You must register with this website to view this article.

Stemming the Decline of Obedience

A Radical Proposal to Restructure Obedience After the Agility Model

By Kelly Cassidy

Executive Summary

Obedience has been in decline for decades. Despite a plethora of changes over the past 20 years, entries continue to fall.
In contrast, Agility entries have remained steady for 15 years and now exceed one million per year, more than 10 times the number of Obedience entries.
What has made Agility so much more popular than Obedience? The obvious differences are the faster pace of Agility and the visual appeal of watching athletic dogs. However, Agility is much more challenging in many ways than Obedience: It takes more space, more expensive equipment, and more athletic handlers.
Beyond the more exciting videos of Agility runs, I believe there are important and less obvious reasons Agility is more successful than Obedience:
Agility has a structure of parallel pathways of skills. The Agility model allows independent progressions through the levels of Jumpers With Weaves (JWW) and Standard Agility. If the team is struggling with some aspect of either, they may continue to have success and keep moving up in the other. Within each pathway, there is a gradual increase in difficulty at each level.
The reward system in Agility for the handler is more inclusive than in Obedience. In Agility, every Master pass counts for something. Every Master pass counts toward an X title in that class. Every second under standard course time adds to MACH or PACH points. MACH and PACH points do not depend on placements. There are many types of Agility competitions where placements count, but for regular weekend trials, a handler never loses anything because they placed lower than someone else.
In contrast, in Obedience:
Obedience is structured so that there is a single pathway: Novice, Open, and Utility. If a handler is struggling with an exercise between levels, there are no parallel pathways where they might make progress on something else. In particular, too many obedience competitors get stranded between Novice and Open while they struggle to teach a retrieve. There are no parallel pathways they might follow to make progress in other aspects of Obedience while they work on their retrieving problem. Two thirds of them drop out between Novice and Open.
The reward system in Obedience is heavily skewed towards the top echelon of
dogs. After the UD, when a dog enters the B classes, there are few rewards for the handlers with a merely good dog. Many of the Qs in the B classes count for nothing. If the dog scores below 190, there are no OM points and OTCH points are unlikely. If a dog only gets a Q in either Open B or Utility B, but not both, he doesn’t earn a leg towards anything. Many an Obedience handler leaves a trial feeling like they’ve wasted their time and money, even if they have earned at least one Q in the advanced classes.
I propose that Obedience undergo a radical restructuring of classes and its reward system, patterned after the highly successful Agility model:
Reorganize the non-stay exercises into three groups of skills that dogs would progress through independently.
Most importantly, group all the retrieving exercises (dumbbell, gloves, and scent articles) into a separate pathway so handlers struggling to teach a retrieve could make progress in the other pathways while they work on the retrieve.
Split the non-stay, non-retrieving exercises into two groups of similar difficulty with only two to four exercises per class so the dog’s time in the ring is three minutes or less.
Put the Stay exercises on their own pathway. Stay classes would be pass/fail. When dogs finished the highest Stay level, that pathway would terminate.
At the highest class level (the equivalent of Agility Master), every Q should count for something. Every point in a qualifying run should add to OTCH points and every Q should count for a title in that class. OTCH points should depend on score, not placements.
Make additional changes to speed up Obedience, both within and between classes, and to increase spectator appeal.

The Decline of Competitive Obedience

Most Obedience competitors, especially the people who have been involved in Obedience for more than ten years, are aware that Obedience participation is declining. I don’t think many of them truly understand the severity of the decline. Competitive Obedience is in serious trouble, as illustrated in Table 1. Chart 1 shows the same data in graphical form.

Between 2001 and 2024, the number of basic titles (CD, CDX, and UD) awarded per year have declined by more than half. In 2001, 5,268 CDs were awarded. By 2024, that number had dropped to 2,279, only 43% of CDs awarded 23 years before. The number of CDXs awarded in 2024 was 42% of the number in 2001. The number of UDs was 48% of the number in 2021.

The advanced titles (UDX and OTCH) have declined slower than the basic titles. The number of UDXs awarded in 2024 was 70% of the number in 2001. Because OTCH numbers are small, they fluctuate more from year to year than other titles. Trends in OTCH numbers are easier to see over a span of years. Between 2001 and 2014, the average number of OTCHs per year was 95 (range of 79 to 106). Since 2014 (and excluding the atypical COVID year of 2020) the average number of OTCHs per year was 79 (range of 70 to 90).

The smaller decline in the higher titles indicates that a dedicated band of Obedience fans still anchor the sport. Unfortunately, neither competitors nor their dogs live forever. A decline in lower titles will inevitably lead to a decline in higher titles.

COVID-19 threw a wrench in data continuity. In the COVID year of 2020 many shows were canceled. Numbers for all titles rose sharply in 2021 as trials resumed. For BN and CD titles, numbers rose by a smaller amount in 2022 and 2023. CDX title numbers dropped by small amounts in both 2022 and 2023. UD numbers rose slightly in 2022 and dropped slightly in 2023. By 2023, the lingering effects of the COVID year of 2020 appeared to have mostly tapered off.

If the COVID effect had largely vanished by 2023, the change in basic Obedience title numbers between 2023 and 2024 is alarming. Between 2001 and 2019, the average annual decline in CD titles was 3.8%; for CDX titles, the average annual decline was 4.1%; for UD titles, the average annual decline was 2.6%. Between 2023 and 2024, the numbers of basic Obedience titles not only resumed their previous decline, they plummeted compared to pre-COVID declines: Between 2023 and 2024, CDs declined by 6.8%; CDXs by 9.8%; and UDs by a whopping 13.7%.

The dramatic declines in these basic titles between 2023 and 2024 could just be a single-year blip. It is possible 2023 title numbers were high because 2023 was still in the post-COVID bump, making the decline between 2023 and 2024 artificially steep. The alternate explanation is that the sport is losing its hard-core base. Early declines in Novice were probably more skewed towards competitors that were easily pulled away from Obedience and into the growing number of other sports. Utility titles did not initially decline as fast as Novice titles because a greater proportion of Novice titles were awarded to handlers more likely to stay in the sport. However, Obedience fans that have been in the sport for decades are aging out. Some may have abandoned Obedience for the recent sport of Scent Work, which has skyrocketed in popularity.

The number of UDX titles between 2023 and 2024 held steady and even had a tiny increase. It will take a few years for the decline in UD titles to manifest itself as a decline in UDX titles, but that, too, is inevitable. You cannot produce new UDXs without new UDs.

Overall, the dismal Obedience numbers show a sport that is not just in decline. It is dying.

Table 1. Number of selected Obedience titles earned since 2001.

Figure 1. Number of dogs earning selected Obedience titles since 2001. The steep drop in 2020 was due to COVID. In 2021, there was a “make-up bounce” that may have carried a bit into 2022.

