It is currently Mon 20 Nov, 2017 9:38 am

Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

For a wide range of agility issues
Forum information
This is a public area of the board, for agility topics of general interest. Click on the Board Index link to see the full list of sections available to post in.

Please use the various Shows sections further down the board for questions about specific agility shows. If you are searching for clubs in particular areas, or trying to contact someone, your query should be posted in the Members Only section.

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Jules Vickerman on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 11:19 am

For me, I'd not like to see the jump height ratio increased for any height, large/large are jumping 28% as are mediums so think that's fair? (plus think mediums would be very unhappy indeed)

I think I'll still be going to FAB and DigIt shows so Flynny-bobs has a choice of jump heights, large or standard :)

For me it's the jump height ratio and I'd also be in support of a 5th micro height in future too as they also jump 50% like the small/larges. People will say these are just numbers, some will say it's 1.5 and 1.3 but to me it's about fit, active, healthy dogs taking part with their peers on an even playing field. :yes:

I don't mind people asking why I support this, am happy to answer, I've not seen any evidence yet produced that would change my mind, even the Mouwen study is contradicted by Dr Christine Zink and others, and the KC is surely in a position of contradicting information on it's own website, old I know but still linked to the KC
In a study undertaken in 1992 entitled Measurements of Vertical Ground Reaction Force in Jumping Dogs, the authors found that the forces increased significantly with increasing height. Vertical ground reaction forces are considered to be an accurate indication of the impact placed on the forelegs when a dog jumps


:snoopy:
Jules, two girlies and a bloke x
User avatar
Jules Vickerman
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat 22 Mar, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Huddersfield, Up North

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Bill Glover on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 11:31 am

And the funny thing is that only a few years back people were quoting experts who stated that lowering jumps heights was going to harm our dogs :roll:
While watching and running dogs at lower heights it is clear that they go faster and therefore lowering the jump heights for many of our dogs is likely to cause more impact injuries

http://www.ukagility.com/Articles/JumpHeights.aspx
User avatar
Bill Glover
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sat 22 Mar, 2008 6:38 pm
Location: Berkshire

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Mandy Dumont on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 11:46 am

I think there is research out there to show both view points so maybe common sense is the answer? The discussion proposal is for an optional height for these dogs so it would be up to the handlers to use their own judgement.
User avatar
Mandy Dumont
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Sat 22 Mar, 2008 7:04 pm
Location: East Sussex

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Jules Vickerman on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 11:57 am

Bill Glover wrote:And the funny thing is that only a few years back people were quoting experts who stated that lowering jumps heights was going to harm our dogs :roll:
While watching and running dogs at lower heights it is clear that they go faster and therefore lowering the jump heights for many of our dogs is likely to cause more impact injuries

http://www.ukagility.com/Articles/JumpHeights.aspx


wow Bill you're right (as always), there are contradictions all over that page
As said though, it’s been suggested that this is not as scientific as it could have been.


I did like (and agree with) the emphasis on teaching dogs to jump no matter what their size but I think an equal playing field is needed for the 4th height dogs :flowers:
Jules, two girlies and a bloke x
User avatar
Jules Vickerman
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat 22 Mar, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Huddersfield, Up North

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Jan Stubbs on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 12:01 pm

Bill Glover wrote:And the funny thing is that only a few years back people were quoting experts who stated that lowering jumps heights was going to harm our dogs :roll:
While watching and running dogs at lower heights it is clear that they go faster and therefore lowering the jump heights for many of our dogs is likely to cause more impact injuries

http://www.ukagility.com/Articles/JumpHeights.aspx

Yes..I wondered about this...

Second, it was important to us that we did not force equipment suppliers and the private individual to have to revamp their equipment to meet new jump heights. Therefore when creating the new height divisions, we kept in mind the current available equipment specifications. (One manufacturer has told us that cost to change their hire equipment to different jump heights such as USDAA would be in the region of £8,500 and the cost to clubs around £12 per jump.)

...now that's sensible.


For me it's the jump height ratio and I'd also be in support of a 5th micro height in future too as they also jump 50% like the small/larges.

But it couldn't be viable as a competitive class. As it is now there can be 1 dog competing in a class and if they run clear they earn the same as a L dog winning against 200+ dogs. Fair enough it can't be helped but competitively it makes no sense. imo And some S handlers are saying the main issue for the small dogs is really the contact equipment not the jumps. the way round it is to really provide for most dogs is to combine height groups with lots of height alternatives - but people don't seem to want that.

