Gun Dog Forum

Do yall put any more weight on an FC title than an AFC title, when considering breeding stock? Obviously we would all prefer FC/AFC, but given one or the other do you have a preference? Does the "open" or "amateur" Hold any bearing?

JIm

Just like looking at titles on a pedigree, there is more to this equation than just a title.

Look at each dog as an individual. Its life history, it's owner(s) history, where and how it achieved the titles, etc.

As a big umbrella statement the FC carries more water as by earning the FC that dog has defeated all competitors, not just ones in stakes handled by amateurs. That being said, look past just what the title is.

I personally like to see dogs in the pedigree that have FC, AFC infront of their name. I like one that can get and come in. I want the dog that can get both jobs done.

Joe

Both carry zero weight to me. Like someone said, its all about the dogs. I've seen titled dogs that did absolutely zero for me and untitled dogs that I'd love to have a pup out of.

I agreethat I want to see the dogs in action my question is which would you rather AFC or FC. Every one puts an emphasis on FTs improving the breed and whether we admit it or not titles on a paper DO mean something. So which holds more weight?

You're looking for a simple answer to a not so simple question.

In pointing breeds, the FC is given more credibility by the AKC because it counts toward a DC.

Where as I too want to see the dog in the feld before breeding to them or buying a pup out of one, those that seem to think the titles meaningless ought to try go earn one. I am impressed with every title a dog gets, including CD.

The FC means you have to beat the pros, and in the Central/Mid-West Regions of the Brittanies it is tough! Holman, John, Tracy, Tilson, etc all have good dogs, and they just keep going to get another one out of the trailer.

You also need to consider if the title came from AA ot GD, and if that matters to you.

The level of competition from a handler's point of view is considerably higher in open stakes as a whole. That is not to say that there are not good amateur handlers, there certainly are ...but many of them are better accountants, salespeople, Dr's, lawyers, etc... I see a lot more amateur stakes where judges are scraping around for placements than you do in open stakes, and often the same dog competed in both stakes with different handlers. To answer the question directly, I give the FC more "weight" personally...but all that is really secondary as researching what type of stakes the dog has won and personal observation or the observation of trusted sources carries more weight with me than the title on its own.

Neil wrote:those that seem to think the titles meaningless ought to try go earn one

Ditto

Both of these titles are earned with hard work and effort. I certainly think that the FC holds more weight due to the factthat you are competing against the pros. As an Amateur, I am elated to have earned both. It takes a lot of time, effort, and money to travel and compete at these events. If you want to judge how easy it was for a particular dog to earn that title, take a look at the dog' s total record. Here is a link to a great website that tracks most of the AKC dogs and events, mostly Mid America and East Coast. http://www.remekvizslas.net/ftHome.php4

If you click on the event and then the dog, it will give you all of the dogs placements and how many starters in the stake or you can just search the dog by name or owner. Politics are politics, but the numbers don't lie. I also look to see how many different sets of grounds the dog has competed on and not just its home turf. Was the dog with a pro and the pro titled the dog, if so why is there not an AFC on the dog. ay different scenarios to look at.

Even in a mediocre stake, you still had to beat the best that day and still had to win a Major for the title. There are a lot of 6 - 8 year old dogs out there that never get titled,and it is not from lack of trying.

IMO both titles carry weight. I'm not saying a non-titled dog can't be better, there is just no way of justifying it without hunting over the dog for a period off time.

Both are not easy to get. It takes a lot to put a FC on a dog and it even more to put FC on an AA. dog. AFC is nothing to sneeze at either, it takes a lot to get this title. I think in my opinion and it is like comparing apples to oranges. It is hard to compare the two. But, when it comes down to the wire a FC in my opinion is far more prestigious.
.

We have people running amature out here that also run and compete very well in open stakes. Myself I do not think it's fair to true amature's. That said, I put more value on AFC. I suspect that there are some dogs an amature just can't get around but a pro might. Also an open dog with a pro get's a lot more work than a amature dog. Yet there are amature dogs easily capable of competing in open stakes. Those are the dogs that interest me.

As an amateur I am proud when I can butt heads and run with the pro's in Open stakes and then turn around and put points on their dogs in amateur stakes. Ironically, my Vizsla has more FC points and was the number 6 Vizsla in Open but wasn't even in the top 25 for Amateur. I'm proud of all of our titles though and so far we have 19 of them.( mBISS GCH CH MHA RE CD MX MXJ XF VC.) Even if he doesn't get either FC or AFC I wouldn't trade him for the hottest trial dog in the country. He entered his first MH Test at 13mo's and is the first dog of any breed to earn the MHA title. We went from placing in a mounted trial in the high desert of Cali to making all of the cuts at Westminster on back to back weekends. How many dogs can do that? I could walk away tomorrow needing only 2 pts. with no regrets about not getting an FC or AFC. He's proven to me that he is worth feeding.