The Fixes That Haven’t Helped

In the past couple of decades, the AKC has introduced a dizzying array of changes to save the sport from tapering off into oblivion. Some of these changes have been beneficial in helping to defray the costs of Obedience trials, but there is no indication they have pulled more people into the three historic obedience classes (Novice, Open, and Utility) or have kept them competing in the B classes. A brief summary of the biggest changes since 2000:

RALLY. Rally became a titling event in 2005. It was designed to be less formal and more inclusive than traditional Obedience, with the underlying hope that Rally would be a steppingstone to traditional Obedience. Rally rapidly evolved into its own unique sport, with a path to a prefix title (RACH) that was attainable for a large portion of participants. Rally has not created any increase in the number of novice entries in OB. It may have even helped decrease Obedience entries. On the plus side, Rally has helped pay the bills for clubs holding Obedience trials. The number of dogs that can be judged per hour in Obedience is very low, making it one of the costliest events to hold. Rally, with its short ring times per dog and Triple Q requirement for the RACH, has helped offset the costs of Obedience trials.
OPTIONAL CLASSES. The Beginning Novice (BN) class is enormously popular. BN entries gave a big boost to total Obedience entries after its introduction. The number of BN titles quickly became nearly equal to the number of CD titles awarded each year. However, the BN title has not had the desired effect of increasing the number of CD titles. Between 2001 and 2010 (when the BN was introduced), the average annual decline in CD titles was 3.6%. Between 2011 and 2019, the average annual decline in CD titles was 4.0%. The slight increase in the decline of CD titles between the two periods is probably not large enough to indicate that the BN title is hurting CD titles, but it is certainly not helping. For many handlers, the BN is the first, last, and only Obedience title they will ever put on a dog. The other optional titles (GN and GO) have slightly increased Obedience entries, but neither comes close to the popularity of the BN class.
PREFERRED CLASSES. I am a huge fan of the Preferred classes. As I write this, I have my 9-year old OTCH dog in the Preferred classes with the goal of putting a POC on him. The Preferred classes have failed to attract many entries. Perhaps it is because some clubs still do not offer them. Perhaps it is because the Preferred classes get very little recognition: They are totally ignored in Front and Finish and AKC online rankings. Many clubs that offer Preferred don’t bother to even announce Preferred HIT and HC. A Preferred HIT/HC dog gets less recognition than a Rally HC or High QQQ.
FIX AND GO. AKC introduced the Fix and Go, an Agility innovation, just a few years ago. While it is a popular technique to attempt to handle problems in a real ring situation, it has not had much effect, if any, on increasing entries.

The Popularity and Continued Endurance of Agility

The number of Obedience entries in 2024 was 92,000. The number of agility entries in 2024 was 1.1 million, nearly 12 times the number of Obedience entries. Agility entries climbed steadily from 2000 until 2010, when they leveled off to over a million entries per year. Even more astounding, conformation entries, which were about 1.5 million in 2001, have steadily declined to 1.2 million entries in 2024. Conformation entries now barely exceed agility entries. If the trends in agility and conformation continue, the AKC will soon be more of an agility organization than a conformation organization.

The popularity of agility is even more amazing when you compare the cost of equipment, the space requirements, and the demands on the handlers. Agility is not an easy sport to prepare for or to compete in.

Equipment costs: Sturdy, safe agility contact equipment is enormously expensive. Dog walks and A-frames cost several thousand dollars apiece. Weave poles are nearly $1,000. A tunnel is several hundred dollars. Trying to get by with cheap or poor equipment is dangerous because of the speed and momentum of Agility dogs. In contrast, Obedience requires three jumps (a high, bar, and broad). If money is an issue, it is fairly easy to make safe, home-made versions. It is useful, but unnecessary, to have six 10-foot ring gates and five stanchions to create a go-out picture. Even if a home trainer splurges and buys enough ring gates to set up an entire 40 by 50 ft ring, the cost is less than $2,000. Add a few dumbbells, a couple sets of white gloves, and a few sets of scent articles, and the home trainer is extremely well equipped for less money than it would cost for a single safe and professionally made A-frame.
Space: A full-sized Obedience ring is 40 ft by 50 ft. Many people have backyards that big and, if not, it is relatively easy to train most Obedience exercises in smaller spaces. A local park can be used for full-length go-outs. A full-sized agility ring of 100 ft by 100 ft is five times the area of an Obedience ring. Few people have a yard that big. Because of the cost of equipment and the space required, most agility trainers need access to a facility where they can rent training time.
Handler physical limitations: Dog sports are not the most expensive hobbies, but they require enough money and time for dog ownership, entry fees, training, hotel rooms, gas, weekends away from home, etc. Many (most?) competitors do not become truly devoted to a dog sport until they are retired or near retirement with financial security and free time. Dog sports are dominated by an older demographic, with all the aches and pains that come with aging. The Agility competitor must hobble around the ring as fast as their arthritic knees allow. Falls become more likely and more serious with increasing age. The elderly brain must remember a complex course. The physical demands of Obedience are far less strenuous than agility.

Given the enormous differences in equipment costs, space requirements, and physical demands on the handler, you might predict that Obedience would win out over agility in a landslide. Instead, the reverse is true.

If you ask experienced Obedience competitors why they think Obedience continues to decline, you will get many answers. A few examples:

Complaints about specific exercises. (Too much heeling in Novice. “The Broad Jump is hard on a dog’s shoulders.” “The Command Discrimination exercise is a downer.” Etc.). Agility people complain constantly about allowable course designs and equipment. Their complaints have often resulted in changes to the sport. For example, the dangerous closed tunnel is no longer used. Agility has historically, I believe, been more responsive to competitors’ specific complaints, but Obedience has become more responsive in recent years (for example, the replacement of the out-of-sight stays and the long-overdue requirement for break-away jumps), but it hasn’t seemed to stop the decline in entries.
Novice A people don’t feel welcomed. It is always difficult to enter a new sub-culture, whether it is going to a gym for the first time or taking that first step into a dog competition. However, I don’t believe Agility competitors are any more welcoming or unwelcoming than Obedience competitors. In fact, I would argue that agility competitors, ensconced in their shade canopies with their friends, are harder for a Novice competitor to approach than the OB competitor sitting in the folding chair next to them. Furthermore, none of the attempts to help make Obedience more inviting and less intimidating, such as Rally and Beginning Novice, have failed to have the desired effect.
Obedience is too hard, and everybody wants instant gratification. Agility is VERY hard. It takes 6 to 12 months to teach independent weaves to most dogs. It takes years for agility handlers to learn how to give clear directions to their dogs. The Q rates for agility classes at the Master level are LOWER than the Q rates in Utility B and much lower than the Q rates in Open B. Agility people are certainly not in the sport because it is easy or for instant gratification.
Obedience is boring and Agility is exciting. This hypothesis probably does explain at least part of the attraction of Agility compared to Obedience. Obedience, by its nature, could never have the visual appeal of a perfect Agility run. Nonetheless, the slow pace of Obedience and its lack of spectator appeal are aspects of the sport that should and could be improved upon.

Where are Competitors Dropping Out?

Many of the theories about why Obedience is declining are based more on speculation than data. Fortunately, every year, the AKC compiles annual statistics and publishes them in the AKC Gazette (usually in the April issue), covering the prior calendar year. These statistics are a gold mine of data. Figure 2 shows the number of titles completed at roughly comparable levels in regular Obedience and Agility classes. The numbers reveal striking differences in the retention of participants in the two sports.

(Note: To keep the analyses from becoming a statistical nightmare, I only included titles for dogs jumping their regular jump height in both sports. The Preferred classes in Agility are very popular, but they complicate comparisons because Agility competitors can switch from Standard to Preferred at any level. They cannot go the other way from Preferred to Standard at any level. The published statistics do not indicate which dogs started in Preferred or the level at which dogs switched from Standard to Preferred.)

