Why is it that so many people seem to think that judging dogs is on a par with

rocket science? Is it really so complicated?

Each country has its own system for qualifying judges, and these vary

dramatically in their ease and demands. Some border on the positively flimsy whilst

others insist on huge amounts of hands-on experience, several written papers as

well as practical experience in other areas of the sport, all over many years.

My own feeling is that once an acceptable apprenticeship has been served

and a fledgling judge has proved themselves on a number of occasions in their

original breed, the understanding of other related breeds to begin with is not that

difficult, given that the subject has the desire to learn. Tackling a sub-group can then

lead to others within the same group, and when these are mastered further

branching out can occur without dire consequences, given that the judge concerned

has basic ability, a proven eye and the fundamentals of strength of character and

integrity.

I was once at dinner with a friend who has been highly successful in a

Working Breed. It is a breed that is not huge in numbers in the UK, but a breed that

regularly produces Group and BIS winners. One club whose executive consists of

mainly amateur enthusiasts who do not welcome “outside” judges, i.e. all-rounders,

governs the breed.

My friend does not share this attitude; in fact she feels quite the opposite in

that the breed is so basic that it is the all-rounder that usually makes the better job of

judging it, whilst the “specialists” can seldom see the wood for the trees, tend to get

hung up on personal prejudices and far too often allow their judgement to be clouded

by internal breed politics.

In conversation she observed “After all, if you know anything about dogs,

once someone has explained the head, the outline and the coat … that’s all there is

to this breed”.

Far from needing to attend endless seminars looking at a hundred indifferent

dogs, I am firmly of the opinion that any experienced dog person could visit my

friend’s kennel where they would be shown a handful of truly excellent dogs, have

the breed explained to them in no-nonsense terms, have any questions answered

directly, and be in a position to judge the breed at the highest level.

Most breed people seem to feel that their own breed is the most difficult to

judge. They shroud its history in mystique, try to explain the demands of the Breed

Standard in the most fanciful of terms, and insist that no-one outside the breed can

really understand them. In truth, they are perhaps protective of their dogs and the

judging thereof and fear that someone from without their own ranks might just upset

the applecart and tell it as it is. Whilst I would concede that there is no substitute for

actually owning and living with a breed, I refuse to accept that these are essential to

judging a breed well. I am sure we can all reel off countless names of “great” judges

who always judged our breed efficiently but who never owned it. Some of the best

all-rounders I have been acquainted with have made it their business to study the

breeds they judge, learn from the best breeders and apply their acquired knowledge

in an admirable fashion.

It is of course true that some breeds need more understanding than others

and are less generic. Bulldogs and Pekingese are obvious examples of breeds that

are so far removed from the norm that they do need intense study and explanation.

Head, body shape and gait are anything but generic and so it is understandable that

the guardians of the breed expect judges to study more than they perhaps would

when embarking on other breeds. I know for a fact that it took me several years to

fully understand all the intricacies of the Bulldog head. However the vast majority of

breeds are variations on a theme and once a judge has grasped head, balance, coat

and movement and prioritised in their own mind what are the “must haves” then they

should be able to evaluate a breed efficiently.

Understanding breed-specific movement is of course important as many dogs

who are similarly constructed will have subtle variations in their conformation that

dictate a gait that is slightly removed from the norm. Not all breeds should be moved

at breakneck speed and demonstrate tremendous reach and drive. Nothing improves

a judge’s understanding of a breed like experience. I well remember during an

interview with the great Frank Sabella him saying to me that one of his greatest

mentors told him “you practise on the customers”. It is meeting numbers of a breed

over a period of time that develops the overall grasp of that breed and with every

assignment a judge will hone his understanding of correct.

Gone are the days when we have access to the old-style stockman judge who

would officiate not just in the dog ring, but would also be called upon to evaluate

horses, cattle and other forms of livestock. They had an inherent eye for excellence

that could be applied to animals – and indeed birds – that enabled them to find

quality wherever it was present, and not necessarily because it was beautifully

presented. The golden judges were perfectly capable of finding that “diamond in the

rough” and could see way beyond the superficials of coat and grooming. They were

much more interested in the nuts and bolts of a dog than the icing on the cake. Sadly

these days we see far too many who get taken in by the icing.

But at the end of the day as one of my heroes said to me many years ago:

“You know what the breed should look like, you stand in the middle of the ring and

point to the one you think is best.” Why make out it is more complicated than that?

© ANDREW H. BRACE

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

permission)