Promoting, Pimping or Positive
Thinking?
More than thirty years ago the late Stafford Somerfield approached me with a
view to writing a weekly column in DOG WORLD, the leading UK weekly specialist
newspaper at the time. My brief was to cover as many of the dogs and people I
encountered as possible when I travelled to dog shows and the column, by Stafford’s
choice, was given the title “Going Around”.
Originally the column filled a quarter of a page and was simply text in black
and white. Gradually the column increased in size and as printing techniques
changed it became a full page each week and in colour, usually illustrated with
photographs that I had taken myself as I am a keen amateur photographer.
When a dog has won a major award under me in any country it is obviously
because I consider the dog to be an excellent, and occasionally outstanding,
example of its breed. I believe that my column, which had a predominantly UK-based
readership, was a vehicle for showing British breeders and exhibitors what dogs are
being shown around the world and it proved its value by virtue of the fact that,
spurred on by seeing a photograph in the column, several breeders have researched
the breeding of dogs they have admired and this has led them to either import actual
breeding stock or semen from the breeders overseas. I believe this to be a positive
contribution to the sport.
I also believed, and others have confirmed, that giving this kind of exposure to
dogs that would not normally be seen in the UK also served as a learning experience
for younger judges who could study the photographs alongside my summation of the
dogs featured.
With the advent of Facebook, once my good friend Nikolas Kanales in Greece
had dragged me screaming into the twenty-second century and acquainted me with
the uses of social media, I routinely take a batch of photographs at every show I
judge at and post them, usually the same night, on Facebook. Mostly they are not
even identified at the time of posting as I will not have had access to a show
catalogue at that point. Dogs’ names are added as and when I have the time
afterwards, though other Facebookers are often very helpful in identifying dogs in
their comments when someone asks who exactly this or that dog is.
I repeatedly get kind messages from people around the world telling me how
much they enjoy seeing the photographs of dogs they will probably never meet, each
of which is very much appreciated.
When I judged in Orlando a few years ago one of the dogs that excited me
most was one of my BOB winners. For the purpose of this article it is not necessary
to even name the breed. In any event I posted a photograph of the dog after he had
won the breed, I then discovered the identity of the dog and its handler, and there
were several favourable comments posted on Facebook. Months later I found myself
in New York as a Westminster spectator and was keen to see this dog in the breed
ring, so took myself off to watch. As it happens he didn’t fare too well, but
nonetheless my press pass allowed me into the hallowed aisles from which I took a
completely candid photograph of the dog when he was standing on the ground,
totally relaxed, simply looking up adoringly at his handler. I liked the photo and it was
one of dozens I posted that night covering my day in New York. The dog wasn’t
identified, the photo wasn’t even captioned. I made no comment as to the fact that
the dog wasn’t in the ribbons; it was merely there.
What happened later was something of a puzzle. Comments came in fast and
furious, mainly from people merely saying how much they liked the photograph;
others who clearly recognised the dog and his handler went so far as to say it was
one of the best pictures they’d ever seen of him whilst some passed more detailed
opinions on the dog’s correctness and excellence. As is so often the way with
Facebook of course the thread then began to go off at a completely different tangent
when someone who is involved with the same breed started to make some very
sweeping and inflammatory statements. These varied from accusing a judge (me
presumably) of “promoting” a dog to claiming that professional handlers were ruining
this breed which was until recently considered (in his/her opinion) to be the divine
right of the amateur owner-handler.
I generally avoid Facebook "discussions" which tend to get personal and
usually involve people who are determined to have the last word at all costs, but I did
feel obliged to simply make one statement. This was not a matter of "promoting" a
dog and should have been seen for what it is - my posting a photograph (one of
many) that I took ringside at Westminster of a dog I had recently judged and greatly
admired, and which had attracted many favourable comments.
I may have an old-fashioned view of judging but firmly believe that the remit of
a true judge goes way beyond the competition ring. I believe we are not just there to
find the best dog (taking into account type, conformation, movement, coat and
condition) on the day but we are also there to educate by our actions and comments
- not just the ringside but those judges who are starting out on their journey. I would
emphasise at this point that everyone needs to remember that this sport should
centre around THE DOGS and not who handles, owns or backs them. I had never
met the handler of the dog in question before Orlando and it was only after we had
pictures taken that I had it explained to me who he was.
The word "promoting" is often misused and misunderstood. If by "promoting"
someone means a judge who has awarded top honours to a dog he considers to be
an outstanding example of breed type being prepared to discuss the dog openly and
freely with anyone who wishes to learn, then I was I guess guilty as charged. Far
more damaging to the sport is the "promoting" that goes on of untypical, unworthy
dogs that are heavily advertised in the hope of catching the eye of judges who do not
have the knowledge to realise that they are inferior specimens and when they judge
they point to them based on their publicity rather than their merit.
Rather than accusing judges of “promoting” dogs they greatly admire, perhaps
the Facebook warriors who were so quick to point the finger should turn their
attentions to the army of exhibitors who shamelessly “tag” photographs to judges
who have never, ever, seen their pictured dog but who will be judging it in the near
future. This seems to be an increasingly common practice that infuriates all but the
more hapless judges who seem to welcome any “help” they can get when they visit a
new country and may not be aware of present form.
For many years I judged internationally on a regular basis and still count
many professional handlers as close friends. However that friendship is such that
they realise, when they show to me, if they have what is in my opinion the best dog
they will win; if there are better dogs in competition they will not. I asked the critics to
see this photograph in context and think twice before making comments that had
taken the discussion in a totally different direction.
I believe that those of us who judge dogs with true passion get excited when
we meet a great one. We find it hard to control our enthusiasm and yes, of course,
we share our opinions with our peers. Sometimes they too may have judged the dog
in question and admired it. Occasionally they may have done so but had some minor
reservation about minor breed points which can lead into an in-depth detailed
discussion from which we all learn as we are all, always, learning. I remember last
year watching a group being judged at a big International show in Europe. One of the
Europeans who was in my company asked me about the Bearded Collie and if its
proportions were correct as he felt it was too short on the leg. I had seen the dog
coming into the ring and nothing had occurred to me as being particularly amiss so I
confidently replied to my friend, “no that’s fine for the breed”. However I then looked
at the dog from a different angle and at closer quarters and, guess what? It WAS a
little out of balance. I experienced an acute sense of guilt so felt it was only proper to
tell my questioner that he WAS right in his original suspicion. He was very obviously
delighted that I had confirmed his opinion, but it was the right thing to do.
Far more damaging than sharing genuine enthusiasm for an outstanding dog
that one has judged is the irrational talking-up of a particular breeder or handler
which seems to be based on the assumption that everything they bring into the ring
is unbeatable. Now THAT is unforgiveable.
© ANDREW H. BRACE
(This article may not be reproduced in any form without the author’s
permission)
Welcome to my new website where I hope you will find lots to interest you, whether you are an exhibitor, breeder, judge or just a committed dog lover. Over the years I have had the opportunity to interview many of the icons of our sport and lots of their wisdom has been included in the Webinars. My involvement with purebred dogs has allowed me to travel the world, meet some amazing people and get my hands on countless outstanding dogs. I hope that this website will allow you to share some of the pleasure that dogs have given me.
Leave a Comment 👋