 |
|
|
|
|
JUDGES CORNER
February
- March, 2004 - by
Tim Gibson I
hope you’ll indulge me as we suspend our regular scenario format in this
installment of the Judge’s Corner for a “special report”. Regular
readers of this column know I rarely discuss Grand judging scenarios,
primarily because they apply proportionally to such few HRC members compared
with the number running regular hunt tests. I had the privilege of judging the
recent HRC International Fall Grand Hunt held in Anderson, SC (look for
complete coverage elsewhere in this magazine).
I was reminded how the basic tenants of good judging, good testing and
proper evaluation remain essentially the same from Started to the Grand.
I hope this report will be of some interest to each of you, regardless
of what level you are currently running or judging at in HRC. To
give some of our newer readers some background, let me state that at one time
I was quite involved with the Grand. I have served as both a local Grand Hunt
Chairman at a number of Grands in Southern Illinois, and as chairman of the
permanent Grand Hunt committee for several years before being succeeded by the
inimitable Ernie Istre. I had
also judged the Grand three times (the first in 1989), but had taken a hiatus
from it since last judging in the spring of 1998.
I accepted the offer to judge in SC for a couple of reasons.
I didn’t want to turn the committee down if they really needed
another judge, and I was anxious to see what had and had not changed about the
Grand in the last few years. The
Grand article a few pages away from this column undoubtedly will include a
complete description of each test, which I won’t repeat.
I also am quite confident this article will give the proper thanks to
all the hard-working folks that made the SC Grand successful.
However, I want to extend my sincere personal thanks to two great HRC
members whose Herculean effort made this event possible; co-chairmen of the
local Grand Committee - Charles Jurney and Bryan Maxwell.
Thanks guys. By the way,
I’d like to report that both Charlie and Bryan are doing well and will soon
be fully rested, recouped, and recovered from the hunt!
Below are some of my thoughts on the status of our Grand Hunt garnered
from my experiences in South Carolina. The
Judges: I
would hope that every judge in our organization would aspire to one-day be
selected to judge a Grand hunt. For many, it’s the highlight of their HRC
judging career. Being immersed in
the testing process, being around some of the sharpest judges and handlers in
HRC, and evaluating the best hunting retrievers in the country is said to be
akin to earning a “PHD” in judging. For
those of you wanting to make sure you will not be asked to give up a week or
more of your vacation time to judge the Grand, I have these words of advice.
As you rise up through the judging ranks, concentrate on learning to
set up complex tests designed to eliminate dogs.
You’ll get noticed more if you learn to come up with judging
scenarios nobody else has ever thought of (and if you’re always
well-prepared to argue your test is legal and it happens hunting).
When you get to a test site, make sure everyone knows who’s in charge
and who will be making the calls. You’ve got the most important job at the
hunt – act like it! There’s
certainly nothing a site marshal, committee member, handler, game steward or
bird boy can tell you that you have not already considered.
Be demanding and let the committee know that they should have
everything you want at the site (and right now). Learn to “carry” your
co-judges, as most are not nearly as well qualified or knowledgeable about
judging as you. Hopefully you
will have learned early in your judging career to deal with those pesky
handlers and to quickly remind everyone “the judge’s decision is final”.
The
Grand hunt entry has grown large enough to warrant 8 judges running 4 tests
simultaneously. I knew that I
would be paired with a co-judge; our “team” would set up one test, and
I’d stick (or be stuck) with this judge and test until all entrants
completed their first four series. I
honestly didn’t know how I’d like this arrangement.
I was paired with Jimmy Nealy from the Colorado River HRC who was
judging his first Grand. He
proved to be one of the best judges I have ever had the pleasure to judge
with. Jimmy was a quick study,
friendly and cooperative, and we had a great time.
When the committee assigned us a test site in a very active cattle
pasture, he kept reminding all of us that the mushy stuff we were stepping in
was simply “grass and water”! The
committee either felt Jimmy and I couldn’t get into much trouble in a cow
pasture, or it was some sort of perverse poetic justice to put us there. Our
site assignment could have been worse. We
might have been sent to one of the water sites.
At one site the judges were given axes to cut their way down the
hillside to the lake below and told more “loggers” would arrive soon to
prepare their site. The other water site was like something out of the movie
“Bridge On the River Kwai”. Charlie Jurney played the Alec Guinness role,
inspiring the beleaguered workers each morning with the mantra:
“We’ll finish this bridge today!”
In all seriousness, the remaining six judges were as a group, the
finest collection of judges I never worked with (if you can follow that).
Using eight judges certainly made set up easier for the judges, and we
all had some downtime during the event as each site waited for dogs on
occasion. Letting eight judges
return to their respective regions with Grand judging experience is great for
our program. The
Grand Committee: At
regular licensed hunt tests, the judges are charged with upholding testing
standards. We conduct seminars to
help judges understand where the standard should be at each level.
