baddogagility

Avatar of baddogagility

 

So I set up the Annie Pyle rear cross exercise, and elicited some help from her students to test some theories I have been thinking about for a few weeks. I handle all of my rear crosses the same: I drive the diagonal line between 2 jumps, as if to grab my dog’s tail, running fast and hard. Unfortunately, there are times in trials where a sharp turn is required, and my dog would drive forward off course on those rear crosses no matter how I called or turned/ran.

I experimented with different positions and different motions in this video. I think there are essentially 2 types of rear crosses: slight turns where the dog needs a lot of forward motion (extension) as in jump #7a-b, and sharp turns where the dog needs to add a stride before the jump (collection) as in jumps #7c-d. Usually, your dog will be better at one than the other. The differences between 7a and 7b can be handled according to your preferred system of cues; likewise between 7c and 7d.

Drive the line or give the dog lots of room? Based on my sample size of 1 crossover Greg Derrett dog, I conclude that driving the line gives you the better turn at the wing and more clearly distinguishes this from the traditional decel stop (where the dog does not rear cross but should collect and turn toward you).

So are decels okay for a GD handler? In Clean Run pages 18-21 September 2010 Nancy Gyes, a GD handler, gives a compelling argument that one should NEVER decelerate on a rear cross because she believes that deceleration should ALWAYS mean the dog turns TOWARD the handler. Clearly, I am contradicting Nancy here. I think as long as you drive the diagonal line, deceleration is okay on a rear cross and will help the dog collect and turn better. In my video, after 30+ rear crosses in a row, I threw in a normal decel stop where the dog is expected to jump and turn toward me and NOT flick away/rear cross to test if I had broken my cue–my dog did the right thing, and this is shown in the last exercise you see on the video.

In conclusion, I think it’s legitimate for a GD handler to use decel/accel and some positional cues on rear crosses as long as you are always driving the diagonal line. I would combine an accel while rear crossing further away from the jump to cue extension, and I would decel stop near the jump to cue collection.

It may be that Nancy is ultimately correct, and over time my dog will begin to flick away (turn the wrong way) on simple turns, but I am comfortable enough with my conclusions to put this to the test on course. And yes, I’ll ask Greg about it when I see him.

 

Lead out stand still decel cue: I lead out to the take off side of the jump, and orient myself forward, looking over the appropriate shoulder, but do NOT MOVE my feet until my dog collects/gathers for the jump. The dog wraps the wing nearest to me and basically comes to my front where she is rewarded. Taking a step forward before the dog jumps will launch the dog in extension and destroy your tight turn. The concept of cueing “collection” or tight turns with physical deceleration of the handler is a life changing concept (learned from Greg Derrett) for a front cross dominant handler. With this tool, the “front cross-only” handler can avoid a lot of wide turns you create by running full blast for a front cross and getting there late. However, using it generally forces the handler to immediately rear cross the next obstacle.

In motion decel cue: In the first photo above, I am decelerating, slowing down in an attempt to come to a full stop just before the wing of the jump in order to cue a tight turn to the right. In the next photo, I am accelerating, about to run past the wing of the jump, as I want my dog in full extension and racing forward. Notice the contrast between a handler slowing down vs running.

Simple turn to the right: This is how I cue a turn to the right. This is pretty much how everyone cues a turn to the right. Unfortunately, many people will cue a rear cross to the LEFT by first pulling their dog to the RIGHT with their shoulder (and sometimes feet) and releasing them back to the left, like pulling and letting go of a rubber band. For these handlers, their dog will often incorrectly anticipate the rear cross, turning the wrong way after the jump, when their poor handlers wanted a simple turn. This is because the visual/positional cue for a simple turn looks the same as the first half of the rear cross. The dog will usually guess correctly, but sometimes chooses the wrong one. If your dog has ever inexplicably turned the wrong way, you could be one of these folks.

