# dual champions



## hotel4dogs

According to GRCA, there have only been 2 since the late 1960's. I know Funky Farquar was one, who was the other????


----------



## Tahnee GR

Ronakers Novato Cain-can't believe I knew this off the top of my head, but he was in my old girl Kahli's pedigree 

http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=620


----------



## hotel4dogs

thanks! believe it or not, I searched quite a bit online and couldn't come up with it.




Tahnee GR said:


> Ronakers Novato Cain-can't believe I knew this off the top of my head, but he was in my old girl Kahli's pedigree
> 
> http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=620


----------



## K9-Design

What's exciting is that we may have a US DC golden on the horizon. Talin's Hard Act To Follow MH has won an Am and is being shown. He is in Alaska -- which, um -- is a lot easier to attain a show CH and the FTs are smaller as well. This could be our one shot in, oh, 40 years?
The fact his mother is a CH and he is in FTs is a great thing as well!


----------



## Ljilly28

I'm going to keep cheering for Stoney to attain this magic status as well. He's gone straight through in a calender year from zero to WCX and one away from MH, and so is only getting started/experienced now. He is AM CH BOS/Sh plus 4 MH passes- what will happen if he runs against those labs and chessies? I think good things! Props to Pat and Paul either way for letting this show dog do the serious work he loves. 
http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=153141


----------



## K9-Design

Jill are they planning on running Stoney in field trials?
A CH/MH is nothing to sneer at but it is not a "Dual Champion."


----------



## Ljilly28

Of course, it is a whole other sky-high level of competition from other breeds and specialized field dogs. Otherwise it wouldnt be such a rarity to achieve. . . CH/MH is wonderful in and of itself- but, yes, for sure a very different goal. Many dream, few attempt- maybe we'll get one from the USA this decade? It remains to be seen. . .


----------



## Ljilly28

Here's the link /picture for Talin's Heart Act To Follow(Trip) MH WC ***

http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=175225


----------



## Tatnall

hotel4dogs said:


> According to GRCA, there have only been 2 since the late 1960's. I know Funky Farquar was one, who was the other????


Ronaker's Novato Cain?

Hondo (Honor's Darado of Spindrift) was a CH/AFC, I believe

(whoops, didn't see the answers)


----------



## Carlynn Ricks

*dual champion*

By chance, I think I came across the other most recent Golden dual champion, CH-AFC Ronakers Novato Cain CD OS FDHF 4/2/66 - 7/6/78.

I'm guessing the second championship was in the 70's. Do you know how to find out the date of either or both championships?

Carlynn


----------



## marsh mop

Okay, I have a question. Looking at CH-AFC Ronakers Novato Cain. Where would the confirmation world look at him now? He has yellow/golden eyes. He has a very dark coat. Would that get him eliminated from confirmation nowadays? Has that changed in the last 20 years? Is it not retriever against retriever in the field world? I am certainly more about performance than confirmation, but I still don't understand why a darker, golden eyed retriever can't compete and be considered for the show ring. Jim


----------



## hotel4dogs

Coat color doesn't matter, I've seen some really dark CH goldens as well as some that are almost white. 
But light eyes are, in fact, incorrect. 
Here's the breed standard (which hasn't been revised in 20 years)

edit.... I just went and looked at his k9data photo, and at least there, his eyes are not yellow/light. They are medium brown, which is considered acceptable.

*"...Eyes *-- friendly and intelligent in expression, medium large with dark, close-fitting rims, set well apart and reasonably deep in sockets. Color preferably dark brown; medium brown acceptable. Slant eyes and narrow, triangular eyes detract from correct expression and are to be faulted. No white or haw visible when looking straight ahead. Dogs showing evidence of functional abnormality of eyelids or eyelashes (such as, but not limited to, trichiasis, entropion, ectropion, or distichiasis) are to be excused from the ring...."



marsh mop said:


> Okay, I have a question. Looking at CH-AFC Ronakers Novato Cain. Where would the confirmation world look at him now? He has yellow/golden eyes. He has a very dark coat. Would that get him eliminated from confirmation nowadays? Has that changed in the last 20 years? Is it not retriever against retriever in the field world? I am certainly more about performance than confirmation, but I still don't understand why a darker, golden eyed retriever can't compete and be considered for the show ring. Jim


----------



## esSJay

What exactly makes a dog a Dual Champion?


----------



## hotel4dogs

They have to be a Conformation Champion and a Field Champion (not a master hunter, although that's no small achievement either!)





esSJay said:


> What exactly makes a dog a Dual Champion?


----------



## Tahnee GR

hotel4dogs said:


> They have to be a Conformation Champion and a Field Champion (not a master hunter, although that's no small achievement either!)


And not an Amateur Field Trial Champion either, only a Field Champion. I cannot imagine being able to earn two such competitive titles on the same dog! According to the GRCA website, on average, only 1 or 2 Goldens a year earn the title of Field Champion.


----------



## Debles

Quar was my Max's grandpa (also way back in Selka and Gunner's pedigree) and Stoney is Sasha's daddy. : )

I had never heard of the other dual champion. I will have to look him up in Nona Bauer's World of the Golden Retriever.


----------



## esSJay

hotel4dogs said:


> They have to be a Conformation Champion and a Field Champion (not a master hunter, although that's no small achievement either!)


 
Ahh.... and (sorry I'm only familiar with some obedience and conformation titles) what makes the difference between MH and Field Champion? I always thought Field and Hunting were the same thing :uhoh: lol


----------



## Swampcollie

esSJay said:


> Ahh.... and (sorry I'm only familiar with some obedience and conformation titles) what makes the difference between MH and Field Champion? I always thought Field and Hunting were the same thing :uhoh: lol


 
In a hunting test the dog is being scored against a standard, they are not competing directly dog against dog. 

A field trial is dog against dog competition with one winner.

The work in a hunting test is usually shorter in length and less technical in nature than a Field Trial. Marks and blinds in a hunt test are usually less than 100 yards in length. A field trial on the other hand may have marks and blinds that range in length from 30 yards to 500 yards or more. In a hunt test you're trying to find out if a dog can do a difficult set of marks and bllinds. In a field trial all of the dogs can do difficult marks and blinds, you're trying to find which dog does them best that day.

When you're looking at AKC pedigrees, Titles before a dogs name are "Championship Titles" where the dog has to defeat other dogs in competition. Titles that appear after a dogs' name are "Degrees" or indications of a status earned.


