conztruct

I haven't heard of a judge ever being paid for a result although I'd never consider anything is impossible in the Dog Show world. I think most judges are pretty ethical, usually being current or past exhibitors they have been on the outside of the ring and if they've ever witnessed a decision that is, shall we say, dubious, they know how bad it looks. I can't understand why they'd want to damage their reputation by doing it. On the other hand, the behaviour of some exhibitors in trying to influence decisions is appalling. Yes, it is ultimately the judge who makes the decision and should be accountable but just once or twice I'd like to see a response from a judge that went something like "Yes, your dog that you've been sending me thousands of pictures of and listing it's wins and including your picture as the handler and just mentioning that you'll be showing under me in the near future, looks lovely however, I think it's innappropriate for you to do all this before my appointment so I would appreciate it if you did not enter under me". This does happen a lot - I am friends with trainee judges who have told me that when their appointments are announced, out comes the facebook friend requests, photos and messages and it's blatently obvious what the exhibitor is trying to do. I'd like to see that addressed. So like exhibitors there are probably judges who lack some integrity but as has been mentioned before, it's worth giving a judge an entry and if you don't like the result or think something is "up", don't enter again under them.

It's lots of things but mainly just about knowing your dog and having a relationship with them. Very rarely does a very successful show dog not work as part of a great team with their handler. For me, I don't think I'm in any way a great handler but I always do all I can to just focus on my dog and me and what we are doing. If we win, we win...if we don't then I try to look at what I could do better as a handler to improve my chances. By not worrying about what anyone else is doing it certainly takes a bit of pressure off although I must admit that I try to watch the really good handlers who do well so I can hopefully pick up some good habits.

The bullies were nice. You should have seen the coloured one show (I watched it on the Westminster site) - showed like a bomb.

This is again the opinion of one judge on the day - don't think it means that the dog is a very poor specimen of the breed - it is that dog on the day & that judge. I've had one dog almost refused a class at the Melb Royal because in the judges opinion that dog lacked bone. Yes, he is an elegant dog and the dogs that went up that day were more of Rotty type. But that same dog went onto win BOB & PIG under Int Judge at Sunbury that same year (with a breed entry of 35+ dogs) and won multiple BOB's under Breed Specialists - & multiple class in All Breeds & Specialty shows(& was never refused a challenge). If he'd been non-awarded multiple times then you have to question obviously, I would love to have the critique system it would really show how much or how little the judges know of your breed standard. Sorry - I should have clarified further on that - yes, I agree the judges can refuse for any reason and given that they aren't obliged to provide a critique we sometimes don't know (although often the judge may make comment when refusing) but the perception created amongst the exhibitors and any spectators watching when a dog is refused is generally that it's a poor specimen because let's face it, challenges are hardly ever refused even to dogs where it is evident that there are some issues.......fully accept it's the judges decision of what they think is outstanding but looking at what goes through, there are a lot of outstanding dogs. Basically the judge is saying that, in their opinion, the dog is not of such outstanding merit to worthy of the title " Champion" While I believe you should be entitled to be told the basis of the opinion, I.M.O. is uncontestable. Totally agree here - the decision is the decision but yes, some feedback would be helpful - it may help people, especially new and maybe some not so new exhibitors learn. I had a dog refused once and asked for some feedback after the group had been completed because the judge hadn't said why at the time - the judge immediately told me that it was their perogative to refuse to which I replied, I wasn't questioning their judgement, I just wanted some more information about the reasons why. I didn't really agree with the explanation given but just thanked the judge for the feedback and decided I wouldn't be putting any of my dogs under them again. It doesn't have to be a confrontation which it so often is. It is an opportunity to obtain some more information and feedback and to make up one's mind of the value of it.