Rear cross: these 2 sequential photos show how I currently rear cross. I am turned slightly toward the dog and I apply pressure to her path. This type of rear cross has the benefit of NOT looking anything like a simple turn to the right to my dog, so I don’t suffer the inexplicable wrong turns/spins other handlers get. However, I am very unhappy with my rear crosses. I do NOT have the ability to wrap a wing with a rear cross and I do not have a reliable way to send my dog in distinctly different directions after the rear cross. Annie Pyle has a great piece in Oct 2010 Clean Run page 43 where she notes that with respect to rear crosses “handlers often choose to force late front crosses or attempt awkward landing-side pushes.” Annie’s anxiety-provoking Figure 2 kept me up for an hour last night; I could barely eek out my QQ double 1st place this morning.

I see a few options: I can use the same rear cross cue in the same place relative to the jump but move in different directions/speeds/turning after (which I currently do, I think). Or I can use the same rear cross cue but do them in different places relative to the jump (closer to or further away from the jump/similar to Greg Derrett’s positional front cross cues?). Or do I need to scrap my system of rear crossing and come up with distinct handling cues to navigate jumps 7a-d in Annie’s Figure 2.

Tell me what you think. Because I really need to know. And then I’ll tell you how I would handle 7a-d with rear crosses and try them in the field.

 

Check your local listings, it’s finally arrived:
——–
Feb 07, 8:00 pm

(60 minutes) AKC Agility Invitational 08/09

TV-G

Superior speed. Laser-like precision. Daredevil moves. It’s all out,
and all on the line, for the bragging rights to be Number One in the
Agility Invitational Event.
——–

I will blog about the Invitational itself after the event airs tomorrow night. Sadly, I will be in the middle of a 30 hour shift at Texas Children’s Hospital when it’s on. Let’s hope we get some air time! Seeing agility on tv is part of what got me into the sport in the first place.

Esteban

 

This movie has been (and continues to be) advertised as a family/child movie for the holidays. SPOILER ALERT: it’s not. The big gruff guy next to me was heckling everyone sniffling during the movie, only to eventually break down IN TEARS…so don’t take your children to this movie. Was it a movie about some lab or was it the life story of my rottweiler Sammie? We got Sammie before we’d been married a year; she’s been there through all our cats, graduate school, medical school, our child, and all of these other dogs.

The movie was excellent. It just wasn’t a Christmas movie, and it sure wasn’t for children.

 

Yesterday, I took a moment to assess Rook’s (border collie) problem obstacles:

Agility Obstacle Training Needs
1. Table with sit/down (slow to get on the table, slow/refuses to sit/down in trials)
2. Weave pole entries (performance itself also mediocre)
3. Seesaw (tends to fly off, doesn’t drive to bottom)
4. Aframe/Dogwalk down contact (currently strides over, needs running contact)
5. Tire (often goes under when it’s the very first obstacle)

Hurricane Ike has come and gone but left behind considerable damage throughout Houston. Our friend Debby cleared her training field and this past Saturday we drove up to get some agility work done. I started Rook with a 16″ table, with a clicker and high value treats (pieces of deli meat cut into cubes). She ambled onto the table, I clicked and threw a treat onto the table. I released her from the table with “okay” and waited for her to head back onto the table (without any command, verbal or physical), which she did, so another click/treat for her. After several of these, she opted to wander off and started sniffing her way around the field. Dangit!I let her, while I talked it out with Sarah and Debby. Debby thought she was bored/stressed. Sarah thought she was a crossover dog (not having grown up with clicker training) and was stressed because of previous clicker failures.

Of note, I’ve been working on Ali Roukas’ running contact method and I can’t get her past the introduction to the board, because she loses interest. She quickly progressed from looking at the board, to nosing the board, to pawing the board, to one foot on the board, to adding a second foot on the board but never with any manic enthusiasm. Let me explain, when Sammie the rottie has a clicker session, she is INTENSE and dynamic with offering behaviors, quickly figures things out, tries the same thing if unrewarded except harder/faster/higher/etc. Sammie has fire in her eyes. Rook thinks well (I can see her figuring it out) but at some point she just loses interest, and she’s never enthusiastic about it. I tried to teach Rook to get on a skateboard, touch board, stand on her hind legs, all with similar results (mediocre). Yesterday I started Susan Garrett’s Crate Games with her and I couldn’t get her to sit in the crate and TAKE A TREAT (she IGNORED the treat and was waiting for a release word), which helped confirm my theory as to what the heck is wrong with Rook: she does not find treats reinforcing!