----------



## Tahnee GR

Here's a link to an article which does a nice job of explaining the two:

American perspective on Gundog Field Trials and Hunt Tests

One of the main differences is that field trials are competitive, with placements earned, etc. while hunt tests are non-competitive, where the dog is evaluated against a "standard" of expectations.


----------



## esSJay

Ahhh!! Very helpful! Thanks for explaining that.  




Swampcollie said:


> When you're looking at AKC pedigrees, Titles before a dogs name are "Championship Titles" where the dog has to defeat other dogs in competition. Titles that appear after a dogs' name are "Degrees" or indications of a status earned.


I had also never heard that before, very interesting to know!  Thanks!


----------



## mylissyk

Isn't Push a dual champion?

http://www.ambertrail.com/pushstuddog.html


----------



## RedDogs

Canadian triple champion is my understanding.


----------



## Loisiana

Swampcollie said:


> When you're looking at AKC pedigrees, Titles before a dogs name are "Championship Titles" where the dog has to defeat other dogs in competition. Titles that appear after a dogs' name are "Degrees" or indications of a status earned.


That's true of championship titles for conformation, field, and obedience. (CH, FC, OTCH), but agility and tracking (MACH and CT) don't require any dogs to be defeated.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Not any more....
The MACH and CT titles are NOT competitive, yet they do appear before the dog's name.

edit...LOL, should have read Jodie's post before replying, great minds think alike!

QUOTE=Swampcollie;1257066] 
When you're looking at AKC pedigrees, Titles before a dogs name are "Championship Titles" where the dog has to defeat other dogs in competition. Titles that appear after a dogs' name are "Degrees" or indications of a status earned.[/QUOTE]


----------



## marsh mop

This is a pretty cool slide show of CH dogs from the past http://www.grca.org/events/specialties/1970.html


----------



## Loisiana

RedDogs said:


> Canadian triple champion is my understanding.


Push is a Canadian Triple Champion, but the requirements for that are vastly different from the requirements for an American Triple Champion.

It seems more and more unlikely as time goes on and our breed continues to split that we will ever have an American Dual Champion again. And I honestly do not think we will ever have an American Triple Champion (I am speaking for goldens only, very possible in other breeds).

I have seen, however, more and more breeders recently trying to produce a more balanced Golden. But with groups on both sides continuing to breed specifically for traits in their area, will we be able to get a dog that can compete at the highest levels on both sides?


----------



## Swampcollie

hotel4dogs said:


> Not any more....
> 
> The MACH and CT titles are NOT competitive, yet they do appear before the dog's name.


 
I'm showing my age. :curtain: Those are new (relatively speaking).


----------



## Swampcollie

marsh mop said:


> This is a pretty cool slide show of CH dogs from the past Golden Retriever Club of America - Specialty


It's rather interesting to note how different the dogs are from the early dogs to the modern dogs. If they had included even earlier dogs, the differences would be even more striking. 


Push is a very nice dog. He's earned placements in field trials on this side of the border but hasn't accumulated enough points to earn his FC. I have my doubts that he could win in Conformation events on this side of the border.


----------



## hotel4dogs

ahhh, there's a *possible* breeding for early 2011 that's going to cross conformation lines with working lines and I feel could quite likely produce the next dual champion golden retriever


----------



## AmbikaGR

I remember just after the turn of the century (okay admit it that made you ALL feel a little older) all the buzz about Sabre (Am. CH. Amigold On A Wing N A Prayer CD MH WCX VCX DDHF OS***) and his quest to become the next Dual Champion. Sabre, Jim and Terry gave it a mighty run for it's money but never quite got there. If you look at Sabre's pedigree it is interesting, at least to me, to see how both sire and dam were basically products of breeding conformation and field lines. Will be anxiously awaiting to see if Trip can do it.


----------



## Maxs Mom

I have a question about Anney's post a while back about an Alaskan dog working on it's championship and it is easier in Alaska to get a CH.... Why? Is the requirement not the same across the Nation? I mean, if you need so many points, and so many of those to be majors I would think Alaska would be harder. Do they have a lot of "major" shows? I would think less dogs too.... However.... what do I know :curtain:

I think there are more breeders trying to cross the chasm of show vs field dogs. Structure, temperament, and ability to do the things goldens are bred to do, is a good thing for the breed. I think the field part is the hard part. Most people don't go to that level if they are working on other aspects as well. Plus... those are some seriously big entry fees from what I have seen. I think (totally my opinion) that a 'lot' of golden people say that's a labs sport, a golden doesn't stand a chance. A lot of lab people say it too, but I do know there have been a lot of goldens who have done it. 

Ok another novice question. Mr Speaker is my puppies grand daddy. He has AFC and FTCH in front of his name. Can you please let me know what those titles are? I thought I knew but reading this thread I want to clarify my brain. 

Thanks


----------



## AmbikaGR

Maxs Mom said:


> I have a question about Anney's post a while back about an Alaskan dog working on it's championship and it is easier in Alaska to get a CH.... Why? Is the requirement not the same across the Nation? I mean, if you need so many points, and so many of those to be majors I would think Alaska would be harder. Do they have a lot of "major" shows? I would think less dogs too.... However.... what do I know :curtain:



Actually you are correct, yet it is different.
For a conformation championship the AKC uses a very complex formula so that each "region" has an equal opportunity to have the same number of champions finish each year. So although the number of points and majors are the same, the number of dogs needed to beat is not. For the current year, the numbers are recalculated each year, in Region 2 (Del., NJ, PA) for a three point major (the lowest point total major) a male dog must defeat 16 dogs while a bitch must defeat 19 bitches. In Region 10 (Alaska) for the same three points a dog must defeat 7 and a bitch must defeat 8. For a 5 point major Region 2 is 33 & 40 while Region 10 is 9 & 12. 
As for a field championship the rules for point accumulation really does not vary by region, definitely the number of dogs competing will. In a region like Alaska there will be less dog entered due there simply be fewer dogs in that region. But there will also be fewer trials to enter due to the weather up there. The other thing with a field championship is only 5 of the 15 points required can be won at trials open to just Goldens, the remaining 10 must be acquired in trials open to all retriever breeds (Labs, Chessies, flats etc) 
So yes the requirements are the same but different, but it does not in anyway take anything away from either accomplishment.

