A Real Challenge

[Mjosa]

No wonder the spirit in the ring is declining, I have noticed over the years and I have been showing since 1969, the utter bad manners of some exhibitors and it is not only with the breed being discussed here. I have to add here for every bad mannered person in the ring you will find 10 great people who come week after week and when they do win everyone is happy to congratulate them, but the one bad one will lose favour very quickly and it could make life very difficult.

This is a sport that everyone can enjoy, abled or disabled, not a damned boxing ring, I think that fixer needs to go and learn a few manners and the art of losing gracefully, next week it could be her going up, this is how things go in the world of showing but I would not expect the nice people go rushing to congratulate her until she changes her attitude, no dog is perfect and the judge judges on the whole dog, fault to fault, quality to quality and the one that appears to be the best in the line up is the one they chose, it is not an easy job and after all it is the judges opinion on the day. There is always next week.

[espinay2]

To quote from that well respected author, judge and breeder Mary Roslin Williams from her book 'Reaching for the Stars':

'One thing to remember when judging is that there are faults and there are failings and they are not the same thing. Basially faults are constructional, failings are cosmetic. A short heavily-loaded upright shoulder is a bad fault because it puts terrible strain on the dog's legs, feet and spine and jars him with every stride. Weak hindquarters are the same, a fault, and these I am quite sure should be heavily penalised in the ring, without the stigma of fault judging. They are basic and extremely bad faults. But a largish ear is a failing. It is not really going to harm the dog in any way, even in the long run. Too light an eye is a failing, as is too dark an eye and while I like neither I do feel a really good dog should not be condemned in the show ring for either. Drop it down by all means, but one can not damn a really good dog for something so harmless."

[Salukifan]

To quote from that well respected author, judge and breeder Mary Roslin Williams from her book 'Reaching for the Stars':

'One thing to remember when judging is that there are faults and there are failings and they are not the same thing. Basially faults are constructional, failings are cosmetic. A short heavily-loaded upright shoulder is a bad fault because it puts terrible strain on the dog's legs, feet and spine and jars him with every stride. Weak hindquarters are the same, a fault, and these I am quite sure should be heavily penalised in the ring, without the stigma of fault judging. They are basic and extremely bad faults. But a largish ear is a failing. It is not really going to harm the dog in any way, even in the long run. Too light an eye is a failing, as is too dark an eye and while I like neither I do feel a really good dog should not be condemned in the show ring for either. Drop it down by all means, but one can not damn a really good dog for something so harmless."

If it doesn't affect function, how can it be a "major fault"???

[fixer]

To quote from that well respected author, judge and breeder Mary Roslin Williams from her book 'Reaching for the Stars':

'One thing to remember when judging is that there are faults and there are failings and they are not the same thing. Basially faults are constructional, failings are cosmetic. A short heavily-loaded upright shoulder is a bad fault because it puts terrible strain on the dog's legs, feet and spine and jars him with every stride. Weak hindquarters are the same, a fault, and these I am quite sure should be heavily penalised in the ring, without the stigma of fault judging. They are basic and extremely bad faults. But a largish ear is a failing. It is not really going to harm the dog in any way, even in the long run. Too light an eye is a failing, as is too dark an eye and while I like neither I do feel a really good dog should not be condemned in the show ring for either. Drop it down by all means, but one can not damn a really good dog for something so harmless."

If it doesn't affect function, how can it be a "major fault"???

What about mismarkings that are prohibited by the a standard.

Cosmetic? Not a major fault?

16" when the standard declares Not to be any taller than 14''

Cosmetic? Not a major fault?

Give me a break.

[espinay2]

If there are no disqualifications in a standard then it is within the judges ability to judge a dogs value overall in accordance with what is written and to choose to value the overall dog over its possible faults and failings. Different judges will place emphasis on different areas or aspects in accordance with their own experience and biases and that is perfectly within their purview. for example if they have in their own dogs been working to improve a particular feature, they may value dogs which have that particular feature when giving their opinion. An allrounder judge may also place emphasis on different aspects to a specialist, and different specialists may place different emphasis too based on their likes and dislikes and experiences. It is all about IN THEIR OPINION in accordance with the standard. And as stated, if there is no disqualification listed it is up to the judge to judge the dog on its overall merits and what they in their opinion consider to be most important.

