See here you can get your championship and its a championship regardless of how you get there so people aren't feeling pressured to run their dogs where its not good for them. Kaiden has jumped 16 his whole life. He is very sound, but now as he gets older I have the option of moving him down and still getting an ATChC regardless of what stream he is in.
I like the different names for the lower height option from a pedigree standpoint. Being able to look back and see if, okay two of the grandparents have PACHs (for instance). Why were they running preferred? Were they older? Handler made the call? Or could they not handle the measured jump height? Could be important info. And as you said, jumps are supposed to be a challenge...working the higher jumps height is more of a challenge. It's still a championship title and should be a well-earned source of pride in what the team accomplished!
Now I would be fully in support of unused MACH legs, for instance, counting toward a PACH if the dog moved down. They shouldn't have to repeat those, but I think right now they do...I haven't personally read the exact wording so can't be sure.
When it comes to longevity IMO sharp corners had hard landings have more of an impact on jump height. And what you train at. Same with horses.. all those GP horses don't train over 5 foot fences. They train over lower fences and work on training. I know many an agility competitor who jumps their dogs lower in practise. So for longevity I don't think jumping a few inches higher a few weekends a year is going to have a serious impact on the vast majority of dogs.
Agreed with all the above except for the "few weekends a year." Don't underestimate the trialing schedules of a lot of competitors. Those have been at it a long time and have a heavy trial schedule often don't even practice that much...they are running trials 3-4 weeks per month all year long, with a month off somewhere to rest their dogs. And the trials are often 3 or 4 days, not just two. It's not an insignificant amount of jumping for a surprisingly large number of dogs.
Mine not included in that of course...would need to win the lotto to afford that many entry fees and hotels!
ETA I think ALL agility venues are designed for ALL dogs. Most don't even require a pedigree to play with everyone. Some are harder than others (like AAC with fast course times, and the totally clear requirements and higher jump heights) some are easier (like CPE with its lower jump heights, slow course times and ability to Q with a bar, or being over time) Having variety is awesome so each can find their place. But to imply one is 'better' for dogs IMO is a bit silly. Forcing people (previously) to go back to start over if they think their dog should jump lower was not in the best interest of dogs. Glad to hear its changing. I believe all venues try to benefit dogs in general vs just BCs. I don't run BCs, I run JRTs and whippets. I don't feel any venue I have tried is 'against' my kind of dog. Just a different set of challenges to try to rise to.
Where did anyone say one was better than another? It's been compare and contrast, yeah, and people talking about the ones they know best, but maybe I missed the "better" comment?
I know very little about AAC agility and can't comment on whether it's "harder" than other venues and for who. NADAC and CPE are considered easier in the U.S. but that's in terms of requirements to Q...again you are competing against dogs who are running under the same rules you are, so taking home Blue is still challenging no matter the rules. AKC and USDAA...depends on who you talk to. USDAA people usually swear by USDAA, AKC, people by AKC. People who run both vary depending on the running style of their dog. I'm in a one-venue sort of area (though have run CPE a couple times when we were first starting out and living in another state) so I run with what I got and am just happy to have fierce competition to test ourselves against