From The CC Vault: A Certain Comfort Zone

by Dr. Gareth Morgan-Jones

Originally published: August 2012

In show after show it is oftentimes rather obvious that there are judges, particularly some of the newer ones, out there who are operating well outside their comfort zone and, as a result, are not always performing in what one might choose to call a fully satisfactory and highly meritorious fashion. This despite the considerable bureaucratic rigor, which has been applied to the approval process during the course of these past two decades. When an individual is clearly thinking too much, and evidently allowing the mind process to reach a condition resembling a pretzel, clean and incisive decision-making becomes impossibility. We see abundant evidence of this when a judge repeatedly changes his or her mind in the ring and juggles exhibits around at the last minute before finally pulling the proverbial trigger. That aura of uncertainty, which is frequently rather readily detectable, invariably reflects at least some mental discomfort and insecurity. This translates into an inclination to constantly revisit and even to second-guess. More often than not this results in muddled thinking and things usually get worse rather than better the more shuffling that is indulged in. The old adage ‘go with your first impressions’ has some truth and wisdom in it. One never wants to see confidence running ahead of competence but there has to be some of the former ingredient in place and in good measure.

There is nothing more disconcerting for an exhibitor than to become aware of the reality of a situation where a judge is obviously struggling. Hard to deal with this type thing when it is seen happening in one’s own breed. Have you ever heard an exhibitor state: I have no idea what he or she was looking for? Chances are that, in the end, quite apart from the procedural untidiness, unsatisfactory decisions will ultimately be reached. When considering all of this, the following question invariably comes up: have too many people been getting too many breeds far too quickly? I’m not passing judgment herein; just asking! Pushing far too hard much too fast does not a desirable situation make. It can so easily give rise to a state of mental indigestion; if you know what I mean. Being unsure of oneself is not a particularly comfortable situation to be in. Thoughts along these lines are certainly generated from time to time when one observes judges evidently having a hard time reaching decisions and coming up with less than valid conclusions as to respective merit. It sometimes even happens at Group level. Quite recently, when on a judging panel of a large cluster, I was rather astonished to see someone clearly struggle and totally fail to find the good ones (some of which I had judged myself on that particular day). Seeing some of the better exhibits walk and the average or mediocre ones stay did not a good feeling give.

As I have suggested in at least one previous article published in The Canine Chronicle, judging the purebred dog in conformation competition is certainly not an exact science although there is undoubtedly something of the scientific method involved when this activity is conducted effectively. This is the part whereby accurate knowledge is gathered about the morphology, structure, and movement of individual exhibits. Then comes the matter of how this information is applied, how the relative and respective merits of the dogs being shown are comparatively evaluated. Added to this is the understanding, which each judge has of what we refer to as ‘type’, those features which uniquely typify each breed. In all of this there is a form of art involved, even some creativity, and, it almost goes without saying, an ability to put these various key ingredients together is vital if valid decisions are to be reached in the ring. This complementariness is essential. In order to reach a satisfactory assessment of the quality of any pedigreed dog, in order to accurately evaluate its merit or otherwise, a judge must first of all possess the capacity to fully appreciate it. This becomes possible only with in-depth breed knowledge. This cannot be stressed too strongly. Scrutiny does not amount to much if not accompanied by appropriate sensitivity. Otherwise what one ends up with is superficial, generic judging of the worse sort. A certain comfort level has to be reached in each breed in order for decisions to be reached cleanly. If the various elements involved are not kept in balance fluency in this regard cannot be achieved. There has to be some systematic methodology in place.

This aptitude and facility to evaluate is the product of intelligence derived directly from both knowledge and experience. Not everyone has the necessary requisites. The latter factor is highly critical and each judge has to undergo a continuing process of conscious learning. By that I mean each judge has to purposefully and deliberately determine how to balance the various elements which come into consideration. There is no substitute for this. Awareness of the trade-offs, which invariably have to be made, is just one aspect of what is involved and each breed is, in its own way, different and requires individual attention. Some are much more challenging than others for reasons which are usually abundantly obvious. The skill and resultant stature of a judge, and the respect which he or she commands, is in direct proportion to these controlling and influencing factors. The act of appreciation requires sensitive awareness of virtues and, of course, of shortcomings. And it involves, above all else, a discernment of the subtle nuances of breed ‘type’ and how to fit this into the overall equation. The process of appraisal is, first and foremost, comparative. An estimation is made of how well, or otherwise, an exhibit matches a prescribed ideal; that which is documented in its breed standard. That is the fundamental yardstick.

