High scoring/low scoring

[pa beagler]

Just looking for some opinions on this and a few other matters that I will post later. What would you rather have/or what do you like better, a cast with high scores or low scores? I think the cast with the lower scores (considering there was alot of run time) is the better cast that one with a lot of scoring. I was out on a cast this weekend were the dogs absolutely burned up the rabbits they ran! Once the jump/strike points were awarded for the rabbits ran they only scored three total checks for the entire time ran which was about a total of 45 or more minutes. These dogs looked great. However if this was not the finals these dogs could have been left out of placeing 6 thru 10 because some other cast had/produce way more checks and did not run as well. Hope I am not asking to many questions in one post but what do you guys think? Thanks.

[Pete Tuck]

I would prefer the low scoring cast. The high scoring casts with 200 or more points sounds good when the score is read, but the running in the low scoring cast was definitely better. That's my opinion. Others may feel differently.

[BunnyBuster12]

I was told the perfect score for an hour of running in a lp hunt is 40. The only problem with that is that I have seen it when a dog or two control the race but never receive any points because they did not jump or were not the first dog to strike on the rabbit. The flipp side is would there have ever been a race if the other dog did not jump or stike the rabbit. I do believe that the lower the score the better the cast ran.

[danny vansickle]

I was told the perfect score for an hour of running in a lp hunt is 40. The only problem with that is that I have seen it when a dog or two control the race but never receive any points because they did not jump or were not the first dog to strike on the rabbit. The flipp side is would there have ever been a race if the other dog did not jump or stike the rabbit. I do believe that the lower the score the better the cast ran.

i agree,lower score is more impressive,i say,lower the rule to 10 second checks,everyone is running cleaner dogs lately,at the state hunt this weekend,my bandit dog was in a cast with a couple nice hounds and they all tied onto the rabbit,20 some minutes,one scorable check.

[jogletree]

This is kind of catch 22 situation. A low score could be some great running or it could mean that the judge(s) couldn't keep up with the hounds to see who was actuall doing what. I have seen both. In fact, I judged a cast this past weekend, that I could not score the first 20 mins of the race because the area was so thick, I couldn't get into position to cut the dogs off. Luckily though, the rabbit moved on to some thinner areas that allowed me to get a better view. The second rabbit, (first one ran through a hog wire fence off the property) was jumped in front of me and I was able to score some points for the last 15 minutes of the cast. In all about 45 mins of running on two different rabbits, but the winning dog only had 60 points I think. Don't get me wrong the running was pretty good with few less than average breakdowns, but I just couldn't see em to score em.

[marty kelly]

a low score might mean the dogs ran the rabbit and didn't keep blowing it up. not too many judges pick dogs up for rough running. JMO

[wvduece]

sooooooooo a good clean line controling dog wont do real good in arha dont ya need higher scores to win just thinking jb

[CHRIS WHITT]

sooooooooo a good clean line controling dog wont do real good in arha dont ya need higher scores to win just thinking jb

It will turn out about the same because if the dog runs a good clean line with little to no breakdowns then it is preventing the other dogs from scoring also.

I have thought about the question at hand alot , Of course a big score sounds good but does not always reflect a good cast of dogs . And most people think that a low score means they had no running . I think that the LP scoring system is flawed in that aspect .

[jogletree]

A good clean dog can and should win in ARHA. For example I have seen and judged several casts in which dog a is continually overunning the line and causing breakdowns. Dog B however comes right behind him and makes the turn or whatever and picks up the check. Dog A gets back on it and in it's competiveness, retakes the front and loses it again.

[danny vansickle]

sooooooooo a good clean line controling dog wont do real good in arha dont ya need higher scores to win just thinking jb

It will turn out about the same because if the dog runs a good clean line with little to no breakdowns then it is preventing the other dogs from scoring also.

I have thought about the question at hand alot , Of course a big score sounds good but does not always reflect a good cast of dogs . And most people think that a low score means they had no running . I think that the LP scoring system is flawed in that aspect .

yeah,but many times i have seen a dog absolutely dominate a cast,hold the rac3e together,pick up a ton of short checks,but still go home cause another dog just happen to be at the right place at the right time to get one or two 15 second checks and win,the best dog does not always win in lp,there is a lot of luck involved,anything can happen.

[wvduece]

sooooooooo a good clean line controling dog wont do real good in arha dont ya need higher scores to win just thinking jb

It will turn out about the same because if the dog runs a good clean line with little to no breakdowns then it is preventing the other dogs from scoring also.

I have thought about the question at hand alot , Of course a big score sounds good but does not always reflect a good cast of dogs . And most people think that a low score means they had no running . I think that the LP scoring system is flawed in that aspect .

yeah,but many times i have seen a dog absolutely dominate a cast,hold the rac3e together,pick up a ton of short checks,but still go home cause another dog just happen to be at the right place at the right time to get one or two 15 second checks and win,the best dog does not always win in lp,there is a lot of luck involved,anything can happen.

danny wasnt one of yourdogs in a cast here awhile back n they run real clean n ya didnt get much score i belive i read that or something similiar to that jb

[CHRIS WHITT]

sooooooooo a good clean line controling dog wont do real good in arha dont ya need higher scores to win just thinking jb

It will turn out about the same because if the dog runs a good clean line with little to no breakdowns then it is preventing the other dogs from scoring also.

I have thought about the question at hand alot , Of course a big score sounds good but does not always reflect a good cast of dogs . And most people think that a low score means they had no running . I think that the LP scoring system is flawed in that aspect .

yeah,but many times i have seen a dog absolutely dominate a cast,hold the rac3e together,pick up a ton of short checks,but still go home cause another dog just happen to be at the right place at the right time to get one or two 15 second checks and win,the best dog does not always win in lp,there is a lot of luck involved,anything can happen.

I agree danny ,At the world hunt 07 I watched a cast that a 13 inch female recieved a +10 and a second dog picked up a check and won . The female ran more than 30 minutes with only one 15 second breakdown and at times running 75 yards ahead of the other dogs.
I was just saying that More times than not your line dog will come out on top (if it is a top notch line dog)

[pa beagler]

Thanks for you replys. I agree you need some luck in this format and probably any format. It just happend to me this weekend . Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining. The cast I was in had some pretty good running on a couple of rabbits. We ran most of the cast with few 15 sec breakdowns. My hound was winning with four minutes left in the cast and then got beat fair and square. The second place hound struck in on a rabbit and got two checks to beat me . Oh well that is the way it goes sometimes. My dog did not place though because in the other cast the second place dogs had more score. I am not sure how this could be addressed but it seems strange to award other cast who had a tough time running when others did it with fewer losses. Again, not complaining here just throwing this out their for discussion. I had a great time at the trial and will be heading back!