Change to blog title

I changed the title of this blog today to more aptly describe the purpose of the blog, which is a proposal to change the structure of obedience to incorporate popular elements of other dog sports. The old title (The Moving Stand) was not one that I especially liked, it wasn't very descriptive, and I stumbled across another blog called Moving Stand.

Tri-Obedience: A Proposal for changing the structure of Obedience

For a long time, my ideas for changes in obedience focused around tweaks of this and that.  Things like modification of the group stays to make them less dangerous or less onerous; or adding new elements to the heeling patterns.  However, the more I thought about the reasons why obedience is failing to attract and retain participants, the more convinced I became that the big problem is not the individual exercises as much as the basic structure.  Obedience, in my ever so humble opinion, needs to adopt some of the structural elements that have made agility so popular.  My radical proposal is what I would call Triple-Path Obedience, or Tri-O for short. 

The major defining feature of Tri-O would be separating the exercises into categories that could be pursued for titles independently.  Other important elements would be 1) the selection of exercises from a pool of potential exercises (similar to Rally, but with a much smaller pool of exercises at each level); 2) incorporating techniques to increase the number of dogs/hour that could be judged, 3) increasing the number of class levels so that the transition between levels is more gradual, and 4) making the requirements for a championship more dependent on the team meeting a standard than defeating other teams.  In more detail, the basic elements of Tri-O would be

·         Splitting the exercises into 3 categories with separate paths to titles. The multi-path structure would be analogous to the separate paths through Jumpers and Standard in agility.  As I envision it, the separate obedience paths would be:

o    1) handling/heeling,

o   2) retrieve and scent work

o   3) jumps and sends. 

·         Independent pursuit of separate paths for titles.  Each obedience path could be pursued completely independently of one another, just as one can pursue Jumpers, Standard, FAST, and T2B titles independently in agility.  However,  just as a MACH requires points and double Qs from Jumpers and Standard, a championship in Tri-O (a Tri-OTCH) would require accumulation of points in all separate obedience paths plus a specified number of triple Qs.

·         Increasing the number of levels to at least 5.  I’m not sure why AKC has gotten stuck on 3 levels in everything.  Increasing the number of levels in obedience would have two advantages: the increase in difficulty between levels could be more gradual and, conversely, new, harder exercises could be added at the highest levels.  The addition of the recent optional titling classes in obedience was a tacit admission that the transitions between the traditional obedience titles are too steep.

·         Having a pool of exercises at each level.  At each level, a run would consist of only 4 exercises from a pool of 6 to 8 exercises at that level.  There would be 2 mandatory exercises that would always be included, plus a random choice of 2 exercises from the remaining 4 to 6 potential exercises. The exercises could be done in any order the judge chose, but, when possible, one exercise would end at the location where the next began, to save time.  Switching things up would add a little element of chance and keep the runs from always feeling so depressingly patterned.  Each class would have a total of 100 potential points.  Distribution of points could either be 25 points per exercise or the mandatory exercises might count for 30 points each (60 total) and the two “judge’s choice” exercises for 20 apiece (40 total).  I think the 60/40 structure for mandatory/optional would make more sense.

·         Dramatically decrease the run time per dog.  Incorporate practices that would keep each run to a maximum of about 2 minutes at the lower levels to a maximum of about 5 minutes at the highest level.  For example, the dog and handler next in line might be required to wait their turn in a holding area next to the ring entrance.  As the team ahead was leaving the ring, a steward would lead the incoming team to the start area.  Another example of a time-consuming activity in obedience is having the judge adding the scores for a team. Agility judges do not spend time between runs adding scores.  Why do obedience judges do that?  The judge could hand the score sheet to the table steward, who would do the math, while the judge could go directly to the team already positioned at the start by the steward.

·         Reduce or eliminate run-offs.  As another time-saving device, there would be no run-offs for placements except for first place at each level.  Thus, there could be placement ties below first place.  Places would be determined as in golf.  So, for example, if dogs had scores of 97, 97, 95, 95, 94, there would be a run-off for first place between the dogs with 97.  The loser would get 2^nd place and the dogs with scores of 95 would tie for third place.  The dog with 94 would be in 5^th place and would not get a placement, but would Q.  Scores would be posted as soon as the table steward added the points, so teams would know in advance whether they would be in a runoff. 

·         Modeling Tri-OTCH after the MACH system.  Once a dog was competing in Level 5 of all three paths, the dog would earn points towards a Tri-O Championship (Tri-OTCh).  Analogous to a MACH in agility, a Tri-OTCH would require a certain number of triple Qs at Level 5, plus points earned.  Points would be based on a combination of the dog’s score and the number of dogs defeated.  I considered basing points only on a dog’s score (just as agility bases points earned on time alone), but, in this respect, I think obedience is very different from agility.  In agility, Standard Course Time is more or less objective (ignoring some differences in the way judges wheel the course).  If points toward a Tri-OTCH were based on score alone, the easy-grading judges might suddenly find themselves in great demand.  However, if Tri-OTCH points were based on both score AND number of dogs defeated, all dogs with a qualifying score defeating other dogs would earn points, no matter how tough the scoring.  I would also give points to all qualifying dogs that defeated another dogs, instead of only to dogs placing in 1^st through 4^th.   Limiting points only to dogs in the ribbons penalizes good dogs entered in big shows in regions where the “big gun” competition is intense.

I will elaborate on the different aspects of my proposed Tri-Obedience in subsequent posts.