The Naming Of Judges

[poodlefan]

The comment re all our judges being honest and non-corruptable was a subtle attempt at sarcasm which was obviously missed.

Not missed at all.. it appears the tone of my response was though ;)

[Lesley]

The first thing that came to my mind when I read this is one particular judge who I will enter bitches under but not my dogs!

He is way too heavy handed on the testicles for my liking, and I have seen many a dog flinch under his hands.

I had one myself that we couldn't get back in the ring after he had judged him, every time a judge ran their hand down his back he would sit down.

Real sad for a muti BIS BISS winner who is sitting on 630 points!

So No, I would hate to see judges not named, as it would be total waste of entry money on many occasion for many people that all have their own dislikes of some.

JMHO

[darwinroyal]

As a Show Manager I would hate mystery judges. I answer enough questions without the slippery slide of dodging that question. Frankly, the people that have travelled from elsewhere to the NT for one of our itty bitty shows are just thankful for the hospitality

Just whereabouts in Australia do you think this would work?

[Lowenhart]

In reply to your second comment as long as I know that the judging by whoever is an honest opinion of that judge I really dont' care what anyone else thinks.

And here's the clunker. You expect that people care when you suspect there is face judging going on but don't when other people think it is happening with you being the face?

The ONLY way to remove face judging is to instigate a benched or "random handler" show. For a "random handler" show, a number of handlers are appointed who are assigned dogs randomly. The owner/breeder etc is not allowed near the dog in eyesight of the judge and the "random handler" exhibits the dog on a regulation/standard lead (so dogs can't be identified by leads). Clapping or any noise from the ringside unless instigated by the judge is forbidden.

And then people will still say it's rigged. :/

99% of the time in showing dogs, it's not about being ethical or honourable but the appearance of being so.

Once you step inside the ring and start judging you understand what you are missing from ringside. So many exhibitors shoot themselves and their dogs in the foot by not being prepared, by not listening and not realising their dog looks awful when stacked/run/walked in the manner they are currently doing so.

[darwinroyal]

Lowenhart, you reminded me of my other question.

For those accusing judges of face judging - what are your qualifications, and have you laid hands on the dogs? Yes, rhetorical, but are you judges?

Oakway, I suspect you are right, but I always listen to you LOL

[liamber]

Like DarwinRoyal said, we only have very small shows up here and they are few and far between. We don't have the luxury of the picking and choosing which shows we attend. Sometimes we only get 1 show a month so for me I enter all shows up here unless there is something wrong with my dogs. Like many other people have said the grooming time and effort which goes into some breeds, i have Cavaliers so it takes alot to get them ready We had a judge a little while ago that wasn't particular great but I will show again underneath them, IMO these judges only push you to become a better handler. I am a fairly new exhibitor so any show that I can enter gives me more experience and at the end of the day we should be showing because we enjoy it and the dogs love not just to win. The dogs that consistently win are obviously worthy of it, if they are being put up show after show by different judges then what does that tell you!!

[OSoSwift]

I was told at one show the judge was a face judge so I shouldn't expect to win. Here I was thinkink I probably wouldn't win becausei was up against a grand champion with an extremely experienced handler!

[PomsNZ]

Wouldnt stop face judging, as Judge A will say I am judging at such a show.. so Exhibitor B will say Oh, Ill go along then:).

Exhibitor C enters and finds out its His ex wife who tried to poison him....

Exhibitor D travels 174 hours on a plane to find out its the same (&*%# judge who ruined her dog a year ago, by hurting it so badly the pup had to have its teeth put back in....

Exhibitor E has a BIS grand champ 1876 times over. and hasnt shown for last 3 years as she was on life support... cos of .. um.. she got stabbed by a chewing gum wrapper.. so she bowls up, and gets knocked down for this 3 legged gas stove.. with a wonky head.. and its tail was a feather duster.

You will have 4 diff people very angry.

Exhibitor B is angry cos um.... she lost her favourite shoe...