Hoping again this is clearer than mud! :doh:


----------



## K9-Design

Hank summed it up pretty well. For conformation, AKC has a sliding scale based on regions, of how many dogs you must beat to earn so many points. Obviously in places like Alaska, Hawaii, and far north like the Dakotas, Montana, etc, there are a lot less dogs competing in shows than in the Pacific NW, CA, New England, Florida, etc. So the point scales there are lower so people can actually finish their dogs. 
It also differs from breed to breed....goldens have the highest point scale of any breed, because they are so popular. Labs, boxers and dobermans are very high too. But most breeds take less than 10 dogs for a major, because there simply are not as many of them. It may be more difficult to find majors in say, Sussex spaniels or Sealyham terriers, but then again, when you do get a major you only need to beat 5 or 6 dogs. Unlike goldens where you need to beat 20+.


----------



## Maxs Mom

Ok the championship makes sense... didn't know it changed by region. At the risk of hijacking (humble apologies) Couldn't a dog from say CA go show in another region to finish faster? 

The reason I ask... horse shows. The junior riders compete all year to qualify in Nationals. To compete in the big equitation finals, you used to have to win 4 to qualify from NY area, and only 1 from CA. This has changed but for my argument... The finals were always in the east, so it was harder for CA people and horses to make the trip. Anyway, when I worked in NY, we had riders going to boarding school from southwest areas, they were showing in the east coast shows but only needed the southwest points. Is it like that? You need the points of your residence? 

Horse shows got smarter, saying you must earn the points/ribbons of the "regional" final you would ride in. So if you "lived" in the east but were from the southwest, you either had to earn east coast points or go back to make it past your area regional. That did even the score some. It got so big they had to have regionals to narrow down the field. They still get 200+ entries. 

Conformation stuff is so new to me. I learned most through Barb and Tito. I do know it is different per breed, I have a friend who breeds and shows corgi's. I am always amazed how fast her dogs get finished.


----------



## K9-Design

No it doesn't matter where the dog lives, it is where he competes/wins that dictates how many points. 
There are AKC shows twice a year in Puerto Rico....you can believe people ship their dogs down there who need majors because it only takes 5-6 goldens for a major.


----------



## Maxs Mom

Thanks Anney... Makes more sense...


----------



## Swampcollie

Maxs Mom said:


> Ok another novice question. Mr Speaker is my puppies grand daddy. He has AFC and FTCH in front of his name. Can you please let me know what those titles are? I thought I knew but reading this thread I want to clarify my brain.
> 
> Thanks


AFC Amateur Field Champion (U.S.)

FTCH Field Champion (Canada)


----------



## Loisiana

In almost any competitive sport, things are always evolving as people try to be more and more competitive. Most of the dogs entering the conformation ring today are very very different from what we used to see as people try to create a more competitive dog, which in turn changes what is expected of a dog to win, and it becomes a neverending circular path of constant attempts to improve.

Same with the field. I really don't think golden retrievers in their original form were ever meant to be able to pass and win the rigors of todays Field Trials. But in our attempts to make our dogs more competitive in that area, more focus was put into those particular qualities in breeding. And as the dogs' abilities become better, the trials get tougher, so we must create an even _better_ field trial dog. Again, a never ending circle.

So, my idea of the best all-around true golden retriever in it's orginal form and purpose wouldn't be a Dual Champion. I think many goldens that are capable of earning a FC today really have "more" than a golden was ever meant to. My personal opinion is that a MH is more indicative of what a good field golden was meant to be.

But those are just my random thoughts and may be way off base. Feel free to set me straight


----------



## esSJay

hotel4dogs said:


> ahhh, there's a *possible* breeding for early 2011 that's going to cross conformation lines with working lines and I feel could quite likely produce the next dual champion golden retriever


Ooh, and does this possible breeding involve the Tito monster?! :curtain:


----------



## AmbikaGR

Loisiana said:


> In almost any competitive sport, things are always evolving as people try to be more and more competitive. Most of the dogs entering the conformation ring today are very very different from what we used to see as people try to create a more competitive dog, which in turn changes what is expected of a dog to win, and it becomes a neverending circular path of constant attempts to improve.
> 
> Same with the field. I really don't think golden retrievers in their original form were ever meant to be able to pass and win the rigors of todays Field Trials. But in our attempts to make our dogs more competitive in that area, more focus was put into those particular qualities in breeding. And as the dogs' abilities become better, the trials get tougher, so we must create an even _better_ field trial dog. Again, a never ending circle.
> 
> So, my idea of the best all-around true golden retriever in it's orginal form and purpose wouldn't be a Dual Champion. I think many goldens that are capable of earning a FC today really have "more" than a golden was ever meant to. My personal opinion is that a MH is more indicative of what a good field golden was meant to be.
> 
> But those are just my random thoughts and may be way off base. Feel free to set me straight


But this is true of just about any type of competition not just dogs. In track and field how many world records are over 25 years old? How do you think the great Lombardi Packer teams of the 60's would fare in today's NFL. How many home runs do you think Babe Ruth would hit today? 
It is just how things progress in life. The bar never stays at the same height it is constantly being raised.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Maybe, maybe not...... :



esSJay said:


> Ooh, and does this possible breeding involve the Tito monster?! :curtain:


----------



## GoldenSail

AmbikaGR said:


> But this is true of just about any type of competition not just dogs. In track and field how many world records are over 25 years old? How do you think the great Lombardi Packer teams of the 60's would fare in today's NFL. How many home runs do you think Babe Ruth would hit today?
> It is just how things progress in life. The bar never stays at the same height it is constantly being raised.


Ok, this has been rolling around in my head since I saw this post...

From a conformation standpoint, what can you say about goldens that has gotten better? How much of that is subjective--in which case, how can you say it is 'better'? I.e. Are the longer beautiful coats we see in the show ring better? They look nice, but are they always correct for a hunting dog? These things I always wonder.

I also wonder how much the tools we have today affects the view of 'better' from a performance viewpoint as well. How many dogs of the past would have been better had ecollars, clickers, etc. been around?


----------



## AmbikaGR

GoldenSail said:


> Ok, this has been rolling around in my head since I saw this post...
> 
> From a conformation standpoint, what can you say about goldens that has gotten better? How much of that is subjective--in which case, how can you say it is 'better'? I.e. Are the longer beautiful coats we see in the show ring better? They look nice, but are they always correct for a hunting dog? These things I always wonder.
> 
> I also wonder how much the tools we have today affects the view of 'better' from a performance viewpoint as well. How many dogs of the past would have been better had ecollars, clickers, etc. been around?



Being a relative newbie I can not say what differences there are between the dogs of yesteryear and those of today. From what I have been told one of the biggest differences today is "fronts". And as a whole "American" Goldens are lacking this more than Goldens from other parts of the world. Now a picture does not tell the whole story but when I look at the picture of Quar on k9data ( Pedigree: Dual CH AFC Tigathoe's Funky Farquar CD TD OS FDHF ) it is his front that jumps out at me. I think today's Goldens in addition to carrying more coat I think they also have more bone. I believe both of these "features" do more aesthetically pleasing than they "improve" anything. And as you said this is all "subjective".
But there is no doubt in my mind that the "tools" of today and understanding how to properly use them play a huge part in the "improvement" in the performance end.