For example, if a dog is taller than a standard dictates, but otherwise shows merit and its competition on the day is of correct height, though overall less worthy, then I see no reason for the judge not to award it if there is no disqualification for height listed in the standard. In a breeding program too, a taller dog of merit is still of value if it is used wisely to introduce qualities while working to reduce size over subsequent generations.

Better the dog who is an outstanding example but has a glaring 'fault' to one that meets the standard with no obvious issues but is otherwise just mediocre.

Edited January 9, 2013 by espinay2

[fixer]

If there are no disqualifications in a standard then it is within the judges ability to judge a dogs value overall in accordance with what is written and to choose to value the overall dog over its possible faults and failings. Different judges will place emphasis on different areas or aspects in accordance with their own experience and biases and that is perfectly within their purview. for example if they have in their own dogs been working to improve a particular feature, they may value dogs which have that particular feature when giving their opinion. An allrounder judge may also place emphasis on different aspects to a specialist, and different specialists may place different emphasis too based on their likes and dislikes and experiences. It is all about IN THEIR OPINION in accordance with the standard. And as stated, if there is no disqualification listed it is up to the judge to judge the dog on its overall merits and what they in their opinion consider to be most important.

For example, if a dog is taller than a standard dictates, but otherwise shows merit and its competition on the day is of correct height, though overall less worthy, then I see no reason for the judge not to award it if there is no disqualification for height listed in the standard. In a breeding program too, a taller dog of merit is still of value if it is used wisely to introduce qualities while working to reduce size over subsequent generations.

Better the dog who is an outstanding example but has a glaring 'fault' to one that meets the standard with no obvious issues but is otherwise just mediocre.

I have no problem with that.

What problem do you & others have with a provision for an exhibitor to challenge a decision to award a dog with an obvious fault?

Let's be honest here.

Most, if not all, experienced breeder/exhibitors are breed experts.

Most, if not all, would know the quality of their competition either by previous experiences, reputation or on the spot visual assessment.

Most, if not all, would have an opinion about which were their main opposition.

In most instances there wouldn't be a struck match between the top few.

Most, will be disappointed. Disappointment is not a hanging offence. Show me a good loser & I will show you a born loser.

So, if the bolter, with an obvious fault, gets the nod, why shouldn't the decision be subject to a challenge?

Don't say later, later is too late.

I am not advocating the judge change his decision.

Just he he has to explain it. Then & there. To the people who know at least as much as he/she does.

There could be provisions for penalties for frivolous challenges. Suspension or a fine. Just to make people think it through before jumping in.

Let's have no more singing from the hypocrites hymn book about gracious winners & happy, happy,

& then going back to the gazebos & kicking the crap out of their picnic hampers & badmouthing all & sundry, the judge, the other, their dogs, the pope, who comes to mind comes to mouth.

This way they could show some resolve & put the issue to bed there & then.

The issue to be noted in the day book as a record. A brief comment initialed by both parties maybe.

If a pattern emerges, questions could be asked.

The upside, I.M.O. is the judges would know they were being watched just a little bit more intensly & we would get better judging as a result.

[Sandra777]

Why bother with a judge at all - why not everyone just stay at home and run a show via facebook - the person with the most likes wins.

I think you are obsessed with faults. Being disappointed isn't a hanging offence and neither is having a fault.

You do realise that all dogs (even yours) have faults?

[Salukifan]

I am not advocating the judge change his decision.

Just he he has to explain it. Then & there. To the people who know at least as much as he/she does.

What's the point in recording a decision as "challenged" if the decision won't change? Nice way to take the shine off someone else's win because the judge weighs the pros and cons of dogs differently to you though.

Sounds like a panacea for the loser to me. It's a lot of rigmarole and a pain in the arse for nearly everyone to allow someone to say "I object"!

Edited January 9, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[espinay2]

If you think there is a good reason an exhibit should not have been awarded, then you CAN put in a complaint. Section 2 of the Dogs NSW regulations specifies this for example.. But note the regs also provide for frivolous complaints. If you have 'proof' a dog should not be awarded, you can lay your money down there and then and it will be addressed on the day.

[Dogsfevr]

Because by your own attitude here Challenging a judge is just poor form & fairly obvious it wouldn't be done in a sporting manner .

Most, if not all, experienced breeder/exhibitors are breed experts.

To there own interpretation the exact reason we don't see clones in the ring.

Your idea of right could be the next person idea of wrong .

