The Grand Championship Program
4 – June, 2010
By Dr. Gareth Morgan-Jones
Well the AKC Grand Championship program is more or less off the ground and running but not before some rather astonishing things have been said about it on those notorious Lists in cyberspace and all sorts of arbitrary confusion has been publicly generated by the asking of singularly stupid questions and from lack of intelligence. From what this writer can gather, some people are having a real hard time figuring out how things work even though the rules regulating the program are relatively clear-cut, straightforward, and should not be too terribly difficult to understand, even for those with less gray matter between the ears than is perhaps desirable and ideal. Anyone attentively reading the minutes of the AKC Board of Directors meeting of October 20 last year which contain the motion, proposed by Dr. Robert D. Smith, seconded by Dr. Thomas M. Davies, and passed unanimously, providing for a new conformation title, should surely be able to accurately comprehend the details of the program. Interesting that the modifications required to set things in motion were described as being minor changes to the Rules Applying to Dog Shows. Judging by what has been said very recently by various individuals, one wouldn’t think so. As an alternative, a close reading of Mr. John Wade’s communication, entitled ‘Grand Championship Judging Procedures’ and dated February 11 of this year, should have clarified any doubt as to the exact rules to follow. But apparently not; there have been gross misunderstandings, wrong assumptions made, inaccurate statements offered, erroneous information disseminated; you name it. Most of this from the minds of judges who apparently have chips on their shoulders and axes to grind or are incapable of clear, objective, untainted, rational thought. Some of this has occurred, I rather suspect, because folks have not even bothered to take the time, or made the effort and applied the concentration needed, to properly grasp the clear meaning of the words employed and become thoroughly familiar with the particulars. How can it be, you might ask, that some persons approved to judge by the AKC cannot seem to figure out how a reasonably simple and essentially uncomplicated program is to be implemented? There are apparently those who even believe that this additional dimension to our sphere of activity was ill-conceived, hastily designed, perhaps inadequately thought out. I make no judgement in this regard. Suffice it to say, however, that I personally see no evidence to suggest that this program will not be a positive extension of our system for recognizing merit. This, of course, provided that the majority of our judges embrace it and assume full responsibility for its proper and rightful implementation. It all surely depends on them; on their integrity and their commitment to do it appropriately for an exalted purpose; to reward high quality if and when they encounter it! And I don’t mean to facilitate the generation of more revenue for the organization which has introduced the program!
It has to be said, in all fairness, that it is really quite amazing how much unadulterated negativity there is out there. It actually boggles the mind. It is surely akin to a festering disease, seemingly fostered and nurtured in large part by a fraternity of chronic malcontents who seem to have a personal need, perhaps reflective of some personal insecurity, to make themselves heard or to put their name out in front of their colleagues. Perhaps some obtain a kind of personal satisfaction from venting their mental spleen, however irrational and ill-thought-out this may often be. The AKC and whatever it does is quite obviously an easy target. Fortunately those who contribute to the chorus of misdirected derision appear to constitute but a small minority yet still their voices can readily poison the cultural atmosphere and spoil things for everyone else. This is the fallout from the advent of the information super highway made possible by the world wide web. Disinformation and misinformation are now so readily spread. Then there is the hearsay and the gossip. It goes well beyond our borders. Since the verbal utterances to which I will refer are in the public domain, albeit copyrighted, it becomes an interesting exercise to compare and contrast some of the opinions expressed. Let me give you my readers some contrasting examples. Some individuals apparently believe that the program is a mess. At least one judge approved for a Group believes Mr. Wade’s communication to be highly confusing. Then there is a view that the manner in which points are calculated is another problem. Compare this to a belief that the program seems quite logical. Then someone from New Zealand, where it is thought the Grand Championship idea originated, expresses astonishment that the concept has evolved into such a convoluted entity. Well really, you see how things get misinterpreted and twisted! At the same electronic outlet, quite fortunately, there have been some astute, more level-headed, individuals participating in what has essentially been highly disjointed dialogue. One individual doesn’t quite understand why others are attempting to promote the idea that the program is more complicated than it actually is. Right on, I’d say. Another person states boldly that it is not so confusing, but that it is misunderstandings which are making it seem so. And so it goes; it’s a veritable mental zoo out there.