Neil wrote:Where as I too want to see the dog in the feld before breeding to them or buying a pup out of one, those that seem to think the titles meaningless ought to try go earn one. I am impressed with every title a dog gets, including CD.

The FC means you have to beat the pros, and in the Central/Mid-West Regions of the Brittanies it is tough! Holman, John, Tracy, Tilson, etc all have good dogs, and they just keep going to get another one out of the trailer.

You also need to consider if the title came from AA ot GD, and if that matters to you.

I also think that the number of dogs in the stakes that were won is a consideration. Winning a 32 dog stake is more impressive than 14-18.

Chukar12 wrote:The level of competition from a handler's point of view is considerably higher in open stakes as a whole. That is not to say that there are not good amateur handlers, there certainly are ...but many of them are better accountants, salespeople, Dr's, lawyers, etc... I see a lot more amateur stakes where judges are scraping around for placements than you do in open stakes, and often the same dog competed in both stakes with different handlers. To answer the question directly, I give the FC more "weight" personally...but all that is really secondary as researching what type of stakes the dog has won and personal observation or the observation of trusted sources carries more weight with me than the title on its own.

I'm running in OGD, AA, AND AMATEUR at every Britt trial in cal city. Do you mind scouting for me? She will be the one wearing pink collars and boots. I'll be walking!

I suppose that i would give slightly more weight to a FC, but not really much more. In our area the majority of the dogs your competing against are run by amatuers..most run amatuer and open. However there are a few pro's so it does up the game a bit.......
Locally britts are a little different as chukar12 knows....there are some big pro strings that roll in for the brittany trials.

ultracarry wrote:I'm running in OGD, AA, AND AMATEUR at every Britt trial in cal city. Do you mind scouting for me? She will be the one wearing pink collars and boots. I'll be walking!

Those Brittany's won't even know what to do with a dog that stands on point!

I'm running in OGD, AA, AND AMATEUR at every Britt trial in cal city. Do you mind scouting for me? She will be the one wearing pink collars and boots. I'll be walking!

Your walking behind kimber in AA? Good luck with that .

Like others have said, it really depends. You cant just look at the title, becuse not all FC's are created equal. You have to look at the trials the dogs won, the number of dogs that ran, and also the level of competition. Did the dog finish its FC running weekend GD trials, while the AFC finished while running 1 hr AAA Championships?

Like Neil said, in the Brittany world, especially in the Midwest during the fall, any placement is a great accomplishment. The AA Championships during the week typically draw 4-5 Pros with 50-60 dogs entered. Because of that, the weekend trials often have 40-50 dogs entered in the weekend open stakes as well. A win in a trial like that is a heck of a lot more impressive than a win in an 15-20 dog weekend trial where no Pros show up.

I send my dog off with a Pro and she finished her FC before she turned 2 1/2 running GD. She has since opened up and is only running 1 hr AA. She is still looking for that 1hr AA win. Something that came pretty easy when she was running weekend GD. This fall, the average number of entry's in the stakes she ran was between 40-50 dogs, and on average, there were 5 Pros at every trial. Finishing against competition like that is TOUGH!!!

For me though, I will hopefully get the most satisfaction out of her finishing her AFC. I don't get the opportunity to make a lot of the trials, so I don't get a lot of opportunities to run her. And when I do get to run her, typically I have to run her against Amateurs that are very, very good, with lots of great dogs and many years of experience running dogs. The kind of Amateurs Don was talking about. If she finishes it will mean she beat some great dogs with great Amateur handlers, while having to overcome a handler who has a heck of a lot less experience. So while many people will give the FC more weight than the AFC, you do have to look at the big picture.

I pay a lot more attention to what stake they were run in than I do which title they have. I think the titles are a good indicator for dogs you have never seen but for the dogs I know I judge on how the dogs perform and little on the titles. Little difference between the two in importance though.

Ezzy

bb560m wrote:

ultracarry wrote:I'm running in OGD, AA, AND AMATEUR at every Britt trial in cal city. Do you mind scouting for me? She will be the one wearing pink collars and boots. I'll be walking!

Those Brittany's won't even know what to do with a dog that stands on point!

