I like the landing side cross on the jump after the dogwalk, followed by rear crossing the double. We had a similar set-up on a Candy Gaiser GP course a few weeks ago. If you had solid contacts you could have excellerated while your dog was going into the dogwalk contact, allowing you to be in position ready to push out to the next jump.

On Candy's course, staying too close to the dogwalk and running with your dog to try and make that front cross resulted in a wide turn after the jump, a knocked bar, or an off course. 

Looks like 95% of the dogs (in the videos) read the rear crosses on the double correctly, allowing for them to land on the correct lead for the A-Frame approach.  

Katie

First, I just wanted to say a huge thanks to Eric for the time and effort he puts into this site and bringing us all this great video and discussion! 

In watching the video, I thought the most successful handlers sent the dog out to jump #2 so that they could move laterally into the dog to push the dog out to # 3 and # 4.

Thanks again !

 

Wendy

Yeah, that front cross followed by switch to a-frame seemed to be the smoothest in general. Note though the path used by those people who were successful at staying on the inside of that run.  They stuck very close to the dog walk, almost rfp'd at that #2 to #3 jump interface to get a good line from 3-4 with a simple out, and used long distance layering and run-for-the-hills speed to make the a-frame the obvious choice.

Looking at the impressions of speed (without the benefit of exact frame timing with realplayer), I would actually say that if well executed as described above, this would be the faster way to do the sequence, due to the fact you never have to do cross behind the dog. No matter how well trained and well-schooled the dog is in the cross behind, it's always inherently slower, always inherently generating a pause as you disappear from the dog's eye to reappear in the other.

Well, I have to admit  to being one of those people who can't possibly stay anywhere near my dog's head for more than a split second as he goes tearing by--and I also have to wonder if those people who *can* run at their BC's head are slowing their dog at all because should anyone be able to keep up with a fast BC?

And I have also heard that a rear cross "is always slower than a front cross" but I have to wonder at that staement, too. First I don't see how anyone could ever actually prove it and second, I've seen some awesomely fast dogs who are handled almost entirely from behind. Granted, those dogs are also owned by some of the best trainers in the sport, but it really does make you start considering if a rear cross couldn't be faster than a front cross in some cases.

At this point in my life I can still stay out ahead of my dogs and I always try to use rear crosses when I can.Both my dogs respond better to them.I have found that the front cross if not done right(late) will demotivate my dogs.But I still use blind crosses too.

Rear and front crosses done properly can both be efficient and just as fast most the time.  In some cases rearing will be faster and there's times fronts will be faster depending on the situation.

 

I have a very fast bc who is trained equally with fronts and rears and in many situations it's a push on time.  We have timed many sequences doing both and they come out the same.  I'm very fast and my dog can work independently so I can position myself to get the fronts in efficiently.  We work some on dirt and rake the area and analyze the dogs path and more often than not, the front is a better path - but it's about a 45/55 split.

 

So...I don't think there's a hard rule either way.  I think what works best for each handler and dog team is the best.  I prefer fronts but there are times I can't get there or the course works best with a rear.

 

There's times that my fronts won't be perfect - but same with my rears.  Nothing is perfect all the time.

 

I think people who can stay at their dogs heads generally have an advantage.  It's generally much more efficient.  It only slows the dogs down if you can't send the dog to get in position and the dog has to adjust or the handler is not chosing good lines. 

 

Renee

The notion that the front cross is faster is most aggravating to me. 

I use rear crosses alot and when I am NOT in my dog's way, I do front crosses. 

If a rear cross is "slower" than the front, then the handler is either late in indicating the rear cross or the dog is just not confident enough about where to go next (overall speed is slower). 

I believe in "running lines" that show the dog where I am going, not obstacle by obstacle, by a series of obstacles.  This handling philosophy does assume the dog has confidence and permission to move ahead to the next logical obstacle without check-ins. 

So what happens when there several logical (or unfortunately, illogical) choices presented to the dog?  Then it's my job as handler to be at that "support point" to give information to my dog where to go next. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I used to use front & rears about equal. Then I switched unconsciously to mostly rears, I felt it gave me better control over my dog's line and since she is fast, I was more likely to be behind, so rears made more sense. I recently did a seminar with Rob Michalski and we worked on some front crosses. Now I am starting to prefer a front in most cases. There is absolutely no doubt that it is a faster way for us to get around a course as I get better at them. I don't have it perfect yet, but am starting to really feel comfortable doing them. It all makes sense now, the more my dog knows where she is going...the faster she will go. If I am in front leading the way, there will be little doubt in her mind about where she is going. I still see a need for rears on some sequences & see them as more efficient, depending on the course, but now that I am learning where & how to do my fronts, I see my dog starting to drive through a course better than before. Vickie