*heads off to find more childrens books*

[conztruct]

Many of us see some terrible things happen in the show ring re the judging of our dogs and I for one would like to see some changes to this process so that everybody has an equal chance with their dog not the sometimes foregone conclusion that we often see. It is a fact that show entries are not what they used to be and I know there are many reasons for this , but i would wager one of the main reasons is the judging.

To again strive for a more transparent system I think the time has come to either be a dog judge or an exhibitor not both. I know all the fores and against this statement but it not only has to be fair BUT it also has to look fair.

If you want to improve the standard of judging then I'd suggest you ask for ideas on how to do that. Withholding a judges name doesn't make them a better judge. It just makes who the judge is a lottery. I can't think of a faster way to reduce entries than to make people drive hours to find they're being judged by someone who's opinion they don't respect. Besides, some folk will know who the judges are anyway.

There is no way you can ensure that every handler has an equal chance at winning. We don't all have the same standard of dog, of grooming or of handling.

I keep hearing that show entries are not what they used to be but I've yet to see evidence that it's judging that's to blame.

In reply to your comments, I would like to say ,that if you read my posts re this matter you will see that i have said that there are many reasons for the drop in show entries not just the judging. This original forum was started primarily to address the concern that many exhibitors have regarding the blatant face judging that regularly occurs at many shows, particularly regional shows where quite often club officials also show.I know the clubs work hard to have their shows and would be upset, rightly so if they could show at their own clubs events. The point in addressing this concern was to suggest the non naming of judges etc. to help exhibitors in their own minds get a fair go. It has nothing to do with the quality of a persons dog , grooming ability, and their appearance..I myself over the years have shown under my preferred judges as we all have and everybody is the same ,but in the overall interest of the experience for all the present is quite often corrupted by certain judges, you know this and so does' everyone else unless that all have their eyes closed or live on the moon.

I understand what you mean but I don't think what you're suggesting (ie not naming judges in the schedules) is going to solve the problem. If a judge makes decisions based on factors other than the merit of the dog they are judging, they will continue to do so whether they're named in the schedule or not. And there are plenty more ways of finding out who is judging where without seeing it in a schedule. Club officials will continue to have to appoint judges and will know who they are. I think it all comes back to the judges - if they're all above board it won't matter who knows or what's publicised. If not, you learn quickly by experience and you don't give them another entry.

I think it's good you've made the suggestion and we need to talk about ways that we can improve participation at shows so all ideas are worth considering. I just don't think this one will achieve the result you are looking for.

[Shaar]

No way!

I have my black list of judges. For various reasons, from their attitude towards the dogs and handlers to sitting ringside during specials making snide comments about the dogs (yes, I know I should have reported this, too late now).

If I turned up to one of these surprise shows and one of those judges was there I would go home.

[patterdale]

Hi all, I have for some time considered the following comments as a way to improve the show experience for us all. Please give your opinions.

We all at some stage of our show careers have been aware of the dreaded "face judging syndrome " whether real or imagined and with this in mind on two separate occassions have written to Dogs NSW to offer this suggestion.

Show schedules always name the attending judges at an upcoming show.....WHY ? Is it perhaps so we all only enter under judges we follow or know they like our dogs',In my opinion both these comments do reflect the truth for all of us ,myself included.Month after month we see the same dogs', same people being put up by the same judges and of course the usual paybacks are there for us all to see. If the show schedules did not nominate judges attending, we would all have to take who we get on the day, to me ,a much fairer system for all concerned. Now I hear you all saying that the clubs would leak the info out but if the judges and the club only were awarded their group to judge prior to the commencement of the show we all would only know when the judges are introduced on the morning as to what group has beenallocated to who.( they could be drawn from a hat by, perhaps the rep for the day.)

I dont' think for a minute that judges would object, well maybe some would ,but I bet the journal results would look a lot different. I am also positive that show entries would beincreased if this was bought in by Dogs'NSW>

This is the best idea I have read in years! Well done for bringing it up!

