


#32 alligande

alligande

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,906 posts

Posted 14 April 2017 - 11:35 AM

Please ignore the atrocious handling, poorly trained and stressed dog in the video - I knew no better back then it was our first ever trial. What the video does show is that the course looks like any organizations novice/grade 1 class, no hoops, no barrels and the spacing and handling is what you would think of in agility terms as "normal"

https://youtu.be/ZwOJvd9SIXM



#33 CptJack

CptJack

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,762 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NRV, Virginia

Posted 14 April 2017 - 11:40 AM

Honestly, and I'm not saying this to be snarky, but because I've been n NADAC too long I consider hoops and jumps as interchangeable for handling/line purposes.    And other than the barrel not being out there, and equipment being different  I... see no major differences between that and the novice regular runs I did with Molly at the end of last month, though, yes, the obstacle spacing is closer than we use now and a-frame and dog walk seem more narrow.

 

Serps, pinwheels, 180s, discriminations, weaves -  one barrel on the course, but there aren't always - and hoops, of course which handle like jumps and a lot of even bigger other venue trainers use to train handling to save wear and tear on the dog, anyway.  They could put that out at my next trial with different spacing and I wouldn't think twice about it. Maybe 'where'd the hoops go' since there are usually a few, but replacing them for jumps in handling/the dog?  Not really a big deal.  They handle the same. 

 

- This is Molly's last video.  Novice Regular, Jumpers, Novice Regular, Tunnelers.  

 

And Molly's first 'real' trial (running novice)    1st run is part of regular, second is regular , 3rd is part of a weavers run, 4th is regular again, the is regular (backwards -  though spliced to show the whole course (we missed some stuff), and the last one's tunnelers. 


And you will take tunnelers from my cold dead hands. I suck at it but omg it's fun.  ;-)



#34 CptJack

CptJack

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,762 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NRV, Virginia

Posted 14 April 2017 - 12:05 PM

and to be extra clear - NADAC is weird.   It is a lot weird.  I just don't think it's changed that much in courses set in relatively recent years.  



#35 alligande

alligande

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,906 posts

Posted 14 April 2017 - 12:52 PM

Honestly, and I'm not saying this to be snarky, but because I've been n NADAC too long I consider hoops and jumps as interchangeable for handling/line purposes.    And other than the barrel not being out there, and equipment being different  I... see no major differences between that and the novice regular runs I did with Molly at the end of last month, though, yes, the obstacle spacing is closer than we use now and a-frame and dog walk seem more narrow.

Its good to hear it has stabilized, there was a period where it seemed like there where small rule changes every trail.

 

The obstacles are identical to standard equipment. Nothing has changed there. 

 

There are huge differences in running a course with jumps and with the obstacles either being close or wide open like in your courses. In FCI we can face wide open courses, that mix in technical handling, in our local league we get tight and much closer spacing. As a handler you can easily be with your dog when the jumps are close, you can get front crosses in, but with a big dog it can be hard to make the turns. The handling style is very different.

Not having jumps changes the handlers timing, my dog jumped 20" in NADAC, in USDAA 26" and it there was a huge difference handling those courses, in USDAA I could get crosses in, In NADAC I got spins as I was not able to be as clear with my handling.

At the time if I had been committed to NADAC I would have spent a lot more time working on obstacle commitment and driving ahead of me, instead I had a dog who excelled at snooker as he was very responsive to my position and motion (still is, he is a challenge to drive).  I regularly train at a lower height than he jumps at, if we can be fluid at a lower height I will have plenty of time at full height.

I have already mentioned last weekends seminar which was conducted by a Spanish World team member, I ran the course with no bars (my big dog has been having a training break and I have to keep how much we work down) and it was huge a challenge, there were some sections that without the bars made it almost impossible for the human and so we put the bars up in those areas and it made things possible, jumps also tighten up the turns, without the bars his turns are much wider as he is running flat out. 

 

In my opinion the bottom line NADAC is its on style, specialized handling has evolved to run the courses (some of it transferable) many top trainers are not equipped to help students on NADAC courses, it is outside their comfort zone. The handling styles we started talking about have evolved to run "standard" agility, FCI, KC, AKC, USDAA UKI/UKA etc, most of the handlers that developed those techniques have never run a NADAC course. 



#36 Root Beer

Root Beer

    I'm east bound, just watch ol' Bandit run!

  • Registered Users
  • 7,527 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 14 April 2017 - 01:05 PM

In CPE, I can use OMD style handling in the opening for Snooker.  Many of the CPE Snooker courses have become quite tight, and that is a great place for backsides and wraps and staying very close to the equipment.