Figure 2. A comparison of the number of dogs earning roughly equivalent titles in Agility and Obedience at each level in 2024.

Table 2: Numbers of dogs achieving selected Agility and Obedience titles in 2024

Table 3: Comparison of percent retention between Agility and Obedience levels.

Retention Through the Basic Titles: CD, CDX, UD

CD vs NA

Given the nearly 12 fold difference in total agility entries, you might be surprised to learn that the numbers of Novice Agility (NA) and Companion Dog (CD) titles awarded in recent years are similar. In 2024, 2279 dogs earned an NA and 2394 dogs earned a CD, a difference of 115 titles. The numbers of CD titles awarded were 95% of the numbers of NA titles.

Retention Between Novice and Open

There is no level where the difference in retention between Agility and Obedience is more dramatic than between the Novice and Open levels. If there is any single statistic that should cause Obedience lovers to worry about the future of Obedience, it is the plunge between Novice and Open.

In agility, the average ratio of OA to NA titles is 79%. In other words, nearly 4 out of 5 dogs earning a Novice Agility title advance to the next level.
In Obedience, the average ratio of CDX to CD titles is 35%. In other words, only about a third of dogs that earn a Novice Obedience title advance to the next level.

I cannot overemphasize how catastrophic this number is to the sport of Obedience. For every Novice handler that goes on to get a CDX, two handlers drop out. Not only is the decline between these two levels greater than between any other two adjacent levels in Obedience, it is greater than the decline between nearly any two adjacent levels in any dog sport. What makes it even more devastating is that it happens between the lowest two levels of Obedience, which means it reverberates through all the succeeding levels. When a sport loses two-thirds of its participants between the first and second level, it is almost impossible for retention at higher levels can make up for this enormous loss.

In Agility in 2024, 1851 dogs earned an OA. In Obedience, 746 dogs earned a CDX. Expressed as a percentage, the number of dogs earning an Obedience title at the Open level is 40% of the number of dogs earning an Agility title at the Open level.

Retention Between Open and Utility

The decline in participation between Open and Utility is not as disastrous as that between Novice and Open, but it is still much worse than between similar levels in Agility:

In agility, the average ratio of AX to OA titles is 75%. In other words, 3 out of 4 dogs earning an Open Agility title advance to the next level.
• In Obedience, the average ratio of UD to CDX titles is 46%. Less than half of dogs that earn an Open title in Obedience advance to the next level.

In Agility in 2024, 1,445 dogs earned an AX. In Obedience in 2024, 322 dogs earned a UD. Expressed as a percentage, the number of dogs earning an Obedience title at Utility level is 22% of the number of dogs earning an Agility title at the analogous Excellent level

The Cumulative Effect of Dropouts in the Basic Levels

To reiterate:

At the Novice level, the number of Obedience titles awarded is 95% of the number of Agility titles at that level.
At the Open level, the number of Obedience titles awarded is 40% of the number of Agility titles.
At the Utility (or Excellent level), the number of Obedience titles awarded is 22% of the number of Agility titles at that level.

I often hear Obedience competitors say Obedience needs to attract more Novice entries if the sport is to survive. More Novice competitors in OB would certainly be a good thing, but a much bigger difference between Agility and Obedience is that Agility retains its competitors. The people that start in Agility tend to stay in Agility while Obedience competitors drop out faster at every level than in Agility. That higher drop-out rate in Obedience is most pronounced between Novice and Open.

Retention Through the Advanced Titles (Beyond the UD)

From the UD to the UDX

Dogs with a UD title have demonstrated that they can successfully do all the exercises in Open and Utility at least three times. You might predict that a high percentage of dogs with a UD could go on to a UDX. Yet, the average ratio of UDX to UD titles is 40%, much less than half. The average ratio of MX to AX titles is 68%, which is more than 2/3.

The Agility MX and Obedience UDX titles are not fully analogous. A UDX requires 10 double Qs, meaning qualifying scores in both Open B and Utility B at the same trial. There is no direct equivalent in Agility. An MX requires 10 qualifying scores in a single class (Master Standard). While a single Q is statistically easier than a double Q, Agility Master classes have lower Q rates than Obedience B classes, which partly offsets this difference. (More on Q rates further down.)

From UDX to OTCH

The average percentage of OTCH to UDX dogs is 47%, or nearly half. To me, at least, that percentage is surprisingly high, but even that number pales compared to Agility. The average percentage of MACH to MX titles is 65%.

A MACH is, in some ways, harder than an OTCH. A MACH requires 20 double Qs plus 750 points obtained by the number of seconds the dog runs under standard course time. It is somewhat analogous to getting a UDX2 and a large number of OM points, but harder because the Q rates in Master Agility classes are lower than the Q rates in Obedience Utility B and Open B, which makes a double Q more difficult.

The Cumulative Total Effect of Drop-out Rates in Obedience Compared to Agility

In Obedience, an average of about 3% of dogs that earn a Novice title go on to earn an OTCH. In 2024, there were 82 OTCHs awarded. In Agility, an average of 26% of dogs that earn a Novice Standard title go on to earn a MACH. In 2024, there were 634 MACHs awarded. The higher retention rate of Agility competitors at every level turns a small difference in Novice titles to a huge difference in Champion titles: the number of MACHs awarded in 2024 was 9 times the number of OTCHs.

The Peculiar Upside-Down Pattern of Retention Rates in Obedience

A notable aspect of Obedience is the nearly upside-down retention rate of participants at increasingly difficult levels. In Agility, as the levels get more difficult, the percentage of dogs that achieve them creeps down gradually (Table 3) from 79% between the Novice and Open level to 65% between the MX and MACH, which intuitively makes sense: As the difficulty of the class increases, the percentage of dogs able to achieve the title should decrease.

In Obedience, the lowest percent advancement is between the Novice and Open levels and the highest percent advancement is between the UDX and OTCH level, which makes much less sense. It suggests that the difficulty between title levels decreases as the title increases. Anyone that has shown very long in Obedience knows that is not true.

I believe the upside-down retention of Obedience participants is a consequence of the dramatic increases in difficulty between Obedience levels. Each level in Agility presents a relatively gradual increase in difficulty. Each increase in level in Obedience is like scaling a cliff, especially between the Novice and Open level. Handlers need to teach a whole new set of tricks at each level. In particular, many Novice handlers never attempt Open because they cannot teach a retrieve. Most Obedience competitors would agree that Utility is much harder than Open, but a handler that gets a CDX has successfully taught a retrieve. Consequently, the percentage of CDX dogs that earn a UD title (46%) is higher than the percentage of CD dogs that earn a CDX title (35%).

The retention rate in Obedience is not quite upside down. There is a drop in retention to 40% between UD and UDX. The best retention between Obedience levels (47%) is, oddly, between the UDX and OTCH. I believe there are a couple of factors involved. One is the loss of the low- and mid-level dogs between UD and UDX because the rewards for these dogs in the advanced classes are so low (more on that below). Most of the competitors in the advanced classes are trying to get either an OM or OTCH. The other factor lies in the difficulty of advancing between all the prior levels of Obedience. A competitor that lasts all the way through to a UDX is very determined. If they get that far, there is a good chance they are all in for the OTCH.

Do People Stay in Agility Because it is Easier to Q?

