Reread an article on Ian Openshaw the other day, that would seem to fit the topic at hand. He said , 'a dog trainer can have a good dog but a good dog trainer always has a good dog or two or three'.
My interpretation of what he saying is a good dog can land at the feet of a mediocre trainer and make him or her appear good, while in contrast, mediocre dogs can be made good by quality training that comes from good trainers. So, Mr. Openshaw must see a 'commonality' among his peers in handling and approach that we the mediocre miss and are routinely mystified in our attempts to replicate even a modicum of their success ?
But a good trainer gets rid of a dog he knows he can't win with so thats questionable, he will never bother training / running a mediocre dog so always looks good because he chooses the dogs that make him look good. All my dogs have been good picking up dogs but not all were suitable for competition, define a successful trainer, is it one that turns every dog into one fit for purpose or one that turns over dogs until he gets what he wants / can work with?
In life, it is important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Judy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:01 am
But a good trainer gets rid of a dog he knows he can't win with so thats questionable, he will never bother training / running a mediocre dog so always looks good because he chooses the dogs that make him look good.
Isn't this essentially the same point as Dawnrazor was making about the numbers of also rans you never hear about discarded along the way. It is the same as judging a stud dog on the numbers of succesful trial dogs it produces without looking at how many pups were sired.
Judy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:44 pm
Also how many of the "Top" trainers only train dogs they know they can get along with and know that the dog is good enough to win? Is someone who can buy a dog and turn it into a great shooting companion without ever needing to chop and change dogs to get something they can work with any worse a trainer than the aforesaid "Top" trainer?
Judy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:01 am
But a good trainer gets rid of a dog he knows he can't win with so thats questionable, he will never bother training / running a mediocre dog so always looks good because he chooses the dogs that make him look good.
Isn't this essentially the same point as Dawnrazor was making about the numbers of also rans you never hear about discarded along the way. It is the same as judging a stud dog on the numbers of succesful trial dogs it produces without looking at how many pups were sired.
Its essentially the same point I made on the first page of this thread, its my age you know, I keep repeating myself. As to DR's post well, he was way behind!
In life, it is important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
newf wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:22 pm
Reread an article on Ian Openshaw the other day, that would seem to fit the topic at hand. He said , 'a dog trainer can have a good dog but a good dog trainer always has a good dog or two or three'.
My interpretation of what he saying is a good dog can land at the feet of a mediocre trainer and make him or her appear good, while in contrast, mediocre dogs can be made good by quality training that comes from good trainers. So, Mr. Openshaw must see a 'commonality' among his peers in handling and approach that we the mediocre miss and are routinely mystified in our attempts to replicate even a modicum of their success ?
So a mediocre trainer can't make a good job of a mediocre dog? And if a good trainer can make a mediocre dog look better perhaps it wasn't so mediocre.
newf wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:22 pm
Reread an article on Ian Openshaw the other day, that would seem to fit the topic at hand. He said , 'a dog trainer can have a good dog but a good dog trainer always has a good dog or two or three'.
My interpretation of what he saying is a good dog can land at the feet of a mediocre trainer and make him or her appear good, while in contrast, mediocre dogs can be made good by quality training that comes from good trainers. So, Mr. Openshaw must see a 'commonality' among his peers in handling and approach that we the mediocre miss and are routinely mystified in our attempts to replicate even a modicum of their success ?
So a mediocre trainer can't make a good job of a mediocre dog? And if a good trainer can make a mediocre dog look better perhaps it wasn't so mediocre.
Naj
Yes, but a mediocre trainer may have a better chance of fu##ing up a good dog, would you say ?
surely all you are training is obedience and handling. hunting comes from the breeding, its there or its not - long as the trainer doesnt bash obedience into a dog, a drop the drive.
a good dog will always be a good dog, a well trained dog is different to a good dog in my eyes.
i would rather put a good dog across my bitch, than a well trained dog having been able to see both.
There is more to a good dog than natural hunting ability It has to be biddable and controllable to hunt for you in a way that is beneficial to you both. The best trainers manage the balance between the two with the minimal of `interference' to what the dog has naturally to offer, and can encourage and train up any shortfall in the dog that may be naturally lacking.
Some trainers clearly are capable of the former and some are clearly capable of the latter, the best imo are those that can work at both ends of the scale, and not blame the material they are presented with. I think it is also important to rate a good trainer not on the success of the dogs, be it in competition or in general work, but on how far they have improved the dog from start to finish, if we are discussing `training' rather than `handling '.
munstyman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:09 am
There is more to a good dog than natural hunting ability It has to be biddable and controllable to hunt for you in a way that is beneficial to you both. The best trainers manage the balance between the two with the minimal of `interference' to what the dog has naturally to offer, and can encourage and train up any shortfall in the dog that may be naturally lacking.
Some trainers clearly are capable of the former and some are clearly capable of the latter, the best imo are those that can work at both ends of the scale, and not blame the material they are presented with. I think it is also important to rate a good trainer not on the success of the dogs, be it in competition or in general work, but on how far they have improved the dog from start to finish, if we are discussing `training' rather than `handling '.
My interest in the question was motivated by the training. However, from what I understand, your trials require a skilful understanding of game that have impressed upon me that equal weight be given to both training and handling. However, back to Openshaw's statement in light of the many responses : ' a dog trainer can have a good dog but a good trainer will always have a good dog or two or three.' He does not qualify the statement with physical resources or game knowledge.
I think he was simply saying that a good trainer is somebody who can consistently produce good dogs. What you consider a good dog is highly subjective.
miss and are routinely mystified 
in our attempts to replicate even a modicum of their success ?
As to DR's post well, he was way behind! 
It has to be biddable and controllable to hunt for you in a way that is beneficial to you both. The best trainers manage the balance between the two with the minimal of `interference' to what the dog has naturally to offer, and can encourage and train up any shortfall in the dog that may be naturally lacking. 