[klink]

Following on from the numerous opinions re this discussion it is apparent that like myself we all have experienced judges' that we would never enter under again for a multitude of reasons, however, that said if we all collectively are prepared to look past our own initial interests and look towards improving the showing experience for all i think that as well as the non naming of judges in show schedules, there needs to be some kind of critique placed upon the judges performance on any given day. I believe that in the u.s. judges are quite often asked to justify their selections to an independant assessor contracted by the AKC. If this is correct as I am lead to believe BRING IT ON.

Judges have no checks' and balances placed on them and it is,I think time they have. Remember INDEPENDANT assessors.

Even with these measures it will still take some time to filter through the benefits of this plan, but it will work.

[Dogsfevr]

I have no issue with judges if need be justifying why but i see no point just to suit those with sour grapes .

Who do they justify it too?

Who decides if there reason is good enough??

What is the outcome if people don't agree ??

What time limit is given for the judge to explain ??

When it gets out of hand who steps in ???

Would it appease those people who bitch no matter what even if they still lose, because if they can't see the merits in good dogs then its not up to the judge to be questioned maybe they should be ??

you highlight INDEPENDENT but i am sure if they agree with the same "Face" winning because the dog is actually good they will be called names as well.

Klink are you a judge ???

[klink]

I have no issue with judges if need be justifying why but i see no point just to suit those with sour grapes .

Who do they justify it too?

Who decides if there reason is good enough??

What is the outcome if people don't agree ??

What time limit is given for the judge to explain ??

When it gets out of hand who steps in ???

Would it appease those people who bitch no matter what even if they still lose, because if they can't see the merits in good dogs then its not up to the judge to be questioned maybe they should be ??

you highlight INDEPENDENT but i am sure if they agree with the same "Face" winning because the dog is actually good they will be called names as well.

Klink are you a judge ???

In response to your mail, The idea of judges having to perhaps being asked to explain and or justify their selections can only be beneficial to the show scene overall. It will never stop disgruntled or illinformed exhibitors from seeking other reasons for their lack of sucess, this will go on forever as it does in all other sports.As you have pondered even a worthy dog winning will still gather complaints' from these people.

The whole basis of this proposal was to enable members generally feel that they are at least gaining some amount of apparent fairness. This is not a guarantee of a pure and perfect scene free from corruption (perceived or not ), but hopefully it will help to reign in the unabated face judging.

[jr_inoz]

And if some newbies are wanting to give it up after a few shows because they didn't win maybe they need to take a closer look at themselves and their dog. Maybe their dog really wasn't groomed well, didn't behave in the ring, and was handled terribly, all of these things can make a great dog look awful and then there is the possibility that the other dog was in fact better.

You can't get into dog showing and expect to win everything, even the big names get dumped.

especially when they show under a judge who is honest and judges the form on the day and all the rest of the time, they have been winning because they are a face.

Newbies give up for a variety of reasons - and one of them is face judging. Another is because in some groups, people can be very non-welcoming and cliquey and not talk to them at all and offer no help.

I was lucky - had two people take me under their wing an mentor me - and I have stuck it out - but it can be daunting and quite nasty. Why would a newbie stay under those circumstances?

If you want to improve the standard of judging then I'd suggest you ask for ideas on how to do that. Withholding a judges name doesn't make them a better judge. It just makes who the judge is a lottery. I can't think of a faster way to reduce entries than to make people drive hours to find they're being judged by someone who's opinion they don't respect. Besides, some folk will know who the judges are anyway.

There is no way you can ensure that every handler has an equal chance at winning. We don't all have the same standard of dog, of grooming or of handling.

I keep hearing that show entries are not what they used to be but I've yet to see evidence that it's judging that's to blame.

Poodlefan - I agree with you that not naming judges is not going to help with entries - like you, I believe it would make things worse.... BUT - you are yet to see evidence that the judging is to blame for reduced entries? Just take a look at the entries for the shows in Adelaide this weekend....

I have no issue with judges if need be justifying why but i see no point just to suit those with sour grapes .

Who do they justify it too?

Who decides if there reason is good enough??

What is the outcome if people don't agree ??

What time limit is given for the judge to explain ??

When it gets out of hand who steps in ???