( but my reasonong is based on my preferences - :winking: sooooo imo to be worth the cost of competing plus travel to any type of competitive show the min number in a class I feel it is worth the cost and effort is somewhere between from 25 and 50 dogs. )
User avatar
Jan Stubbs
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Tue 25 Mar, 2008 9:43 am
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Jules Vickerman on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 12:29 pm

Jan Stubbs wrote:
Bill Glover wrote:And the funny thing is that only a few years back people were quoting experts who stated that lowering jumps heights was going to harm our dogs :roll:
While watching and running dogs at lower heights it is clear that they go faster and therefore lowering the jump heights for many of our dogs is likely to cause more impact injuries

http://www.ukagility.com/Articles/JumpHeights.aspx

Yes..I wondered about this...


But what height of dog was this based on?


Second, it was important to us that we did not force equipment suppliers and the private individual to have to revamp their equipment to meet new jump heights. Therefore when creating the new height divisions, we kept in mind the current available equipment specifications. (One manufacturer has told us that cost to change their hire equipment to different jump heights such as USDAA would be in the region of £8,500 and the cost to clubs around £12 per jump.)

...now that's sensible.


Most manufacturers already build jumps to include 4th height now (and other obstacle adjustments) anyway (and who mentioned cost on the new weaves spacings) :roll:


For me it's the jump height ratio and I'd also be in support of a 5th micro height in future too as they also jump 50% like the small/larges.

But it couldn't be viable as a competitive class. As it is now there can be 1 dog competing in a class and if they run clear they earn the same as a L dog winning against 200+ dogs. Fair enough it can't be helped but competitively it makes no sense. imo And some S handlers are saying the main issue for the small dogs is really the contact equipment not the jumps. the way round it is to really provide for most dogs is to combine height groups with lots of height alternatives - but people don't seem to want that.[/quote]

( but my reasonong is based on my preferences - :winking: sooooo imo to be worth the cost of competing plus travel to any type of competitive show the min number in a class I feel it is worth the cost and effort is somewhere between from 25 and 50 dogs. )


But, would there be enough support for a 5th height then I'd go with it on the same principle. I'm sure the huge shows down south have much larger classes than 25-50 dogs...and Northern ones too, where's Pam or Mandy when you need them :D
Jules, two girlies and a bloke x
User avatar
Jules Vickerman
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat 22 Mar, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Huddersfield, Up North

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Jan Stubbs on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 1:03 pm

Jules I obviously can't know but I do think there would be more then enough dogs to justify a 4th height - even withn this small 3" height band. :flowers: Though at the 3 UKA shows I've been to the S/M/St were much the same size with most dogs in Mx.


I think on the whole I am fairly average in the standard and general attainment of my dogs and my general competitiveness. I want any descissions made to improve the quality of agility for as many dogs as possible and increase the stanndard of agility comp within KC agility. So yes I really do think some change would help to do this...and the easier to implement the better -

but different folk have put over some very good ideas...they might not be part of the 4th height group - and some are even against it - but really do have some very good ideas...which I have already stolen and listed! :yes: :winking: Right now I can't really see any of the different ideas as better then others... as long as something is done it probably dosen't matter too much what it is...


( Mollie is a standard height dog - I've only been to UKA three times and each time I enteted her Mx. Harriet is also St....and I did believe 26" was the better safer height for her to jump based on speed and angle of impact... so all this stuff is CONFUSING - I have my UKA entry forms in front of me and now I have no idea at all what height is best for my dogs...really....no idea! lol I will probably toss a coin! :winking: )
Last edited by Jan Stubbs on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 1:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Jan Stubbs
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Tue 25 Mar, 2008 9:43 am
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Jules Vickerman on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 1:15 pm

Jan Stubbs wrote:Jules I obviously can't know but I do think there would be more then enough dogs to justify a 4th height - even withn this small 3" height band. :flowers:


Just a PS on the raising medium issue you were talking about Jan, you've probably read (info in the pack) that this is in response to the KCs reason for rejection last time. They decided against raising medium because it would then become collie dominated.

I think we've all got our dog's welfare at heart as well :flowers: :snoopy:
Jules, two girlies and a bloke x
User avatar
Jules Vickerman
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Sat 22 Mar, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Huddersfield, Up North

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Jan Stubbs on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 4:12 pm

I think the collie domination was a very silly 'reason' lol. ABC classes deal with those pesky collies!!! :yes:
( ...ooooh....Harriet is giving me a funny look ... :unsure: :winking: )

I think if this goes through...even while it is being debated - it would be really interesting and helpful to be able to book some jumping sessions with agility experts to look at the way our dogs jump over different heights. :yes:
User avatar
Jan Stubbs
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Tue 25 Mar, 2008 9:43 am
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Brenda Tenten on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 4:43 pm

Jan Stubbs wrote:I think the collie domination was a very silly 'reason' lol.

