A GC Follow-Up

72 – July, 2010

By Dr. Gareth Morgan-Jones

It is satisfyingly pleasant to be able to report that almost all of these have been constructively appreciative and supportive whilst a few expressed some still residual ambivalence about the value, or lack thereof, of this new competitive dimension. Some people apparently are still not quite sure. Nothing wrong with that. After contributing monthly essays to this magazine for over eighteen years it is always gratifying to know that people continue to find them of interest. One message, and I quote, read as follows: ‘Loved your article. Keep up the good work.’ I cannot begin to tell my readers how much such a sentiment means, especially since it came from someone, a well-known and highly-regarded judge, for whom I have the greatest respect. Quite naturally there remain some questions about justification, necessity, and whether or not the introduction of this new program exceeds what might be deemed sufficient in the larger scheme of things. There have been some folks who have chosen to be arrogantly submissive of something which may very well, eventually if not already, have some real benefit and value within the firmament of the sport. The rejection of serious consideration of any possible advantage is something which has generated some concern. The problem has largely been one of perception, revolving around the question of why. The cause, reason and purpose have people baffled and add to this the whole matter of confusion and the dissemination of misinformation. There are the makings of a real conundrum, a situation having only conjectural answers.

There have been somes cases of individuals publicly pleading for some help in understanding the possible significance of the program. Somewhat rhetorical questions have been posed asking if indeed a Grand Championship constitutes a superior level of achievement. Well hello, duh! Isn’t this the general idea? Rhetorical in the sense that these enquiries were probably being made merely for effect with no answers really expected. Such grandiloquence! No answers were contemplated because some were actually offered; it was not generally believed that an elevated level of anything is involved or being achieved. Oh, really. Are the AKC’s requirements for this new title not more exacting than those for a mere Champion? Twenty-five points, three GC or Select wins in major entries under three different judges, points from a fourth judge, defeat of at least one Champion of record at three separate shows and then there is the matter of judges hopefully setting a higher merit standard and not award points indiscriminately. Isn’t this how it is suppposed to work? Application of some intellectual rigor might have been a good idea rather than request outside help to gain some comprehension. Likewise with those who have indulged in knee-jerk, off the cuff-type reactions without exploring in their own minds the possible pluses. After all, as I indicated in my previous article, it is not as if this was some entirely new, untried, off-the-wall, far-out, unheard-of concept. If it works well in the antipodes (know where that is?) it could surely have some convincingly cogent relevancy here. And there are other similar competitive areas of human activity where elaborate stratification of awards, with accompanying titles (Supreme Champion, Grand Champion, et cetera) is practiced. One good example was given in my preceeding essay. So why are some dog people still apparently struggling with this concept? Is it because they have limited horizons or cannot deal mentally with anything which they are not accustomed to?

The word ‘superfluous’ has been thrown into the discussion, if you can call it that (it’s more like people offering their shoot-from-the-hip take on the signficance, or lack thereof, however they see it, of this Grand Championship title). It all depends, does it not? Was it absolutely necessary to introduce this program? Well no, probably not. Is this a mark of wastefulness? Same answer. Was it really needed, and for what reason? Why do it if there was no necessity? Ah, those are the big questions! Here is another: what was the real motive behind the decision to go forward with this? Was this a case of exceeding what is sufficient to satisfy the needs of breeders and exhibitors. Was there a certain condition requiring relief? Like the widely accepted and held notion that the Championship title has become so devalued over the years as to render it less significant than it needs to be? We’ve all heard this talk of a plethora of ‘cheap’ Champions being made up. Then there is the view that the requirements are less exacting and rigorous than they might conceivably be (an opinion held by foreigners from the old country across the pond in particular). You know what the Brits say: it’s far too easy to make up a Champion over there and hence the title means much less than it does over here. There is the question of whether or not puppies should be competing for Championship points because of the lack of maturity factor. There are a whole host of philosophical questions which enter into the equation. Should there be relatively open access or should there be restrictive practices in play, such as those exercised in the UK, to purposefully limit the number of Champions being finished? There are surely a number of ways of looking at this and this whole area of need and purpose is not as clear cut as some might imagine or maintain.