As Grand Hunts are only held twice per year, there is no large pool of
Grand judges. It falls to the committee to provide the needed education,
guidance, and advice to the judges. The permanent committee has developed an
impressive Grand judging “seminar” for the judges that we sat through
prior to going to the field. This
instruction helped put the new judges at ease, and was invaluable in enabling
us to help keep the judging as consistent as possible and the test difficulty
levels balanced. Our point system is such that a dog cannot carry with
marginal work (defined as a score of 1 from each judge) in either the third or
fourth series. If any test is
substantially tougher than the others, and more dogs are receiving marginal
scores on this test than the other three, those dogs running it as their test
one or two can carry out of it. Dogs
having to face this test as their third or fourth are at a disadvantage
because they cannot continue with a marginal score.
Judges at our regular hunt tests might take a lesson from the Grand and
make every effort to give the elements of their tests (such as marking and
blinds) equal weight when possible. With
large flights and limited time and resources, the Grand hunt committee must
necessarily play a more active role in test set up and logistics than a hunt
committee at a regular event. The
current permanent committee has a firm hand on the tiller and is in my opinion
steering the Grand in the right direction.
The
Testing: In
my last article I promised I’d answer these two questions about the Grand.
1) Are the tests getting easier? And
2) How many cigars does it take Ernie Istre to get through a Grand?
I’ll tackle the harder of these first.
I don’t really know how many cigars Ernie goes through; although
I’ve been told by a reliable source that at least one “dog” compartment
on his truck is actually a huge portable humidor.
Now
for the question about Grand tests becoming easier (“watered down” was a
term I heard someone use, who by the way did not have a dog entered). None of
the tests (that I recall) contained quads, delayed quads, pinch birds, or
in-line marks; double blinds; designated birds; poison birds; extended honors;
remote work; diversions between marks; shot flyers, etc. Yet, of the 266 HRCH
dogs entered, 200 champions did not pass!
You’ll have to concede that “easy” is not a word we can associate
with the tests at the 2003 Fall Grand. In
my opinion we see HRC judges utilizing the testing elements I mentioned above
for the following reasons: 1)
some believe handlers expect this stuff at Finished and Grand levels.
I guess some handlers do; 2) some put these things in their tests
because it’s easy and/or it takes less resources and time.
An example would be using one winger to throw two birds; 3) and
unfortunately, some are asked to set up tests at substandard test sites.
An example would be attempting to set up a good marking test on flat
ground with no cover. A
couple of things can happen when tests are not as straightforward as they
should be. We tend to abdicate
our responsibility to properly test some skills a retriever must demonstrate
and over-emphasize others. We’ve
all seen what is supposed to be a marking test that is really a control test.
I remember a Grand test where handlers were instructed to leave the
three marks and run the blind. In
these kinds of tests we tend to pass those dogs that do the best job and find
a point to cut the passes off somewhere among those who mess up the least.
This is more ranking and choosing than testing to a well-defined
standard. It’s not consistent
testing, and it’s not fair in that it keeps handlers guessing as to what
they need to do to train a dog which can pass from weekend to weekend. With the eight-judge format at the Grand, a pair of judges looks at a dog only once and must make the determination that a dog has failed, or did marginal or passing work, then assign the appropriate score. It’s much easier to do that on a straightforward test. As an example: We say that a dog has marked well when it proceeds directly to the area of the fall of each bird, establishes a hunt, and complete the retrieves without aid from the handler. When you have a marking test with a “clean” triple consisting of highly visible birds falling in distinct areas, it’s easy to say that dogs that do not go directly to the fall area or those that are handled to a fall should be judged marginal if they do this on one bird, and failed on two. The standard is well defined and clear to everyone: A Grand dog should be able to pick up a clean triple retrieve. Remember, although a triple was used, the cover changes, distances and terrain were more challenging than what would normally be seen at a Finished test. The
Dogs and Handlers: I can remember a time when only a few individuals were passing Grand hunts with regularity. Probably the most striking thing I noticed after not being at a Grand for a number of years is how good our dogs and handlers are getting. This is good for our program and good for the breed. By the way, I must report that one thing that never seems to change much is human nature. I was not surprised along about the third day to hear a concerned handler exclaim, “The judges were told they’re carrying too many dogs and to start dropping them”! The
Toughest Part of Being a Grand Judge: I’m
not sure what my co-judges would say, but I wanted to pass along my thoughts
on what’s the hardest thing a Grand judge faces.
Your scoring and evaluation must be kept consistent when dogs come to
your test to run it as their 3rd and 4th series,
although you know that a marginal score from each judge on any portion of the
test means the dog will not continue and you must ask the handler to put the
dog on lead. You’ve got to do this to be absolutely fair to every dog that
has run previously. I
hoped I’ve given you some insight into the judging at our Grand hunts, and
some things to think about regarding testing at every level in our
organization. I said a lot about
judging to the test “standard”. In
the next magazine, I hope to devote a portion of this column to further
discussion on building a test to the proper standard.
We’ll also get to some scenarios I’ve been saving. We hope the “Judge’s Corner” will both entertain and inform you. |
|
The Judges Corner - copyright
2006 All Rights Reserved Last modified: February 18, 2008 |