This is again the opinion of one judge on the day - don't think it means that the dog is a very poor specimen of the breed - it is that dog on the day & that judge. I've had one dog almost refused a class at the Melb Royal because in the judges opinion that dog lacked bone. Yes, he is an elegant dog and the dogs that went up that day were more of Rotty type. But that same dog went onto win BOB & PIG under Int Judge at Sunbury that same year (with a breed entry of 35+ dogs) and won multiple BOB's under Breed Specialists - & multiple class in All Breeds & Specialty shows(& was never refused a challenge). If he'd been non-awarded multiple times then you have to question obviously, I would love to have the critique system it would really show how much or how little the judges know of your breed standard. Sorry - I should have clarified further on that - yes, I agree the judges can refuse for any reason and given that they aren't obliged to provide a critique we sometimes don't know (although often the judge may make comment when refusing) but the perception created amongst the exhibitors and any spectators watching when a dog is refused is generally that it's a poor specimen because let's face it, challenges are hardly ever refused even to dogs where it is evident that there are some issues.......fully accept it's the judges decision of what they think is outstanding but looking at what goes through, there are a lot of outstanding dogs.

I really can't say whether the European system is better or worse than the one here but I do agree with your point that a challenge refusal in Australia is basically considered that the dog is a very poor specimen of the breed. The part of the European system you described is the written critiques - I think these have the potential to be very educational and helpful to exhibitors and breeders, and it also places a bit of accountability on the judge as well.

I agree that there should probably be more non-awarding, it should help people to learn and really look at their dog and/or their own skills in preparing their dog. In line with it being a learning experience, I do feel it's appropriate for judges to provide a reason for with-holding challenges. If they do not, then it makes it very difficult for the exhibitor to learn. In my (albeit limited) experience, I have found judges quite helpful in this aspect. I have had a challenge refused against a dog I was showing, I spoke to the judge after the group and whilst I didn't agree with the reason, I respected their decision and thanked them for the feedback. Several judges have also given me feedback even when awarding about things I should be careful of if I intend to breed with the exhibit they are judging - I think this is great. I can understand some judges being defensive about being asked why because I have witnessed plenty of exhibitors descending to attack them who want to know why they didn't win but don't really want to listen, just attack and tell the judge how wrong they are. I think the appropriate process would be that an exhibitor can ask a judge why a challenge was refused and the judge should give them the reasons and then that should be the end of it. If you don't agree with the reasons then you learn about the judge, but it may be a great opportunity to learn more about your dog.

What a beautiful Staffie Pav Lova - you are to be commended on him - a beautiful dog, beautiful condition and beautiful coat.

Of course you can. I've been showing dogs for about 8 years but have also been very lucky within that time to be friends with exhibitors who have been doing it for years. I'm not quite sure how you've come up with me being obsessed with faults because all I've asked you about and talked about is balancing all aspects of the dog in decisions bad faults and great virtues and everything in between. I must admit that at times I have thought exactly the same way you do when a dog with an obvious fault has beaten mine, but that tells me that I need to look seriously at the dog I have and decide if this result reflects something that I'm not willing to see in it. Sometimes I disagree with the opinion but as you are advocating, I don't think it is appropriate to challenge the decision at that point. Sure, by all means maybe go and ask the judge if they can give you more information later, or if the judge actually says something to you in the ring which is blatently incorrect, you could ask if they want to check the standard before making their decision. I get a little tired of people who have been showing for years who think they're superior because they've been doing it for a long time - all I see at shows is some people who "get it" and some people who don't and never will - time and experience can be useful but only for those who wish to learn.

Breeding good dogs isn't about eliminating faults - it's about creating animals with the virtues required in the breed standard. As someone who actually managed to breed world-famous dogs once wrote: The biggest fault of all is a lack of virtue. By saying it's about eliminating faults only reinforces my original opinion that you are certainly obsessed with faults. This! This is what I was trying to get across! Just because a dog has a fault does not instantly make it less worthy. You have to look at the whole dog. And the decisions made in judging are not necessarily the same ones made when breeding as they are being made in a different context. A dog with afault is less worthy than a dog in the same line up with all the same virtues..sans fault. But no two dogs have all the same virtues to the same degree with only one fault differentiating them. I totally see what you're saying but it's virtually impossible to create the circumstances you're talking about. Between two different dogs they will have virtues and faults, all of differing degrees. Add more to the mix and it becomes more complicated. At the end the judges need to weigh up all the virtues and all the faults, and their degrees and make a decision.

