| Judging and Its Affect on Breeding by Jonathan Jeffrey Kimes, Pluperfect Cardigans,
USA As old as the sport itself, the theoretical debate
regarding the influence of judging on the progress (or lack thereof) of breeding show dogs
has taken a very clear shape in my mind of recent months.
On the one hand, the breeders complain that judges are not knowledgeable enough
about the dogs, that judging is not fair and impartial and that sub-standard stock win
prizes well out of proportion to what they should. On
the other, judges argue they can only put up what is shown to them and if poor quality
animals win, it is a reflection of the population of the show ring over which they
preside. For most of us, it is akin to the chicken and the
egg conundrum; one could not happen without the other.
For my part, I feel very strongly judges do indeed make a tremendous impact on how
breeds evolve and whether they improve and what direction they take. Make no mistake, I am by no means a sympathetic
breeder. I pointedly do not exhibit under
judges who have proven themselves incapable of recognizing the good ones in their ring;
and in this I believe I am in the minority. How
the situation occurs and why I believe it continues is the subject of this article. American dog breeders are, I believe, more
„process“ oriented than our English counterparts.
In England, shows are far less numerous, competition routinely far more keen (from
a population perspective), and judges are far more specialized. Specific wins count for much more than they do in
America. Only at such shows as breed national
specialties (or in some breeds, Westminster wins), do American breeders place much stress
on single shows. In the United States
specials are campaigned at scores, if not hundreds, of dog shows with win records in the
double or triple digits. We tend to take the
„win a few, lose a few“ approach to dog shows and I believe this makes us far
less concerned about the middle range (read: mediocre) of judging quality which is our
bread and butter. In such a model, a wide range in quality of animal
will eventually achieve championship titles. Most
experienced American breeders know a championship is not particularly meaningful or
helpful in assessing a dog’s quality. Poorer
dogs may take more showings to finish – especially if they are unfortunate enough not
to be showy – but they generally will finish given the owner’s fortitude in
pursuing the title. Even on the specials
level, a vast group of quite mediocre animals can reach very excellent heights of success
if the correct mix of presentation, campaigning and advertising surround the animal. I say this next piece with a sort of sad pause,
but I think many of today’s exhibitors do not realize show dogs are being judged as
breeding stock. Take away the national
specialty wins and the group wins and everyone else pretty much falls into an
undistinguished field. We’ve made it so. We might look askance at that common, unvirtuous,
and completely uninteresting exhibit waiting to go into the ring, but if he wins his
championship, what does his owner need to know from ideal?
He gains his title and he is of equal breeding merit to the carefully bred
animal from generations of truly virtuous stock. They
both will be bred from. But what of our serving judge, the long suffering
individual who makes decision after decision all day long standing on concrete sustaining
him or herself on the occasional cup of coffee? Why
are they to blame? Easily. Because in most entries there are the
„haves“ and the „have nots“. There
are the animals who could bring the breed up a notch, maybe not dramatically so, but in
very important ways. But our judge, licensed
in 60 breeds of dogs, doesn’t have, and couldn’t possibly be expected to have,
the depth of knowledge to separate those specimens. Oh
I sometimes tell myself anyone who has judged enough to have a full day of entries ought
to at least understand a correct forehand, topline, rear, movement, and balance on sight. Even if s/he doesn’t have a true
„eye“. And they are looking, they
just don’t seem to see. There probably
are enough who have some semblance of knowledge to reward these things. I credit them with rewarding the great American
invention: the „generic“ show dog. Breed
doesn’t matter; they are clean, well angulated in the rear, clean in front (not
angulated in the forehand because even these folks don’t understand that), contain a
level or sloping topline, possess a driving rear and god bless them if they are showy. Name a breed, any breed. Often, these dogs are „missing it“ from
the eyes of a true breed connoisseur but the near all rounder is oblivious. Doesn’t see it, doesn’t know it,
doesn’t value it. I think this became
crystal clear to me when I exhibited a fine bitch (who won Best of Winners at a national
specialty) who simply had everything one could ask for: type, structure, movement, and
showmanship. Yet even she would get beaten in
the ring by utterly forgettable, mediocre animals. It
wasn’t a specific „thing“ she was getting knocked on, it was that the judge
simply preferred another exhibit. Such a
judge (and they are not rare) just didn’t have the knowledge to appreciate what they
were looking at. To me, the analogy of
