From Full Tilt, because I find this interesting.
Why is “competitive” a bad word for many people?
Because some competitive people really are nasty. But also because for some people, competitive implies a lack of concern for the dog, that people are only competing because they’re interested in the 1st place and nothing else. And because of that ambition, dogs are neglected or replaced if they don’t meet a standard. It’s one of those “grain of truth” rumours, where an occurance gets skewed and swirled until it doesn’t resemble the truth much at all.
Should everyone be given a “participation ribbon”?
Nope. It’s a competition, and you have to earn it. “It” might be different for different people – a clear round rosette or a 1st – but you still have to earn it.
If you want to win, why do people assume you will have a bad attitude?
Because some people who want to win do have a bad attitude, and those people are the one’s that get remembered and talked about. Nice winners aren’t worth gossiping about.
Is there anything wrong with doing agility “just for fun”?
Yes. Well, that’s my immediate reaction, but I’ll admit that I’m being a little harsh.
In my personal experience, “just for fun” is an excuse for bad training and laziness. If you’re doing something “just for fun”, you might as well just let your dog run all their contacts, or in fact, why not just let them hurl themselves off the Aframe? Or start when your pup is only 6mths old, because it’s not like you’re ever going to do strenuous. Some people think that “just for fun” is the only way to have a relaxed, happy training session with your dog, even if that actually means letting your dog do whatever it wants. I do wonder if a lot of this stems from a) the skewed perceptions of competitive people as outlined above, b) failure of the person themselves to be able to train to a competitive standard/compete successfully, and therefore “just for fun” is an easy way out, or c) ignorance – they really don’t know that what they’re doing is harming their dog, mentally or physically.
Having said all that, I’ve also experienced “just for fun” agility which was fun and relaxed and involved training dogs safely and enthusiastically. Even better, the incredibly wise and dedicated people overseeing this particular “just for fun” group had the ability to judge those people training with them, and suggest that they should seek out different/more competitive/more experienced training if they thought that “just for fun” wasn’t tapping in to the potential of the dog/handler. I have nothing but love for those people, because they understand that even if agility begins as “just for fun”, it might turn into something competitive later, and so training properly from the start is important.
Besides, all the agility I do is just for fun. I just happen to believe that competing is a lot of fun!
Why do some people think competitive people are to be avoided?
See above.
If you fail, why do people make excuses? (my dog had the fastest time in standard, well yeah, they knocked 2 bars and missed their A-frame contact….but STILL).
Particular excuse above is a case of finding the positive. It’s a confidence boost to know that your 5f time was fast enough for 1st, because you feel like it’s within touching distance.
Do people that are not as competitive actually have BETTER dogs due to the lack of pressure to perform perfectly?
No. But people who are under pressure sometimes have worse dogs than those who seek to be competitive without compromising the fun.
Why must a person that wins be almost OVERLY humble, almost to the point of not even being happy for what they did?
I have no idea. I bounce around like an idiot for days if I win anything!
Why can’t many people be happy and gracious when others are successful?
Because sometimes the people who win are just idiots*. It’s amazing how much louder the applause is, how much wider the smiles are, when a genuine and lovely person wins a class.
*This is not the word that first sprung to mind.
Do “just for fun” people always have a more positive outlook on trialing than those that are more competitive?
No, because “just for fun” people don’t trial/compete. Or none that I’ve met!
Why do people spend a great amount of their time looking for that PERFECT dog to “take them to the spotlight”?
I’m not sure. I’m not sure that anyone who does this will ever find the PERFECT dog, because clearly their opinion isn’t based on any kind of standard that I understand or believe in. On the other hand, I do think that regardless of how good a trainer/handler you are, you do need a very good dog. Natasha Wise wouldn’t be a World Champion if she had a Bassett Hound. So if you want to run in Champ, or have a sub-4s flyball dog, you do need a certain kind of dog. But if you have to go out and get a dog based purely on fulfilling that ambition, then you probably shouldn’t get a dog.