Would you like to include the neuters that I know were neutered because they only had one testicle ? I'd have to say yes on that - if they were neutered they wouldn't have any even if they had 4 beforehand. But you raise a very valid point and it's why I said that I think we would be a very long way off running off a neuter and entire for a BOB. Personally I think they should be kept separate but that's just a personal view.

That's fair enough and your opinion is valid - that's why I did the poll and started the thread - to find out what people think. I would hope though that you're also open to discussing why and answering questions about your opinion. I just wanted to pick up on what you said above and discuss a bit further, and I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong because I think it's subjective. If that is true and the theory is to exhibit prime breeding stock, do you think that titles should be stripped from dogs or bitches that then fail to produce or should they have to provide evidence of their fertility before being allowed to compete? I know that a lot of people do use dog shows and have for many years to look at potential breeding stock, but I always thought the basic theory was to judge dogs against their breed standard and identify the exhibits that conform the best against those standards (in the opinion of the judge....). Certainly, identifying breeding stock is a by-product but I didn't think it was the main purpose?

Sorry conztruct this one is just killing me :laugh: :laugh: Staffords, locked and loaded. :rofl: Pump HANDLE tail :D Whoops!!! I did say I was ignorant to the breed standard - ;)

What reasons? Any reason. Age. Illness. Because the owner wants. There is talk they should be eligible for the BoB lineup Good grief. Actually I'd rather see more veterans than neutered. That doesn't really make sense for a conformation show. It doesn't matter why a neutered dog has been neutered they should be eligible to compete for the neutered class because that's the pre-requisite - the fact that it hasn't got a confirmation title to it's name has no bearing on the judges ability to assess it against the standard, why not let them do it then. If it's a poor exhibit of the breed they can non-award, if it's good enough it will get a neuter challenge and some points. I would agree with you that they really shouldn't be lining up against the entire exhibits for BOB though at this point in time although if the concept of neuter really took off, they could certainly look at Best Entire, Best Neuter and then run off for BOB - I just don't think we've reached that point yet.

I agree that a judge should know and action disqualifying faults but many faults are not disqualifying. I must say that I kind of agree with the judge's comments in your answer above. I am quite ignorant of the Staffie standard but you are suggesting that the dog with the undesirable colouring should have been discounted because of that fault. What if as the judge says, they thought it was a better type than the others presented, what if it had a pump-action tail and the others didn't? The judge should be judging the overall dog - sure any fault should come into consideration but so should the virtues of the dog. Again with the mini bull terriers, being over height is a fault and I've seen many challenges refused based on this and other faults in the dogs...a lot of judges understand that the minis are also currently in an extended interbreeding program with the standard bullies to eliminate some debilitating genetic conditions (PLL) and size is one of the sacrifices of doing this. B&T is in SBT's Is "highly Undesirable. If the judge actually know the standard & did think this dog was the pick she should have non awarded the whole lot. A much better result for the breed. Just turning up shouldn't guarantee a result. That actually may be the case, but perhaps the judge considered the exhibit worthy of the award on the basis that said highly undersirable fault was not detrimental to the health of the animal as the standard says when considering the degree of seriousness, and as the fault was highly undesirable rather than disqualifying, they were ok with awarding a challenge. It's purely speculation as to why a judge will and will not award and we are not always privy to their interpretation of the standard to know if they do or do not know it. I assume that if you were presented an exhibit with this colouring that you'd place it well below others of the breed - what faults would you consider more acceptable in others though - no pump action tail, inclined canines, poor topline? I'm not a judge but I'd always consider a dog with a coat colour fault more desireable than a dog with very poor construction.