What Are We Judging?
Here is a quote from the American Kennel Club’s “Rules, Policies and Guidelines for Conformation Dog Show Judges”:
“The AKC assumes that a judge will judge on the merits of the dog presented to him or her and will not allow other factors to affect his or her decisions.”
I certainly have no problem with that statement as it stands, but “thinking out of the box,” I do think there are “other factors” that come into play at times, and those factors are not necessarily all negative. As a matter of fact, I think good judging absolutely requires more than just rote memorization of a standard.
I do not believe that the ONLY thing a judge should be thinking about when judging is the written breed standard.
Does that statement have all of you reaching for the phone to call the AKC Judges Department? Relax!
The dogs we see standing before us are not just words in a standard. The goal is that — hopefully — what is standing before us is the living embodiment of those words. What’s the difference? I have known many people who can quote standards word for word — and maybe even include the punctuation that is in the standard — and yet, these are not necessarily the judges I would want to judge my dog. We are judging living animals and passing judgment on breeding programs that are not just words. The words — the standard — are only as meaningful as the flesh and blood standing before you.
When preparing to become a judge, why do we attend breed seminars, go to national specialties, and discuss breeds with mentors and breeders? Is it not to take those words we have read in the standard and see them translated into flesh and blood? Do we not also attend performance events that allow us to see a retriever at work over rough land and water, which helps to understand why the breed needs to have some leg under it, be athletic and agile? I believe all judges who have had the privilege of watching Whippets, Greyhounds or other Sighthounds run at a lure-coursing event better understand what a double-suspension gallop is and why those breeds need to be built as they are to be able to “open and close” like that.
And why do we do this? Is it not to help us form a mental picture in our “mind’s eye” of that breed? Don’t we want that picture to come to mind when we are judging that breed — or should we just be able to regurgitate the written words in the standard?
Basically, I believe in judging the “whole dog” rather than the parts that are described in the standard. For me, except for the disqualifications, I believe the most important section of any standard is usually found in the first paragraph that describes the overall impression of the breed. I think judging with JUST the standard in mind results in judging in parts — head, front, rear, movement, etc. This may work for some; however, I would rather truly know the breed — and its function — which allows me to judge the dog AS A WHOLE! I judge as much with how a dog touches my heart and “mind’s eye” as I do with knowing the standard. If I have a question about a specific item in the standard for that breed, I can look it up (almost all judges have their book of standards with them in the ring), but if the dog just touches me as being out of balance or if it moves with a rough cadence or out of synch or balance, I don’t need to look anything up. My heart and my mind’s eye know whether the breed symmetry is there or not. Very simply put, I believe I judge with my heart as much as I do with my mind.
As I was writing this, I came across a quotation from Mrs. Florence Nagle written in 1971. She was quite a woman: Born in 1894 and dying in 1988, she bred Irish Wolfhounds for 65 years at her Sulhamstead kennels. In addition, she was a judge of all Hound breeds, and wrote about breeding, exercising and handling. Her challenges to the English Jockey Club earned women the right to become both its members and trainers.
Here are a few sentences from a 1971 tape recording of her during a breed seminar. Her words fit very well with my thoughts.
I try to breed a dog that could still do the job he was meant to do.
Every dog probably has three faults. But some faults are much more important than others. A bad conformation is a shocking fault. The dog is going to pass that on to its puppies. An ear held a bit wrong, or a tooth out, is not a shocking fault. Other important things, the jawbone is more important than one or two broken teeth. Coat isn't the most important thing either.
(The above statement is very similar to one made by one of my favorite people, who said, “Too often we step over a great dog to put up a good dog.” Thanks, Doug.)
Do you know what the second thigh is? It's between the knee and hock. If you muscle that up, you won't have cow-hocked dogs. Otherwise, there's no muscle to keep the hocks straight when the dog is growing up.
You also want muscle on the shoulder. Don't get the silly idea that this is a loaded shoulder. If the shoulder is properly laid back it can't be a loaded shoulder.
Handling — a good dog, well made, rarely stands badly. Just let it stand and it will place itself beautifully.
No hackney action, please. You never want hackney action in a galloping dog. The show crowd thinks it's lovely to see a dog prance along. It isn't, it's all wrong.
If you have a first-class dog, you still want presence. What is this? It's the dog that comes into the ring, holds his own head up, and then moves off, not strung up with a ewe neck.
Take your dog into the ring, let it stand on its own, and run on its own, and then you've that valuable quality called presence, which will always carry you.
No, having presence or showing well should never be considered before proper conformation and soundness (breed type), but it certainly comes into play at the group and Best in Show levels. I also often require dogs to stand on their own — no posing or stacking — because it is helpful in assessing true structure and balance without the handler interfering.
What else may come into play when judging? I believe that if a judge has been fortunate enough to have seen a really good specimen of a breed, then that image would remain in the judge’s mind’s eye when judging that breed. I think it is more difficult for the person who has never seen “a great one” to judge that breed well, because he will only be basing his opinions and thoughts on what is being shown now — and those breed specimens may very well not be good ones.
However, this can be a double-edged sword. A judge may have become so enamored of a dog he has seen — or the memory of that dog — that everything else fails by comparison. Are we judging the dog before us or comparing it to our memory — and like most memories, they very often are better than the actuality. Obviously, this is not fair or correct. So, as with most things involved with judging, it is another trade-off.
Most of all, there are elements of a breed that are so important to that breed that if the dog in front of you is missing this feature, it cannot win because it does not have breed type. Some of these distinguishing characteristics are so ingrained in the breed, they are part of the name — such as the Curly-Coated Retriever. Obviously, a Curly with a very incorrect coat should not be put up. Other examples might not be found in the breed standard, but knowing how the breed “functions,” it then becomes obvious. For example, the Greyhound breed standard makes very little mention of an arching topline other than to say “Loins … well arched” — unlike the Whippet standard, which describes this in more depth — but to put up a Greyhound with a very flat topline would be very incorrect. Having seen the Greyhound at a double-suspension gallop demands that we look for the correct topline that would allow this to happen. As a group – perhaps more than any other – certainly a Terrier with a tucked tail cannot be put up: No tail, no Terrier.
So, it takes more than standard memorization to be a good judge.
What do you think?