Judging The Judges

Click Here To Read The Complete Article From The Canine Chronicle August, 2013 Issue 106 – August, 2013

By Peter Baynes

Photos By Lisa Croft-Elliott

Many exhibitors have a simple way to judge judges; if they put them up, they are wonderful. If they don’t, they are idiots – case closed!

The above words are paraphrased from something someone wrote, but is a true image that is damaging the sport. Unfortunately, those often falsely proclaimed idiots end up on the contributors’ DO NOT SHOW (DNS) list. I say contributors because they are the ones who are the self-proclaimed experts on judges’ abilities, and they are not afraid to give their opinion on any Internet site that caters to their warped views.

They also inquire of other exhibitors as to their experience with judges, and sometimes their replies are even more bizarre than those of the inquirer. Many have DNS lists of their own; it’s amazing, these days, that we have any entries at the shows at all!

Here is a fictionalized version of those messages:

Sandy Shore: I have Eileen Dover coming up in Bulgarian Stitch Hounds. What does she like?

Tamara Knight: I think she is very fair and very wonderful; she gave my Stitch five points from the Puppy Class, and the Breed over fifteen specials. However, I am not so keen on Ben, her husband, in Hounds; I believe he is better in Terriers

Joyce Cutts: I think she is very political; she is definately (sic) on my DNS list. Ben, however, did cross the points over in my breed, Swedish Flutehounds. I do not understand the jokes about his name. Their son, Cary, however, is a very good handler.

Rick Shaw: Ben does not judge Terriers; if he did he, would be on my DNS list. I understand he always puts up women.

Iva Payne: I have been in Stitches for 80 years, so I do know something about them. I do not like either Ben or Eileen. They do not understand correct type. Tamara forgot to tell you that she is related to Eileen. They are second cousins. I don’t know why she doesn’t like Ben, maybe he made a pass at her. In addition, 99% of Stitch judges are on my DNS list.

Stan Wellback: Tamara forgot to tell you that she is related to Eileen, they are second cousins. Isn’t that a conflict of interest?

Harry A. Long: It is not a conflict of interest in Tennessee.

In the real messages, judges’ reputations are being determined with the power of the Internet, where hundreds, if not thousands of readers can view subjective, stupid messages that are delivered at the press of a self-proclaimed expert’s “send” button.

I am not one who reveres the good old days, but in those days, we made up our own mind as to whom we would show under. Even newcomers would test the waters without seeking advice. Most of the judges were already well-known, and seasoned exhibitors knew their likes and dislikes. In some cases, it was nothing to do with the dogs. I have related previously that some judges would not look at you if you were not wearing a tie. One judge I knew liked handlers who had gone to the trouble of shining their shoes. She thought this was a sign of respect for the judge. Was she on my DNS list? NO! I made sure that my mother-in law shined my shoes to perfection. If I didn’t win, I fired my mother-in-law!

In those days, when handlers were licensed, the AKC Reps were more concerned with the behavior of the professional handlers; checking the rigs, and cleanliness of the set-ups, etc. There was a rap on the knuckles if you had more than one dog entered in the same class, or even a reprimand from the office if you were seen to be handling a breed of dog for which you were not licensed, and not assisting another professional handler. The Reps didn’t have much time to be observing judges.

Some senior judges had styles of judging that would be frowned upon today, but they got away with it because even the Reps respected them, and their decisions. It was usually a waste of breath to complain about such a judge. When, in the late seventies, the AKC suddenly quit licensing the approximately 1,400 handlers, thousands more wannabe handlers became agents. Some were good and ethical, but others were not. It was impossible to monitor them all. I feel this is the time when Reps switched to judging the judges more. Although the word from the AKC president at the time was that judges’ decisions were not being questioned, but if their procedure or behavior was out of line, that was cause for interjection.