I have read a couple comments like this from you and i can not tell if you are being sarcastic or did one of these dogs "bleep" in your cheerios

I'm sure he doesnt mean to hurt anyones feelings. He's a nice guy.

ultracarry wrote:I'm sure he doesnt mean to hurt anyones feelings. He's a nice guy.

He is not hurting my feelings, to each there own, i am just curious thats all.

DonF wrote:We have people running amature out here that also run and compete very well in open stakes. Myself I do not think it's fair to true amature's. That said, I put more value on AFC. I suspect that there are some dogs an amature just can't get around but a pro might. Also an open dog with a pro get's a lot more work than a amature dog. Yet there are amature dogs easily capable of competing in open stakes. Those are the dogs that interest me.

I kinda agree here. It is like all up the NASCAR Cup Drivers winning the Nationwide races every weekend. Not fair. If I am an amature, and running my dog in an AFC trial, why would I have to compete against a bunch of professional handlers and trainers that have already titled several FC's? It makes the competition in the AFC just as diffcult as in an FC if the person training and handling that dog is a proven professional.

Ah, A professional cannot handle a dog in an amateur stake, in fact they cannot even scout. So I am not sure what Upnorth is saying.

Even though I am an Amateur, I run mostly open stakes, I enjoy competition, don't often win, but it is fun to try.

UpNorthHuntin wrote:

DonF wrote:We have people running amature out here that also run and compete very well in open stakes. Myself I do not think it's fair to true amature's. That said, I put more value on AFC. I suspect that there are some dogs an amature just can't get around but a pro might. Also an open dog with a pro get's a lot more work than a amature dog. Yet there are amature dogs easily capable of competing in open stakes. Those are the dogs that interest me.

I kinda agree here. It is like all up the NASCAR Cup Drivers winning the Nationwide races every weekend. Not fair. If I am an amature, and running my dog in an AFC trial, why would I have to compete against a bunch of professional handlers and trainers that have already titled several FC's? It makes the competition in the AFC just as diffcult as in an FC if the person training and handling that dog is a proven professional.

I disagree. If the handler is not a Pro, they aren't a Pro. The rules are fairly black and white on this issue, even some may not agree with them. If your going to run AGD or AAA in the Brit world, you better get used to running against some amateurs that could easily compete as Pro's. As a matter of fact, the winningest AA hour Brit in breed history, that I believe just retired, was handled by a guy who is easily as good as any Pro there is, but is an amateur. Since Brits have to qualify for Nats every year, you will run against them. Telling them they can't run their dogs as amateurs becuse they are too good, only waters down the AFC title. If you and your dog can't beat the best amateurs and dogs, then you don't deserve the AFC title. It shouldn't be easy. Just because an amateur may be as good as a Pro, doesn't make them a Pro.

jetjockey wrote:

UpNorthHuntin wrote:

DonF wrote:We have people running amature out here that also run and compete very well in open stakes. Myself I do not think it's fair to true amature's. That said, I put more value on AFC. I suspect that there are some dogs an amature just can't get around but a pro might. Also an open dog with a pro get's a lot more work than a amature dog. Yet there are amature dogs easily capable of competing in open stakes. Those are the dogs that interest me.

I kinda agree here. It is like all up the NASCAR Cup Drivers winning the Nationwide races every weekend. Not fair. If I am an amature, and running my dog in an AFC trial, why would I have to compete against a bunch of professional handlers and trainers that have already titled several FC's? It makes the competition in the AFC just as diffcult as in an FC if the person training and handling that dog is a proven professional.

I disagree. If the handler is not a Pro, they aren't a Pro. The rules are fairly black and white on this issue, even some may not agree with them. If your going to run AGD or AAA in the Brit world, you better get used to running against some amateurs that could easily compete as Pro's. As a matter of fact, the winningest AA hour Brit in breed history, that I believe just retired, was handled by a guy who is easily as good as any Pro there is, but is an amateur. Since Brits have to qualify for Nats every year, you will run against them. Telling them they can't run their dogs as amateurs becuse they are too good, only waters down the AFC title. If you and your dog can't beat the best amateurs and dogs, then you don't deserve the AFC title. It shouldn't be easy. Just because an amateur may be as good as a Pro, doesn't make them a Pro.

Most of the Brit stakes around here are closed to dogs other than Brits. They can't handle the true AA pointers.

Many Brit trials are open. But when you can fill the ones that arent, with Brits, and have a waiting list, why open them?

Well that is true for the vast majority of dogs that aren't pointers.

