Knowing vs. Understanding

Part of the online AKC Judges’ Resource Center are the study guides. A preface to these guides says, “No single written guide is ever comprehensive enough to be the only learning tool utilized in preparation for judging a new breed. We urge you to seek other educational opportunities to broaden your base knowledge and to see and examine as many of the breed as possible.” 

I think this is one of the best statements made by the AKC as pertains to judging. Unfortunately, the bulk of tests given to new judges or those wanting to add new breeds is based on answering specific questions based on the written standards. Certainly, knowing the standard is important, but not as important as truly understanding the breed.

What’s the difference? I have known many people who could – and have – memorized a breed standard, but I wouldn’t want them judging my breed. Google differentiates the two like this: “‘Knowing’ and ‘understanding’ are related concepts, but they're not the same. Each is a distinct mental state involving cognitive grasp: Knowing is static, referring to discrete facts, while understanding is active, describing the ability to analyze and place those facts in context to form a big picture. Without knowledge, understanding is impossible. But having knowledge doesn’t necessarily lead to understanding of a greater narrative, which is the real point of gathering information.” 

So, rather than being static, understanding is always growing and improving. Isn’t that what we want from our judges? 

I think of this as similar to — but at the other end of the spectrum of — someone who is able to recite the standard, but that is far from someone who feels the standard or has an eye for a dog. As an infamous former president once said, “Let me make this perfectly clear.” I am NOT saying it is not important to know a breed standard, and we certainly must use the breed standard as the basic structure for our decisions, but I believe it is as important — if not more so — for a judge to understand the breed (and the standard), and have a feel for the breed. I believe an eye for a dog is far more important than memorizing the written words of the standard. 

The Pointer standard describes the tail as “Heavier at the root, tapering to a fine point. Length no greater than to hock. A tail longer than this or docked must be penalized.” Someone who “knows the standard” can quote that, but someone who understands and feels the breed simply calls it a “bee-sting tail,” and that expression is nowhere in the standard. However, if you have been in a field watching Pointers work, you will immediately understand and appreciate the bee-sting tail. 

The same can be said of the Brittany, whose standard says “… closely knit dog of medium size, a leggy dog having the appearance, as well as the agility, of a great ground coverer. Strong, vigorous, energetic and quick of movement. Ruggedness, without clumsiness, is a characteristic of the breed.” If you have ever tried to follow a Brittany in the field — on foot — you understand what is meant by a great ground coverer and why a dog of this size needs to be “leggy,” and why watching — and understanding — their side gait is so important. 

The Clumber Spaniel standard describes the “Clumber roll,” so it is easy for someone who has memorized the standard to say these words, but it requires understanding to realize this is very different than what is sometimes seen in some retriever breeds. 

Certainly, many judges could quote or refer to the Irish Setter standard, which says, “At the trot the gait is big, very lively, graceful and efficient. At an extended trot the head reaches slightly forward, keeping the dog in balance. The forelegs reach well ahead as if to pull in the ground without giving the appearance of a hackney gait.” However, when we see Irish winning whose front movement is like a big Min-Pin, we have to ask if these judges understand the standard and how a Sporting dog works in the field. Too many judges seem to have a problem understanding that the breed should combine elegance and substance. It is not just flashy, flying coat. 

Consider Sighthounds: How do you judge these breeds if you haven’t seen them in full double-suspension gallop? The WORDS in the standard can’t convey this. And if we are to only use the words in the standard, how do you judge the Beagle, whose standard only mentions movement as it pertains to a pack? Doesn’t a judge need to understand structure and feel proper movement as it applies to different breeds and their function to judge a breed like this?  

How about the Saluki, which has no mention at all of movement in its standard? A judge certainly should understand — and feel in his gut — that this breed had to run down its quarry – often over rough or sandy terrain. Understanding the breed function would certainly help a judge appreciate proper movement in the breed. 

I have to admit that for a long time I felt it was very difficult to judge German Shepherds. Like anyone else, I could read the standard and see where it says, “Faults of gait, whether from front, rear or side, are to be considered very serious faults.” Watching the breed indoors and in postage-sized rings made every German Shepherd look like it could not move properly. Then I was fortunate enough to attend a German Shepherd Dog national specialty in Colorado. Watching this breed in a ring that appeared to be a full acre, on sod, with a sheet against the far wall so all could see the silhouette as it passed by, absolutely opened my eyes. Watching as they continued to move — with handler changes, since the dogs just wanted to keep going — helped me to understand why they are built as they are, and what allows them to move comfortably at a flying trot. Just memorizing the words would not have helped me to understand that. Watching the breed “patrol the perimeter” as is its function was necessary for me to feel this great breed. 

Heavily coated breeds such as the Old English Sheepdog, Bouvier des Flandres and Komondor definitely require more than “book-learning.” I have been extremely fortunate to have excellent mentors in breeds like these. Those who know these breeds just have to watch how a judge examines them to know if that judge has simply read the standard and is going through the motions or knows the breed. In most breeds, watching where and how a judge puts his hands on a dog is a strong indication of understanding. This is true even more so on heavily coated breeds.  

What does a judge do when he doesn’t think any of the entries of a breed represents the standard? One of the proper choices is to consider the breed’s function and judge which of the dogs in the class appears able to perform that function. The other option, of course, is to withhold ribbons or points. This is a very difficult decision for a judge, because he knows he is certain to be questioned about this decision, and it certainly won’t make him very popular. Well, that is why we are in the ring. (I was going to say why we are paid the big bucks — but we aren’t.)  

I absolutely believe that the great majority of judges want to do a good job, and understand most of the breeds they are judging. There can certainly be differences of opinions, but as long as the judge has put in the time and effort to really try to learn and understand that breed — and continues to do so — then that opinion is justified. For many breeds, this means watching — or, better yet, participating in — the breed performing its function. Many judges have made the effort to do this, and they have demonstrated that this is more important to them than just checking boxes and getting approved for as many breeds as possible as quickly as possible.

These judges have earned the respect of their position. If, on the other hand, judges have simply checked boxes and rushed through getting as many breeds as possible, and demonstrate their lack of understanding in the ring, don’t waste your time, money or support on them. It’s really that simple.  

What do you think?