----------



## hotel4dogs

interestingly, my field trainer (who isn't at all into conformation in the sense of showing dogs) told me that the slightly heavier bone is much more correct, as is the slightly heavier coat. Yes, both can be overdone but we don't see it much in the show ring in this area (except when certain judges are coming to town).
He trains a lot of "field style" goldens. He says goldens are not meant to be upland game dogs like brittanys or pointers (although yes, people upland hunt with them and he says the goldens excel at it compared to labs); they are waterfowl retrieving dogs. As such, they need the proper bone and coat to be able to go in and out of very cold water over and over during the day of hunting.
He says the dogs with the thinner, spindly legs and the lighter coats are shivering after just one or two retrieves when it's cold out. 
And remember, he trains dogs to hunt, not really to "play hunt games". So an interesting point of view from someone who interacts with the dogs in the environment and work they were meant for.
Also, in the last set of Junior Hunter tests we ran in 4 of the 10 goldens were "show dogs", with 2 of them being finished CH and the other 2 being young but champion pointed dogs. All 4 were athletic, moderate dogs with moderate coats.


----------



## marsh mop

I know very little about the show ring but I would be interested in opinions on how Quar would be judged against dogs of today. Here are a couple of pictures Dual Ch-AFC Tigathoe's Funky Farquar (OS/FDHF) . That judges jacket very awesome, I need to find one.
Jim


----------



## goldensrbest

MY spencer had him in his pedigree.


----------



## Ljilly28

This is just an uneducated opinion, but I grew up with Quar kids, grandkids, and great-grandchildren. In my memory/photograph album, they have much less stop & backskull than show males today.


----------



## GoldenSail

The coat idea was just an example (one that gets thrown around a lot, whether it has merit or not). From my limited experience from comparing pictures it does seem show goldens have gotten heavier in bone and coat from the original dog. Is this better? I would venture to say--who knows?! Other than obvious faults and health I find a lot of things to be very subjective (like head types). So I really question the assertion that you are 'bettering' the breed hard to accept without definite 'this is better because...'

Just with my experience in the show world (limited, I admit) everyone has their own view of what a golden should look like. Some things people may hate about mine others will love. How do you 'better' something on such differing opinions? It really comes down to that subjectivity thing and I think that is where some people may think goldens have gotten better as a breed and others may not.


----------



## Debles

Our Max was a Quar granddog and even though we have never gone after titles of any kind, Max was a wonderful hunt retriever of both upland game and waterfowl. My husband isn't much for sitting out in the cold for hours so they hunted mostly pheasants and quail. He was an excellent retriever (he also flushed and pointed at times!), so hardworking and driven but in the house: a mellow loving family member. Dan is really hoping Sasha has those instincts.

The problem with using goldens for hunting upland game is cleaning them afterward! All those stickers and burrs!!!


----------



## sterregold

hotel4dogs said:


> interestingly, my field trainer (who isn't at all into conformation in the sense of showing dogs) told me that the slightly heavier bone is much more correct, as is the slightly heavier coat. Yes, both can be overdone but we don't see it much in the show ring in this area (except when certain judges are coming to town).
> He trains a lot of "field style" goldens. He says goldens are not meant to be upland game dogs like brittanys or pointers (although yes, people upland hunt with them and he says the goldens excel at it compared to labs); they are waterfowl retrieving dogs. As such, they need the proper bone and coat to be able to go in and out of very cold water over and over during the day of hunting.


I would agree with your trainer that a _slightly heavier_ coat than that seen on _some_ field bred dogs is more correct in terms of keeping the dog warm, but a very heavy coat can also create drag in the water. My big show CH boy can sit in water for quite some time when we're out hunting because he has that insulation, but I would not want more coat, and he does not have nearly as much as many in the show ring today.
As for the comment that Goldens were not meant to be upland dogs, well, I'd have to disagree with your trainer there. Marjoribanks intended for the Golden to be a gentleman's hunting companion, and they were used on upland game, both furred and feathered, from the earliest days. The Sandy Bloodhound breeding was introduced in the breed's development specifically to improve nose, and he used crosses to Setters as well to improve hunting abilities.


----------



## GoldenSail

hotel4dogs said:


> interestingly, my field trainer (who isn't at all into conformation in the sense of showing dogs) told me that the slightly heavier bone is much more correct, as is the slightly heavier coat. Yes, both can be overdone but we don't see it much in the show ring in this area (except when certain judges are coming to town).
> He trains a lot of "field style" goldens. He says goldens are not meant to be upland game dogs like brittanys or pointers (although yes, people upland hunt with them and he says the goldens excel at it compared to labs); they are waterfowl retrieving dogs. As such, they need the proper bone and coat to be able to go in and out of very cold water over and over during the day of hunting.
> He says the dogs with the thinner, spindly legs and the lighter coats are shivering after just one or two retrieves when it's cold out.
> And remember, he trains dogs to hunt, not really to "play hunt games". So an interesting point of view from someone who interacts with the dogs in the environment and work they were meant for.
> Also, in the last set of Junior Hunter tests we ran in 4 of the 10 goldens were "show dogs", with 2 of them being finished CH and the other 2 being young but champion pointed dogs. All 4 were athletic, moderate dogs with moderate coats.


But what is moderate? Again, everyone has their own idea of what is moderate, and what is too much coat and too much bone. Plus, while your field trainer may think it is better, there are probably plenty of others with his experience that thinks it is detrimental. Who is right? It all boils down to subjectivity, right?

How do we know if a coat is excessive? The standard does not say--just that it should not be. I imagine over time it is possible that what was considered excessive 50 years ago could be totally different to what is considered excessive today (just like movie ratings, a PG-13 of today would not be a PG-13 of 50 years prior). I won't say this means that things have gotten worse, they may be different, but are we sure better?


----------



## sammydog

Since we are talking about historical Goldens and Dual Champions, how about a picture of our first: 1st Dual Champion DUAL CH STILROVIN RIP’S PRIDE April 1946 (Photo from the GRCA webpage)










Also the first Golden Retriever Champion Eng. CH. Noranby Campfire










I find that when I look at Goldens of the old days, they much closer resemble the field bred Goldens of today.


----------



## goldensrbest

I totally agree with that , why is that?