The first thing Obedience competitors might ask is whether competitors stay in Agility because it is easier to qualify than in Obedience. I compared Q rates at analogous levels in Obedience and Agility to see whether this is a valid explanation for the differences in retention. [Data sources: Q rates for Obedience classes were compiled by the author from all AKC Obedience trials in the months of March 2024 and June 2024. Q rates in Agility are from statistics for 2023 compiled by Bad Dog Agility, on their website at: baddogagility.com/akc-qrates-for-2023/]

Comparing Q Rates for the Basic Titles

Table 4 is a comparison of Q rates in classes for the basic Obedience titles (CD, CDX, and UD) and Agility titles (NA, NAJ, OA, OAJ, AX, AXJ). Agility does not have Open A and Open B classes, since dogs never cycle back to Open after they enter Excellent. The Excellent class is analogous to the Utility A class.

The Q rates for Novice A and B in Obedience are much higher than the Q rates for Novice A and B in Agility. Q rates for Obedience Open A and Agility Open are remarkably similar, as are Q rates between Utility A and Agility Excellent classes.

Table 4: Comparison of OB and Agility Q rates in the Novice A and B, OB Open A and Agility Open, and OB Utility A and Agility Excellent classes.

Comparing Q Rates for the Advanced Titles

Table 5 is a comparison of the Q rates in the advanced Obedience (Open B, Utility B) and advanced Agility classes (Master Standard and Master JWW). These are the classes for dogs that usually have the basic title at the level. (In Obedience, dogs without a CDX or UD may compete in Open B or Utility B, respectively, or may be required to compete in those classes if their handlers have put an OTCH on a prior dog. However, most of the dogs in those classes have a CDX or UD, respectively. In Agility, a dog cannot enter the Master class until it earns the Excellent title in that class.)

At the Master level in Agility, the Q rate is lower than in Utility B for both JWW and Standard and both are much lower than in Obedience Open B. The probability of a double Q for the average dog in Agility is only 21%. Along with the point requirements determined by time, a MACH requires 20 double Qs. A UDX in OB requires 10 double Qs without any point requirements. An OTCH technically requires no double Qs. Yet, the proportion of dogs that stay in Agility beyond the basic titles to get a MACH is far higher than the proportion of Obedience dogs that stay in Obedience beyond a UD to get a UDX or OTCH.

Clearly, people are not pursuing advanced titles in Agility because the classes are easier than in advanced Obedience.

Table 5: Comparison of average Q rates in Obedience B Classes and Agility Master classes and the probability of QQs.

The Structure of Agility vs Obedience

If competitors are not staying in Agility because it is easier than Obedience, then why are Agility competitors more likely to stay in the sport than Obedience competitors? Agility is obviously more exciting, but it can certainly be as frustrating as Obedience. Watching your Agility dog pop out before the last weave pole is at least as aggravating as watching your Obedience dog miss the drop signal in an otherwise qualifying run.

A major, but perhaps not obvious, difference between Agility and Obedience is that Agility has a structure and reward system that encourages retention, while the structure and reward system of Obedience has the opposite effect of discouraging retention.

In Agility, competitors follow parallel pathways through the two main pathways of Agility: Standard and Jumpers with Weaves (JWW) (Figure 3). There is overlap in skills for the two paths, but they emphasize different challenges. For both paths, the dog must know how to jump, go through tunnels, and do weave poles. For Standard, the dog must also perform all the contact obstacles correctly. In JWW, there are no contacts, but the dog cannot have a wrong course, even in Novice, and the handler has less time to complete the course.

Figure 3: Structure of Agility Progression

In Agility, there is a gradual rise in difficulty between levels within each path. At each increase in level, courses are more complex, time is less generous, and dog and handler must have better teamwork. However, the trainer does not have to teach new obstacles or new exercises between levels.

The structure of Obedience is very different (Figure 4). There is a single pathway. Instead of a gradual progression, there are completely new exercises at each level. Novice is a relatively easy class, but the move from Novice to Open is like scaling a cliff and the move from Open to Utility is another cliff.

Figure 4: Current Structure of Obedience Progression

How the Structure of Obedience Affects Progress Towards Basic & Advanced Titles

Basic Obedience Titles (CD, CDX, UD) vs Basic Agility Titles (NA, NAJ, OA, OAJ, AX, AXJ)

In Obedience, a handler that finishes their Novice title virtually never fills out the move-up form for Open for the next day’s trial. The more normal practice after getting a CD is to stop competing while the dog is trained for Open. If the dog completes a CDX, the process is usually repeated. The handler stops competing and trains for Utility. The most experienced trainers begin training for Open and Utility from the beginning, but less experienced trainers usually train sequentially.

Progression through basic titles in Agility is very different. In Agility, handlers who finish their Novice, Open, or Excellent titles on Friday or Saturday almost always submit their move-up forms that day for next day’s trial. This strategy is feasible in Agility because the increase in difficulty between levels is more gradual.

In Obedience, the transitions between levels are anything but gradual. The inexperienced handler with their sparkling new CD may feel euphoric until they look ahead to Open. They quickly realize that Open adds many completely new exercises. Most beginning Obedience handlers will need one or two years to prepare for Open. That is a long time for the glow of a new CD to wear off. It is plenty of time for discouragement, waning interest, and other hobbies to pull the new handler away from Obedience with that dog and possibly all future dogs. If the trainer persists and earns a CDX, Utility is another giant step with yet another new set of even more difficult exercises.

The AKC has attempted to improve the retention rates between Novice and Open and between Open and Utility by adding intermediate classes. Grad Novice is intermediate between Novice and Open. Grad Open is intermediate between Open and Utility. However, even these intermediate steps are cliff-like in their increasing level of difficulty. A handler that is inclined to drop out because they are struggling to teach a retrieve is unlikely to find it much easier to pass Grad Novice than Open. These intermediate classes, while somewhat useful, have not caused any noticeable reduction in the drop-out rates. Regardless of the number of intermediate classes, Obedience remains a single-track progression. If you cannot conquer whatever training issue you might have in Open, you cannot even attempt Utility. Similarly, if you are stuck on a Utility exercise, you cannot make any progress on any of the advanced titles. Handlers often get stuck at a point on the single Obedience pathway with no alternate path to make them feel like they are making progress.

In Agility, not only are the transitions between levels more gradual, there are two pathways a handler can work on. For example, if you have a dog that is struggling with the teeter in Standard, you can work on the problem while continuing to

compete in JWW. If you are a slow handler with a fast dog and you are struggling with the speed of JWW, but your dog can do the contacts, you can work on your JWW handling while still making progress in Standard. This system goes a long way toward keeping handlers from feeling like they’ve hit a brick wall, as so often happens between levels in Obedience.

Another significant aspect of the parallel pathway structure of Agility is that a handler has more than one chance of success each day, even at the lowest level. Most Agility handlers show in Standard and JWW on the same day. Although the Q rates may not be very high, especially in the Excellent classes, the handler has two chances to make progress. In addition, most Agility trials have a games class, either FAST or Time to Beat. The games classes don’t count towards a MACH, but they are titling classes that give a handler another shot at a Q on the same day and hence another chance to feel they got something out of the weekend’s trial. In Obedience, because of the single pathway structure, a handler working on a CDX or a UD gets only one shot at a Q in each trial.

