Decisions, Decisions

Making decisions is what we judges do all day. Sometimes the decisions are very easy, and sometimes they are very difficult.

What’s the most difficult judging assignment at a show? It has to be Junior Showmanship. In most areas, there are so many absolutely excellent Juniors — any of whom I would love to show a dog for me — that it is extremely difficult to find something that separates them. It used to be that only the Master class was the ultimate, but now there are very proficient young handlers in almost every class. My congratulations to them, their parents and whomever is working with them. If we can keep their interest, our community’s future is in great shape.

What is the easiest class to judge at a show? That’s easy — Best in Show! With very few exceptions, by the time you get to Best in Show, there are seven very excellent breed representatives. When we were (kind of) campaigning a dog, we would go to a small show, hoping to win a Best in Show. Guess what — a lot of the other top-dog owners and handlers had the same thought.

Think about how many decisions a judge makes in a day in which he judges an entry of 175 dogs, three regular groups, and four or five NOHS groups. Yes, it happens! Most of the time our decisions are middle of the road — neither simple nor very difficult. In a normal class there are often two or three dogs that are obviously closer to their breed standard than are the others, and so our decisions just fall into place, as they should. The two most difficult times for a judge are when the class quality is very poor or — at the other end of the spectrum — when there is a number of excellent dogs.  

Let’s first understand that we don’t become judges because we want to withhold ribbons or points, or because we want to disqualify a dog. Do you really think we get up at 3 or 4 a.m. to catch a flight, fight through delays, cancellations, stress, rush to catch a connection after the first flight is late, and get to our hotel at 2 a.m. — only to rise at 6 a.m. — because we want to disqualify dogs? C’mon! Get real! Most of us are on the downside of the mountain, and we determine how our days are going based on how many aches and pains we have. And do you think we want to cause others embarrassment or unhappiness? I will measure a dog only when I think it is absolutely necessary and in the best interest of the breed.

And so I recently had to measure a dog that quite obviously was well undersized. I hated to DQ the dog and to explain to a very new exhibitor what was going on. I felt terrible, and wished I could have had the breeder who sold this puppy as show quality in front of me. Not every puppy is show quality, and there is nothing wrong with that. Producing healthy, happy puppies that will bring a family joy and have a great life is absolutely fine, and maybe should be our first goal.

We would be delighted to judge between good and great, but that is not always what we get. The quality of the entries we usually see absolutely depends on the breed and geography. Some breeds are in decent shape, and judges have good choices in the classes and Best of Breed competition. Unfortunately, some breeds are very definitely in a down cycle (and some have been there for a long time with very little improvement seen), and they can be difficult to judge. However, if a good one of these “down breeds” does show up, it is a pleasure to reward it both in the breed ring and the group ring.

Speaking of group competition, certainly some groups are stronger than others and seem to control group placements, but all offer the judge some decent choices. As I said before — and speaking only for me — when I have a breed in the group that is usually what I consider to be in a down cycle, but the one in front of me is of very good quality, I believe it has to be rewarded in hopes that others in the breed will see this and choose to add this dog (or bitch) to their breeding program in some way. Isn’t that what we are supposed to be doing — identifying good breeding stock? 

A good friend once told me that I am not LOYAL when judging, and she meant that I don’t always put up the dog(s) that I have put up before. Actually, I consider that a compliment. I think my job is to judge the dogs in front of me that day, and since our dogs are not machines, they are not always at their best — any more than we are — and so one of my favorite dogs might be beaten by another dog on that day. If all judges always put up the same dog, why would we need more than one dog show a year? If all judges always put up the same dog that they seem to favor (and that is not a negative), why would anyone else enter to show to that judge? 

And what is a judge to do when there are two, three or more dogs in the group that he has given Group 1sts or a Best in Show before? They can’t all win on that day. I have been in that position many times, and I hear my wife’s words in my ear saying, “Let the dogs decide.” And that is what I try to do. Actually, I feel badly when I have so many quality dogs in front of me and can’t give all of them a first, but as the saying goes … it is a great problem to have. 

I love it when over the course of a weekend cluster, different dogs win. That shows me that we are doing our job correctly. Of course, there are times when an absolutely stand-out dog is in top form that weekend and can clean up the rosettes. But when different judges apply their own trade-offs to dogs and there are different quality dogs winning over the weekend, that is fine. Unfortunately, there are times when I believe some judges don’t have enough confidence in their knowledge and ability — or is it a lack of integrity — and just rubber-stamp every placement they have seen before them. (Or are they just confirming what they have seen in the magazine ads?)

I have many friends in the judging community, and respect most of them — and I am perfectly fine when we don’t agree on every decision. If we generally get the same dogs in the ribbons or in our cut (if one is made), then that is fine and we are all doing our job.

Over the years I have seen many changes in how our judges are approved, and changes when judges get together. I believe AKC would prefer that judges do not discuss the qualities — or lack thereof — of the dogs we judge, and I can understand that to a point. But there are judges whom I greatly respect, and we can discuss different dogs and gain more breed understanding by doing so. Shouldn’t judges want to continue their education and knowledge? I believe that discussing ideas with others who either have more experience or knowledge in a breed or group than I do can only benefit me — and the dog community. This doesn’t mean that I will do exactly what the other judge might do, but it helps me to consider other strengths in a breed or a dog. I have also had judges ask me about specific breeds, and we have had good — and, I believe, beneficial — discussions that can only make us better judges.

Before anyone gets the wrong impression, I will tell you that in my 50 years of judging there have been very, very few times when I felt that a judge was trying to pimp a specific dog. We may all have our favorites, but that doesn’t mean we all have to agree on every dog’s quality or lack thereof. 

I understand there are websites where exhibitors discuss or even grade judges, and ask what specific judges look for. Don’t you think these may be a little colored by whether the writer won or lost? Are the writers in a position to know the strengths and weaknesses of all the dogs the judge passed his opinion on that day? Do they know why a judge did what he did? And I don’t want hear that he only puts up handlers: First of all, there may be judges who seem to lean toward handlers, but they are in the minority. And second, there are certainly times when a handler has the best dog! Should a judge NOT put up a dog because a professional was showing it? Let’s just judge the dogs in front of us!

What do you think?