I don’t know when it changed, but Reps started talking to judges about their placings. This caused hard feelings between the Reps and some judges. Unfortunately, again, the then-new internet came into the equation. A special site was created for judges, and only judges. Some judges started complaining openly about Reps. In addition, some judges who were still handling their own dogs even started complaining about other judges when they didn’t win. What a crazy situation, when judges were openly able to start judging the judges. Was the AKC monitoring these sites and their licensed  judges’ comments?

When I was a professional handler, I cannot remember of any time when I openly questioned a judge’s decision. I do remember Monroe Stebbins (a great Rep) watching a breed that he thought I should have won, and he came to me hoping that I would complain. I explained the judge was a good friend of mine, and was probably afraid to give me the win. He said that was no excuse, and I have tried to remember those words whenever a friend steps in my ring. Monroe was also upset when I turned down the offer to become a Rep. I sometimes wonder if I would have been a good judge of judges.

I did once report to the Rep a judge who did not check any testicles, and other handlers backed me up. His reply to the Rep, “I do it so fast, it’s impossible to watch my hands.” She took his word for it; he must have been a magician. I am sure the judges you see on television, who do not appear to check testicles, would have the same excuse. If ever I am accused of the same serious transgression, I will be sure to have a deck of cards handy just to prove my sleight of hand, or even have a rabbit snuggled in a top hat.

There I go, Mister Perfect, judging a judge. I will give another admission. When sitting at ringside watching the groups, and a poor specimen enters the ring, I am among those who will grab his judging schedule to see who judged the breed, and check the number of entries. I once withheld Best of Breed from a class dog in a poor entry for the same reason. However, it is still a serious concern for ringsiders to question a judge’s decision without knowing all the reasons.

Do the real professional handlers have a DNS list? I’m sure some that show many breeds can afford to skip a judge or two throughout the year. I never did because I needed the money, and sometimes my perseverance paid off. I remember, at first, I never liked to show to Melbourne Downing (maybe because I could never decipher his dot-dot-dash code). I could not win under him. I thought he didn’t like me. Then I started winning under him. Maybe I was showing better dogs, and he obviously had a reason when he didn’t reward me with other dogs. Chatting to him later, I discovered he was a real gentleman. What I call perseverance is accepting the lower ribbons with grace; hoping that some day in a certain situation, under the same judge, it may pay off. Some exhibitors forget that their attitude in one class may hurt them in future classes, or even future shows.

It’s obvious sometimes that a judge will “make up” for a defeat with a later award. I know at one small show when the Herding and Working Group were one – then called the Working Group – I had several Specials in that group. I didn’t know the judge, but he looked as if he was out of his depth. He dumped me with my first breed and “made up” with my second, this went on for several breeds. Unfortunately, my first and third breeds were my top winners. I think I got a group placement with his sixth choice.

Another make-up judge was an expert in a breed I was showing. Although I had never showed this Special to him before, I knew he really liked him. I had a few nice animals in the classes, but I soon realized he was saving the big award for my Special. Unfortunately, the owner insisted on bringing the dog to the show himself on this occasion, but then decided not to come. Heartbreak!  The judge looked at me imploringly when the Specials entered the ring and mine wasn’t there. All I could do was spread my hands and shrug. Clients could sometimes be idiots.

Maybe I shouldn’t have related the above stories, as it appears I was again judging the judges at the time. However, I know I never called them hateful names; otherwise, they would have been on a DNS list that I never kept. You may recall in a recent article, I did refer to one judge as a dope, but he was one who put me up.

Having someone judge the judges on the Internet is a scary business, especially if someone claims some judges should be on everyone’s DNS list. To the newcomers, remember those co-called idiots or political judges might like your dog. Give them a try; if you don’t win, maybe the judge is not as bad as they say. Maybe you should ask for a valid judgment of why you didn’t win, either from the judge, or other sensible opinions. With the AKCs ever-changing approval system, some failures are going to emerge, but overall, I have this dream that the good judges will easily outnumber the bad.

The AKC has the last word. They alone have the power to judge the judges. They can keep complaints made against them in their files. We know that some complaints will be malicious but they could be easily sorted.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=30509

Posted by subschron on Aug 20 2013. Filed under Current Articles, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.