Advanced Obedience Titles (UDX, OM, OTCH) vs Advanced Agility Titles (MX, MXJ, MACH, etc.)

In Obedience, there can be no progress towards advanced titles until the dog has completed a UD. A handler can keep showing their dog in Open B while they work on a UD, but their Qs in Open B will not count for anything. After a dog achieves a UD in Obedience, the advanced titles he can earn are the OTCH, OM, and UDX. Both the OTCH and OM favor the highest scoring dogs.

OTCH points depend on how many other dogs are in the class and how the dog does relative to the other dogs, not on its performance against a standard. The OTCH point system has a “winner takes nearly all” mentality. OTCH points are heavily weighted towards the dog that wins the class, which creates many nonsensical incongruities. Some examples:

A dog earns first place in Utility B with a 196 in a class of two dogs. The dog does not earn a single OTCH point. Compare with a dog that earns 192 and first place in Utility B in a class of 8 dogs. The latter dog earns 6 OTCH points, seemingly making it a much better Obedience dog than the first dog.
Two dogs tie for first place in Utility B with scores of 197 in a class of 11 dogs. Dog A wins the heeling run-off because Dog B goes slightly wide on an about turn. Because of a difference in heeling on one about-turn, Dog A, with first place, earns 10 OTCH points. Dog B earns 3 OTCH points. Was Dog A’s performance so much better than Dog B’s that it merited more than 3 times as many points?
A dog earns 195 and fourth place in Utility B in a class of 11 dogs. The dog has scored higher than 7 dogs in the class, but earns no OTCH points. The same dog goes to a smaller trial and earns 195 and first place in Utility B in a class of 7 dogs, beating 6 other dogs. In that trial, the dog earns 4 OTCH points. Based on OTCH points, the dog magically became a better Obedience dog in a class of 7 dogs than in a class of 11 dogs.

The ability to achieve an OTCH is highly dependent on geography. A dog that typically scores in the range of 192 to 195 in Utility B can most easily earn an OTCH in an area where trials usually have 3 to 10 dogs in Utility B. The same dog in a highly competitive area with more than 10 entries in most trials would struggle to earn an OTCH because the dog would rarely earn first or second place. The same dog in a sparsely populated area would struggle to earn an OTCH for the opposite reason: few trials would have enough dogs to earn OTCH points.

Possibly the worst feature of the current OTCH scoring system is that it is a zero-sum game. The other dog’s win is your loss, and your win can only come at the expense of other dogs. It is not a system that inspires competitors to enjoy the success of their fellow competitors.

The Obedience Master (OM) title was created as a consolation prize for good dogs that couldn’t quite get an OTCH. Like the OTCH, it rewards only the highest scoring dogs. OM points have a hard cut-off of 190. All scores from 170 to 189.5 have equal merit, and that merit equals zero OM points.

Agility does not have the equivalent of OM points. All points are MACH points. Every qualifying run in Master Standard and Master JWW under Standard Course Time (SCT) earns MACH points. If the dog’s time is one second under SCT, the dog earns one MACH point, two seconds under SCT earns two MACH points, and so on. (Runs over SCT in Master classes are NQs.) One second under SCT would be analogous to earning a 171 in Obedience.

The opportunity to pick up MACH points, even if you don’t have a high-level dog, is a powerful incentive to stay in Agility. There are many Agility handlers with dogs that will never come close to matching the speed of the best dogs of the weekend. If they have a mid-level dog, that dog may take several years to earn the 750 points they need for that single MACH, but that attainable goal keeps them coming back weekend after weekend. A low-level dog picking up only a handful of points each weekend would not live long enough to earn 750 points, but the competitor with the low-level dog does not have to improve their performance to match the high-level dogs; if they can improve enough to become a mid-level dog, they, too, can achieve a MACH, which is a powerful incentive to keep improving.

In Obedience, the mid-level dogs, scoring in 180s, cannot earn an OM and are highly unlikely to earn an OTCH. The dedicated owner of a low-level dog, scoring in 170s, might strive to improve enough reach the 180s, but what would be the point? Unlike the low-level Agility dog that might improve to a mid-level dog and have a shot at a MACH, the low-level Obedience dog gains little by improving to a mid-level performance.

If the Obedience OM reward system were applied to Agility, only dogs in the higher echelons of Agility could earn MACH points. For example, MACH points might be awarded only to dogs at least 20 seconds under SCT. If the OTCH reward system were applied to Agility, dogs in the 16” and 20” jump class would have to beat the multitudes of border collies and shelties in those classes to earn MACH points. Few dogs outside those breeds would be able to achieve a MACH. Since the reward system in Agility is NOT like that of Obedience, the MACH titles in Agility are bestowed on a larger and more diverse collection of dogs than the OTCH titles in Obedience. Logically, it should be the reverse. Agility strongly favors dogs of a particular build. The exercises in Obedience are not so skewed in favor of a particular canine physique. Obedience should be the sport favoring the largest diversity of breeds. The Agility reward system evens the MACH field by not requiring that your 20” Wire-haired Green Puddle Retriever beat all 20 Border Collies in the same class to earn points. Agility does not even require that your Puddle Jumper have a stratospheric course time. ANY time under SCT will earn at least a point.

The UDX is the only advanced Obedience title attainable for low and mid-level dogs (those that rarely score in the 190s). The UDX requires a double Q in Open B and Utility B for a leg. In contrast, in Agility, a dog that qualifies in either a Master JWW or Master Standard class earns a leg towards an MX or MXJ title, no matter what their level in the parallel path. Every Q in a Master class also earns MACH points if they are at least one second below SCT.

Compare the possible weekend results for a hypothetical low- or mid-level dog in Obedience vs a hypothetical dog of analogous skill level in Agility (Table 6):

In the examples above, the low- or mid-level Obedience dog earned one or two qualifying legs, but the owner was likely to drive home feeling the weekend was a discouraging waste of money and time. Their qualifying legs earned them nothing. Their presence was far more useful for the top dogs looking for OTCH points than it was to themselves

In contrast, the Agility competitor with their low- or mid-level dog drove home with one or two Master legs and a few MACH points to justify the several hundred dollars spent on entry fees, gas, and a hotel room. Their presence did not hurt or help the top dogs looking for MACH points. Those top dogs had to earn points based solely on their own performance, not on the number of slower dogs that happened to be entered.

Many Obedience people cringe at the phrase “OTCH fodder”, but if we are honest, that is exactly the position of most mid- and lower-level dogs in advanced Obedience classes. There is no such thing as “MACH fodder” in Agility, since MACH points do not depend on the number of dogs in the class or their placement. Agility competitors can admire and learn from the handlers running the spectacular dogs without feeling like their only accomplishment of the weekend was to help the best dogs get their points. The irony is that, while Obedience tosses mere crumbs to the low- and mid-level dogs, the current OTCH system requires their presence for the higher-level dogs to achieve their goals. The expectation is that the owners of the OTCH-fodder dogs will stay in the game despite the very low rewards for them.

A Side Note on the “Exceptionalism” of the OTCH

Many Obedience traditionalists object to any efforts to change the OTCH point system. They insist that a prefix title should be reserved for dogs that have won over other dogs. This view is an extension of the conformation format, where dogs must beat a certain number of other dogs to become a breed champion. There are now many AKC dog sports that award championships based on performance against a standard rather than placements, such as Agility, Rally, and Tracking. The requirement for a placement to become a champion in a performance sport is becoming more of an exception than the norm.