There appears to be the notion doing the rounds that this Grand Championship program has been primarily established for some utterly irresponsible and mercenary reason and that the main motive for doing so revolves around an attempt to generate more revenue, rather than provide an altruistic benefit for the sport and those who participate in it. Was this really and purely in response to the fiscal shortfall which the AKC is currently experiencing or was there a philosophically substantive basis for going this route and adopting the GC program? Who knows for sure? Might there have been a bit of both ingredients in play? Nothing particularly unacceptable in this, is there? Now it is not as if this was some altogether newly-invented concept, conceived and implemented for less than fully honorable reasons. After all, this higher order of achievement in the show ring is recognized in other spheres involving purebred animals, in the equine world in this country, for example, and, of course, this title in accorded to pedigreed dogs of the highest quality down under. The AQHA (American Quarter Horse Association) recognizes Grand Champions and Supreme Champions and there is presumably no reason to doubt the usefulness of these titles to designate stallions, mares, and geldings of exceptionally high merit. Now if you mistakenly think that the AKC program is too complicated and convoluted, go take a look at the AQHA rules for the award of these titles. Let me give you an idea. Here are some of the AQHA requirements for becoming a Supreme Champion. ‘Earning two official Speed Index Ratings of 90 or higher; winning a total of 40 points in recognized halter/performance halter and performance classes at five or more shows under five or more different judges approved by AQHA or in races approved by AQHA and a minimum of 15 of these points must be earned in halter/performance halter classes, with a minimum of eight of the points being earned during or after the horse’s 2-year-old-year. At least two Grand Championships, with five or more horses in the sex division, must be earned under two different judges, with at least one of them being earned on or after the horse’s 2-year-old year. At least 20 of those points must have been won in performance events at AQHA-approved shows or in races with at least eight of the 20 performance points earned in one or more of the following events (twelve different categories are listed). And with at least eight of the 20 performance points earned in one or more of the following events (four are listed).’ Dog people, do you get the message? So why should someone take such a peevishly cynical view as to suggest that the program is truly silly, as another AKC-approved Group judge has quite recently. How seriously should one take such a pronouncement? Silly in what sense one might well ask. The same individual, incidentally, offered the remarkable opinion that the program is in such a muddle that the Executive Field Representatives possibly do not understand how it is supposed to be implemented. I’m not kidding. Oh really! One wonders how someone could reach this conclusion and moreover feel a need to make it public! We are surely in the realm of wild speculation here. What evidence does this person have to substantiate making such a sweeping indictment? Why be contemptuously distrustful of the motives behind the establishment of this program before it has barely got off the ground?
Now let me give you some examples of the sort of confusion which has been generated by pure lack of understanding out there. Someone made the categorial statement, without any basis whatever in fact, that BOB and BOS winners are automatically awarded GC points. Others, of course, ran wild with this and summarily aided in the spread of false information. Then someone smartly provides a correcting post. Then someone else asks the question: can a class dog go BOB and a Special of the same sex still be eligible for a GC point. Answer to the latter: hello, duh, well yes! In his communication Mr. Wade explicitly states that, and I quote, “Class dogs winning BOB/BOV or BOS will not prohibit the awarding of Select Dog/Bitch to eligible dogs in the ring.” What could be clearer than this? Obviously the questioner had either not read these words or lacked the capacity to understand their meaning. It has gone on and on, partly, one presumes, because there is a dire lack of realization of the philosophical basis upon which the concept was developed. In a nutshell, the GC program has been designed for the purpose of recognizing and honoring dogs of superior quality beyond the Champion level. There are surely plenty of them out there and the onus is on the judges to find and reward them. Over the years it has been argued that the Champion title has, to some extent, been devalued and, in a sense, perhaps this new program is needed for this reason alone. You’ve all heard talk about so-called ‘cheap’ Champions. The central tenet, belief, doctrine, and principle in all of this is that it will be useful to recognize exceptional exhibits and reward them by elevation to a higher category. Now there is, of course, an Achilles heel, a vulnerable point, here. Are all judges sufficiently able to determine whether or not exhibits qualify by virtue of their merits? Each individual will, of course, have to set his or her own standard of required excellence and there will be some variance and subjectivity in this regard. Isn’t this a common feature of all judging? Some judges know breeds better than others and will be more demanding and perhaps less likely to readily hand out GC points. So there will inevitably be some unevenness in play but hopefully the breadth of the requirements, number of points, number of judges involved, will level things out. That, I presume, is what the formulators of the program believe.