It also wasn't an actual reason - it was a comment used by some supporters of a raised Medium height to denigrate those who preferred the FCI Medium height that was adopted - intended to belittle them by suggesting that they might be 'afraid' of collie competition - which they weren't. Surprising how easily myth becomes reality in some minds..... :paw:
User avatar
Brenda Tenten
 
Posts: 1562
Joined: Sat 22 Mar, 2008 5:05 pm
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Mandy Dumont on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 4:53 pm

This "reason" is from the minutes of the Liaison Council in Jan 2011 which is the last time that they discussed it.
User avatar
Mandy Dumont
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Sat 22 Mar, 2008 7:04 pm
Location: East Sussex

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Jan Stubbs on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 4:56 pm

Thanks read the pack - it's very interesting and yes answers a fair amount of questions - so a lot of options were already thrown out for a mix of 'reasons'.

Interesting read. :flowers:
User avatar
Jan Stubbs
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Tue 25 Mar, 2008 9:43 am
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Jan Stubbs on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 5:00 pm

Brenda Tenten wrote:
Jan Stubbs wrote:I think the collie domination was a very silly 'reason' lol.

It also wasn't an actual reason - it was a comment used by some supporters of a raised Medium height to denigrate those who preferred the FCI Medium height that was adopted - intended to belittle them by suggesting that they might be 'afraid' of collie competition - which they weren't. Surprising how easily myth becomes reality in some minds..... :paw:

aaaah.... thanks - no shock there! lol Yes it sounds too silly to be true..I heard this given out as a 'reason' several years ago but I've not seen it listed as a 'reason' until now...and it is just daft!

It is stuff like this that makes it hard to see what's really going on cos I'd be sure some of this is 'political' lol.. :yes: :flowers:
User avatar
Jan Stubbs
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Tue 25 Mar, 2008 9:43 am
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Pam Ellwood on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 5:01 pm

Jules Vickerman wrote:Well thanks for at least looking Pam, I thought there was some good stuff in there?

What specifically are your queries then? Is it more how would shows actually work given the extra classes? Or is it that you just don't agree with the 4th height? :flowers:

PS they aren't selected extracts, the quotes were specifically done for the 4th height supporters :snoopy:



Starting with the Mouwen study - the pack states that it "concludes that jumping higher is more damaging than lower heights" when even reading Peter van Dongen's summary it can be seen that the reverse is true. Read more of what Mouwen actually says.

Kinetic forces - a measly 11 dogs which only concludes that it's worth looking into whether what they think they found might cause injury.

Chris Zink is all over the place. Interesting that the pack doesn't mention that in her book she concludes that height to weight ratio is much more important in jumping ability than mere dog height.

The Australian comment can be disregarded as it offers no evidence and is based on what the contributor "feels".

I didn't spot last night that Emily Birch's study was of a mere 8 dogs. Where was the control group in this and the 11 dog study? How was the sample selected? Why was the sample so small as to make it impossible to draw any statistically significant conclusion?

Data from small independent shows is irrelevant since it is the KC system that 4th heighters are trying to change.

Overseas opinions based on what they are used to are also not helpful in this context. All they demonstrate is that in some circumstances a 4th height can work OK. Has anyone against a change here ever said otherwise? We don't happen to have those circumstances here.

No offence to the UK contributors but I note that there are no quotes from anyone who has run a big KC show for many years and has had to make the numerous changes we have been faced with work. Those people would also have more anecdotal experience of the effect on dogs of jumping various heights over a long period. Anecdote isn't a great argument but since so many 4th heighters seem to be basing their support on the fact that they happen to have a shorter Large dog at present I don't see why it shouldn't apply both ways.

Pam
Pam Ellwood
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon 24 Mar, 2008 8:13 pm

Re: Information Pack on 4th Height Discussion Item

Postby Mandy Dumont on Thu 06 Dec, 2012 5:11 pm

Pam Ellwood wrote:
No offence to the UK contributors but I note that there are no quotes from anyone who has run a big KC show for many years and has had to make the numerous changes we have been faced with work.

Pam


Well I was one of the show organisers quoted but obviously I don't count. :winking:
User avatar
Mandy Dumont
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Sat 22 Mar, 2008 7:04 pm
Location: East Sussex

PreviousNext

Return to The Agility Forum



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests