The judging of purebred dogs revolves around one basic principle: the judge of

the day places the dogs in front of him in order of merit based on each individual’s

closeness to its Breed Standard. That should be the only consideration, yet

unfortunately all too often we see other factors clouding the issue. We see dogs

winning unfairly because they may have an advantage of one kind or another, be

that of breeding, ownership or winning record. Likewise we see dogs losing unfairly

for similar reasons. Whilst some dogs may pile up Challenge Certificates or points

because judges feel obliged to follow form, we also see some judges (particularly

political breed judges in the main) who delight in demoting the reigning Champion in

favour of mediocrity for reasons that are clearly questionable.

Breed Standards were originally drawn up by the breeds’ founding fathers as

a written description of the ideal adult specimen in any given breed. In the majority of

breeds, the requirement for physical attributes tended to be function-related; very

few breed standards were designed purely around aesthetic qualities as even the

Toy breeds tended more often than not to be miniaturised examples of essentially

functional breeds.

Over the years they may have been streamlined and tweaked a little, but for

the most part breed standards remain unaltered, yet there can be no denying that

many breeds have changed dramatically in their physical appearance, and these

changes go beyond the superficial aspect of just more sophisticated grooming and

presentation. More often than not breeds change gradually for a variety of reasons,

and the changes may be almost imperceptible as they happen over a period of time.

Breeds often go through phases when fashion dictates a longer neck, a shorter

muzzle, a shorter back, more angulated rear or whatever and in time the basic

perceived template of the breed is altered as different styles emerge.

One of the expressions that irritates me most these days is “old fashioned”

which is often used in a derogatory sense, yet what is referred to as being “old

fashioned” is often merely “correct”. One of the problems with judging is that judges

develop surrounded by the dogs of their time and their appreciation of the Breed

Standard is obviously coloured by those dogs. That is perfectly logical and of course

judging is by definition evaluating the dogs that are put in front of you, but to judge

effectively you need to understand that some breeds may have drifted away from

classic breed type and recognise that fact.

To quote the late Di Johnson, “these days people have a desire to judge more

than they have a desire to learn”. Learning about a breed involves intense study of

how it has evolved through history, what the original Breed Standard described, why

the physical component parts of the breed should be as required, and what

constitutes classic Breed Type. The problem is that this classic type may not be

present in the majority of dogs and this is where judges can come unstuck. When

faced with twenty dogs, nineteen being of one “type” and one that is definitely

different, it takes a very courageous, self-confident and knowledgeable judge to say

that the one is correct and the others less so. Sadly those qualities are not present in

all judges, so they will take the easy option and presume that the majority are correct

and the “odd man out” is wrong. This can account for outstanding dogs being missed

simply because they do not look like the majority.

In view of the fact that fashions change, faults can become endemic in a

breed which become so commonplace that they eventually are accepted as the

norm. The legendary Anne Rogers Clark had a wonderful expression for this kind of

shortcoming as being “the drag of a breed”. Annie also felt, very wisely, that when

these “drags” appeared they should be heavily penalised for the good of the breed

and when dogs were shown that were correct in those areas they should be very

positively rewarded.

As an example let’s look at a breed that requires a medium size, oval shaped

eye set obliquely which contributes greatly to its expression. If a large number of

dogs begin to appear that have big, round, forward-placed eyes, the true expression

of the breed is lost and the dog immediately looks a little “off type”. Mrs Clark would

have come down very heavily on the bug-eyed specimens that didn’t look at her

right, and had any dogs she could find with correct eyes and expression at the top of

the line, all things being equal of course.

Some judges religiously read through the Breed Standard before they judge a

breed, no matter how often they have done so. It serves as a great refresher and can

remind us of points that may have just drifted into our sub-conscious. Other judges

never bother because they feel that they know what they like and reading a Standard

might just confuse them.

The important thing is that dogs are judged to their Breed Standard. More and

more when I was travelling around, judging internationally, I was being faced with

entries in breeds where the majority of dogs had drifted away from classic type and

this always makes judging more of a challenge. It is depressing to see faults that are

commonplace when dogs lacking those faults and are of the really correct type just

cannot be found. However when one does appear it requires great intestinal fortitude

for a judge to go out on a limb.

Such a situation occurred to me once when judging in the Philippines.

Throughout the twelve shows there was a numerically strong entry of Pomeranians

but I soon realised that the majority of the dogs shown failed in several areas. Lots of

the dogs had ultra-short, blocky forefaces with large eyes (thus removing any

suggestion of a foxy outline and expression), short legs and incorrect coats which

were generally dramatically over-trimmed. However in the Junior Dog class I had a

one year old that really excited me, yet few of the others in the large entry matched

him for balance and general type. He had the head proportions and expression I was

looking for, the correct length of leg for ideal balance and the desired coat texture.

Furthermore he was not obviously barbered and had a coat texture that still

maintained the softness that should be seen in a Pom’s outline. He handled well on

the table, being firm bodied and beautifully groomed, and his movement was true,

brisk and buoyant. The more I studied him the more correct I realised he was. He

was my BOB winner and I later placed him at the top of a good group ahead of a

very pleasing young Siberian Husky male. For me he was an outstanding example of

breed type and deserved to be recognised as such. He was definitely the “odd man

out” as nothing else resembled him but I had no doubts that he was superior to any

of his competitors. Interestingly, out of twelve shows, he only managed one further

Best Of Breed!

Of course some readers may take issue with these thoughts and claim that

judging is simply a matter of opinion, but as Nigel Aubrey-Jones often said “some

things are a matter of opinion; other things are a matter of fact”.

© ANDREW H. BRACE

(This article may not be reproduced in any form without the author’s

permission)