----------



## Swampcollie

Well, let's go back to the early days......

Lady 










Noranby Tweedledum










Noranby Sandy and Noranby Balfour










Culham Brass










AmCan CH Speedwell Pluto










Gilnockie Coquett










DC Stilrovin Rip’s Pride










DC Tonkahof Esther Belle










DC Stilrovin Nitro Express










Des Lacs Lassie










CH Oakwin Junior










DC Craigmar’s Dustrack










CH CheeChee of Sprucewood










CH OTCH Meadowpond Dust Commander










DC Tigathoe’s Funky Farquar


----------



## Maxs Mom

So many of these dogs are GORGEOUS but ANY standards. I love the face on Coquette, such a golden face. 

That is what is the issue in conformation, subjectivity. If a handler wears a pleated skirt and the judge hates pleated skirts what's to say that won't impede their judgment? I have been showing horses for YEARS, and the hunter division was all subjective. I saw a LOT of bad placings but the judges rule is final. 

I like that the goldens seem to be moving to a more moderate dog being used more often, that is great. I would love the labs to go that direction, I saw one show the judge was doing that. 

However on the hair side I have one personal comment...Teddi is my first "field" golden. I LOVE the less hair. She does not require the grooming as often, her shedding level is less... she is lower maintenance. It grows long but not thick. So for me less is more 

I love these old time pictures. Just too cool. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## GoldenSail

I love the old pictures! I must say I think the ones that sammydog posted do look more like today's field goldens, but the ones swampcollie posted do look more like show goldens today just with less coat and bone.

My show girl does not carry much coat (she is young though, so maybe she will get more). As it is, I think her coat is correct for the standard and it is very easy to manage and requires minimal grooming and I never have to worry about flips in the coat--BUT, I do worry about the coat factor when I want to show her competitively. And I do think long coats that are well groomed are beautiful, even if a pain to manage.


----------



## sammydog

I just love the pictures of the Goldens from the old days! I stick with my comment that they look very similar to the field Goldens of today. Thanks for sharing, I had not seen many of those.

I think that goldens in the breed ring have changed much more over time than Goldens in field.


----------



## sammydog

GoldenSail said:


> I love the old pictures! I must say I think the ones that sammydog posted do look more like today's field goldens, but the ones swampcollie posted do look more like show goldens today just with less coat and bone.


One of them is the same dog


----------



## goldensrbest

I DON'T HUNT, DO AGILITY, dock dive, but had a red field type golden, and i just love their looks, ther are some i have came in contact with, dil , has one also, and to me, they tend to be built, slightly different from the lighter goldens, this is the type of golden i am wanting.


----------



## sammydog

Swampcollie said:


> DC Tonkahof Esther Belle


What a pretty girl! I was looking for a picture of her earlier and came up empty, where do you find these gems!? She is the only female DC!


----------



## Swampcollie

sammydog said:


> What a pretty girl! I was looking for a picture of her earlier and came up empty, where do you find these gems!? She is the only female DC!


Books, magazines newspaper clippings.  It does help that she was a local dog. 

As far as being the only female DC, there is a reason for that. Up until the last couple decades females were not campaigned heavily in the field. It was customary to run them in the Derby or Qual but that was where it ended for most. Some would venture a go at the Am but very few were run extensively in the Open. (That miserable heat cycle)


----------



## GoldenSail

sammydog said:


> One of them is the same dog


Well, ok, I should have clarified I was thinking more along the lines of most of the dogs he posted--kind of have a stockier build not racy. Plus, I think if you stripped down the coat and lots of the bone on some show goldens you might be surprised what you see. Coat IMO, can play tricks on the eyes.


----------



## Swampcollie

GoldenSail said:


> Coat IMO, can play tricks on the eyes.


Not as much as you might think. 

I have been known to sit in the judges chair from time to time.  When dogs come out of the pond that fluffy well groomed coat is pretty much negated and you get a good look at the overall structure of the dogs. 

The conformation dogs on average are more massive with heavy bone and coat. 

The Dual Champions of the past are dogs of moderation.


----------



## GoldenSail

Swampcollie said:


> Not as much as you might think.
> 
> I have been known to sit in the judges chair from time to time.  When dogs come out of the pond that fluffy well groomed coat is pretty much negated and you get a good look at the overall structure of the dogs.
> 
> The conformation dogs on average are more massive with heavy bone and coat.
> 
> The Dual Champions of the past are dogs of moderation.


I mentioned bone being a factor as well in my post, but after you take those away I don't think things are too far off and I think it depends on the lines. Not all lines are that heavy coated and boned--mine comes from show lines and certainly isn't by any stretch of the imagination. (see sig picture--does the look heavy to you?)


----------



## K9-Design

I am surprised by the amount of bone and substance of the really early goldens that Swampcollie posted. He seems to have put them in chronological order and the later ones are actually less substantial/lighter boned & coated than the earlier ones. Hmmm.


----------



## Swampcollie

K9-Design said:


> I am surprised by the amount of bone and substance of the really early goldens that Swampcollie posted. He seems to have put them in chronological order and the later ones are actually less substantial/lighter boned & coated than the earlier ones. Hmmm.


You have toi keep in mind that those turn of the century dogs were still very early and the type was still not set. (The breed was still new) Noranby Tweedledum's photo in k9data is a little clearer.











Look at all those curls and waves!


----------



## goldensrbest

Do you think they ate human food back then, or perhaps raw, or what?


----------



## Swampcollie

goldensrbest said:


> Do you think they ate human food back then, or perhaps raw, or what?


Table, kitchen scraps and whatever "just happened" to drop their way.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Moderate, IMO, is a golden that can perform correctly in the field, period. If they are too heavy boned to run well or swim well, they're not moderate. If they are too fine boned to stand up to cold water and cold temperatures, they are not moderate.
Same with coat. If they don't have the correct undercoat, and are shivering in the cold when they're wet, they're not moderate, they are incorrect. If they are so heavy coated that the coat is constantly matted with burrs and sticks, or dragging them down in the water, again, they are not moderate.
The moderate dog has enough coat to stay warm in some pretty extreme temperature and water conditions, has enough bone to do the same, has feet that are broad enough to clomp thru sucking mud, and so on.
As I said, JMO. But I do value the opinion of my field trainer re structure, since he's been hunting over goldens for well over 25 years and has seen a lot of variety.




