Proposed pointscore & dog/handler of the year

[Laraine Frawley]

Hi all

A group of us have got together and discussed the proposed national pointscore. From the previous correspondence on the site most triallers thought it was a good idea. I am willing to keep it updated and once the trialling season gets underway will post regular updates (the regularity depending on my work load at my "real " job!!) We looked at the various pointscores triallers posted from their states and decided to go with the Victorian model
National/Championship Stake:
1st 12 pts 2nd 11pts 3rd 10pts
All Age Stake
1st 9 pts 2nd 8pts 3rd 7pts
Restricted Stake
1st 6 pts 2nd 5pts 3rd 4pts
Novice Stake
1st 3 pts 2nd 2pts 3rd 1pts

We will start the year with the aim of a Dog of the Year. As we will have all the Novice and restricted scores also we can add another award for up and coming dogs if people think this is appropriate. This award would need a name. There will be no "trophy" awarded to any winners, instead you will get a photo of yourself and your dog put on the website with your achievements. Over the years this will become a valuable archive of our best dogs.

The pointscore will run over a calendar year starting 1 January 2005. I think the first trial will be the Shepparton trial towards the end of January. All results must be in by 1 Dec each year and the successful team will get their photo up soon after that. I will only be taking results from those posted on this site so it is up to the clubs to get the results in.

I think I have covered everything. If anyone has any other suggestions let me know otherwise we are ready to go

Laraine

[Prue Winkfield]

Laraine - great idea for up and coming dog as well - it would be nice if it could be tied to an up and coming handler but that would probably be impossible! I suspect both winners will come from the handful of top AA handlers around the country who get lots of credit already. Prue

[Jason Ferris]

Prue

We spent quite a bit of time on Sunday talking through the options for how to best track success for an up and coming dog based only on the data available on this site and couldn't agree on an ideal option.

The problem is that the really good dogs are quickly excluded from winning further points because they get their three wins and are out of novice or restricted. A dog which is not fantastic but consistently places through the year will stay in their stake and gain lots more points.

Has anyone got an suggestions on how to do it?

Cheers, Jason.

[Prue Winkfield]

Jason - think discussion needs to take place on exactly why we wish to recognise up and coming dogs. In some ways, I would like to see up and coming handlers recognised as hopefully that would encourage and recognise newer handlers who are achieving with their dogs. The top dogs are going to be recognised anyway in various forums. What does everyone else think? As a matter of interest, other than Matt Fulton in Qld, were there any handlers who gained their RtCh in 2004 who had never done this before? Prue

[Kate Eltringham]

Prue,

Firstly, you don't have to look any further than Victoria as Brian Kennedy obtained his first RT CH title with his Golden Retriever "Ruby" (Winterset Savanna Moon)!!!!

Vic Ayres in Tasmania obtained his first title with Laddie (Kadnook Country Ladd).

Nice to see dogs and handlers, other than GSP's, obtaining their first titles.

Congratulations to Matt, Brian and Vic.

Kate Eltringham

[Prue Winkfield]

Thanks Kate - anyone in the other states? Should have remembered Brian but think I was OS when he won. Prue

[Kerry Webster]

Hi Prue,

Presuming you mean a person who has never got a R.T.Ch with any dog ??......we had one handler this year in W.A.

Maggie Hankinson and her Labrador, R.T.Ch Altiquin Stern (Guinness), got their title. This dog got his Novice and Restricted titles in his first season, then R.T.Ch this year, and still under 3 years of age.

Guinness is Maggies third Labrador to compete in Retrieving, plus she has achieved titles for both her current Labs in obedience and agility.

Kerry

[Prue Winkfield]

Yes Kerry, that is what I did mean - the dog must be quite something - and the handler!

[Kerry Webster]

Whilst not being aware of the intricacies of how the scoring for this site award is being determined, I do have some ideas on making it a fair and equal method of assessing.

Whilst the method I propose is a little complex, it does deliver a very fair outcome for all dogs competing in trials.

At present, from what I understand, any trial, anywhere in Australia, is having the 1st, 2nd and 3rd placegetters awarded points. I would presume that these points are accumulative over the year ???

All age, Restricted and Novice stakes have their own set of points to allocate to the three placegetters. This is fine and isn't a problem.

To be fair to all handlers over the Nation, I would suggest that an average should be taken on points gained over trials attended.