[fixer]

Why bother with a judge at all - why not everyone just stay at home and run a show via facebook - the person with the most likes wins.

I think you are obsessed with faults. Being disappointed isn't a hanging offence and neither is having a fault.

You do realise that all dogs (even yours) have faults?

I'm not obssessed with faults at all. That seems to be your problem.

Faults are a fact of life.

This is about eliminating faults, not rewarding them.

Which should be the goal of anyone claiming to be a responsible ethical breeder.

Think Julius Caesar

Think we are here to bury them....not to praise them.

[Sandra777]

This is about eliminating faults, not rewarding them.

Which should be the goal of anyone claiming to be a responsible ethical breeder.

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.

[espinay2]

This is about eliminating faults, not rewarding them.

Which should be the goal of anyone claiming to be a responsible ethical breeder.

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.

Edited January 9, 2013 by espinay2

[WreckitWhippet]

To quote from that well respected author, judge and breeder Mary Roslin Williams from her book 'Reaching for the Stars':

'One thing to remember when judging is that there are faults and there are failings and they are not the same thing. Basially faults are constructional, failings are cosmetic. A short heavily-loaded upright shoulder is a bad fault because it puts terrible strain on the dog's legs, feet and spine and jars him with every stride. Weak hindquarters are the same, a fault, and these I am quite sure should be heavily penalised in the ring, without the stigma of fault judging. They are basic and extremely bad faults. But a largish ear is a failing. It is not really going to harm the dog in any way, even in the long run. Too light an eye is a failing, as is too dark an eye and while I like neither I do feel a really good dog should not be condemned in the show ring for either. Drop it down by all means, but one can not damn a really good dog for something so harmless."

Give me a bigger dog that is balanced any day, over something that is 16 inches, with a short upper arm and the lenght of a freight train. I'll even take the lighter eyes, when the rest of the head is what it should be.

[fixer]

This is about eliminating faults, not rewarding them.

Which should be the goal of anyone claiming to be a responsible ethical breeder.

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.

[conztruct]

This is about eliminating faults, not rewarding them.

Which should be the goal of anyone claiming to be a responsible ethical breeder.

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.

[fixer]

Give me a bigger dog that is balanced any day, over something that is 16 inches, with a short upper arm and the lenght of a freight train. I'll even take the lighter eyes, when the rest of the head is what it should be.

The probable result from a line up of say 6 dogs which includes the 16" with short upper arm & the length of a freight train & the taller than desirable, though well balanced black brindle with yellow eyes, would be are they placed 5th & 6th...in any order because they both don't rate.

Which is as it should be.

[angelsun]

I was in a discussion quite a while ago, where I was educated that here in Australia, despite what standards say, we have no method of actual '

disqualification'

of a dog in the show ring. The 'non award' was stressed as the ONLY option in spite of the written standard. It was then strongly presented that the term DQ is actually non existant here when it comes to show dogs.

As for being told by a judge, that it is 'their opinion I've paid for' NO, I've never been told that, but in fact I have said that to others and then had to make a decision as to whether or not I would pay for that opinion again in the future.

As for sub standard dogs in the ring...yup...all the time..some are known as 'phil' it happens and nothing will change that. Not all exhibitors care if they show only thier best or not. When you have the only entries in a breed, you can pretty much run your own show when it comes to how big a challenge win you want to pay for.

[fixer]

This is about eliminating faults, not rewarding them.

Which should be the goal of anyone claiming to be a responsible ethical breeder.

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.

can I ask you a personal question?

You don't need to answer if don't want to.

Would you tell me how much experience in the show scene you have?

S777 accuses me of being obsessed with faults.

I'm not.

But you are.

People claim the perfect dog has yet to be whelped.

If that is true, there a bloody lot of near perfect dogs out there.

It is not impossible as you think one fault could seperate two near perfect specimans.

Dogs, like their handlers, have off days.

it isn't always the vitues or faults decide the result.

[conztruct]

can I ask you a personal question?

You don't need to answer if don't want to.

Would you tell me how much experience in the show scene you have?

S777 accuses me of being obsessed with faults.

I'm not.

But you are.

People claim the perfect dog has yet to be whelped.

If that is true, there a bloody lot of near perfect dogs out there.

It is not impossible as you think one fault could seperate two near perfect specimans.

Dogs, like their handlers, have off days.

it isn't always the vitues or faults decide the result.

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.