Have you recently heard this question ringside at a dog show? Perhaps even you have asked this a hundred times over. More often than not, it is posed rhetorically as a reflection or criticism of your observation. I am referencing the deliberations and decisions made by the AKC dog show judge. We all at one time or another have stood ringside and observed judges that have left us shaking our heads and muttering, “I must have missed something!” Even more frustrating is attending our breed specialties, and we are left altogether bewildered. Here, in particular, we ask, “What are they looking for?” The judges explanation is not forthcoming unless you attend a dinner where the judge says a few words about their selections, or you may read it later in the club’s publication.
At the all-breed level, we can surely solve this issue while improving upon the adjudication process. In recent times, there have been debates about adopting a few practices of the FEDERATION CYNOLOGIQUE INTERNATIONALE (FCI). For instance, we now offer a Reserve Best in Show, and although I do not see a restructuring of the classes I believe we can and should adopt one other highly useful and logical method. We need to embrace the custom of judge’s grading and critiquing each dog entry. This is not just an enlightening tool for exhibitors, but a valuable tool for judges and AKC Field Representatives, as well. The latter I touch on further down. For those who are unfamiliar with FCI Regulations for Show Judges,
“The candidate has to produce a consequent critique with the good and less good points of the outline and movement of the dogs and he must pay attention to the health and welfare of the dog.”
From there, the FCI qualifications given by the judges must correspond to the following definitions:
EXCELLENT may only be awarded to a dog which comes very close to the ideal standard of the breed, which is presented in excellent condition, displays a harmonious, well-balanced temperament, is of high class and has excellent posture. Its superior characteristics in respect of its breed permit that minor imperfections can be ignored; it must however have the typical features of its sex.
VERY GOOD may only be awarded to a dog that possesses the typical features of its breed, which has well-balanced proportions and is in correct condition. A few minor faults may be tolerated. This award can only be granted to a dog that shows class.
GOOD is to be awarded to a dog that possesses the main features of its breed. The good points should outweigh the faults so that the dog can be considered a good representative of its breed.
SUFFICIENT should be awarded to a dog which corresponds adequately to its breed, without possessing the generally accepted characteristics or whose physical condition leaves a lot to be desired.
DISQUALIFIED must be awarded to a dog which does not correspond to the type required by the breed standard; which shows a behaviour clearly not in line with its standard or which behaves aggressively; which has testicular abnormalities; which has a jaw anomaly; which shows a colour or coat structure that is not according to the breed standard or clearly shows signs of albinism. This qualification shall also be awarded to dogs that correspond so little to a single feature of the breed that their health is threatened. It should furthermore be awarded to dogs that show disqualifying faults in regard to the breed standard. The reason the dog was rated DISQUALIFIED has to be stated in the judge’s report.
Mandatory judging critiques have numerous advantages with the most obvious being that exhibitors receive an immediate explanation and grade. Moreover, the process can strengthen the overall quality of the judges pool. When a judge has to grade and explain ‘why they did what they did,’ it may accentuate incompetence. Frankly, most judges prefer not to look like a fool. Similarly, this process benefits both Judges and AKC Executive Field Representatives, as well. The critique is a written opinion and rating that serves as a tool to enforce an AKC Field Rep’s evaluation on a permit or regular status judge. Likewise, it can act as validation for a judge’s quality of selection when confronted and challenged by an AKC Field Representative, hopefully preventing an unfair, unfavorable evaluation.
Moreover, this elaborating and grading process may give some judges pause in accepting breed assignments that they may be both unqualified and uncertain in. If they are compelled to expand on the virtues or merits of a breed, they may hesitate to accept the assignment in the first place. This sure sounds better than the current system at all-breed shows where we have judges hastily, all in a cloak of secrecy, flick a finger or wave their hand at placements and awards, then rush to fill out their judging book. The satin ribbons and rosettes are handed out and finito!, the judge is on to the next breed...
This article was first published in a previous version on the Canine Chronicle website. Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=12388