Another objection to change is that, if a “lesser” dog earns an OTCH, it diminishes the value of an OTCH by a “better” dog. When a dog could only obtain a single OTCH, this objection had some merit. With the addition of multiple OTCHs, (OTCH2, OTCH3, etc.), this argument becomes weaker. The best Obedience dogs can distinguish themselves by the number of OTCHs they achieve, just as the best Agility dogs are distinguished, in part, by the number of MACHs they achieve. I have never heard an owner of a MACH20 dog complain that their 20 MACHs were lessened in value because a slower dog finished its first MACH at 9 years old after years of competing. All I have ever seen are cheers, clapping and congratulations when that 9-year old dog finally gets its last double Q and does its victory lap.

I’ve heard a few people say “You knew the rules when you went into the sport, so you shouldn’t complain if you can’t get the title you want.” People DO know the rules. The problem with this argument is that they aren’t complaining. They are doing something much worse than complaining. They are leaving.

There is a place for competition. Agility has many national and international competitive events where competition is fierce, and winners may be decided by milliseconds. Obedience should likewise continue to have its national competitive events. Agility demonstrates that it is not necessary for every weekend trial to be competitive. I believe a system that awards points based on performance instead of placements helps encourage camaraderie among participants. It is easier to cheer on one’s fellow competitors if your own OTCH points don’t depend on the failures of your fellow competitors. I also believe that every qualifying performance should earn something. An owner should not leave a trial feeling like they got nothing out of it, even when their dog earned qualifying scores.

The Structure of Scent Work

I did a detailed comparison of Obedience against Agility because Agility is, like Obedience, a mature dog sport. Scent Work is still expanding so fast that an analysis of retention at different levels would not be valid. However, a look at the structure of Scent Work is illuminating.

The first AKC Scent Work trials were held in 2017, with 11,804 entries (Table 6). In its third year, Scent Work entries had already exceeded Obedience entries. In 2024, Scent Work entries were nearly three times Obedience entries. Scent Work entries in 2024 exceeded Obedience and Rally entries combined.

What accounts for the enormous popularity of Scent Work? Scent Work lacks the spectator appeal of Agility. In fact, it is even less of a spectator sport than Obedience. Most runs are not seen by anyone but the judge, the timer, and the handler.

I believe one of the most important factors in the tremendous growth of Scent Work is its structure. It has a multipath structure like Agility, but with even more pathways than Agility. Like Agility, a team can move along each path independently. A dog can enter the Detective class as soon as it has a Master title in any of the four elements (Container, Interior, Exterior, or Buried), which is somewhat similar to Agility, in that a dog begins accumulating MACH points from a Master class, even if it has not yet completed a Master title in the parallel path.

Figure 5: Structure of Scent Work Progression.

At its highest levels (Master and Detective), Scent Work is very hard. Scent Work, like Agility, is another example of how the multipath, parallel structure makes a very hard sport more rewarding than the single path structure of Obedience.

A Radical Proposal

Two of the most popular alternatives to Obedience—Agility and Scent Work—are not easier than Obedience. At their highest level, Q rates in Agility and Scent Work suggest they are at least as hard and possibly much harder than Obedience. I believe that the archaic, often demoralizing, structure and reward system of Obedience is a much bigger factor in its decline than the level of difficulty of Obedience exercises. For Obedience to survive, the sport needs more than a tweaking of certain exercises or additional intermediate classes. Obedience needs radical restructuring.

What Would Restructured Obedience Classes Look Like?

Obedience restructured after the Agility or Scent Work model would have parallel, independent pathways with similar exercises grouped into each pathway. Within each pathway, the increase in difficulty between levels would be gradual. There would be no completely new exercises introduced between levels within a single pathway. Even Novice classes in a pathway would have a simple version of each exercise at the highest level in a pathway. Handlers should feel reasonably comfortable with moving to the next level within a pathway as soon as they finish the title at a lower level. The progression through each pathway would be independent of the progression through other pathways. When a dog reaches the highest level on each path, they should begin to accumulate points towards their OTCH, based on their scores, even if they have not reached the highest levels in other pathways.

Figure 6. Draft Example of a Multipath Obedience Structure.

To better illustrate how each exercise in each pathway would have a Novice, Open (=intermediate), and Excellent/Master level, I drafted a set of exercises for each pathway and level. This hypothetical set of exercises is emphatically NOT intended to imply a final design. The aim in presenting drafts of each pathway is to inspire the reader to think about how Obedience could be restructured with shorter class times (2 to 4 minutes per dog) and fewer exercises per class. The highest levels (Excellent and Master) would all include at least one exercise as difficult as one of the current Utility exercises.

Draft OBa: Heeling, Recalls, and Position Changes

OBa (Table 8) would be the pathway of Heeling, Recall/Drop on Recall, and Position Changes/Signals. There would be no retrieving or jumping at any level. Heeling is the quintessential Obedience exercise. Without any jumps or retrieves in this pathway, ring clutter would be limited to cones. A less cluttered ring would open the door to more creative heeling patterns, possibly incorporating Figure 8s, serpentines, and diagonals directly into the pattern. The goal would NOT be to make Obedience heeling like Rally heeling. Obedience heeling would retain its emphasis on precision and teamwork. I have presented position changes and signals separated from the heeling exercise at all levels, but another option would be to have heeling merged with signals, as it currently is in Utility.

Draft OBb: Jumping and Sending

OBb (Table 9) would be the pathway of jumps and sends. At the highest level, it would include the Directed Jumping exercise. This is the only pathway in which jumps would be changed between dogs. It is the only class in which Preferred and Regular would be differentiated because it would be the only class with jumps. Alternately, all dogs would jump half their shoulder height and the distinction between Regular and Preferred would disappear.

Including directed jumping and the broad jump in the same class presents an obvious problem: How could all three jumps be in one ring without making it too crowded? One solution might be to have only two jumps, but to allow the two jumps to be any two of the three jump types. Another solution might be to put all three jumps across the middle of the ring and require the dog take the middle jump going out on a send. Rather than dwell on the challenges, I believe this is the class with the greatest opportunity to add motion and spectator appeal. It should be a fast class (possibly timed??) emphasizing the ability of the dog to move away from the handler and take directions from a distance.

**¹TBD 30 pts:** The third exercise is deliberately left blank. It might be another jumping exercise or a send to wrap a cone, or a send to a table. It should be an exercise emphasizing motion and the dog’s ability to move away from the handler and take direction from a distance.

Draft OBc: Retrieving and Scenting

OBc is the pathway that includes all the exercises in which the dog picks up an object and returns it to the handler. In the current Obedience structure, the trained retrieve is the exercise most likely to cause handlers to stall out at a CD. The challenge of encouraging beginners to train a retrieve, especially with a dog that is not a natural retriever, makes the design of the Novice level in this pathway tricky. Should the exercises at the Novice level be as easy as possible and based largely on a play retrieve or should the exercises push the handler to focus on a trained retrieve from the start? I would lean towards the latter approach, but with some reservations. The aspect of this pathway that I believe is most important is that it separates retrieves from the other pathways, allowing the handler to make progress in the other pathways while they work on a retrieve. Would progress in the other pathways encourage handlers to work harder on the retrieve? I don’t know the answer to that question.