Among the judging fraternity, from what this writer has continued to gather, the introduction of this program has been met with highly mixed and varied reactions. Some took a serious, substantive look at it and said, in effect; no big deal, perfectly straightforward, might certainly have some value, let’s see how it works. Others seemingly took a highly-negative stance right off the bat. It was rumored that at least a few high-profile judges were indicating that they were not going to play ball and would not be making GC awards. Different reasons were involved, one presumes, not least of which was the notion that the prospect of generating additional monetary revenue was the main motivation behind the decision to introduce the program. If indeed true, not exactly altruistic, one might say. Then there was an uneasy feeling concerning how to go about establishing consistent, across-the-board standards of excellence as a foundation for decision making. The AKC had not exactly been forthcoming in this regard. It was a case of you are on your own, make awards as you see fit. Each individual judge had to figure it out independently and then there was the question of whether or not some were adequately qualified in breeds that they might not be entirely comfortable with. There are certainly some loose ends here. As I indicated previously, there were all sorts of misunderstandings generated and some clearly found the whole prospect rather daunting. The confusion surrounding the details of implementation doing the rounds was, in fact, nothing short of astonishing. This was a situation where individuals were required to demonstrate the acrobatic agility of their intellect and I’m very sorry to say that some appeared to fail rather miserably, and did so in semi-public forums. Those lists sure were humming there for a while. But then, upon reflection, this was just another issue over which the habitual bellyachers among us could vent their usual vituperative, anti-AKC mental spleen. These recurring, episodal tantrums are now becoming a regular feature. Complaining whiningly or peevishly and finding fault is, seemingly, a way of life for some individuals. The bashing business has now, apparently, become highly de rigueur for some folks, as if required by established custom, and hence they jump in whenever there is the chance. Interesting that the same crowd gets bent out of shape, whatever the subject at hand. The problem with all of this, of course, is that meaningful, substantive discussion is lost in the uproarious (yes, some of it can even be funny) hubbub. Demonstration of hubris and exaggerated self-confidence; you name it, it’s all been there.

Now if we are indeed seriously talking about purpose, ostensible or otherwise, it is surely fair to ask if Group and Best in Show competitions are also, in at least one real sense, utterly superfluous. Put in context of the purported reason for holding dog shows, that is the evaulation of breeding stock, isn’t this largely accomplished already in Breed competition? Most of us presumably think so! So what does comparing the best of one breed against the best of another, assuming that they are of fairly decent quality (which isn’t always the case), really accomplish? It can certainly be argued that this contributes relatively little at the average dog show to further fulfilling its stated purpose. It might be such in appearance but yet only plausible rather demonstrably true or real. We have to be logical here. If GC competition is deemed superfluous by those who cannot for some reason figure out why it’s needed, then surely the same can be said of Group and BIS judging activity. You cannot disconnect the various levels within the sport, even a newly-introduced one, by cursorily stating, in effect, that one is unnecessary whilst presumably maintaining that others are in a different category. It has been stated many times that the validity of competition, and thereby its intrinsic soundness and value, decreases exponentially as we proceed to the higher levels, for perfectly obvious reasons, including uneven competence among judges resulting from differing degrees of breed familiarity. So what’s the big deal about adding another tier to the competition roster? There is obviously plenty of logic for doing so. As the higher levels have become largely the territory of the professionals the so-called little guy is oftentimes squeezed out of any meaningful piece of the action beyond the lowest level of competition, the classes. Even there, the going frequently gets tough. Hence the introduction of the evidently little-used amateur owner-handler option. So why not add another new niche, an activity for which a person might be better suited in terms of his or her place in the culture of the sport? I’ll elaborate further below.

It has been said that in these early weeks of the program the AKC Executive Field Representatives have been systematically encouraging the awarding of GC points and, moreover, conducting instructional get togethers with judges to guide them in matters procedural. A sort of GC101 for dummies I assume and suppose! This may well be so, I have no way of knowing. But what of it? No wonder given that there was every appearance of widespread confusion and misinformation doing the rounds even though the rules are, in actuality, as I’ve said before, relatively simple and straightforward. There has even been hearsay floating around to the effect that judges are being questioned as to why they are not dishing out Select awards with regularity and being summarily informed that they should do so. Again, I have no way of knowing if this is indeed true or how pervasive the practice may be. I have not personally judged since the program got underway but I read and I listen. Surely the organization is not trying to push this, with no regard given to the matter of quality recognition, just to drum up more business and make the program work. That would surely destroy credibility. Perish such a thought, but who knows? Perhaps I shouldn’t have written that! Things tend to be said, and actions follow, sometimes with no central control being exercised. And there is apparently plenty of disinformation being disseminated. Things readily get blown out of proportion and then we end up not having a good handle on what is real and what is imagined and cannot even clearly differentiate between the two. It becomes a blur, something vaguely and indistinctly perceived. Each one of us will have to make a determination as to how we see this going and assess how well, or otherwise, this program is contributing to the well-being of the sport.

