Layering In Agility

[canine fun sports]

I meant to add that Vickie and Trim's run was rather spectacular and did leave me with goose bumps.

Cheers,

[kelpiechick]

Just trying to figure out if there is anything I can do that doesn't conflict with the handling system I am using.

Layering and turning the dog away from you (which I call a tandem turn, and this is different to a change behind) are definitely frowned upon in the Greg Derrett handling system. Hence, there are some GD handlers who no longer enter open becasue these types of challenges are common in open class. The GD system also has limitations in Gamblers (at least the quite complex gamblers courses that I really enjoy doing). My personal advice to these people is a simple "Why choose a handling system with those limitations???"

I don't find the handling system actually has that many limitations (or I would most definitely not choose it, agreed !) I think misunderstanding about what it is all about causes the limitations. Layering is not 'forbidden' in the GD system - except the layering of a jump that is at 45 degrees to another - to stay on the far side of this jump would put you in serpentine positional cue and by layering and expecting your dog to stay out and not come to you over the jump would then create an inconsistency - in the GD system one cue always means one thing only.

You also wouldn't layer if you had to push your dog away from you to take the far jump, as this would be pushing into your dog's line which is considered a flick .... unless you had a left/right verbal in which case I believe you would stand still as you gave your verbal so there was no confusion with your body cue. If the dog's line is automatically taking it to the far jump then it is perfectly acceptable to layer as the dog should be staying on its line until you arm change in Derrett. You are also 'permitted' to layer any obstacle where the actual obstacle controls the dog's exit, so for example weaves and contact obstacles.

My older kelpie has his open agility title several times over, also has open jumping and passes at Masters gamblers level all run within the GD system. The only limitation I find sometimes is that I actually have to use a threadle arm to draw him across the line to me and then redirect with a send back to avoid a flick- and this adds time. But for me the clarity of the system (I'm a bit of a rules chick although I certainly appreciate that not everyone is that's for sure) far outweighs any disadvantage in doing this.

Too many people following Derrett misinterpret the rules and get bogged down by them IMO which makes the system seem much harder than it actually is.

Edited May 3, 2012 by kelpiechick

[Vickie]

Too many people following Derrett misinterpret the rules and get bogged down by them IMO which makes the system seem much harder than it actually is.

I agreed with this & find the same thing with the system I use. Over analysing trial courses from a rules perspective just puts extra things in your head when you are running it. I try to save my analysing for planning my training sessions and just hope like hell it has become second nature when it comes time to test in a trial situation.

I had an interesting run in CFS masters jumping last Saturday. I ran a dog that has been trained exclusively with the GD handling system. I have never run him before, and handled him using exactly the same cues (similar to CFS system) as I handled Trim with. He took 2 bars, one was on a straight (so not affected by system cues) and the other was a poor signal from me before he had committed to a jump. Other than the 2 bars, he nailed it!

He showed no confusion whatsoever with the handling system I ran, even though I used a totally different system to what his owner would have.To top it all off, other than the 2 bars, he would have beaten Trim on the same course by just under half a second. Food for thought...

Edited May 3, 2012 by Vickie

[canine fun sports]

Too many people following Derrett misinterpret the rules and get bogged down by them IMO which makes the system seem much harder than it actually is.

I agreed with this & find the same thing with the system I use. Over analysing trial courses from a rules perspective just puts extra things in your head when you are running it. I try to save my analysing for planning my training sessions and just hope like hell it has become second nature when it comes time to test in a trial situation.

I had an interesting run in CFS masters jumping last Saturday. I ran a dog that has been trained exclusively with the GD handling system. I have never run him before, and handled him using exactly the same cues (similar to CFS system) as I handled Trim with. He took 2 bars, one was on a straight (so not affected by system cues) and the other was a poor signal from me before he had committed to a jump. Other than the 2 bars, he nailed it!

He showed no confusion whatsoever with the handling system I ran, even though I used a totally different system to what his owner would have.To top it all off, other than the 2 bars, he would have beaten Trim on the same course by just under half a second. Food for thought...

I think there are two points to be made from Vikie's comments.

1. I think a lot of handlers get bogged down in rules. Working with what you intuitively think the dog will respond to is often the right way to go. I do, however, find it useful to figure out why a dog reponds intuitively to something - it helps me reproduce it agian in the future.

2. The system of handling that works intuitively with the dog, without artificial rules (I.e. rules we impose that have to be learnt by the dog) seem to be understood very easily by all dogs, even those that have been taught these other "rules".

Just food for thought.

Cheers,

[caffy]

1. I think a lot of handlers get bogged down in rules. Working with what you intuitively think the dog will respond to is often the right way to go. I do, however, find it useful to figure out why a dog reponds intuitively to something - it helps me reproduce it agian in the future.

2. The system of handling that works intuitively with the dog, without artificial rules (I.e. rules we impose that have to be learnt by the dog) seem to be understood very easily by all dogs, even those that have been taught these other "rules".