GoldenSail said:


> But what is moderate? Again, everyone has their own idea of what is moderate, and what is too much coat and too much bone. Plus, while your field trainer may think it is better, there are probably plenty of others with his experience that thinks it is detrimental. Who is right? It all boils down to subjectivity, right?
> 
> How do we know if a coat is excessive? The standard does not say--just that it should not be. I imagine over time it is possible that what was considered excessive 50 years ago could be totally different to what is considered excessive today (just like movie ratings, a PG-13 of today would not be a PG-13 of 50 years prior). I won't say this means that things have gotten worse, they may be different, but are we sure better?


----------



## Ljilly28

K9-Design said:


> No it doesn't matter where the dog lives, it is where he competes/wins that dictates how many points.
> There are AKC shows twice a year in Puerto Rico....you can believe people ship their dogs down there who need majors because it only takes 5-6 goldens for a major.



You betcha. A breeder/handler couple here take trips down to Puerto Rico shows with 20 dogs. . . Nope, not letting Copley go!


----------



## Debles

The book The World of the Golden Retriever by Nona Bauer shows the history and photos of our wonderful breed.

Our Sophie (85-00) resembled some of the early goldens.


----------



## Maxs Mom

I love this thread. I love seeing the evolution of the breed. Thank you all who posted pictures and the comments are great too.


----------



## Swampcollie

sterregold said:


> As for the comment that Goldens were not meant to be upland dogs, well, I'd have to disagree with your trainer there. Marjoribanks intended for the Golden to be a gentleman's hunting companion, and they were used on upland game, both furred and feathered, from the earliest days. The Sandy Bloodhound breeding was introduced in the breed's development specifically to improve nose, and he used crosses to Setters as well to improve hunting abilities.


I have to agree with Shelly, Goldens were bred for work as an upland dog from the very beginning. The mix of breeds chosen to create the golden indicates a strong desire to instill strong upland skills in the breed.


----------



## hotel4dogs

thanks for the old photos, they're wonderful!
I'd have to say the funky Farquar would be a CH now, too, looking at the photo. What an amazing dog.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Most of the *field goldens* we see around here are basically single coated, with very little coat. Long, thin legs, and VERY high energy (think, no "off switch".) It may likely vary by area, just like the show dogs we see winning around here do not have very heavy coats nor very heavy bones. 
I probably misquoted or misled what Dan meant, his meaning was that they are not meant to be strictly upland game dogs (like brittanys or german shorthairs), they are also meant to be waterfowl dogs. As such, they need the heavier coats and heavier bones to be able to withstand the harsher elements. But no, certainly not the long, flashy, flowing coats we used to see about 5 years ago around here in the show ring.
I'm sure you've all seen a ton of photos of Tito. He championed pretty fast (although it didn't feel like it to me at the time) with 3 big majors, and he doesn't by ANY stretch of the imagination have a lot of long, flowing coat!! (Nor is he heavy boned, just moderate).





sterregold said:


> I would agree with your trainer that a _slightly heavier_ coat than that seen on _some_ field bred dogs is more correct in terms of keeping the dog warm, but a very heavy coat can also create drag in the water. My big show CH boy can sit in water for quite some time when we're out hunting because he has that insulation, but I would not want more coat, and he does not have nearly as much as many in the show ring today.
> As for the comment that Goldens were not meant to be upland dogs, well, I'd have to disagree with your trainer there. Marjoribanks intended for the Golden to be a gentleman's hunting companion, and they were used on upland game, both furred and feathered, from the earliest days. The Sandy Bloodhound breeding was introduced in the breed's development specifically to improve nose, and he used crosses to Setters as well to improve hunting abilities.


----------



## GoldenSail

hotel4dogs said:


> Most of the *field goldens* we see around here are basically single coated, with very little coat. Long, thin legs, and VERY high energy (think, no "off switch".) It may likely vary by area, just like the show dogs we see winning around here do not have very heavy coats nor very heavy bones.
> I probably misquoted or misled what Dan meant, his meaning was that they are not meant to be strictly upland game dogs (like brittanys or german shorthairs), they are also meant to be waterfowl dogs. As such, they need the heavier coats and heavier bones to be able to withstand the harsher elements. But no, certainly not the long, flashy, flowing coats we used to see about 5 years ago around here in the show ring.
> I'm sure you've all seen a ton of photos of Tito. He championed pretty fast (although it didn't feel like it to me at the time) with 3 big majors, and he doesn't by ANY stretch of the imagination have a lot of long, flowing coat!! (Nor is he heavy boned, just moderate).


I think style varies a ton by the area of the country you are at. I have *heard* that the pacific northwest has a lot of heavier bone and coated dogs because of the Rush Hill influence.

EDIT: I must say, our cluster is going on right now (small entries only 3 class dogs and only one showed up, goldens are not huge here if you can imagine that), I was surprised at the open bitches. Most of them were not exceptionally heavy-boned (imo) or coated (I think Scout might fit in tomorrow when I show her!) though some were. Of course, they may all still be young-ish. I need to check


----------



## hotel4dogs

I for sure agree that area of the country has a lot to do with it!! That's why I'm always careful to say "around here" when commenting on the dogs in the show ring. But goldens are HUGE around here, lots of shows with 50 plus goldens, and we see a lot of moderate dogs. 
We do get some judges in this area who like the heavier bone/coat, and we refer to that show as "oh, it's going to be a Summit judge today" because of the influence of the Summit goldens in this area. 




GoldenSail said:


> I think style varies a ton by the area of the country you are at. I have *heard* that the pacific northwest has a lot of heavier bone and coated dogs because of the Rush Hill influence.
> 
> EDIT: I must say, our cluster is going on right now (small entries only 3 class dogs and only one showed up, goldens are not huge here if you can imagine that), I was surprised at the open bitches. Most of them were not exceptionally heavy-boned (imo) or coated (I think Scout might fit in tomorrow when I show her!) though some were. Of course, they may all still be young-ish. I need to check


----------



## Tamarackgoldens

This thread is very interesting. My dog is from confirmation lines and just finished his Master Hunter. The pros I train with said he had to be better than most to pass because of his looks. The expectation when a judge sees a "pretty golden" that the performance will be lackluster at best. There are a lot of confirmation dogs with JH behind the name, a few with SH, and fewer with a MH. Rookie has passed 7 of 9 tests, so am really proud of him. Sadly, question if we will ever see a dual CH again. The dogs of old wouldn't have "enough coat to be looked at in the breed ring.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Welcome! Where are you located?
BIG congratulations on the MH, you need to post that on the "hunt and field" section of this forum.
I did have the 2 judges at our last test (just got our JH, just started field training in June) comment about him being a "show dog". It was because of the mud, he was up to his shoulders and one commented about his "pretty coat" getting all mucked up. I laughed and said, check with me in an hour, his coat is CORRECT and you won't have known he was swimming, let alone wallowing in the mud. 
They weren't being snide or sarcastic, though. Just making a comment. The judges were really very, very nice; we had 4 "show goldens" running out of 10 goldens.