I also you need to consider the factor of many breed owners and handlers only run their titled dogs in Limited stakes, this seems to be a tradition enforced by peer pressure. As stated, since Britts must qualify for the NC each year, you don't see it. I have seen 3 minute stakes with a dozen or more FC's, and hour stakes where 3/4 of the field were.

As for the closed Britt trials, it to is to qualify.

Face it they can't run with the big boys. We wouldn't close our stakes except for the Nationals. At our trials all dogs are welcome.

And...we're off......

Wyndancer wrote:And...we're off......

"Thumbs up"

kensfishing wrote:Face it they can't run with the big boys. We wouldn't close our stakes except for the Nationals. At our trials all dogs are welcome.

These type of posts are what get threads locked. We are supposed to just delete them and let the thread continue. I don't always have time to read every post and don't feel like we should have to when we have a forum for adults and they all know what the rules are. Keep the posts on topic and trying to run some one or someone's dog down is not included in this or any other topic.

Ezzy

For those of you who have asked, this thread, the nonsense preceding this post and the nonsense most assuredly to occur after it is precisely the reason I flatly refuse to be a moderator. I am active in the Brittany clubs in Ca., Ore., Idaho, and Nevada when they have field trials on horseback grounds...none of the above are closed trials. I do not believe there are any in Washington closed either. The classics and championships just like in the GSP' world are closed...

It is also true that in the Brittany world that with a few exemptions it is necessary to qualify a dog very year for the national championship and in some areas the club participation is so high and days limited especially in the mid west they close the trials...out west not so much, we work very well with most of the gsp people...it works out well for judging assignments.

This breed v that breed hogwash is more than ridiculous, the rhetoric says way more about the competitors than the dogs. There is data if someone has no better use of their time to look at...I think if one examined the placements to entries per breed in the AKC Gun Dog Nationals over a number of years they may be less sure of their opinions and observations garnered from their narrow world and Internet accomplishments.

I am not sure there is a better way to keep your credibility narrow in scope than being the guy that personifies either: the older I get the better I was and or the younger I am the better I am going to be...

for the record, I own and run Britts, in a more diverse cross section than most and I will continue to do so...I will run with whomever cares to bring a dog to the line ...and that position doesn't change whether I win or lose on any given day.

Chukar12 wrote:For those of you who have asked, this thread, the nonsense preceding this post and the nonsense most assuredly to occur after it is precisely the reason I flatly refuse to be a moderator. I am active in the Brittany clubs in Ca., Ore., Idaho, and Nevada when they have field trials on horseback grounds...none of the above are closed trials. I do not believe there are any in Washington closed either. The classics and championships just like in the GSP' world are closed...

It is also true that in the Brittany world that with a few exemptions it is necessary to qualify a dog very year for the national championship and in some areas the club participation is so high and days limited especially in the mid west they close the trials...out west not so much, we work very well with most of the gsp people...it works out well for judging assignments.

This breed v that breed hogwash is more than ridiculous, the rhetoric says way more about the competitors than the dogs. There is data if someone has no better use of their time to look at...I think if one examined the placements to entries per breed in the AKC Gun Dog Nationals over a number of years they may be less sure of their opinions and observations garnered from their narrow world and Internet accomplishments.

I am not sure there is a better way to keep your credibility narrow in scope than being the guy that personifies either: the older I get the better I was and or the younger I am the better I am going to be...

for the record, I own and run Britts, in a more diverse cross section than most and I will continue to do so...I will run with whomever cares to bring a dog to the line ...and that position doesn't change whether I win or lose on any given day.

There are trials here in AZ. and other states that close their trials to just breed special to quailfy for thier nationals. This isn't just my opinion, it's fact. I've run the grounds in alot of years and different states. The will run their dogs on grounds are are great for their breed and run their open stakes to all other breeds on junk ground. Been there and done that. I'm not bashing any breed of any sort. I'
ve had the pleasure of hunting over some of the nicest brits in years past. I've also hunted over and judged every breed that runs in trials. I've placed dogs other than my own and upset alot of people doing so. I've also been asked to judge the Brit Nationals and had to pass because of things that were beyond my control. That being said that's life. I don't get offended when someone bashes me or my dogs or what I do. But when people who make statements about the weight of a FC or AFC and why pros run so many. it's their job. Most of the ametures I know have great dogs run by pros but can't finish the AFC, many reasons go into this. I would rather run against the pros than ametures. Too many of them cry about this and that. Most pros don't like ametures to run their dogs because they know them better than the pros.

whatsnext wrote:I have read a couple comments like this from you and i can not tell if you are being sarcastic or did one of these dogs "bleep" in your cheerios

