Ever since I can remember, the discussion as to whether breed “specialists” or

all-rounders make the better judges has been going on at and around dog shows,

and it is really a question to which there is no absolute answer. I have always

maintained that there is no finer judge than a real specialist worthy of the name, this

being someone who is steeped in a breed, has established an identifiable line and

who is capable of judging their breed without fear or favour, understanding all the

nuances and subtleties of the breed regardless of pedigree or ownership. I do

however have a problem with the point of view put forward in an article I read

recently that it is impossible to fully understand breed type unless a judge has

actually owned a breed.

The really great all-rounders study the breeds they judge and apply their

natural aptitude. They are keen to “get inside” every breed they tackle and often

make a far better job of judging than the breeder-judge whose placings are far too

often influenced by breeding, ownership and future judging appointments.

If you think back to the great all-rounders whose names are still revered and

respected even though they are no longer with us, their stature as judges came not

only from their fundamental stockman approach to the job – they fully understood

how dogs should be constructed and what movement should result from that

physical conformation – but they were also perpetual students. These are the kind of

judges who would take the time and trouble to visit the great breeders who had large

kennels and strong lines to learn about a breed. Talking to such breeders would give

them a much greater appreciation of the finer points of the breed concerned and a

better understanding of the minutiae that contribute to defining breed type.

Furthermore, they were sufficiently interested that they would often visit

successful breeders, many of whom had over the years also become close personal

friends, to watch a breed at all stages of development, from the whelping box

through puberty to adulthood. After all, judging puppies is one of the greatest

challenges for judges who have never owned a particular breed. When confronted

with, for example, a six months old Great Dane puppy, the physical reality of even an

outstanding baby is so far removed from the written description of the perfect adult

conveyed by the breed standard. In terms of head, outline, general proportions and

bone, it takes a highly experienced eye and a natural instinct to see beyond and

appreciate the worth in the embryo star.

One of the biggest problem that faces the breeder-judge is that they can

sometimes have far too much information on the peripheral aspects of judging as,

particularly if they are still actively breeding and exhibiting, they will invariably know

the breeding and winning record of a large percentage of the dogs that are brought

to them. There are also factions within certain breeds, personality clashes, and

obvious type preferences and all of these things can help to cloud the issue when it

comes to judge.

When starting off as a breeder judge (I loathe the misuse of the word

“specialist” as this is a label which must truly be earned), the toughest thing to

master is the ability to look at a dog on a given day in total isolation, freeing the mind

of its pedigree, its ownership, its past successes, and simply judge it cold as if they

had never seen it – or its handler – before.

Every dog in the ring should have an equal chance, from the rawest of

puppies to the highest profiled Champion, and all should be judged against the breed

standard, taking into account nothing other than their merits in the context of that

Standard, their form, condition and performance. Nothing else is of relevance. Yet

time and time again we see breeder-judges making what appear to be completely

illogical and unjustified decisions which produce a line-up that is totally inconsistent.

In a country like the United Kingdom where breeder-judges dominate, we possibly

see this on a much greater scale than elsewhere.

The self-styled “specialist” all too often has a resentment of what they see as

“outsider” judges as they feel that no one can possibly understand “their” breed as

well as someone who has owned and bred it. That may have a certain element of

truth but the reality is that the all-rounder may be blissfully unaware of breed politics

and just concentrate on judging the dogs, regardless of how “well owned” they may

be. History relates that many of our most successful exhibitors were given their first

big break by all-rounder judges who saw the quality in the dogs they happened to be

showing at the time, regardless of how long their “apprenticeship” had been, and

rewarded them accordingly. In some cases the dogs in question may have been

outstanding examples of their breed that had been shown mainly under breeder-

judges who refused to acknowledge their excellence purely because their

owner/handlers had only been in the breed “two minutes”.

It is also fact that breeder-judges can develop personal fetishes that may well

have come about because of their own experiences as breeders. Some breeder-

judges may well be known to be a sucker for a gorgeous head and expression,

others insisting on a long neck, some having an aversion to poor feet, and some

actually being colour prejudiced.

Just as the breeder-judges can have their personal fancies, so can the all-

rounders. Many of the old school had their “must haves”, regardless of the breed,

and woe betide any exhibitor that brought them dogs that failed in their favoured

aspect.

It is of course impossible to generalise, and lest anyone should be getting the

mistaken idea that I think every all-rounder is a genius and every breeder-judge an

idiot, let me point out that just as we have substantial multi-breed judges who are

prepared to give novice handlers a big break when their dog justifies it, we do also

have judges in that category that all-too-often simply fall back on the faces they have

seen placing recently in groups, regardless of the level of competition they happen to

be up against.

Let us not forget also that the vast majority of our leading all-rounders began

their careers as one-breed judges. No one was born wearing the mantle of an all-

rounder. Consequently their original judging mind-set was that of the specialist; it is

only with experience that they have become more open-minded and wider-visioned.

How many times have judges admitted to me that, having expanded their portfolio of

breeds, they acknowledge the fact that when they return to their own breed in a

judging capacity their perspective has changed? Oftentimes they find themselves

being more forgiving of faults that previously, as a breeder judge, they may have

penalised heavily, and conversely they are now more demanding of other aspects on

which they had previously been lenient. This generally happens where soundness is

concerned. As a breeder-judge they may well have forgiven indifferent out-and-back

action when a dog was dripping in breed type, but years later with a few more breeds

under their belt they are more insistent on conformation and movement that is of a

high standard.

The truth of the matter is that we will always have great, good and indifferent

judges whether they be breeder-judge or all-rounder and it is having a healthy mix

that makes dog showing so interesting.

© ANDREW H. BRACE

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

permission)