I don’t think it’s me. I’ve done clicker work with all of our dogs (except Sarah’s new rottie pup) and the only dog struggling with it is Rook. My new pup Raphael is doing BRILLIANTLY with clicker work. Back to the table training. Debby, going with her line of thought that Rook was bored, suggested doing a few reps with click/treat and then tugging with her while she was on the table and stopping if she came off. So I did that, and the light/fire came on in her eyes, she tugged until she came off the table, at which point I stopped tugging. She IMMEDIATELY jumped back onto the table, which earned her more tugging. At that point, I started short sends to table with click/tug, and one rep where I did click/treat but then immediately tugged (Debby’s great suggestion–>using Premack principle to build food drive with tug). Debby had the right answer but the wrong reason: tugging is not de-stressing or breaking up the boredom of clicker training or the fatigue of “thinking”; tugging is in fact a HIGHLY DESIRED REINFORCER for Rook while food is NOT.

I feel relieved because I think that we’ve solved the mystery, but it has been PLAGUING me literally for MONTHS while I’ve been retraining her with almost ZERO progress (I was putting her away and taking out my “fun dogs” to train). Like an idiot, I kept trying to reward her with junk she doesn’t care about. Meanwhile, her agility handling keeps getting better because we never use food out there, only tug toys!

To sum up, Rook is not stupid or bored or ruined (from lack of previous clicker training), and I am not a poor clicker trainer (well, you know what I mean). Rather, I was not using an appropriate reinforcer. The strategy now is clear and two-pronged: 1) build food drive by pairing it with the high value reinforcer (tugging), but while we work on that 2) adjust training to allow for toy use as the reinforcer. Sure it’s ideal to have balance food and toy drive (food is VERY convenient), but she HAS toy drive and she sure isn’t getting any younger, so let’s get to work!

 

At 6 years, Rook is our youngest dog. The rottweiler just turned 8. You know what that means. So after years of searching, I surprised myself by going with a local puppy from an unplanned litter. Side note: Denver is from Florida, Gypsy from New York, Rook from Connecticut, and Sammie from Texas. Anyhow, I went to see this litter just to check it out, and I came away impressed. By the 2nd visit, I had a favorite, and by the 4th visit, I had bonded with him. The 5th visit ended with the 45 minute drive home with the puppy.

Raph, short for Raphael, has great play drive with strong focus. He tugs well and adds the “kill move” like the rottweiler (the kill move is back-back-down-forward+block). I have been very impressed with his work ethic. First day, he was clicker training, tugging, and playing with his ball while Isaac, just 2 feet away, was talking loudly and playing with a music-making book. The more I think about it, the more impressed I am. I think another BC could learn from him (hint hint Rook). He also had a very nice session with the touch-it board (I’m going Ali Roukas with the contacts) in addition to these luring-induced behaviors: recall, sit, down, roll over.

He is a relatively laid back dog who is very, very people-oriented, which is the main reason I chose him over his brother, who reminded me too much of Rook. His visit to the vet went smoothly, and I actually had a training session with him in the exam room while we waited to check out. I didn’t have a clicker but used “yes” to mark his sits, downs, and short recalls and had a great tugging session with him. He loves to be with me but is always quick to explore a new environment. Having a 3 ½ year old human around has also been great for his training.

Sarah also just bought Shaolin Soccer, and we like watching with subtitles, so Raph is also learning Chinese. My mom will teach him Korean. My dad will teach him Spanish. He’s multi-talented.

His people focus makes for some separation anxiety when crated or in his x-pen at times, but he’s improving. I have refrained from hushing him, saying no, squirting him with water, etc that you see people do (and I may have done with previous dogs). I praise him for being quiet, and the 3 or 4 times he’s gone really nuts we have covered his crate. He usually takes 15-20 minutes to settle down. He’s woken up twice in the night around 2-3 am needing to go out, and he screams for that. So it’s his only rough spot, but I knew it would happen because of his highly social attitude, so we’re dealing with it ok.