Just food for thought.

Cheers,

Very good points.

Understanding natural cues for the dogs makes it easier in the long run for both handler and dog.

[Kavik]

Just trying to figure out if there is anything I can do that doesn't conflict with the handling system I am using.

Layering and turning the dog away from you (which I call a tandem turn, and this is different to a change behind) are definitely frowned upon in the Greg Derrett handling system. Hence, there are some GD handlers who no longer enter open becasue these types of challenges are common in open class. The GD system also has limitations in Gamblers (at least the quite complex gamblers courses that I really enjoy doing). My personal advice to these people is a simple "Why choose a handling system with those limitations???"

I have my own handling system, heavily based on manoevres taught by Ronda Carter and Elicia Calhoun with a touch of a few others including what I have read of Linda Mecklenberg + I can think of one thing of Greg Derrett's that I include and my own finishing touches. I seem to be able to communicate to my dog with very rare moments of confusion with turns away, layering, distance and close work. Those moments of confusion are because my timing has been a little incorrect, rather than the dog received conflicting information.

There are many ways to teach the "turn away from me". They include either the "flick of the hand" (a no-no with GD), using the opposite arm to turn the dog away, which GD says should mean the dog turns to you. the way I work my dogs, the turn-away-from-me uses a very different arm movement and the dog naturally reads it. Another way to turn the dog away is to put pressure on the dogs line by moving closer to the dog. There are quite a few drills that can be done to develop these skills.

Layering is a very different skill to the "out", or "work wide" command. Lia, you are quite right to establish the dogs line, and then move parallel or slightly converge. If an obstacle happens to be between you and the dog, it should make no difference to the line that the dog takes. I believe (I am not a GD expert so I happy to be corrected) GD says that if there is an obstacle between you and the dog, the dog should converge to you over the obstacle. To me this is an artificial rule (one the dog does not do naturally, so you have to teach it.) Your movement should dictate (naturally) whether to converge, or keep driving.

To teach layering, first teach the dog to run a line parallel to you. Do multiple repetitions of a sequence, each time working a little bit wider. Once the dog is happy to drive the line out wide of you (with you moving parallel) the simply place some simple obstacles between your line and the dogs line. It it distracts the dog, you might simply start with a jump bar, then a single jump. You can put a target out in front of the dog.

NOTE - if you start to lag, then the dog should start to converge, because he will start to look back to see where you are. I would not choose to layer if AI thought I was going to be behind my dog.

Hope that all makes sense!

Cheers,

Thank you, that was very helpful :)

Now that I have joined a bigger club I should get to work on more handling exercises. Last night we reproduced the ADO distance challoenge from Sunday (though I think not quite the right angles or distance) and we had no problem, whereas we didn't make it on Sunday.

Regardless, I am just so happy to be able to work on handling with my dog rather than worry about aggression issues (which I had with Zoe), it is certainly a much nicer way to spend training!

[Kavik]

Too many people following Derrett misinterpret the rules and get bogged down by them IMO which makes the system seem much harder than it actually is.

I agreed with this & find the same thing with the system I use. Over analysing trial courses from a rules perspective just puts extra things in your head when you are running it. I try to save my analysing for planning my training sessions and just hope like hell it has become second nature when it comes time to test in a trial situation.

I had an interesting run in CFS masters jumping last Saturday. I ran a dog that has been trained exclusively with the GD handling system. I have never run him before, and handled him using exactly the same cues (similar to CFS system) as I handled Trim with. He took 2 bars, one was on a straight (so not affected by system cues) and the other was a poor signal from me before he had committed to a jump. Other than the 2 bars, he nailed it!

He showed no confusion whatsoever with the handling system I ran, even though I used a totally different system to what his owner would have.To top it all off, other than the 2 bars, he would have beaten Trim on the same course by just under half a second. Food for thought...

That was also a very nice run!

[kelpiechick]

Too many people following Derrett misinterpret the rules and get bogged down by them IMO which makes the system seem much harder than it actually is.

I agreed with this & find the same thing with the system I use. Over analysing trial courses from a rules perspective just puts extra things in your head when you are running it. I try to save my analysing for planning my training sessions and just hope like hell it has become second nature when it comes time to test in a trial situation.

Absolutely

I remember Susan Garrett saying once that if she had time she would re-release 'Ruff Love' again with a rewrite, as people took it to extremes and were doing all sorts of things with it which were not what she intended - I find the same thing with GD handling system, and as you said it also probably happens in other systems too. The 'rules' are actually very simple but people take them to extremes by analysing every little tiny angle and end up with a whole other 'sub set' of rules that I'm sure were not meant to be there in the first place.

I'm also sick of hearing people whinging about what they consider 'unfair challenges' in regard to handling systems. (They do here anyway) Why should judges have to consider handling systems when they set courses. I have had a couple of distance challenges that may have been more difficult for me when trying to stick to what is consistency for me, but they are certainly not 'unfair' and I actually enjoy trying to find a way around them.

