SUMMARY: Still not paying ANY attention to top Ten points
As you know, I am not looking at or even thinking about Tika's Top Ten points until the end of the year. However, coincidentally and completely unrelated--In half an hour on the amazing waybackmachine, I've been able to establish the following history of 22" Performance USDAA points required to make top ten (other heights are too much work for the moment, sorry).
Notes:
- Still no data for 2008
- The 2010 numbers shown are for 10th place as of Oct 10 trials.
- Tika so far (IF I were looking at or even thinking about them, which I'm not): Through Oct 10. One more trial coming, this weekend.
| Gamblers | Jumpers | Snooker | Standard | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 18 | 22 | 14 (9th pl 29!) | 34 |
| 2006 | 21 | 20 | 18 | 24 |
| 2007 | 26 | 21 | 22 | 27 |
| 2008 | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| 2009 | 30 | 28 | 30 | 36 |
| 2010 | 32+ | 24+ | 27+ | 30+ |
| Tika's pts so far | 41 | 50 | 37 | 47 |
I'm pretty confident about Jumpers and Standard, and a little concerned about Snooker and Gamblers with 2 and a half months of trials unrecorded and/or not yet occurred. We're probably OK there, too, but, sure, I just need something to be concerned about.
The truth is, I really did let go of Top Ten points as a determiner in what I was going to do with Tika at trials. It never WAS supposed to be a determiner, but I found myself messing up more because I wanted the placements more. So I've made a conscious effort to not let it affect my enjoyment of my dog and the decisions on courses based on her skills, and I've gone back to doing just fine, thanks. We could still have a down weekend--it happens--or she could be sore again--but otherwise, we'll be just hunky dory.
No comments:
Post a Comment