As with all activity in which experience is important, practice leads to progress toward perfection. That is, provided that an individual is willing to constantly learn. So it is with judging. A neophyte at this is just that; a beginner needing some more exposure. How often are we reminded of this? When it comes to consideration of the respective caliber of dogs in competition a challenge occurs which is not easily met. The weighing of strengths and weaknesses, in a comparative context, is always an undertaking requiring a certain acuteness of mind and the incisiveness of decision-making only comes with experience. That which is clear, clean and direct in this regard reflects the practical wisdom and knowledge one has gained from what has been observed, encountered, or undergone in the past. Resisting second-guessing and revisiting a thought is something that has to be learned the old-fashioned way; by doing it once and coming unglued mentally. There is an in-the-course-of-time, accumulative effect at play. There are two essential elements involved in this activity and to integrate them effectively requires practice. We are talking about repeated performance for the purpose of acquiring proficiency here. First, there is the matter of considering the comparative importance of a particular feature or features. Then there is the question of how to weigh the degree of deviation from the perceived and understood ideal characteristics and the significance thereof. The balancing of these parameters is critical and not necessarily very easily attained, particularly when there are numerous exhibits under surveillance and consideration. There is also the time constraint factor with which a judge has to deal. The more of them there are, the more complex the undertaking. A keen and quick insight is required, a direct perception independent of any reasoning process; what we call intuition. There is also instinct involved. These are the things which experience provides.

In judging, a deliberate series of thought processes are involved. In all of this, competency and efficiency are surely directly proportional to preparedness and that includes how many times an individual has adjudicated previously. Judging well essentially involves the act of being able to quickly relate reality, in the form of exhibits, to a concept of an ideal. That which is contained in a breed standard. In order to not only perceptively compare a number of dogs but also to accurately and quickly assess how each matches up, relative to the other, to the dictates of a written description requires considerable background knowledge. Not only this, an immediate and intuitive awareness, recognition and appreciation must be at play. A unified cognition derived from sensory processes, as well as rational thought, is involved. Quite obviously this includes far more than determination of respective merit in terms of generic make and shape. It involves what one might call a ‘feel’ for a breed, an understanding of those features which are essential to its essence. This does not come easily, which perhaps accounts for the fact that not all judging has the sort of substantive value which could reasonably be expected.

So how does an individual go about preparing himself or herself for this most pivotal of functions at a dog show and thereby reach a level of comfort? Slow, deliberative learning over many years is not exactly how people become prepared nowadays, which may result in a looming danger for judging to become increasingly generic rather than breed specific. In the process of becoming sufficiently familiar with a breed to judge it competently there are, of course, a number of essential steps which have to be taken. There is a tripartite series of actions involved. First and foremost is the acquisition of facts, of basic knowledge about its origin, purpose, development, type, and so on. Then there comes the absorption and integration of this new information into the previously-possessed purebred dog knowledge base. Following this comes application and it is in this latter action that difficulty usually arises, but which is eventually corrected by experience if a judge is both astute and attentive. A good judge continues to learn and thereby increasingly hones and sharpens his or her skills and feel for each breed. In other words, the ultimate learning comes along with the doing and this is an ongoing process. Considerable dedication and concerted effort is, of course, required before reaching a level of ideal competency. There are a number of regulating factors. For a start, it is important to see a large number of specimens in order to truly gain an appreciation for such things as diversity and variance within a breed, whilst still being typical. There is also the challenge of setting a balance and learning not to overly-emphasize one aspect or another. Take, for example, the case of the better-made but less exemplary type-wise, versus the not-so-well made but of beautiful type. How does one weight the one against the other? Obviously, in order to get one’s priorities straight there has to be prior awareness. Without a breadth of experience the application of acquired knowledge intelligently and in appropriate context becomes a problem. Simply knowing the requirements of a standard is only a starting point.

Our better judges have mastered their craft by practice and by applying intense concentration, mental discipline, and, above all else, intellectual method each time they undertake the task of comparatively evaluating exhibits. The discipline is required in order to avoid over-emotional responses to external reality. A judge may not always be actively conscious of all of the influences which go into the act of reaching decisions but there has to be some control. It is not all instinct and intuition. There are, of course, occasions when judges allow themselves free rein and unhampered mental freedom in the process of making choices but it is only possible to do this if in possession of adequate depth of experience. This serves as a safety net. It provides, above all else, what we call a comfort zone. An efficient judge can evaluate some of the key characteristics of a particular dog, such as overall profile and balance, at a glance. Following this a series of features and peculiarities are assessed and weighed in the mind by relative importance. The degree of significance of one aspect or another is a judgment call. In dealing with degrees of qualitative differences it is difficult to avoid the subjective, and judges may weigh things differently depending in part upon degree of familiarity. But there has to be reason in play, there has to be adequate knowledge, otherwise the whole process is devalued.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=243557

Posted by Liz on Sep 1 2022. Filed under Current Articles, Featured, The Buzz. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.