Overall, a great addition to the team (and very nice to live with—-not manic). His personality is consistent with what we saw from our visits, and his work ethic and drive are great. We won’t know about his agility talent until much later, maybe 2 years old or so, but based on his relatives, we are expecting greatness.

 

I’ve decided to convert Rook (17 7/8″ BC) to running contacts. I also want to apply a modified method for UP contact training with Sammie (23 1/2″ Rottweiler) for the dog walk, seesaw, and aframe. I will discuss UP contact training/theory in a different article since most people don’t have an issue with it.

I know of 3 methods currently available to trainers (with my pros/cons):
1. Rachel Sanders: utilizes PVC box placed on down contact of aframe. I would expand the concept to place PVC box on down contact of dog walk as well. Her method is available in article format in Clean Run.
PROS/CONS: Applicable to large striding dogs (>23″), as they should always get some paws into the box, regardless of how they perform the rest of the contact. The method may also have a component of stride regulation to it, as the PVC functions as a regulator but mostly defines the target zone. However, of the 3 methods, it is the most visually obvious and therefore most difficult to fade.

2. Ali Roukas: utilizes a board target for down contact of aframe and dogwalk, with the aframe using a larger board. Her method is detailed in a DVD available on Clean Run, which I have seen.
PROS/CONS: Also applicable to large striding dogs. Also requires fading but less so than Rachel Sanders’ method.

3. Silvia Trkman: utilizes a clicker to teach the dog NOT to jump but rather to STRIDE over the down contact. Her method is well detailed on her website.
PROS/CONS: I am afraid that this may not work with a large striding dog. You can teach a Great Dane to “stride” rather than “leap” or “hop” off the dog walk, but the natural stride may well carry them right over the 26″ contact zone. On the good side, there is nothing to fade in terms of props, as there are with the other 2 methods.

Conclusion: It may be that these methods are similar to weave pole methods, in that there are several different ways to get fast, reliable weaves, with the key being consistency in your training. For my own dogs, I will take little strided BC Rook and try Sylvia’s method. For the rottweiler, I will try Ali’s method with the target board, applied to the up contacts (and maybe the down, depending on how she does). For people reading this, check out all 3 methods, pick the 1 you think is best for your dog, and tailor it to your needs and available equipment. My problem is the lack of evidence. Sylvia fans have the most videos up on youtube, but they’re all in the training stages. Ali doesn’t have many videos of dogs on her DVD and I haven’t seen Wish and Catcher run in person or on video. Same for Rachel. It’s a brave new world. Time to pioneer.

 

I ordered an overlay of the hybrid round (round 3) and the challenger round from this year’s AKC nationals.

Hybrid round:
1 28.24 Zippity (BC)
2 28.49 Juice (BC)
3 29.12 Skylar (BC)
4 29.65 Piper (BC)
5 29.67 Jive (BC)
6 29.87 Sammie (BC)

Hybrid and Challenger Rounds (back to back)

Comments: The overlay shows Sammie vs. Jive, the eventual 24″ champion, 2007 world team member, Crufts competitor, etc. All show long, Sarah and I lamented the overuse and abuse of the front cross (even though we are front crossing fools) and this run clearly demonstrates some of my points. The first front cross I do fairly well while Carrie opts for the landing side (why?) and Sammie moves ahead slightly here. The big shift comes when Carrie literally drives Jive toward the off course chute with a FC before the seesaw, while I opt to RFP/pull Sammie to the seesaw and FC on the down part. Sammie opens up a lead at this point, and maintains it into the weaves. However, Jive weaves faster, drawing even with Sammie by the end of the weaves. Then the chute comes and Sammie’s rear legs appear to slide out from under her a bit and she goes straighter while Jive pulls tighter and opens up a lead that she maintains until the aframe, where Sammie makes up some ground (but at this point, Carrie needs a clean run and not a placement so she was conservative with the down contact).