taking a bunch of people who are uneducated on art into an art museum is destined for a
similar outcome. They will have scattered
appreciation for the art to which they have never been exposed, they will randomly select
their favorite pieces with untrained eyes, and they will have strong opinions on the
famous artwork, like Picasso, Renoir or Van Gogh. When
you don’t know what you are supposed to be looking at, it’s far easier and safer
to appreciate what has already been labelled as outstanding. So be it with the show ring. The outcome of all of this is that breeders breed
to what wins. A favorite old statement,
„be careful what you measure for that is what will get done,“ is the perfect
theory. How many times have I seen breeders
at ringside, totally unaware of a smashing newcomer on the scene. He might be outstanding, but no one seems to notice. Let a dog build a show record, and soon he will
draw the attention of the breeders. How
fortunate for the breed if he is a truly good one, how typical if he isn’t. Show ring success, regardless of debates to
the contrary, is a very strong argument for including that dog in a breeding program. And while that model works if the judging is on
target, when it is remiss the whole system falls apart. But not all is footloose and fancy. There are in most breeds, one or two individuals
who seem to have a clue about their breed, who breed what they believe is correct and who
very often are the reason for that breed’s true merit at that time. They are unimpressed, and unmoved by show ring
credentials and make their decisions based on their own dog knowledge. They generally have a long life in dogs,
develop a clearly distinguishable „type,“ and provide a level of leadership. But these people are succeeding despite the system
not because of it. Having firmly nailed the majority of the judging
population to the cross of circumspection, we can now analyze the current approach to
fixing the problem. Without question,
breed clubs and the American Kennel Club have put a great deal of effort into developing
opportunities for judges to learn more about a particular breed. Breed seminars abound. There are two particular criticisms which can be
mitted out to the current environment. The
first one is a study group encounter which is not – and should not be considered -
some sort of profound experience where someone vaguely or incompletely familiar with a
breed will miraculously arise to a level of expertise.
There is no glass mirror that one walks through that changes,
instantaneously, the uninformed into the expert.
Sitting through a specialty and chatting with one or two breeders or
judges does not somehow make one qualified for a judge’s license. We apparently think in this country it does. It takes people up to a decade of involvement in
their own breed to gain any sort of credibility, any sort of understanding, any sort of
„feel“ for their breed. But once
licensed, we for whatever illogical reasons, think two hours exposure makes us an expert. My other criticism is if you indeed already
possess a license in a breed, it is somehow perceived as not only unnecessary but down
right undesirable, to sit through a lecture on a breed.
While I believe both models are illogical and beg reality, they are also
highly contradictory. If we provide allowance for a certain amount of
ignorance, as we obviously do when we provide judge’s licenses to people who have
attended one or two breed seminars, then it would follow that we should expect that newly
approved judge to „get up to speed“ as quickly as possible. One way might be to attend, with a vengeance, many
more seminars and many more specialties. We
do just the opposite. Being seen in a
„learning“ environment for a specific breed while holding a judge’s license
for that breed is considered gauche. Apparently. Because it largely does not happen. The only other alternative for the uninformed
judge to learn about a breed is to presuppose continued judging and exposure to the breed
will result in better judgments. Why
exhibitors should even be subject to this nonsense is beyond my comprehension. but more to
the point – I don’t know of any highly skilled endeavor that is mastered simply
by continuing to do it badly over a period of time. Practice
is essential, if coupled with training. It is
that model which does not appear to exist in today’s show ring environment. So why? you might be asking yourself, do
exhibitors expose themselves to these miscreants I’ve chosen to call judges? The answer appears to revolve around the concept
of chance. Many are willing to take the
chance the judge will select their dog for points or group placements. Little pride in the win, but as I noted above, it
is the „notch on the bedpost“ that matters – the value of the win as in the
specific show or the specific judge is not particularly meaningful. For the three people who have read this that
haven’t turned away in disgust and who haven’t spun off a list of
self-justifications for the current environment, I propose a solution is conceivable. I am not even interested in prognosticating what
that solution might be. Just knowing there
is a delta between where we ought to be and where we are is an important first step. |