Duane, you seem to have a lot of experience in dog training and are also well informed about well known dog trainers.

You know, I've recently started working with Balabanovs Video "Possession Games".

You wrote: "Ivan's training is reward-based, primarily motivational, but is not marker training. He does not develop a verbal communication system using operant conditioning."

This in between confuses me a bit.
On the video he does use markers, he does use verbal communication. He has a clear TM, a clear Duration marker (he only calls it "encouragement marker"), he uses the "Out", he announces verbally the beginning and the end of the session.

In his "Competitive Heeling" he also uses markers and cues. In the Net I've also read on different Sites about his DVDs "Obedience without conflict". There they say, that he takes the best of the current trend of applying principles of operant conditioning and that it is central to his method to give cues that provide the dog with information.

Additionally I have read what he writes about Michael Ellis. He thinks Michael is one of the best if not the best dog trainer and instrructor and claims he and Michael follow the same principles.
Although there are little differences they don't concern the core of the method.

Now - I don't want to talk you're ears full. I always estimated your contributions to this forum a lot. I'm a bit concerned about what I'm doing, if I try to follow Balabanovs method. It convinces and fascinates me somehow, but I have not enough experience to judge, what is now really correct and what not.

Do you think if I combine the marker training I've learned at LB with the one of Balabanov I'd confuse my dogs? This is of course the last thing I'd want.

If you find the time to give me a suggestion, I'd would be great!

Of course I'd also appreciate very much to hear advices, opinions of anybody else, who knows about Balabanov and has perhaps made experiences with his way of dog training. Thanks in advance!

I have not seen any of Ivan's recent videos. In the older series, much like ME, he had not yet fully developed the methods. Just like with ME and Ed Frawley, you can see his methodology evolve as the years progress. In the videos that I am familiar with, he always communicated verbally to the dog, but he did not have a structured marker system in place. In your videos, does he call his system a "marker" system? Does he discuss and instruct in the use of the "markers"? Does h address timing and reward value?

His methods, just like ME, were developed by taking the best techniques from many other methods. This is my idea of balanced training, unlike what proponents of any specifically named method "Balanced training" might claim. If you familiarize yourself with the training of those before ME and IB, you will see videos by Bart Bellon and Bernhard Flinks, who hearken back to Helmut Raiser. There are other trainers out there who have built their system on these principles as well, such as Armen Winkler.

Much of the training that I see for IPO is based on Helmut Raiser's implication that you can motivate a prey driven dog by classically conditioning the dog using satisfaction of prey drive as a reward in place of food. You can then move the dog through the quadrants of the operant conditioning by manipulating the drive and the reward, and markers are used to communicate this to the dog.

The reason I don't consider IB or ME to be pure marker trainers, despite the fact that they are better than most marker trainers out there, is that they both still use physical corrections and escape avoidance techniques (such as leash pressure training) for some behaviors. They layer markers over some, but their systems still place value on some older dog training principles.

As far as what you consider correct, I am not one to tell people that their methods are wrong if their methods work. There are people I know whose methods I disagree with, but who get results as good or better than mine. Everyone's methods are different, unless you are just copying someone else, and many are correct in one form or another. I am not one to spend a lot of money on a class, because I know that I will not subscribe 100% to the teaching.

In answer to your question about combining elements from more than one system,... "Yes." That is exactly what every good trainer does, IMO. .

The latest IB video I have is "Canine Training Systems- Clear Communication". In this video, he uses verbal communication with some markers, but he doesn't teach a marker system, per se. Maybe he has updated, but I've never really seen him teach a marker system, like ME does.

FOR ME they all add to what I do but I believe anyone somewhat new in dog training should stick with one method until they really understand dog training and behavior.

From there the other methods are something to keep in the training tool box because no two dogs are alike and each one may need different reasons to handle different situations.

I started with a Blanch Saunders book. She campaigned for formal OB training competition in the USA in the 30s I believe.

From there I went to Wm Koehler, to numerous other trainers such as Richard Wolters, Diane Bauman, Flinks, Balananov,yadda, yadda.

Each and every one has good points and bad but I will forever look at Ellis as being the one to top.

The biggest reason is his excellence in explaining the how and why of what he does.

Get a good hold on the one you really like and in time you can pull in a bit from all the good trainers.

I doubt anyone on the planet copies, to a T, any of the top trainers after they have a reasonable amount of experience under their belt.

I'll still follow Ellis as close as I can in spite of my to many bad habits.

I agree, Bob. What Makes ME a wonderful instructor are his ability to break down and explain every facet of a behavior, and his even keel.

When I watch videos of Balabanov, the ones that impress me most are of his competitions. He is a very successful competitor. His ability to engage his dog blow me (and his competition) away. He communicates with his dogs much better than he can explain it. Perhaps that is the reason why I never connected the dots between his method and the marker systems of others. He just can't explain it as well as Ellis, and doesn't use the common terminology.

Wowee, Duane and Bob! I'm hopelessly shattered from reading about such a lot of trainers. I've saved all those names and will be occupied for the rest of my life with reading books and DVDs etc. Lord, I'll really have to catch up!

Duane, in the video I've fully watched, Ivan does not use the word directly "marker system", but as far as it concerns the games it is a system. He also instructs clearly about the markers he uses there.

He also dooes not only communicate verbally with the dogs, praise or such things, he also uses verbal commands. The "out" for example was inovated by him.