Tamarackgoldens said:


> This thread is very interesting. My dog is from confirmation lines and just finished his Master Hunter. The pros I train with said he had to be better than most to pass because of his looks. The expectation when a judge sees a "pretty golden" that the performance will be lackluster at best. There are a lot of confirmation dogs with JH behind the name, a few with SH, and fewer with a MH. Rookie has passed 7 of 9 tests, so am really proud of him. Sadly, question if we will ever see a dual CH again. The dogs of old wouldn't have "enough coat to be looked at in the breed ring.


----------



## GoldenSail

Tamarackgoldens said:


> This thread is very interesting. My dog is from confirmation lines and just finished his Master Hunter. The pros I train with said he had to be better than most to pass because of his looks. The expectation when a judge sees a "pretty golden" that the performance will be lackluster at best. There are a lot of confirmation dogs with JH behind the name, a few with SH, and fewer with a MH. Rookie has passed 7 of 9 tests, so am really proud of him. Sadly, question if we will ever see a dual CH again. The dogs of old wouldn't have "enough coat to be looked at in the breed ring.


Congrats to you--that is a big accomplishment!

I certainly didn't plan on it, but my little girl who comes from two champion parents, (and indeed in three generations only has one ancestor that is not a champion) has tons of drive! My friend who has field labs is quite impressed with her and likes to compare her to her crazy field lab. My girl is moderate, not heavy in bone or coat and very feminine. Although it hasn't been tested completely yet, I worry that this may hurt her (even though she comes from a long line of champions, hmm).


----------



## AmbikaGR

GoldenSail said:


> Although it hasn't been tested completely yet, I worry that this may hurt her (even though she comes from a long line of champions, hmm).



I am confused, what may hurt what?


----------



## GoldenSail

AmbikaGR said:


> I am confused, what may hurt what?


In the show ring--maybe I worry too much but she doesn't carry a lot of coat or bone. I think that hurts or counts against her. I personally think she is acceptable per the standard, but when put up against a comparable but more substantial bitch....


----------



## AmbikaGR

Refresh my memory, she is still young correct?

And I have seen a NUMBER of moderate dogs do very well in the conformation ring and finish their championships.


----------



## GoldenSail

AmbikaGR said:


> Refresh my memory, she is still young correct?
> 
> And I have seen a NUMBER of moderate dogs do very well in the conformation ring and finish their championships.


Yes, 18 months so maybe she will grow some coat and put on some bone. I don't think she'll ever have a lot of either though.


----------



## Tamarackgoldens

I would love to see Golden Sails little bitch in person-the picture is gorgeous. Rookie doesn't have a lot of coat either. Last fall between getting his senior and master, we entered a UKC breed show-we were both complete novices. Ended up getting best in show both days. They want dogs in hard working condition, so it was to our advantage. Decided to try AKC and did 3 week-ends. Took 3rd in open each time no matter how many dogs were in the class. Told each time by other exhibitors he needed to stay out of the water and field so he could grow coat, needed to put at least 10 lbs on, and he needed to have whiskers removed. None of the 3 were on option as getting a MH was priority. Now the goal is to qualify for the Master National next year, so still not sure it the breed ring is an option. Hope to get into Northern Flyways CCA.


----------



## AmbikaGR

Tamarack I would not give up on the conformation ring. Go to an AKC show and talk to some handlers. You just might find someone. Have you spoken to his breeder/stud owner? They can be a wealth of info and guidance. It is very difficult to compete in the Golden ring if you are a novice, not impossible but difficult.


----------



## Tamarackgoldens

Thanks AmbigaGR. I see you have a Golly G pup in your pictures. My dog is sired by a Golly G CH. Haven't given up-just not sure if I can afford to go the pro route or if it is worth it. If we get into the CCA, I will re-evaluate. Marcia Schler (sp) is one of the evaluators, so I will certainly put a lot of weight on the comments he gets. Thanks for your encouragement.


----------



## hotel4dogs

If you are thinking Northern Flyways, you must be in the midwest. If you don't get into their CCA, our club is supposed to be sponsoring one in 2011, we're in the (south of) Chicago area. 
I did ringside with my boy, with an awesome pro, and we had a great time doing it. Didn't want to send him out, didn't want him gone!




Tamarackgoldens said:


> Thanks AmbigaGR. I see you have a Golly G pup in your pictures. My dog is sired by a Golly G CH. Haven't given up-just not sure if I can afford to go the pro route or if it is worth it. If we get into the CCA, I will re-evaluate. Marcia Schler (sp) is one of the evaluators, so I will certainly put a lot of weight on the comments he gets. Thanks for your encouragement.


----------



## GoldenSail

Tamarackgoldens said:


> I would love to see Golden Sails little bitch in person-the picture is gorgeous. Rookie doesn't have a lot of coat either. Last fall between getting his senior and master, we entered a UKC breed show-we were both complete novices. Ended up getting best in show both days. They want dogs in hard working condition, so it was to our advantage. Decided to try AKC and did 3 week-ends. Took 3rd in open each time no matter how many dogs were in the class. Told each time by other exhibitors he needed to stay out of the water and field so he could grow coat, needed to put at least 10 lbs on, and he needed to have whiskers removed. None of the 3 were on option as getting a MH was priority. Now the goal is to qualify for the Master National next year, so still not sure it the breed ring is an option. Hope to get into Northern Flyways CCA.


She's a cutie pie  You should talk to hotel4dogs, her boy finished very fast. He is a nice moderate boy, in great shape, with moderate coat.


----------



## Tamarackgoldens

Who did you use for handling?


----------



## hotel4dogs

check your PMs, sent you a message



Tamarackgoldens said:


> Who did you use for handling?


----------



## Tamarackgoldens

I received your pm. Tried to send message back to you but I don't have enough posts to send messages. Most of the time I am a "lurker"-I just read posts and learn.
Thanks


----------



## Selli-Belle

Love this thread and the pics of classic Goldens.


----------



## BethK

Tatnall said:


> Ronaker's Novato Cain?
> 
> Hondo (Honor's Darado of Spindrift) was a CH/AFC, I believe
> 
> (whoops, didn't see the answers)


 
Our Hondo was in fact CH/AFC. I also tried to get a CDX on him, but he decided to play ham for the crowd, flashed his smile on a recall, the crowd went nuts laughing...and that was the end of that dream. As soon as I would take him into the ring, he would smile and ham it up for the crowd. He was an amazing dog in many ways, but mostly for his heart. He wasn't just a show dog, he was part of the family often kicking me out of my bed as a kid so he could have it.