Now let me offer you a real-life scenario of a semi-anecdotal, biographical nature to illustrate just how the GC program can possibly work for the benefit of the Fancy at large and of breeder-exhibitors in particular. There is this lady fancier of my acquaintance who has some limitations in the extent to which she can participate in the sport. Although she is a breeder of consequence and has a supportive husband, the number of dogs which she can keep on their premises can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Although comfortably well-off, the fiscal resources which she can apply to her purebred dog avocation are nowhere sufficient enough for the hire of a professional handler, much less conducting a high-profile campaign with heavy advertising and all the rest. Now it so happens that at the present time she has a very nice dog which she finished owner-handled from the Bred By class very quickly with several highly significant Breed wins. This dog is undoubtedly one of well-above-average quality but his show career was essentially over once he got his title. After finishing, he was shown several times in Breed but was defeated on each occasion by dogs of lesser merit with a professional on the other end of the lead. You all know how this goes. Naturally, this breeder became discouraged, even a little disgusted, and ceased showing the dog. In a sense she was getting repeatedly insulted by indifferent judging. Now along comes the Grand Championship program. Lo and behold, here was a very good reason to return to the show ring. The first weekend out she goes Breed over a BIS winning, professionally handled, special of so-so quality (under a highly knowledgable judge, of course) and gets some GC points. She was so excited. No Group placement though. The second day her dog got beat by the not-so-terrific, big time special and did not even get a Select award (there were several other specials in competition). The judge was a former professional handler. Who can say whether or not this had anything to do with the outcome? I’m not remotely suggesting that it did; just making an observation. The usual dog show roller-coaster experience; excitingly up one day, ignominously down the next. The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. But now there is the incentive to go back.

Let us consider some of the positives which accrue from this type situation. Sure some more show-giving clubs will earn entry fees which they might not otherwise get. Their entries will potentially be enhanced and the superintendents and the AKC will both also benefit financially. Do my readers see something particularly wrong with this? On the contrary, surely, in these days of declining entries this can only be beneficial for the health and well-being of the sport. It’s obviously not all about filling the coffers however. There are clearly other advantages. Fellow fanciers get to see and admire more of this dog, the breeder gets to continue participating in something she very much loves and enjoys, and the challenge of higher achievement will give her considerable personal satisfaction. She gets to continue competing on a more or less level playing field and share the dog show camaraderie which she would not otherwise do unless another young dog or puppy was started out. The dog will become a Grand Champion and deservedly so. It will mean a whole lot to this breeder; it will be a source of pride. She will definitely not look upon this as a silly program in the way that a judge on one of those lists ridiculously did. That would be demeaning. There will hopefully be some significance to all of this. She has been in her breed for very many years and has bred some great ones but none have reached lofty heights in Group and BIS competition. Not that they couldn’t and wouldn’t if they were placed in the hands of professionals and backed with substantial fiscal resources, which she does not possess. It is surely up to the judges to make the Grand Champion title meaningful. If run-of-the-mill Champions get elevated indiscriminately this will become devalued in the same fashion as did the lower rank. The whole idea, presumably, is to recognize and reward only clearly superior exhibits and to withhold where very high merit is absent. There is a certain responsibility in all of this. If judges meet the challenge this new title will mean something and its award will signify a level of excellence and exemplariness not necessarily present in all finished dogs however commendable they may also be compared with those that cannot be made up for lack of quality. If this works properly it will fit comfortably right into the central purpose of the dog show. The evaluation of breeding stock will contain an integrated aprocedure whereby the best of the best are recognized. Are you still asking why have it? Hope not!

As with everything else in the conformation dog show world, in the final analysis, despite all of the reservations which have been expressed, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and that means how well this new program is accepted and digested by the Fancy, how respected or otherwise it eventually becomes, how adequately it meets its intended purpose (or purposes), whatever that (those) may have actually and in reality been. The people who have knocked it hard up-front may well have second thoughts when the verbal dust settles. Who can tell at this stage how things will develop and work out in this regard? The initial signs are, apparently, very good. The reception which the program has received, judging by most reports, has, thus far, been highly positive with both judges and exhibitors feeling perfectly comfortable with the procedures. That’s surely a good sign in and of itself. This first month is obviously rather critical. Once folks figure it all out, and get the hang of things, it will probably feel like it has been there all along. An interesting thought: one wonders if those who have championed the notion that it was solely added for mercenary reasons, that is bringing in more money, employed this as a means of criticizing merely because they thought the idea a thoroughly bad one in the first place. Let’s not be too terribly naïve and deficient in wordly wisdom here. Unaffected simplicity of thought we must avoid but on the other hand we should be aware that not everything is as it seems. Irrespective of the motivation for establishing this program the baby should surely not be thrown out with the bath water, however dirty or tainted that may be. Who knows where the truth lies here? Those who made the decision to go forward, I suppose. Anyone in authority willing to make a definitive declaration of intent? Perhaps, as I’ve suggested before, this was a multi-purpose move. In any event, it’s here now and it is up to us, collectively, to make the program the best it can be.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=1261

Posted by admin on Aug 22 2010. Filed under Editorial, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.