From what I've read about his obedience training, he works surely with markers and commands, but how far he goes with this, I don't know yet.

I've ordered the first two DVDs about obedience and his book "Advanced Schutzhund", which he published together with a certain Karen Duet, - just to know more about his method and in order to compare him with Michael, with whom he seems to share all the basic principles.

Timing and reward value are for him absolutely an important part of his training, as far as I've seen until now, just that he doesn't use food rewards for his own dogs. But also toys can have different levels of value for the individual dog.

In an article about him they say: "In terms of scientific perspectives, the Balabanov method employs a cognitive-behavioral point of view and is unique in this regard. It takes the best of the current trend of applying principles of operant conditioning to dog training (the behavioral view) and adds the view that the dog is a processor of information (the cognitive view). Thus, handler given cues that provide the dog with information are central to the Balabanov method."

I hope once I've read his book and watched the DVDs I'll know more.

Is the use of physical corrections and negative punishment a contradiction to marker training? I never saw it like that. I also think, that they are important parts of dog training, provided they are used correctly.

Bob, thanks to you too for all those names including yadda! I first thought you had mistakenly missed to make a gap between Balabanov and Yadda and googled thinking he were another famous trainer. Now I know it better. Thanks for the new word, sounds crazy funny.

Yes, I agree, Michael is excellent in explaining and demonstrating. I own most of his DVDs, some of which I bought much to early not knowing that dog training is not so easy.

I also want to enroll in one of his interactive online courses some day. But I know, I'm not ready yet, because tugging is an important part for him and my dogs are what concerns this nowhere. That's why I bought Balabanov's Video in order to make up for this.

I think you're right, it is better to stick to one concept first, until I'm really familiar with, but the whole stuff is so fascinating; I simply can't tame my curiosity.

I will not apply everything I see and create a mess for the dog's. What concerns Yadda Yadda's games, I don't fear any more to confuse the dogs. It seems to me that both are on the same page in the important points. Difference: Bala begins with the games long before he goes into obedience. But also Michael recommends to leave all obed. for some weeks until the dogs really have learnt to play with the handler.

Thanks to you both so much, Bob and Duane. Those discussions help me a lot to see things clearer and to improve. Apart from this it is at least partly your fault that I'm now so awfully empoisened!

One important thing to know about both Balabanov and Ellis is that BOTH use corrections when the proper time comes.

Ellis is more about using it only after the dog understands the command.

Yadda, yadda, yada! would be similar to saying Etc, etc, etc or on and on and on!

In other words I could keep talking but I'm taking a short cut.

About corrections I absolutely agree with Michael. If I'm not mistaken, Ed also shows it this way in one of his DVDs.

To use them only when were sure, dog understands the command fully seems to me simply logical. How Balaby holds it I have not seen yet, but I hope the same way, for correcting physically before would be very unfair.

Meanwhile I've read about Mr.Yadda. Thanks for the synonyms.

Of course Ivan uses commands and communicates verbally. All trainers use commands.

All this discussion has given me pause to rewatch my IB videos. I started with the "Communication..." dvd, since that is the hot topic. In the introduction, in the first ten minutes, the narrator explains that there are three primary methods of training; compulsion, inducive, or positive-only reward-based training, and a combination of both. The narrator states very clearly, that Ivan does the third, like almost every modern working dog trainer. A little later in the introduction, Ivan is quoted as saying that his system draws from and is similar to other trainers using inducive methods in their system, but his is different. Ivan himself is quoted by the narrator as saying his communication in obedience differs from other inductive trainers because it includes elements not found in traditional inductive training.

As I said originally, Ivan does not consider himself to be a marker trainer. He is one of my favorites, but he doesn't understand or explain markers or operant conditioning nearly as thoroughly as Ellis does. I know many more trainers whose training resembles Ivan than I do people who subscribe purely to Ellis. Everyone I know respects Ellis and buys his videos, employs some of his techniques, etc., but most have their own methods that they swear by.

Allow me to summarize one final time... Ivan utilizes markers in his training and instruction, but he does not employ a complete or exclusive marker system, and he states himself that he is not a marker trainer.

P.S. The command "Out" is older than Ivan is. He did not pioneer that. The first section in this video is about using the "out" command, and nowhere in this section does Ivan claim that he created the "out". He can explain why it is so vital, but he doesn't use it any different than any other trainer who trains in drive. He explains how old school trainers teach the out through compulsion and it creates conflict, so his system teaches that the out is a rewardable behavior. This is the same as Ellis and many younger trainers. It is the way I prefer to teach the out.

While rewatching "Clear Communication", a couple of things occurred to me...

Ivan refers to operant terms frequently, but he is taking for granted that the student is familiar with operant conditioning. Ellis starts at the beginning and makes sure that all of his students have an equal understanding of how he is employing operant conditioning.

That is part of bthe second thing that I noticed, as well. Ellis is more focused on the student and how the handler communicates to and teaches the dog. Presentation. Ivan dwells on the perception of the dog and how the dog perceives what were communicating. Ivan will break down behaviors that many teach as a single behavior into multiple phases to give the dog a clearer picture of what is being commanded. Perception.

Ivan does use a release command, but he uses it as both a non-reward release and what he calls a terminal bridge. In the Ellis system, there is a separate non-reward release and a terminal marker.