Which brings me to another aspect of this subject which has had substantial currency (no pun intended) on the internet. There have been a number of anecdotal remarks made to the effect that AKC Executive Field Representatives are now in the business of systematically encouraging judges to make GC awards, the idea being that this will ensure the success of the program, satisfy the customers (the exhibitors), bring in more entries, enhance revenues. Well yes, some of these benefits will undoubtedly accrue but how much truth is there to this? Surely there is no deliberate intent being made to compromise and undermine the integrity of the program from the very beginning for the sake of fiscal gain. This obviously seems much too far fetched to be believed. I’m sorely tempted to add ‘but who knows?’ but delete this thought! There is this notion out there, however, that if judges do not award Selects, the exhibitors are going to stop entering. Some folks have even suggested that judges who do not consistently and regularly give out these awards will be frowned upon and even perhaps punished down the road when the time comes to apply for additional breeds approval. Is this outrageous, or what? This sort of thing (which can readily deteriorate into rumor and pure gossip), of course, fuels the belief that the program is in place primarily for monetary reasons. In a recent post it was categorically stated that a member of the Field staff was actively encouraging judges to award points unless an exhibit was so lacking in merit as to, had it been a class entry, require the withholding of Winners. Then there was a statement to the effect that Field Representatives have been indicating that the Grand Champion title is no longer about exceptional quality but about generating entries and therefore revenue. We are told that it has changed since February and unless the dogs under consideration are of such low quality that the awarding of points would damage one’s integrity as a judge, these are to be given. My goodness, really; interesting, to say the least. It will, of course, sometimes be quite difficult and rather awkward for judges to refrain from making Select awards but, ultimately, if this new title is to have any real meaning and not suffer the fate of its inferior version, this will have to be done. Some rigor in this regard will surely be needed. Let us all hope, for the good of the sport, that folks will have the courage of their convictions and not award GC points casually, flippantly, and irresponsibly, merely so as not to offend. While I’m mining this vein let me just mention that I was told at a recent show in my area by a very prominent and highly successful handler that there are at least several high profile judges (two were named, one an all-breed judge) who are apparently refusing to participate in the program and will not be making GC awards. This their prerogative, their right, one supposes although one shudders to think what the folks at Judging Operations think of this, assuming that it is indeed true. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what was said. It would be fascinating to know, if this is the case, why such a stance has been taken. Could it be that at least some of our leading judges genuinely doubt the value of this program or believe that it was introduced for the wrong reason?
There have been some other concerns expressed about the program, such as the presumption that the process of awarding Grand Championship points will eat significally into the time of judges. Judges Operations disputes this and anticipated this concern by stating in Mr. Wade’s communication that “It is simple, similar in format to that used to finish a dog, and, because it focuses exclusively on the competition at the breed level, it will add minimal time to the current process.” Here are some of the things said on this matter by others. It has been stated that the process is definitely going to take more time with extra marking, handing out of ribbons and explaining it all to exhibitors and stewards. Question: since when has it become the responsibility of a judge to enlighten others as to how the process works? Someone has calculated that for 20 breeds an extra 5 minutes will be expended but the accuracy of this type projection is surely open to question. For a start, there are variables at play, including the number of Selects being awarded in each respect. Here is what seems to me to be a sensible attitude. Dogs are already being judged, so recognizing up to two more deserving exhibits should not be such a big deal. Likewise the twenty extra seconds, or thereabouts, it will take to mark the book and hand out a couple of additional ribbons. Makes sense to me! If a judge is sharp, incisive in his decision making, and efficient in marking his or her book, surely it will not add significantly to the time involved. This is surely one of those red herrings thrown out to further muddy the waters. With practice each judge should become proficient at smoothly integrating the additional responsibility.
Clearly someone among the higher echelon of the powers-that-be at the AKC needs to say something like this to the Fancy at large and for the advantage of those judges who are, perhaps surprisingly, having a real hard time, for one reason or another, understanding how the program works, much less appreciate its potential benefit for all concerned. Why let the skeptics dominate the discussion? Look folks, this Grand Championship procedure isn’t really all that complicated or confusing; in time you may get the hang of it and probably come to realize its value. We will welcome your cooperation in making it the best it can be. Although you may have qualms because of its novelty, or trepidation based on some perhaps irrational grounds, at least give it a chance. Who knows, with time, you may very well come to like and think highly of it. Consider a comment made publicly by a respected and popular judge quite recently that in her experience the program already appears to be well-received by exhibitors. Set aside whatever mental baggage you might carry against it and allow the intellectual power of comprehending to come into play. Try not to come to premature conclusions. View this in a broader, less accusatory, context. Realize that it has been made seemingly much more onerous and confusing than it actually is because of all the bizarre and off-the-wall things that have been said about it by certain individuals and by the strange misunderstandings that have been doing the rounds. Is this essay a little bit scathing? Well yes, I suppose it is but I have to say in conclusion that I have been quite amazed by the volume of nonsense which has appeared and been said about the Grand Championship program. I have tried to illustrate just how messy and cesspool-like our culture can readily get and how distorted and warped we can make things. I believe in trying to tell it as I see it. I do not expect everyone to agree. Let the chips fall where they may. I’m not sure if I’m trying to be prophetic. By all means heed the words of Mr. Tim Gunn in Project Runway judges: make it work!
Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=1189
Posted by Comments are closed
