Some years ago I read one of Geir Flyckt-Pedersen’s as-always excellent

“Babbling” columns in America’s DOG NEWS and several of his comments

resonated with me. The first was the question of judges having “hang-ups” which

often trace back to a peal shared by one of the breed elders many years ago. I’m not

altogether sure whether “hang-up” is actually the best term to use, as often these

individual breed points could be considered “must-haves” in a particular breed and

possibly prioritised to a greater degree by the old timers than they may be today.

I was fortunate in having several mentors who influenced my thinking when I

began judging and some of their casual asides stuck in my memory bank for all time,

never to be erased. On one of my very first visits to the late Gwen Broadley’s

Sandylands Labrador Retriever kennel I remember Gwen emphasising the

importance of hindquarters in her breed, particularly the well-developed second

thigh. I remember her drumming into me how the second thigh was essential to the

overall look of a Labrador and how it would affect its movement and sense of power.

Whilst I have always tried to be an “overall picture” kind of judge, there is no way that

I can look at a Labrador without homing in on its hindquarters and evaluating its

second thigh. Any Labrador, no matter how excellent in other areas, that has a

stringy, underdone second thigh will, I have to admit, fail to hold my interest to any

great extent. It may be considered a component part, a detail if you like, but it also

contributes hugely to the overall impression that any Labrador conveys. Is this a

“hang-up”? I guess some people would say so, but it’s a hang-up I can live with.

Talking of Gwen, who was always generous in sharing her knowledge with

those she considered sufficiently interested, another of her unforgettable bon-mots

referred to the Schipperke breed which Gwen told me should always resemble a

cloaked highwayman on horseback. Maybe a little fanciful in its description and

imagery, but it conveyed a picture that has stayed with me ever since.

Even though I have never had any personal experience of horses, I have

several friends who have and their constant repetition of the phrase, “no foot, no

horse” is something that has always stuck with me as it can apply equally to dogs

and is one of the aspects of any dog that subconsciously affects the appeal of the

whole picture. A handsome, upstanding Boxer which has all the essentials of the

breed, yet has weak pasterns and long, flat fleet, just doesn’t cut the mustard. Is this

fault judging? Possibly … but the feet will contribute to any working breed’s efficiency

and stamina.

I suppose, in truth, when I think about the whole subject of judges’ “hang-ups”,

I tend to be more tolerant of their insistence on functional virtues than those which

may be considered cosmetic.

One of those embarrassing lessons that I will never forget goes back to my

judging Boston Terriers many years ago at an Open show in East Anglia, an area

that was something of a hotbed of the breed. I judged them as best I could, being

very mindful of the specific markings called for in the Breed Standard. I was very

impressed with one particular dog that was noticeably undermarked and this played

on my mind so much so that I placed it Second behind a dog that was perfectly

marked but inferior in another area. (Faced with the same two dogs today, the less

well marked specimen would have won in a heartbeat.) In those days it was common

for judges – after judging – to mingle at the benches and discuss the dogs with

exhibitors. I was aware that several of the Boston exhibitors that day were very

successful breeders of long standing so decided to venture into the lion’s den and

ask for their opinion. One lady for whom I always had great respect, when asked

“How did I do?” tactfully replied, “You did a very good job, but obviously you paid a

little too much attention to the Breed Standard.” That had me totally flummoxed …

how could anyone pay too much attention to the written blueprint by which we all

should be judging? I asked her to elaborate which she did by explaining that the

breed people did not prioritise perfect markings. Markings should be considered a

secondary behind type, quality, balance, conformation and movement. That

conversation shaped my judging of Boston Terriers for all time.

Another confession in this particular “Babbling” was that of Geir’s being

accused of being unduly hard on his friends when judging. Personally I have never

heard such an accusation and most of my friends share my opinion that Geir’s

knowledge and integrity were unquestionable. His premature death robbed the

global dog world of one of its greatest talents. In this crazy world I suppose defining

“friends” is itself a difficult task and the term can mean different things to different

people. Geir, like myself, knew a lot of people who showed dogs under him. I can’t

imagine that when he was in the centre of the ring anything occurred to him other

than the relative merits of the competing dogs and getting them in the right order.

The only thing you can be absolutely certain of, as Geir confirmed, is that …

whatever your winning order may be there will be some ringside sages only too

happy the explain to the world and its wife WHY that particular dog took the breed,

and the only thing that won’t figure in the explanation is the dog’s outstanding merit.

We have to remember that when you are a rank beginner everything seems to

be crystal clear. Your life in dogs is very much a “them” and “us” situation and

demarcation lines are totally apparent. However, if you then stick with the sport and

achieve a modicum of success the waters become somewhat muddied. With

achievement will come further opportunities – to become involved with clubs, and to

maybe begin judging your own breed. As your involvement deepens so do the

chances of your every waking move being misinterpreted increase.

