Why did all the dogs/handlers seem like complete novices? How did they get on TV? They were all so SLOW and seemed to lack any drive at all.

I enjoyed watching it, but man. I would have that they would put the champions on to get people interested for the first time they show the sport.

That said, I think all the dogs there gave it a great shot

Edit: Ok, some of the dogs are fast, like that little sheltie. However, some of these runs are simply PAINFUL.

:O i missed it?! When was it? I really wanted to watch it.

IDK, John, I watched it and I guess I came away with a different POV. I remember seeing quite a few really fast and accurate teams, but yes there were an equal number who were slower and made mistakes. But that's how things go at a real agility trial, after all.

I think there are two ways of looking at it. If you're wanting to entertain the public, then just show the best teams on TV. But if you're wanting to get people interested in participating in the sport, I say show all types of dogs, so that people understand it's a sport open to all breeds (and mixes) and levels of skill (of both the dog and the handler).

BTW, I loved the Rhodesian Ridgeback, who was slow, but oh so careful, and (I thought) did a beautiful and elegant clean run!

As someone relatively new to agility (been doing it with Enzo for over 2 yrs now), and having heard all the people bitch about the "Masters" competition, I don't think it was as horrible as everyone is making out to be. And here's why.

1) the only reason it's getting such bad reviews from agility people is because it was called Masters. Had it been called novice no one would have had the comments they did. However, the general population (who they are trying to appeal to) has no idea what a master level agility dog looks like. So to the unknowing eye it was just a bunch of dogs running through obstacles. (my 85 yr old aunt watched because she knew we run agility).

2) greg louganis - horrible commentary. Enough said.

3) if all the dogs were master level competitors I guarantee you 90% of the dogs would be BC's or Aussies. Most people would like to see their own breed represented. (at least I would).

4) if all the dogs were BC's or aussies and ran the way they do, most people would not even think they could try and participate in the sport. Only competitive athletic people would consider joining agility.

I thought all in all it was entertaining and had a good mix of dog breeds, speeds, and people handling. Even though the course was relatively simple in terms of agility Master courses, there were a few challenges that even the 'best' dogs didn't complete. For those of us who do do agility, we watch to learn new handling opportunities and we know what's correct and what is not, but to the novice watcher they're just enjoying watching a dog sport and hopefully they think, I can do that to!

Oh, and one more thing...because most of the dogs NQ'd - it made it much more exciting when a dog finally did Q. It had me hoping each dog would finally finish the course and when they did or didn't, I would root for the next one.

 Quote: Tanya Moyer

As someone relatively new to agility (been doing it with Enzo for over 2 yrs now), and having heard all the people bitch about the "Masters" competition, I don't think it was as horrible as everyone is making out to be. And here's why.

1) the only reason it's getting such bad reviews from agility people is because it was called Masters. Had it been called novice no one would have had the comments they did. However, the general population (who they are trying to appeal to) has no idea what a master level agility dog looks like. So to the unknowing eye it was just a bunch of dogs running through obstacles. (my 85 yr old aunt watched because she knew we run agility).

2) greg louganis - horrible commentary. Enough said.

3) if all the dogs were master level competitors I guarantee you 90% of the dogs would be BC's or Aussies. Most people would like to see their own breed represented. (at least I would).

4) if all the dogs were BC's or aussies and ran the way they do, most people would not even think they could try and participate in the sport. Only competitive athletic people would consider joining agility.

I thought all in all it was entertaining and had a good mix of dog breeds, speeds, and people handling. Even though the course was relatively simple in terms of agility Master courses, there were a few challenges that even the 'best' dogs didn't complete. For those of us who do do agility, we watch to learn new handling opportunities and we know what's correct and what is not, but to the novice watcher they're just enjoying watching a dog sport and hopefully they think, I can do that to!

That makes a lot of sense! You're right, the only reason I didn't like it was because of my expectations based on the "Masters" title.

What type of snakes are in that bin?