Jump heights go hand in hand with measuring and this time I think that NAFA has this one right. Unlike measuring, I can’t sight any objective reason why I think this but to me it just feels right. I have a height dog that jumps 8” in NAFA (would probably jump 7 but why subject myself and my dog to the stress of measuring) and 6” in U-FLI. I think he may be just a fraction faster over 6” jumps but not really any big noticeable difference. I don’t have a problem with 6” jumps for the smaller dogs but I think 12” is not high enough for the larger breeds, and 14” seems like a better height.
I could only find one article on the Internet talking about the optimal jump height for most dogs. It is titled, Jump heights in Flyball and is found on the Dogs in Canada website and written by Heather Lawson. I have no idea by what authority or expert knowledge the author has in this area. It may not be anymore than I have, virtually none, but her argument is persuasive.
The best jump height for a fast and safe run is 10 inches. The height dog should be 14 inches high, large enough to easily handle the length between each jump. The ideal height dog would have most of its height in its legs to make the 10-inch jumps comfortably. A Flyball player for 12 years, Angela Stefanac from Winnipeg agrees. “By raising the jumps to 10 inches, these dogs need to push a little harder to clear the jump, putting more power into their stride, without having to arch their backs.”
I really have nothing to dispute this assessment because the last team I ran on had a 14 inch height dog and my Border collies smoothly took the jumps with no problem.
The maximum jump height in U-FLI is 12” and is probably a little low for larger dogs so I think the 14” height settled on by NAFA is a good height for larger breeds. Ideally, if NAFA changed their measuring method to something similar to U-FLI, lowered the minimum jump height to 6”, and adjusted where each dog fit into each height category they would score big within the Flyball community. This is my opinion what is yours?
Larry
8 comments ↓
I thought I heard NAFAs max jump height was 16 inches. One of the reasons my old team didn’t want to go to the last NAFA tourney was because they said they didn’t have another height dog for a second team. My BC is 20.5 inches at the shoulder and easily clears 20 inch jumps in agility, and would have no problem with 16 or 14 inch jumps in flyball. I don’t know much about what jump height he runs fastest with, but interesting to find out.
Oh wait, he’s 21.5 inches. Oops.
NAFAs maximum jump height is now 14″
The BFA (British Flyball Association) waited to see what NAFA decided before bringing our maximum height jumps down to 14″ from 16″ The minimum BFA jumps are 7 inches.
>> if NAFA changed their measuring method to something similar to U-FLI, lowered the minimum jump height to 6”, and adjusted where each dog fit into each height category they would score big within the Flyball community.
I don’t think mainstream NAFA delegates would receive this “combination” of ideas as enthusiastically as you think.
1) It took over 5 years to lower the minimum jump heights. The proposal that passed lowered the minimums from 8″ to 7″. Many years earlier, the delegates defeated a similar proposal to lower the jump heights from 8″ to 6″. That meant waiting 3 years before the proposal could be presented to the delegates again.
2) There is just NOT enough solid data to justify changing NAFA’s method of measuring dogs from using a wicket to measure a dog’s height at the withers to something resembling U-FLI.
It’s not “stubborn pride” that makes me say this. The NAFA BoD would have to bring this to the delegates. If what happened to the recent False Start proposals is any indication of what mainstream NAFA delegates think, then such a radical departure away from the universal method of measuring dogs would surely go down in defeat.
Remember, a lot of NAFA competitors also compete in several Agility venues, AKC & CKC dog obedience and conformation shows. NAFA’s method conforms with these other standards. These other organizations do not have the conflicts about measuring that NAFA does because the problem in NAFA is not the methodology. The problem is that a small group of people see a “gray” area in the measuring Rules that the mainstream doesn’t see.
Still convinced that NAFA’s method doesn’t work and needs fixing? How come the British Flyball Association (BFA) doesn’t report these kinds of conflicts? It’s the SAME METHOD.
I don’t see how NAFA changing its jump heights to be the same as UFLI does any competitor any good. The only way for organizations to move forward is to offer a product similar, but different from the competition.
Before I turned exclusively to flyball, I competed a LOT in agility. What I loved most was that there were several venues - at that time USDAA, NADAC and then AKC - and that each was different from the others. For those competitors who did not enjoy USDAA style agility, NADAC and then AKC were a welcome change. For those not liking NADAC, there was USDAA or AKC. You see my point? Everyone was happy because there was something for everyone. Now there are almost endless venues for agility and all seem to be going strong in all parts of the country.
I would love to see this happen to flyball. Think three or even four flyball venues for people to choose from - each different from the other and yet basically the same game. For some reason, when competitors have only two choices, it starts to become A is better/worse than B and a war ensues. Rather than enjoying the benefits of more choices, competitors begin to slam the “other” venue. Wouldn’t a better choice be to revel in our choices and know that now even more people can be happy playing flyball in whatever venue they choose?
Now that would be a flyball future worth pursuing!
Since this is our hobby and our dog’s hobby, why shouldn’t we want the most advantageous measuring method. It is true that dogs are measured at the withers for agility, but they also don’t jump every 10 feet and therefore they have more time before reaching the next agility jump. I think more consideration should be given to the measuring method used by NAFA. If the measuring is the same for everyone, what is the advantage for any one team? So what if it was U-Fli who came up with a better method of measuring, NAFA should bite the bullet and move on. Let’s think of what is in the best interest of our devoted and trusting canine companions.
Jump height can be differnet depening on the dog, i have a overweight pet which hardly can jump a meter or two
In the UK we have BFA (British Flyball Association) flyball and Crufts flyball. There are several differences, mainly the boxes are different. Crufts flyball is under the umbrella of the Kennel Club and the BFA flyball isn’t (thank goodness!!!)
I find there is so much (too much?) debate, moaning and complaining about measuring and jump heights for the American flyball. Why?
Certain height jumps are good for certain height dogs, and when you have the jumps at 7″ for a small dog and the other dogs in the team are big dogs, it tends to restrict the pacing of the bigger dogs, also making them hit the box harder.
Maybe when flyball becomes more popular, there will be mini teams, midi teams and maxi teams. Makes
sense!
JMVHO
Leave a Comment