Hey Guys,
I just want to say from a personal standpoint, that comparing even the worst NADAC course to an AKC course is pretty far off from being even close to apples to apples.
First off, NADAC requires 21' between obstacles, no backsides, no threadles, etc.
Everytime I usually hear someone complain about a NADAC course being too much like AKC it's because it has a challenge they haven't trained for, being unprepared for a challenge does not make the course bad. Actually, isn't that kind of the point of agility? to be challenged?
Are there bad courses and good courses out there? Absolutely.
But no, the direction of NADAC is not to have big giant loops where the dogs are never required to collect. That was a trend for a bit, and as it becomes apparent in a lot of these conversations, it completely killed handlers ability to train for new challenges. And now anytime a challenge is presented, it's too much like AKC.
I'm perfectly okay with folks just saying, hey this course kinda sucked.
But to continue to make these comparisons to AKC is getting kind of old. I will gladly post any approved NADAC course out there, and then compare it to an AKC course and I can guarantee the differences are going to be pretty dang large.
Challenge is not a bad things, there are some challenges that are bad, and typically those don't come back around. But to have one bad course and then say 'well the direction of nadac is going towards AKC' is kinda silly
Rant off