----------



## sammydog

BethK said:


> Our Hondo was in fact CH/AFC. I also tried to get a CDX on him, but he decided to play ham for the crowd, flashed his smile on a recall, the crowd went nuts laughing...and that was the end of that dream. As soon as I would take him into the ring, he would smile and ham it up for the crowd. He was an amazing dog in many ways, but mostly for his heart. He wasn't just a show dog, he was part of the family often kicking me out of my bed as a kid so he could have it.


Sounds like an adorable boy! Those are quite the accomplishments as well. Did you get a CD on him? Do you have any Goldens currently?


----------



## hotel4dogs

Wow, that's an amazing accomplishment. I think they should allow AFC when considering the dual champions, it's such a fantastic achievement.




BethK said:


> Our Hondo was in fact CH/AFC. I also tried to get a CDX on him, but he decided to play ham for the crowd, flashed his smile on a recall, the crowd went nuts laughing...and that was the end of that dream. As soon as I would take him into the ring, he would smile and ham it up for the crowd. He was an amazing dog in many ways, but mostly for his heart. He wasn't just a show dog, he was part of the family often kicking me out of my bed as a kid so he could have it.


----------



## marybuffie

*Dual CH Golden Retrievers*

A dual champion is a dog who has earned 2 CH titles. The hunt tests do not count, though are quite commendable. CH is in reference to a competitive title. Not against a set of rules, but other dogs as well. Can. Triple CH FTCH AFTCH OTCH Firemark's Push Comes to Shove Can. WCX Am. *** OS is still alive. I will be using him on my Polly next year. I am hoping to get a dual CH on a pup out of that litter, but I know it will cost me 1 arm and 1 leg for trainers


----------



## Loisiana

marybuffie said:


> A dual champion is a dog who has earned 2 CH titles. The hunt tests do not count, though are quite commendable. CH is in reference to a competitive title. Not against a set of rules, but other dogs as well. Can. Triple CH FTCH AFTCH OTCH Firemark's Push Comes to Shove Can. WCX Am. *** OS is still alive. I will be using him on my Polly next year. I am hoping to get a dual CH on a pup out of that litter, but I know it will cost me 1 arm and 1 leg for trainers


Not quite, in Goldens a dual champion specifically refers a breed CH and a field trial FC. A dog with, say, CH OTCH is not technically considered a dual champion. At least in America, I don't know about Canada.

As for champion titles being competitive against other dogs, that is true for CH, FC and AFC, and the American OTCH. It is not true for the MACH or tracking CT. It is also not true of the Canadian OTCH, which is equivalent to an American UD.


----------



## Jige

Thanks for clearing that up I was wondering how I was going to find that explained to me in simple english.

I am still so new to all this my head swims when people start talking about points and majors( AKC conformations) and oh lord I have forgotten what I was thinking my mind is all awhirl. Someday I will be knowledgable like you guys. I hope.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I don't know why they don't allow AFC, though. It is a competitive title.
Push is an amazing dog, but he's a Canadian triple CH, which isn't quite the same because of the bench CH in Canada being significantly less competitive than the AKC CH. Also the OTCH is our UD.... I'm not trying to belittle him, I think he is awe-inspiring, just commenting that the Canadian Triple CH is quite different.
I do hope you get a dual CH on the puppy out of your Polly! Be sure to post and let us know how you are doing, as we will be cheering you on! I know I will!




marybuffie said:


> A dual champion is a dog who has earned 2 CH titles. The hunt tests do not count, though are quite commendable. CH is in reference to a competitive title. Not against a set of rules, but other dogs as well. Can. Triple CH FTCH AFTCH OTCH Firemark's Push Comes to Shove Can. WCX Am. *** OS is still alive. I will be using him on my Polly next year. I am hoping to get a dual CH on a pup out of that litter, but I know it will cost me 1 arm and 1 leg for trainers


----------



## AmbikaGR

hotel4dogs said:


> I don't know why they don't allow AFC, though. It is a competitive title.



Because it is only open to amateurs thus the competition is not against the "best of the best". Not that it is not an UNBELIEVABLE accomplishment but it is not competing against the pros.


----------



## sterregold

An AFC is earned in limited competition--so while some of the Amateurs are among the top handlers out there, an FC is earned against all comers.

And just one other note--the CKC also does not officially designate a Triple CH title. He is technically DC AFTCH OTCH ....

I know Push and his owners and saw him run trials up here (including one where he earned a 3rd towards his FTCH/AFTCH). He had the goods to compete in the field, but even in Canada he was shown very selectively to attain his conformation CH, and would have been in tough in the AKC breed ring. He is a handsome dog, but carries a modest coat.



hotel4dogs said:


> I don't know why they don't allow AFC, though. It is a competitive title.
> Push is an amazing dog, but he's a Canadian triple CH, which isn't quite the same because of the bench CH in Canada being significantly less competitive than the AKC CH. Also the OTCH is our UD.... I'm not trying to belittle him, I think he is awe-inspiring, just commenting that the Canadian Triple CH is quite different.
> I do hope you get a dual CH on the puppy out of your Polly! Be sure to post and let us know how you are doing, as we will be cheering you on! I know I will!


----------



## hotel4dogs

Thanks Hank and Shelly, for clearing that up for me.
Of course, in my humble and often wrong opinion, any dog that is trained and run to that level by an amateur is MORE impressive....


----------



## sterregold

hotel4dogs said:


> Thanks Hank and Shelly, for clearing that up for me.
> Of course, in my humble and often wrong opinion, any dog that is trained and run to that level by an amateur is MORE impressive....


And in Push's case that would be true--Mike is an owner-handler-trainer, and trained and ran him in both Opens and Am's. Push got points in Open and because he was handled by an amateur , they counted towards his AM title as well as his FTCH. 
That said, a great number of the dogs running Am's are actually full-time pro trained--they live with the pro, come to the trial with the pro, are run in the Open by the pro, and just come off the truck to run with the owner or another designated amateur handler to go after the Am title. It is a point of grumbling among some of the fully amateur-owner-handlers that these designated handlers for the Am. are "Shamateurs"--as they are essentially full-time in dogs, and often training every day with their pro, but because they are not receiving the training cheque or being paid as an assistant, they are still techically amateurs.


----------