Ever since I can remember one of the most frequently heard complaints at

dog shows is that of judges “putting up their friends”, and of course the complaint will

more often than not come from those who were standing down at the wrong end of

the line that day. I have had occasion to point out many times to those who are thus

complaining that when anyone first comes into the sport, they have no friends.

Logically they will gravitate towards people in the same breed who are showing the

same type of dog they are, possibly with similar breeding, and oftentimes friendships

will develop based on nothing more than the fact that they see the breed through

similar eyes and appreciate the same “type” – even though in those early days they

may not really fully understand what the word means. As time goes on they may use

each other’s stud dogs, exchange puppies or whatever, as their vision of the breed

continues to coincide. There will come a day when that first judging invitation arrives

… what to do? Should their friends show under them?

There seem to be so many different attitudes towards who should show what

to whom these days. I must say that I have found few people who believe that it is

perfectly in order for a dog to be shown under its breeder in the breed classes (as

was at one time permissible in the UK, provided the dog had been out of its

breeder’s ownership for a minimum period of twelve months). That scenario I always

felt was a question of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. Put up a dog that you

bred and you are demonstrating nepotism and crookery. Put down a dog that you

bred and you are publicly declaring a very low opinion of the stock you breed

yourself. It really was the road to nowhere. Strangely, in the UK it is still allowed to

judge a dog you bred if it comes through to you at group level, however I cannot

remember a case yet when this has actually happened as the usual course of action

has been, when the group judge is the breeder of a BOB winner, to perform what we

Brits love … “a lap of honour” … before retiring to tumultuous applause.

So as your career progresses, as exhibitor, breeder, show official, judge or

whatever so does your role change and the number of hats you wear increases.

There is now an overlap when you cease to be fish nor fowl.

The whole question of perception and propriety can get very cloudy in the dog

world and in my opinion far too many people get too hung up on what things look like

rather than what really matters. Yes, common sense should always play its part but

quite frankly I am more concerned with what happens in the ring as regards the

merits of the dogs competing than any relationships, real or imagined, between

judges and handlers.

I am always puzzled when I hear of close “friends” falling out forever because

they didn’t do as well as expected when one showed under the other. Surely

friendships develop gradually over a period of time based on, as I pointed out earlier,

seeing a breed through similar eyes. With friendship comes a level of genuine

affection but also respect; respect for opinions and respect for integrity. In over half a

century in the sport I have discovered that genuine friends who are worthy of the

name accept each other, warts and all. Their acceptance of their friends also reflects

the attitude they adopt when they come to judge dogs – they appreciate their virtues

yet see their failings in perspective, fully aware that no one is perfect.

Some of my friends have what are, to me, strange ideas about who should or

who should not show under them. Surely provided no rules are broken everyone is

free to take dogs under whoever they like. Many I know do not like “friends” showing

under them as they get embarrassed – preferring not to put them up, but not wanting

to put them down. Surely if embarrassing easily is your problem, then the centre of

the dog ring is not for you! It can be the loneliest place and requires the thickest of

skins. Judging dogs is not for the sensitive or faint hearted.

I have no problem with watching a specialist judge awarding most of the major

prizes to dogs that are sired by their stud dogs if - and it’s a very big IF – they are the

best and deserving of the awards. It stands to reason that if they own dominant stud

dogs they should produce the type that judge most admires. What riles me is

watching someone rewarding mediocre family relations whilst robbing superior dogs

that are not connected with their breeding. That clearly indicates one of two things –

ignorance or dishonesty.

Most of our judges regularly get to judge dogs that are shown by handlers

who are friends, acquaintances or possibly even past employees. Sometimes they

win, sometimes they lose, it all depends on the quality of the dog they happen to be

handling and the level of competition they meet. Judging dogs is not rocket science

… if you concentrate on what matters.

At judging seminars the attendees sometimes are visibly horrified when I

admit to them that nothing gives me greater pleasure than being able to put up a

friend when they have the best dog. That is not a crime. Putting up a friend when you

are robbing a superior dog in the process is. Ownership does not affect any dog’s

merits.

What matters above all else in the sport is that all dogs are judged on a level

playing field, evaluated without fear or favour, and the best dogs suitably rewarded.

Whatever dog wins you can be sure that the chuntering classes will be guaranteed to

find a reason why. It was ever thus and I daresay always will be.

Geir suggested the fact that we may all be a little paranoid, those of us who

become deeply involved with the dog world. I am sure that he is right, one way or

another, but maybe a little paranoia is no bad thing … provided it does not distract us

from what really matters, and that of course is the dogs.

© ANDREW H. BRACE

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

permission)