Sorry Kavik to go OT, have had my whinge now (about the very people whose handling system I also use, LOL).

In answer to your original question, I don't really consider that I actually train for layering but would do a lot of things similar in my foundation work to what CFS described, building up good drive ahead from my dog (to a stationery toy) while I am able to run beside from further and further lateral distance, then add other toys/ in closer to me as distractions while my dog has to continue on ahead on a straight line to the original target,(supported by my acceleration and body driving forward) if that makes sense. It's really important to me that I can work from lateral distance so I can have independent obstacles and get to where I need to be much easier - especially with my young BC who is way faster than my kelpies and continually leaving me standing flat footed going 'oh have you taken those jumps already ????' :laugh:

The first time I used obstacles I would be proofing weaves/contacts, where the dog has to continue on while other obstacles are between me and the weaves, etc. I've never actually trained it using jumps but find that if I build up the foundation work (continue on your line until I pull you off with my body/arm change) then it just happens naturally anyway. If the dog is to take the far jump from me (which is on a straight line) and actually changes line to cut in towards me and takes the closer jump, then I would go back to working it as a lateral distance exercise with just one jump again before I added in the second jump. Hope that makes sense.

[aussielover]

Could somebody please explain what layering actually is???

My current understanding (which is probably incorrect) is that it is when there are obstacles in between you and the actual obstacles you want you dog to take.

[Kavik]

Could somebody please explain what layering actually is???

My current understanding (which is probably incorrect) is that it is when there are obstacles in between you and the actual obstacles you want you dog to take.

That is correct :)

[canine fun sports]

I'm also sick of hearing people whinging about what they consider 'unfair challenges' in regard to handling systems. (They do here anyway) Why should judges have to consider handling systems when they set courses. I have had a couple of distance challenges that may have been more difficult for me when trying to stick to what is consistency for me, but they are certainly not 'unfair' and I actually enjoy trying to find a way around them.

I apologise for keeping it off topic, but this is the classic moment that I say "Then get a better handling system!"

Or perhaps I should be saying, use your handling system more effectively! We often hear this complaint in Sydney, so it simply inspires me to think up more "evil" challenges for them.

Cheers,

[Kavik]

If I can't do it it is no big deal for me :) . I am finding some distance challenges suit us and some don't. At the moment I don't have any complicated manouvres in my handling. Need to brush up and improve some aspects for sure such as rear crosses and tight turns. Need to be less scared of using a rear cross :laugh:

ETA: I think the ADO course on Sunday could have been doable for us. He did cut in after the broad but I certainly think it is a challenge we could do. The JDO course, not so much. It doesn't matter. There have been some JDO coures I have walked and gone, nope no way are we going to be able to do that distance challenge :laugh: and others where I have gone, yep no problem.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Kavik

[kelpiechick]

I'm also sick of hearing people whinging about what they consider 'unfair challenges' in regard to handling systems. (They do here anyway) Why should judges have to consider handling systems when they set courses. I have had a couple of distance challenges that may have been more difficult for me when trying to stick to what is consistency for me, but they are certainly not 'unfair' and I actually enjoy trying to find a way around them.

I apologise for keeping it off topic, but this is the classic moment that I say "Then get a better handling system!"

Or perhaps I should be saying, use your handling system more effectively! We often hear this complaint in Sydney, so it simply inspires me to think up more "evil" challenges for them.

Cheers,

This is it in a nutshell ! And what you are being 'inspired' to do (and I don't blame you one bit) is exactly what some judges do here too in response to the whinging ....... stupid, stupid people whinging cos they make it worse for themselves

Kavik, as you get more confident and more understanding of running a particular system you will find that there is less and less that you can't do. When I first switched over I found that there would be a number of Masters courses that might have a section I couldn't figure a way around, maybe 25% at a guess. But this was all from a lack of understanding about what I could and couldn't do. Now it would be lucky to be one course in the past 12 months, including Open and Gamblers. I like the way that Open can be so different, you never know what you are going to get. And a good rear cross is your friend at times !!

[Kavik]

I am sure as I get more confident with my options it will get easier - I am not that imaginative as to my handling options yet :laugh: . Probably next on my to do list would be to watch some handling DVDs or go to a handling seminar so I get a better understanding of the system as a whole. I almost did the GD seminar over summer but decided that with the problems I was facing with my dog at the time that the relationship building exercises in Recallers would be more beneficial than a handling seminar.

Now that I am with a bigger club we should be able to get more handling practice in. It sounds like they try to do a distance challenge quite often, as well as other handling manouvres.

[Kavik]

Thinking about it and I am pretty sure I did a 'naughty' front cross in JDX - whoops! (got the job done though!) :laugh: Pretty sure I should have done a rear cross but I don't like rear crossing the chute. That's what happens when you don't have a fantastic understanding of the handling system and don't ask for help with walking the course.