Conclusion: The FC can be overused and improperly done. Jive is physically as capable as Juice, but does not turn as tightly because of the late cues (in my opinion) on many courses, including the final run. I wonder how agility would be different if Marcus was an instructor and had students and so on. Maybe we’d see more rear crossing. And what is the deal with Sammie and the chute?? The next overlay tells the story.

—–
Challenger round:
1 29.863 Juice (BC)
2 31.436 Piper (BC)
3 32.087 Sammie (Rott)
4 32.447 Zinger (BC)

Challenger Round Only:

Comments: The overlay shows Sammie vs. Piper, the 2nd place finisher. Piper is a little faster on all tight twisty part of the course and builds a small lead, while Sammie gains slightly on all 3 contacts. Unfortunately, Sammie loses quite a bit of time (0.2-0.3) in the chute again!

Conclusion: I always thought the chute was easier for big dogs, but at least for Sammie, she lost ground to smaller BCs in both chutes. I reviewed the rest of her runs and several from prior shows, and found the same thing: Sammie frequently stumbles out of or gets caught up in the chute! I went 8 years before identifying this as an area of weakness relative to other fast dogs. Now, what should I do about it–and how should we train our next rottie in the chute?

 

In an earlier blog, I denounced running contacts for big fast dogs as mythical and unreliable. However, I am now convinced that there is a generation of dogs in training that will revolutionize contact training. First, some key points:

1. Very few top competitors are using true running contacts. If you do anything (handling-wise) to alter your dog’s stride in order to hit the yellow, your dog does not have running contacts. Ideally, the dog does the contacts the same way independent of handler movement, every single time.

2. Strong contacts can literally be the difference in elite competition. Ask Linda Mecklenburg. At the most recent world team tryout, her younger dog Super won the first automatic spot on the team by beating Marcus Topps and Juice head to head in round 3. And Super went into that 3rd round trailing. Juice had a great run with no wide turns. So how did Super do it? By running through the aframe and dogwalk (incidentally, the only weak aspect of Juice’s agility game). Marcus had to actually slow Juice up to hit the yellow. Of note, in the past, Juice has missed the dogwalk down in more than one national final. FYI Juice made the team anyway by winning the 2nd automatic spot. If Super doesn’t win this round, I’m not sure they get picked for an at large spot, so the reward of running contacts here was huge.

3. With this very high reward comes tremendous risk: in watching the tryout video, Super barely had a paw in the yellow coming down the dogwalk (I think). There is concern among some trainers that judges are simply unable to consistently judge a running down contact by a super fast dog.

4. Silvia Trkman’s website damaged my brain. After watching her dog trick videos and reading her running contact training method, which she throws up on her web site for anyone to read at silvia.trkman.net, I became convinced that a running contact could be taught.

5. Then I see this month’s Clean Run, which has Rachel Sanders’ PVC box for running down the aframe, and her introduction reads like she’s peering into my head:

‘I flatly rejected the notion that dogs must have the “right stride length” or a certain “body type” to master a running A-frame. I kept thinking that long ago agility trainers believed that you couldn’t teach dogs to weave on both sides…When I observed many dogs lengthen and shorten their strides while jumping, the “natural stride length” statements seemed too simple an answer to explain successes and failures.’

She goes on to mention her training failures before bringing us to her PVC box method, which you can read about in the article.

6. I’ve seen its impact, I think it can be done, I want it, but how do I get it?? Some reservations: Silvia Trkman’s midi dog missed several down contacts at a recent FCI world champs, and Rachel Sanders notes that the “success rate with this method is encouragingly high…” Ummm…what exactly does THAT mean? I think it means her method is not 100% reliable. Greg Derrett will counter that the success rate with his method (2o2o with fast release only at major competitions) is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT and he has never ever tasted the bitterness of having his dog miss a down contact at a big event.

7. Or maybe we rethink the contacts and admit that 100% accuracy is NOT THE GOAL. Whaaaaat? Hear me out—-sometimes the great dogs pop a pole, drop a bar, turn wide, etc due to a high risk/high reward maneuver and maybe we should view the running contact the same way. No one has 100% weave poles. Everyone has messed them up at least once in a dog’s career. Everyone. Everyone has dropped a bar. And so on.