Would it appease those people who bitch no matter what even if they still lose, because if they can't see the merits in good dogs then its not up to the judge to be questioned maybe they should be ??

you highlight INDEPENDENT but i am sure if they agree with the same "Face" winning because the dog is actually good they will be called names as well.

Klink are you a judge ???

In response to your mail, The idea of judges having to perhaps being asked to explain and or justify their selections can only be beneficial to the show scene overall. It will never stop disgruntled or illinformed exhibitors from seeking other reasons for their lack of sucess, this will go on forever as it does in all other sports.As you have pondered even a worthy dog winning will still gather complaints' from these people.

The whole basis of this proposal was to enable members generally feel that they are at least gaining some amount of apparent fairness. This is not a guarantee of a pure and perfect scene free from corruption (perceived or not ), but hopefully it will help to reign in the unabated face judging.

We get this at specialties when judges give the placegetters a critique. I don't think this stops face judging - judges can justify their choices, people can still be unhappy about those choices.

The other issue is that some judges just don't know the breed standard well enough. Dog in my breed got put up the other week with an incorrect head - so far from the standard it would be considered a serious fault - yet it got Challenge. Judge wasn't necessarily a face judge at all, but they sure didn't know our breed standard.

[Diesel's Mate]

We definately need to know the names of judges. I had my first ever show and I have a baby puppy and the judge was truly rude. I will never enter a show with him as a judge of my group again.

[Bullylova]

As a relatively new person to the show ring( been showing for about 6 months now) I have yet to have the same judge twice, and thankfully, all that I have dealt with have been excellent with the dogs, that I have seen. Very kind, and gentle too.I certainly wouldn't enter under a judge again if they were nasty in thier handling of the dog.I can honestly say that I look at what we have in our schedule, then look at what shows I can do around that-maybe as I have been showing longer, I would look more closely at who was judging. At the end of the day, I go home with the best dogs, and it is a day out for me and them. :D Face judging would make it quite disheartening, as there may be a spectacular dog overlooked, and that would not be of any benefit for new people to learn.

Edited for spelling

Edited May 24, 2011 by Bullylova

[Shaar]

As a relatively new person to the show ring( been showing for about 6 months now) I have yet to have the same judge twice, and thankfully, all that I have dealt with have been excellent with the dogs, that I have seen. Very kind, and gentle too.I certainly wouldn't enter under a judge again if they were nasty in thier handling of the dog.I can honestly say that I look at what we have in our schedule, then look at what shows I can do around that-maybe as I have been showing longer, I would look more closely at who was judging. At the end of the day, I go home with the best dogs, and it is a day out for me and them. :D Face judging would make it quite disheartening, as there may be a spectacular dog overlooked, and that would not be of any benefit for new people to learn.

Edited for spelling

Same here, I have yet to show my own dog under the same judge twice.

There have been a couple of judges that did not put my dog up on the day but I would happily show under them again. One was the nicest man with both the exhibitors and the dogs, would definitely give him an entry despite not winning.

Others I wouldn't drag a dead dog to the show for them to go over. When my boy was just a pup and still not trained very well on the table (happy puppy wiggles) one judge was very forceful and it took me quite a while to get him over it... he still doesn't wag his tail on the table any more.

[darwinroyal]

As a Show Manager I would hate mystery judges. I answer enough questions without the slippery slide of dodging that question. Frankly, the people that have travelled from elsewhere to the NT for one of our itty bitty shows are just thankful for the hospitality

Just whereabouts in Australia do you think this would work?

Klink, you did not answer this question.

[klink]

There seems to be quite a few members coming up with all the usual reasons for not liking the idea of the non naming of judges in the show notices, and i understand some of the objections,however if we all go along the same path as we are the show scene will continue to lose numbers.As mentioned previously, clubs can if they wish name the panel of judges attending their show ,BUT no allocation of groups will be done until the introduction at the opening of the show ,at which time all would be apparent (to both exhibitors and judges at the same time ) In answer to one comment whether I am a judge or not has no bearing whatsoever on this subject.