I'm just bustin' some b*lls. I know there are good Britts out there - a ton will outrun my dog every day. I also see a ton (higher % wise than most breeds) that just run over birds though. Maybe bad trainers? Feel free to hate on vizslas and give it back to me - no hard feelings - I'm just joking around.

bb560m wrote:

whatsnext wrote:I have read a couple comments like this from you and i can not tell if you are being sarcastic or did one of these dogs "bleep" in your cheerios

I'm just bustin' some b*lls. I know there are good Britts out there - a ton will outrun my dog every day. I also see a ton (higher % wise than most breeds) that just run over birds though. Maybe bad trainers? Feel free to hate on vizslas and give it back to me - no hard feelings - I'm just joking around.

Not a good thing to do. We have enough problems without a troll trying to cause an argument. Sadly, we have lost many of them.

Ezzy

WOW! A Mod calling a member a Troll for nothing more than a light hearted attempt at humor? Get a grip.

I was not offended, because I don't care what he thinks, says, or writes, were he or his dogs any account, I would know him. But I found no humor in his posts. Change the breed to yours and see if you smile. And isn't on topic.

Neil wrote:I was not offended, because I don't care what he thinks, says, or writes, were he or his dogs any account, I would know him. But I found no humor in his posts. Change the breed to yours and see if you smile. And isn't on topic.

I have a couple breeds and you can rag on them all you want; heck at shorthair trials sometimes the judges rag on my vizsla - it's happened. Sorry if I offended anyone; no more humor at the expense of a chosen breed. Like I said, there are plenty of good Britts out there, meant no harm.

bb560m wrote:

whatsnext wrote:I have read a couple comments like this from you and i can not tell if you are being sarcastic or did one of these dogs "bleep" in your cheerios

I'm just bustin' some b*lls. I know there are good Britts out there - a ton will outrun my dog every day. I also see a ton (higher % wise than most breeds) that just run over birds though. Maybe bad trainers? Feel free to hate on vizslas and give it back to me - no hard feelings - I'm just joking around.

No hard feelings here i was just curious is all.

Neil wrote:I was not offended, because I don't care what he thinks, says, or writes, were he or his dogs any account, I would know him. But I found no humor in his posts. Change the breed to yours and see if you smile. And isn't on topic.

If you weren't offended why the dig? You just personally insulted him.

ACooper wrote:

Neil wrote:I was not offended, because I don't care what he thinks, says, or writes, were he or his dogs any account, I would know him. But I found no humor in his posts. Change the breed to yours and see if you smile. And isn't on topic.

If you weren't offended why the dig? You just personally insulted him.

I'm wondering if his dog knows how to point

Get it back on topic

Ezzy

I just put the two certificates on my reloading scale...they weighed exactly the same

Chukar12 wrote:I just put the two certificates on my reloading scale...they weighed exactly the same

You would think that solid gold AFC lettering would weigh more than a Golg FC

It means a lot more to me when they win at horseback all breed trials - completely open stakes with all breeds. getting a national in any breed is quite impressive though - let them run with everything.

I believe I read all the replies and nobody mentioned that to win a AFC title, the dog must win 2 times,one being a 3 point major or better and the required 10 points. FC title is only one major win and of course have 10 points.

jetjockey wrote: I disagree. If the handler is not a Pro, they aren't a Pro. The rules are fairly black and white on this issue, even some may not agree with them. If your going to run AGD or AAA in the Brit world, you better get used to running against some amateurs that could easily compete as Pro's. As a matter of fact, the winningest AA hour Brit in breed history, that I believe just retired, was handled by a guy who is easily as good as any Pro there is, but is an amateur. Since Brits have to qualify for Nats every year, you will run against them. Telling them they can't run their dogs as amateurs becuse they are too good, only waters down the AFC title. If you and your dog can't beat the best amateurs and dogs, then you don't deserve the AFC title. It shouldn't be easy. Just because an amateur may be as good as a Pro, doesn't make them a Pro.

What gives the handler the "PRO" designation? Is it simply because he is getting paid to handle the dog? The term "Amature" in AFC in itself refers to the Handler, not the dog. If it referred to the dog, an already titled AFC would not be allowed to run in an AFC stake. My only point is this. If I am a "true" amature, then why should I have to compete with someone who has titled 10 or 20 dogs in the past. Doesn't that in istself blur the lines in the reasoning for AFC. Isn't the AFC set up as an entry point for less experienced handlers and dogs to compete and gain experience to compete at the FC/NFC level?