8. Anyhow, back to the point. What method?? I’ll get back to you on that one. I will leave you with this, one of my new favorite handlers: Daisy Peel and her pup

 

1. Speaking of judges, great job by Rachel Long. Yes, I’m biased because she is from Texas but she designed a great course and she’s a great judge. There was one other shaky judge with really borderline/poor down contact calls, but I don’t know her name.
2. Get rid of the up contact rule for straight on approaches please. No BC handlers have to train that (if you seriously have to, please drop a comment so we can talk). I do have to train it, and it slows my dog, and gives others an edge. They already have all the edges, give me a break. Gordon pointed out at that the new longer contact up simply ensures that BCs hit it more often while helping the >23″ breeds not at all. My rottweiler is almost 24″ and Gordon is right.
3. Loved the venue, the weather, the parking, the potty areas, the bathrooms, the stadium seating, and everything was very well run, finished in a timely manner, with 4 rings. As usual, it was hard to watch all your friends compete, but I think nationals is so big, it will be like this from now on. At least it’s not as bad as USDAA.
4. Heard a dog screaming on course and I immediately thought of Mayhem and came over to watch. I thought the handler was calling “Chase” but it was actually “Jase” and after hunting a bit, I tracked down the handler, Lisa Ross. She’s a tall, slim handler who spins out front crosses like a dance. They finished 2nd in the 26″ challenger round with a 31.66. Jase is a Mayhem x Credit pup, I knew it!
5. Speaking of Mayhem pups, the “random BC” who won the 24″ hybrid was Zippity, another Mayhem pup. Not so random!
6. Saw the most amazing golden run the hybrid in 30.44, named Beamer (Bronson). I wish I could have watched more dogs run but with Sarah running 2 dogs, and Sammie trying to make the challenger round, there wasn’t much sight seeing time. I didn’t get to videotape any awesome dogs, and I would have LOVED to tape some 26″ and 24″ dogs.
7. Other rotties there were Peaches, in 26″ and from Texas with handler Connie Richards. Peaches is a rescue and a great dog. Yoda (Elaine Swancer) also did well. I am disappointed the other top rotties did not show up, but who can blame them? It’s tough to motivate yourself when three clean runs gets you nothing, and you have to consider travel, expense, vacation, etc. This goes back to what Gordon was saying about BCs in 24″.
8. The best part of any show is when random people come and tell you how great your dog is. We get that a lot because Sammie’s a rottweiler, and we got some before the challenger round. But AFTER the challenger round, it was like Christmas for us. We packed up slowly, literally lingering to soak in every last moment. We were one of the last competitors to leave. As we were packing up, a competitor said that we had a great run (or something like that) and I remember saying, well, you had great runs all weekend. Which was true, I’d seen her run an awesome 26″ BC. She totally looked familiar but I didn’t know her. Back home, I was perusing the AKC site for info for my blogging, including last year’s national results, and I saw her picture! She’s Daisy Peel and runs Jester, who won it all last year and made the world team (I wasn’t at nationals last year because Sarah forgot our entries, bleah, so I had no idea what she looked like). But I actually remember her for her BC Fly, because I heard the dog was a rescue, and they did great at nationals one year, simply dominating. That prompted me to start a 2 year search for a rescue BC that never happened, but I remember that hearing about her inspired me to try to find one and get that kind of relationship with a dog.
9. Which leads me to Maggie Downey, who now runs Markie and Carly, goldens. It all started with Kelsey though. I saw their teamwork and it hooked me on agility. It’s actually the reason I got Gypsy, my golden girl, and why we train at FlashPaws. Kelsey passed away this year, and I miss her. I’d been so busy with residency and life that I didn’t even hear about it until several weeks later. Kelsey was amazing. And Maggie, who had a rottie before Kelsey, has always been a big supporter of Sammie. Thank you, Maggie and Kelsey, because without you guys, me and Sammie would never have found the sport that has brought us such joy and companionship.

© 2011 Team Fernandezlopez Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha

DOG FOOD delivered to your door, no delivery fee.