To explain this, let us say that Dog A. is in a remote part of the country, unable to attend trials each weekend, but competes in 4 All Age stakes in the season, winning 1st place in two of them, a 3rd place in another, and finished, but unplaced in a fourth trial.

Say the point allocation ratio is 9, 6, 3. Dog A would have 21 points to his credit. Divide this by 4, being the number of trials the dog has competed in, and his average score for the season, would be 5.25 points.

Dog B, has the opportunity to compete in trials over the whole Eastern borders, and competes in 22 trials. He wins 7 All Age stakes, comes second in 6 trials, and third in 4 trials, he finishes two of the remaining trials, and is eliminated in three trials.
His point score is 111 points. But this is then divided by the number of trials he has competed in which is 22, giving Dog B an average of 5.04 points.

Going on averages Dog A, has done better winning two out of four trials than Dog B. winning seven out of twenty two trials.

Considering that a number of handlers are in such a situation as Dog A, and also considering that from State to State in Australia there are huge differences in the number of trials held, this system, although much more difficult to assess logisticly, is, a fairer method of determination.

At present, whilst it is admirable to try and have a "top retriever" for the site, it is very one-sided, and may merely determine who has the time and money to travel from trial to trial, state to state, competing.

Kerry

[Jason Ferris]

Hi Kerry

While I completely agree that a system that took into account effort would be fairer and would product an interesting result, compiling the required information would be a huge task to undertake nationally.

2004 was the first time that a reasonably complete set of trial results was available in one place (this website). That gave people a chance to get to know how dogs in other states were performing. The idea of the Dog of the Year system was to come up with a way of using the information from results posted on this site to highlight the strongest performers in our sport.

Cheers, Jason.

[Prue Winkfield]

Kerry - agree it would be fairer but so would taking into account the numbers competing - for instance it could be 6 or 36 in an AA. In Restricted the same - perhaps not 36 but 26 and so on for Novice. Perhaps once settled down this year, someone who is good on the maths could come up with some sort of handicap system but at leaast this year we will get some idea of how it looks. Prue

[Maureen Cooper]

Kerry- on the face of it I agreed with you as Tasmanians would also have to travel to Victoria too to make trials up to fit into the points score and yet I could also see the point Prue has just made, wins in poorer supported stakes are more easily obtained.

A few of the grey haired brigade are also more able to travel interstate to make up more points (and that does include me!) so I am now questioning the whole scenario. Maybe it should be just State Retrieving Dog of the year and leave it at that. I dont see many Queenslanders travelling to NSW or Victorians for that matter though quite a few triallers from NSW travel interstate to either Queensland or Victoria and are therefore able to amass more points.

As Jason pointed out, we would need catalogues or handler honesty to inform of the number of trials entered to do the division. Maybe the whole thing has not been thought out completely. It does seem to be loaded in favour of those who have the time, finances etc to travel interstate. I know the ACT has few handlers so maybe they could elect to join either NSW or Victoria in the points score. When handlers judge interstate they also usually compete the other day or even stay on for a holiday and compete another weekend. I know I have done this.

Food for thought?
TTFN
Maureen

[Kerry Webster]

Hi Prue,

As you say, the numbers of dogs competing in the three stakes, vary enormously from state to state. Queensland has very good entries, and from what I have heard, Victoria gets high Novice and Restricted entries (don't know about their A/Age though). Western Australia gets very good Novice entries, and reasonable Restr. and A/Age (around 15 upwards).

I think that Tassie, S.A. and NSW are battling with getting enough to hold some stakes, and ACT possibly has the same, but could benefit from Victorians making a trip up to enter. It would be interesting to have numbers of entries included when results of trials are posted.

I can't see a way around the numbers of entries difference, apart from a stipulation of a minimum number of competing dogs in each stake before eligibility for points in this case.

Hi Jason,

The average method that I explained would be difficult to determine on a National level, as you could imagine, and the only way would be to have a list of the dogs that competed in the stakes, submitted at the time the results were posted. This would be a tedious task for the people doing the postings, especially in stakes where 20 + dogs take part, but it may be the option to take.

Still, it is something to think about.

Kerry

[Jason Ferris]

Hi Kerry

I like your suggestion that the numbers of entries be included when results of trials are posted. That is something we should be able to do straight away and gives readers an idea of the quantity of the competition.

Cheers, Jason.

[Pat Thorn]

There are some good suggestions there and also a few problems as well. Needs quite a deal more discussion.

I would like to see this put in a database rather than a spreadsheet, it's not really a spreadsheet application.