Obedience has a “live” retrieve (in which the dog sees the retrieve object dropped or thrown), a “dead” retrieve (in which the dog retrieves an object it has not seen dropped or thrown), and a scent discrimination retrieve (in which the dog selects the correct object to retrieve). In hunt tests and field trials, dogs usually return directly to heel after a retrieve. I think a direct return to heel would be better for all Obedience retrieves to reduce the number of fronts in Obedience and to make Obedience retrieves similar to retrieves in hunt tests. A side benefit would be that a retrieve straight to heel opens the door to making the directed retrieve more interesting.

**¹Scent Discrimination Options:** Scent Discrimination is one of the most time-consuming exercises. One way to speed it up would be to have the dog perform the exercise only once in all classes. To make the single scent retrieve the same for all dogs, the judge would choose one of the three materials. This class design would require that handlers teach the exercise with all three materials, which some trainers might object to. The alternative, of course, is to continue to do the exercise at the Excellent/Master level as in the current Utility class; at the Open level as in the current Grad Open class, and the Novice level as some simpler version of Grad Open.

***²Dead (=Directed) Retrieve Options:*** I’ve presented the idea of having the dog pick up all the gloves in this exercise: one glove in Novice, two gloves in Open, and three gloves in Excellent/Master. In Open and Excellent/Master, gloves would be picked up in the order specified by the judge, with the handler turning the face the next glove to be picked up as the dog was retrieving the current glove. The dog would go straight to heel, facing the next glove. The purpose of changing the exercise is to add more motion to the class. The alternative would be to continue to do the exercise at the Excellent/Master level the same as in the current Utility class, at the Open level the same as in the current Grad Open class, at the Novice level as a single-glove dead retrieve.

Draft OB Stay Certification

Stay exercises intermingled with moving exercises are time-consuming, unexciting to watch, and demotivating to many dogs. However, a solid Stay is one of the most useful obedience skills. How to keep Stays in Obedience but not have them slowing down every class? Does a dog have to keep proving it can stay to the end of its Obedience career?

I propose that each Obedience level require a “Stay Certification” at that level as a prerequisite for the titles at that level. The Stay Certification classes would be an independent pathway, similar to the other pathways. The other pathways could be pursued at the same time as the Stay pathway, but the Stay Certification at each level would need to be completed before the other titles at that level were awarded. A Novice Stay Certification would be required before any of the Novice titles were awarded; An Open Stay Certification would be required before any of the Open titles were awarded; An Excellent Stay Certification would be required before any of the Excellent titles were awarded. After the dog obtained the Excellent Stay Certification, they would never need to be repeated.

Stay classes would be pass/fail. To reduce the cost of hiring judges, Stay-class judges might require a simpler qualification process so that clubs could have qualified Stay judges (like CGC judges) that could judge the Stay classes in pairs, with two judges signing off on each class. Stay classes might be held on Friday and Saturday afternoons of weekend trials so participants could leave early on Sunday. They might even be held by clubs on separate weekends from other classes.

An advantage of separate Stay classes would be that the classes could be more challenging than the current stays. Each level could have two parts: a single-dog part, in which the test dog was the only dog in the ring, and a group part, with multiple dogs in the ring. Each level could have increasing levels of distraction.

What Would a Restructured Reward System Look Like?

I believe that the rewards in Obedience (i.e. legs and points earned), should be analogous to those in agility. Each Q at the highest level should count as a leg towards an X title at that level. For example, ten Qs at the Master level of OBa, OBb, and OBc should earn an MXOBa, MXOBb, and MXOBc, respectively. Each Q should likewise earn OTCH points, with the number of points depending on the score and not the placement.

The OTCH point schedule should be constructed so that the highest level dogs could theoretically achieve an OTCH in less than 20 trials (i.e., 10 2-day weekend trials), mid-level dogs could achieve an OTCH within 2 to 5 years, and the lowest level dogs would be unlikely to achieve an OTCH. Such a point system would be analogous to the Agility point system. The highest level agility dogs can achieve many MACHs during their career. Mid-level agility dogs can finish a MACH after a few years of showing. The slowest dogs are unlikely to live long enough to accumulate the required points, but they would be able to earn X titles and, if they improve to a mid-level dog, a MACH would be in reach.

I’ve presented a hypothetical point table for Obedience. In this example, a passing score for each class would be 85 with a maximum score of 100. An OTCH would require 1000 points and, say, 3 triple Qs plus an additional 7 double or triple Qs. The point scale would recognize that higher scores become increasingly difficult, i.e., it is much easier to go from 85 to 90 than it is from 90 to 95, and very hard to get that perfect 100. In a nod to the idea that the first place dog should get extra points, there could be bonus points for the three highest combinations of double Qs and for the high triple Q in the Master classes. The winners in individual classes would not receive extra points.

Under this hypothetical point table, the very best dogs, qualifying in all three Master classes with scores of 97 or above could earn 60 to 90 points in a trial, with possible bonus points for High QQs and QQQs. These dogs could earn an OTCH in 10 weekends or less of showing. A mid-level dog might consistently pick up 20 to 40 points in a trial. That dog might need a few years to achieve an OTCH, but it would be doable. The lowest level dogs would be unlikely to compete long enough to achieve an OTCH, but if their scores could be improved enough to become a mid-level dog, the OTCH would be in reach.

As in Agility, dogs would not need to earn any percentage of their points from each class. In Agility, it doesn’t matter which class or in what percentage the 750 MACH points come from. Obviously, a dog that is good in all classes would earn their OTCH points faster than a dog that earns low scores in one pathway, but it is okay if they can make up for deficits in one pathway with good performances in a different pathway.

A Starting Model, Not a Finished Product

I have presented a detailed draft of a restructured Obedience model because I believe it is easier to work from a concrete outline than a vague idea. If Obedience were restructured, I would not expect the final version to be exactly like my draft. (In fact, it might look very different.) A final version should have the input and the brilliant ideas of many dedicated Obedience devotees. However, there are elements of this draft that I think are critical:

All retrieving exercise should be grouped into a single pathway. The huge loss of participants between Novice and Open is due largely to the introduction of the retrieve in Open. Handlers struggling with the retrieve need alternate pathways that keep them in the game, making progress towards higher goals, while they solve the problems of teaching a trained retrieve. I believe that a handler making progress on other pathways would be more motivated to learn how to teach a retrieve. However, even if they never succeed at the retrieve, they should be able to earn suffix titles in the other pathways of Obedience. Obedience might even entertain the idea of a non-retrieving OTCH.
The non-retrieving exercises should be distributed among two separate pathways with approximately equal levels of difficulty. The two most difficult non-retrieving exercises for most dogs are the signal exercise and directed jumping. These two exercises should be at the highest level of different pathways. With scent discrimination in the separate retrieving pathway, the three most difficult Obedience exercises (scent discrimination, signals, and directed jumping) would be at the highest level of separate pathways. If a dog is struggling with one or two of the most difficult exercises, but can do at least one of the other difficult exercises, the handler is more likely to have some success in a weekend.
All jumping exercises should be grouped into a single pathway so that there is only one set of classes where jump heights would need to be changed. The Retrieve Over High exercise should be dropped or modified because it mixes jumping and retrieving.
Classes should be structured so they have only two to four exercises and take less than three minutes for a typical team. The current time of 8 to 10 minutes for a Utility run is an incredibly long time for a dog to perform tasks that are not intrinsically rewarding.
Many Obedience participants consider the Stay exercises an integral and important part of obedience. However, Stay exercises are, by definition, static. They don’t catch the eye of spectators. They are demotivating to many dogs. They slow down the action. Furthermore, I don’t believe dogs need to prove repeatedly that they can hold a stay. Stays should be retained as an important component of Obedience, but they can be separated from the moving exercise classes.
As in Agility, there should be three levels for each pathway: Novice, Open, and Excellent/Master, requiring three Qs at each level for the basic titles and 10 Qs at the Master level for Master titles.
Within each pathway, the transition between levels should be gradual, not huge leaps. When a dog has completed a title at one level, most handlers should feel confident in moving up to the next level at the next trial.
As in Agility, Excellent and Master levels should be essentially the same class. After three Qs and the title in the Excellent level, the dog would move to the Master level where ten Qs would be required for an MXOBa, MXOBb, or MXOBc. The dog would accumulate points towards an OTCH from any Master level class, even if they have not reached the Master level in other pathways.
OTCH points should depend on scores, not placements, and all Qualifying runs should earn points proportionate to the score. An OTCH should be attainable not only for the best dogs, but also for the mid-level dogs. The highest level dogs can distinguish themselves by the number of OTCHs they earn.
Obedience MUST give low and mid-level dogs a reason to stay in Obedience. They need to feel like they are more than OTCH fodder.

It is important to note that a restructured Obedience would NOT mean easier exercises at the top levels! Some of the exercises could even become more difficult. However, the more difficult exercises should be split up among classes, instead of clustered in a single class (Utility) as they are now. Ultimately, an OTCH would require the dog perform all the difficult exercises on the same day a minimum number of times via a minimum QQQ requirement, but they would not have to perform all of them every single trial to make progress.

Curb Appeal

“Flash and Dash”

In a Bad Dog Agility podcast from January 15, 2025 (Episode 355: Is It Time to Change the Dogwalk?), the podcasters, Sarah and Esteban Fernandezlopez, made the comment, which I am paraphrasing, that flashiness, fun, and spectator appeal are valid considerations when discussing any changes to Agility. Obedience cannot hope to achieve the “flashiness” of Agility, but I do not think it is wrong to consider the optics of Obedience to a passerby.

Things that draw the eye of spectators, whether they are obstacles or exercises, can ultimately bring those spectators into the sport. Spectators are attracted to motion. Small changes to exercises can increase time spent on motion, e.g., having a dog pick up all three gloves and return straight to heel adds motion to the exercises and eliminates a front. However, the most important factor in keeping or losing the attention of spectators is the pace of Obedience.

Speed it Up!

“Speed” can be many things: the relative amount of time the dog spends moving instead of stationary in the ring; the time each dog spends in the ring; the interval between dogs within a class; and the time between the end of one class and the start of another. Obedience in its current form has one of the slowest paces of any dog sport. Each dog is in the ring for a very long time. Turnover between dogs is slow. The change from one class to another is slow. Slow is practically the name of the game in Obedience. With or without a change in its structure, Obedience could adopt many of the practices of other dog sports to speed things up:

Stop having judges calculate scores after each run. A steward can enter the score for each exercise into a laptop and let the computer do the adding and ranking. The judge can certify the results after the class as is done in Agility. I have seen judges spend an extraordinary amount of time calculating scores. We’ve all seen judges miscalculate, followed by a redistribution of ribbons. Let the computer do the calculations. Post the results as a print out, which will be much easier to read than the 4^th copy of a judge’s scrawl.
Stop having judges go through the lengthy ritual of thanking stewards and explaining the maximum score after every class. Stewards are wonderful, but do we need to clap for them ten times each day?
Is it necessary to have the judge announce placements and give out ribbons? It is a little jarring at first, going from Obedience to Agility, to realize that you won’t be called back into the ring for placements, but Agility competitors do not miss it at all. Competitors can check their placements and pick up their ribbons if they want them. Reserve the public announcements of awards for big awards like High QQs and QQQs. If placements do not affect points, it is not even necessary to have run-offs.
Have separate ring entries and exits and require that the next dog be on the line as the current dog is leaving.

The most effective method of increasing speed would be to have shorter classes with fewer exercises. Utility and Open take 8 to 10 minutes per dog. Spectators often wander off before they have watched the entire routine for a single dog. Compare the time a dog spends in the ring to human gymnastics or ice-skating routine. Olympic gymnastics routines typically take 1 to 1.5 minutes. An ice-skating routine takes 2 minutes 40 seconds (Short program) or 4 minutes (Long program). If gymnastics or skating routines lasted as long as a Utility or Open routine, the Olympics would likely lose much of their TV audience.

A 10-minute routine requiring intense concentration would be as taxing to the Olympic athlete as to the spectator. We ask our dogs to concentrate and perform exercises that are not intrinsically rewarding for up to 10 minutes at a time. Shorter class times with fewer exercise would make Obedience more interesting and rewarding to the dog. Some might argue that the long ring times are a part of the obedience test. Long ring times certainly favor a particular type of dog that can maintain focus without reward for extended periods of time. However, even dogs that are focused and energetic in the ring at the start of their careers often lose their enthusiasm after a few years in the ring. Obedience really needs to be more rewarding to both the handlers and the dogs.

Final Comments

The problems facing Obedience are not new. Retention between Novice and Open has always been low. The rewards for low- and mid-level dogs in advanced classes have always been minimal. Neither of these issues mattered much for most of the history of Obedience, because, for most of the years since its creation, Obedience was virtually the only dog sport available to the passionate dog trainer. There was a reliable stream of Novice A competitors to make up for the abysmal retention rate between Novice and Open. The OTCH fodder dogs in the B classes kept showing up because they had nowhere else to go.

Obedience today no longer has its captive audience. Agility was the first dog sport to offer a serious alternative to Obedience. With the advent of Rally, Barn Hunt, FastCat, Scent Work, and numerous breed- or group-specific sports, dog trainers have a host of alternatives to Obedience. In the competition for exhibitor dollars and time, Obedience is getting thoroughly trounced.

The upside to these alternate sports is that they provide examples of highly successful structure and reward models. When Obedience was created, there were very few other dog sports to provide a model for its structure. Obedience does not have to be shackled to its original model, nor does it have to become easier. It can have exercises that have the same, or harder, levels of difficulty but be restructured in a way that make it more rewarding to both competitors and dogs, including those non-traditional obedience breeds.

The sport of Competitive Obedience is in dire straits. The easiest response is to do nothing or to continue making minor changes and cling to a fading hope that entries will stop their steady decline. Radical restructuring would be sure to generate turmoil, disagreements, and anger. For all the angst big changes would cause, there would still be no guarantee that Obedience could be resurrected.

Obedience can probably last in its current form for another twenty or thirty years before it gets too expensive to hold trials for an ever-decreasing number of entrants. I am 68 years old. Like most of my fellow aging Obedience fans, I am old enough that the sport will outlast my participation. I want more. I want Obedience to survive for much longer than I will. I would rather go through the turmoil of change than sit by and watch as Obedience fades away.