But that is one division out of seven.  I am not shooting for a C-ATCH with Bandit, but I would like for Bandit and I to have the skills to fully enjoy all of the different games together.

 

So . . . . we are going to make that happen!!


Kristine
And Dean Dog, Tessa, and the Bandit
In Memory:  Sammie, Speedy, and Maddie

 

Tessa's Training Blog - Our Training and Experiences in Musical Freestyle, Agility, and Rally FrEe

 

Tessa+Snooker.JPG


#37 CptJack

CptJack

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,762 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NRV, Virginia

Posted 14 April 2017 - 02:06 PM

Absolutely, and the reason I said that systems don't work for NADAC was because... they don't work for NADAC, mostly, and I thought it worth mentioning since Kristen had originally mentoned some interest in it and  know she's done some foundations work with Amanda Nelson. 


My primary point was only that NADAC hasn't changed within itself much in recent years. 


However.


NADAC is not, IMO, unrecognizable as agility and not so alien that you are entirely doing different things in NADAC than anywhere else.  It is still a front, rear, or blind cross or variations there of.  It's still obstacle performance - meaning weaves, starting on the dog's left at 24, hitting contacts, not dropping bars.  

 

Not any dog who can do NADAC will be able to do AKC, because of equipment differences and things like treadles, but any dog who has the skills to complete a USDAA, AKC, CPE, course should be able to do a NADAC regular course.   There are lots of reasons they may not want to that are very valid,  but they are fully in possession of all the skills necessary to do so.  Most foundation work includes 'go around the cone' and the barrel is a giant cone.  Hoops will change timing  and they do not have the same 'pull' for dogs as other obstacles so may require closer handling but getting most dogs to go through them is intuitive - and they do not require specialized handling to effectively handle.  There is no distance requirement in regular,  the SCT is not as high as it is in speciality classes - even at elite.


Basically, I agree that NADAC is weird and variable and specialized in its own ways, but it's not recently changed much and that it isn't quite *as* weird as you seem to find it, overall.  At least not when compared to AKC which is the only other thing I've done rather than watched - on a regular to standard comparison. Compared games, or organizational or administrative things, and it gets much stranger.



#38 Blackdawgs

Blackdawgs

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 640 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 14 April 2017 - 08:22 PM

One of the challenges in agility is transitioning between obstacle and handler focus, "city" and "highway driving", etc.  Many dogs are stuck in perpetual handler focus, which is an advantage for the tighter, more twisty courses. The NADAC courses are mostly or exclusively obstacle focus, so a dog that is stuck in handler focus won't do well.  However, if the dog is trained to seamlessly transition back and forth between obstacle and handler focus, there is no reason why the dog can't be successful in NADAC and in other venues.



#39 CptJack

CptJack

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 1,762 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NRV, Virginia

Posted 14 April 2017 - 10:58 PM

One of the challenges in agility is transitioning between obstacle and handler focus, "city" and "highway driving", etc.  Many dogs are stuck in perpetual handler focus, which is an advantage for the tighter, more twisty courses. The NADAC courses are mostly or exclusively obstacle focus, so a dog that is stuck in handler focus won't do well.  However, if the dog is trained to seamlessly transition back and forth between obstacle and handler focus, there is no reason why the dog can't be successful in NADAC and in other venues.

 

Yeah, basically, though I wouldn't put Molly on another style course - primarily because she, unlike my other dog, has no teeter and has never seen a spread jump.  Tire and table would be fine, she learned those in her early classes.    Kylie's okay but I still have, uh, issues in giving AKC my money so I only do demos and mostly JWW with her.


But also why I specified regular.  Regular SCTs are generous and regular allows 5pt Qs  - so you can knock a bar or be up to 5 seconds over time and still get the Q.  I have literally WALKED elite regular courses AND had to redo weaves in them ended with a Q.  Dogs are more inclined to fly in NADAC because it's so open and you might break some handler focus doing it regularly and I can see how that would be an issue, but you don't need the distance or driving ahead/obstacle focus to succeed there.

 

 Games, you need distance and a lot more speed (like a lot of independence to get that speed or my dog and I need it in Elite) and god knows Chances is a... thing unto itself, but.  Basically what you said.



#40 Blackdawgs

Blackdawgs

    Senior Member

  • Registered Users
  • 640 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 April 2017 - 05:42 AM

Dogs should be able to drive ahead of their handler and work with lateral distance, and if they can't, its a training issue. 





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: agility

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright: All posts and images on this site are protected by copyright, and may not be reproduced or distributed in any way without permission. Banner photo courtesy of Denise Wall, 2009 CDWall. For further information, contact info@bordercollie.org.