Judging Mainstream vs. Peripheral Aspects

By Herman L. Felton

EDITOR’S NOTE: While perusing some past issues over the weekend, we came across this article written by the late, great Herman Felton. For those of you that didn’t know Herman, he and his wife Judy were outstanding breeders/owners and respected judges.  Herman was a thoughtful man who had a lot of ideas about the future of the sport of purebred dogs. He was happy to share his thoughts with those in the fancy. Unfortunately, they never got the attention of the powers at AKC. Here is one of his thought-provoking articles that shows his foresight regarding the future of AKC and the sport. Enjoy.

Editorial Prelude

            1996! As I write these words we are barely into a new year. 220 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence and 112 years after the founding of the American Kennel Club. They aren’t quite in the same league, of course, but the AKC does loom large in the lives of all of us in the purebred dog fancy. It is the second oldest amateur sport-governing body in the United States. (The oldest is the United States Lawn Tennis Association.) Think of that. Much has changed; even more will change in future years.

            The AKC needs to keep pace with evolving technology, with changing public mores, expectations, attitudes and perceptions and with the fast growing and expanding Sport of Dogs. (Ed: Remember, this was 1996) It is not above the battle. It must be aware, responsive and realistic. And, as a gentle reminder: a realist is one who keeps both feet on the ground and still gets to the desired goal.

            In the fairly recent past the AKC has gotten up off its hide-bound rear end and begun to move with the times. It has ventured into new areas and concerns and re-examined old ideology. The move of its headquarters, library, museum, registration and other activities to a single expandable location in North Carolina is a strategic masterpiece. (Ed: This was a proposal that never happened). It augurs well for the future. Of course, not all projects undertaken have been immediately or entirely successful. But they represent movement in the right direction, which is better than an uncritical acceptance of the status quo. As a top achiever once said, “Failure is a success deferred.”

            Despite a rather incessant barrage of fault finding, bitter invective, nit-picking (“it’s not the way we would do it”) and other criticism emanating from some with singular egos and differing agendas, the AKC has been making positive and noteworthy progress.

            Back in the AKC’s middle ages, as it emerged from feudalism, I was one of the few who strongly supported the admission of female Delegates. Now we not only have women delegates, we have female directors and a lady president (Judy Daniels). And we are the better for it!

            It is to be hoped that the upcoming March elections will do nothing to stem this tide so that we can stay the course and the AKC can continue along its progressive and enlightened path without subservience to a reactionary establishment elite.

            Let’s discuss dog show judging philosophy – some peripheral concerns, some splitting of hairs. I keep coming back to the subject of judging in these articles because it is such a vital aspect of the Purebred Dog Sport.

            As indicated in prior writings, in seminars and in conversations, judging is a seeking of quality. Any conscientious judge is always cognizant of the effect his decisions may have on the welfare of the breed being judged. One of the prerequisites to the proper judging of any breed is that the judge be thoroughly familiar with the breed’s origin and purposes. This assists in the understanding of the breed standard requirements and their proper interpretation.

            The concerns being discussed here are not about body proportions, substance, angulation, depth and width of brisket or any of the other items that are the meat and potatoes of the judging procedure. These are matters that lurk around the periphery and come forward at the most inopportune times to challenge the judge.

            In the overall calculus of dog show judging there are two major divisions: (1) an ability to select the best specimen and (2) the fortitude to eliminate all extraneous considerations. “Ah”, you say “What is extraneous?” That, dear reader, is, in part, what we are discussing today.

Pretense and Incense

If that is your Shtick

Smoke and Mirrors

Won’t do the Trick

–      Herman Felton

            Let’s take some for instances:

1. The class enters the ring in catalog order. The preliminary assessment, based on your initial examinations, is that of the ten specimens present the dogs in positions 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are superior to the others. Further evaluation, including gaiting, narrows your choice to specimens 5 and 8. 5 possess almost all the qualities you expect in this breed, clearly superior overall in this respect to 8. But – and here’s the but – 5 is not showing nearly as well as 8. He resists being stacked or meanders during the gaiting, or otherwise misbehaves.

What to do?

1. If it is a puppy class
2. If it is an American Bred Class
3. If it is an Open Class
4. If the handler of 5 is clearly a novice
5. If the difference in quality between 5 and 8 is great
6. If the difference in quality between the two is small or moderate.

I know some of you will point out that this a dog show, but others will remind us of the judge’s obligation to the breed.

1. Let’s consider another situation, this time in a breed whose parent club frowns on coat trimming. In this class Number 8 is superior overall to 5 in conformation, gait, coat texture and showmanship. But, clearly, the coat has been trimmed and/or the whiskers cut. Do we penalize the dog for what some overzealous human has done? How much? Do we just refuse him the blue ribbon, or do we leave him out of the ribbons entirely? If we do either, are we promoting the breed welfare or are we hindering it?

1. Let’s really get down and dirty! You quickly discover in another breed that the number 7 dog in the class is undeniably the best specimen among those present. At the same time, you find that this dog is dirty, smelly and that there are mats in the coat – it is inadequately groomed. That’s when you wish for two awards – one (a white ribbon torn in two) to the exhibitor and one (an intact blue ribbon) to the dog. But, since you can present only one award, what should it be?

Ah, to be a dog show judge!

            Another topic, albeit one very likely to arouse great and highly vocal opposition, is the matter of height disqualifications. I don’t think they are really necessary and they do pose some risk because as soon as a height measurement is called for, or a judge decides on his own to make one, all discretion is waived. Any specimen–even one which otherwise in all respects represents the very essence and embodiment of the breed–that measures ever so slightly over the arbitrary height limit is emphatically out of competition forever, going down to defeat by lesser participants.

            Such measurements are an unnecessary distraction during the judging process and are, all too often, used by competitors to distract and annoy their “enemy”. We all have seen judges put themselves in an embarrassing light when they attempt to perform selective measuring with large entries. As I have said before; judging is not a laboratory experiment, it is a field exercise.

            The British do not have height disqualifications and, in my opinion, American judges could be trusted to discern overly tall dogs and to penalize them to the degree that they exceed the proscribed height. After all we allow our judges to interpret such matters as “long neck”, “short back”, “proper size”, “moderate length”, etc.

            Attempting to measure an entire entry can cause unnecessary delay and have other distressing results, as I discovered when, against my better judgement, I tried to do this, at the breed club’s request, at a Dalmatian specialty years ago. It was an unrewarding and frustrating experience. (One can understand occasional measurements in breeds which have varieties based on height.)

            I realize that there can be no empirical rules of thumb to guide judges in all the possible circumstances where decisions of this nature have to be made. There are too many variables. But the subject deserves thought and discussion, so that some guidelines can be established by consensus.

Short URL: https://caninechronicle.com/?p=181682

Posted by admin on Apr 6 2020. Filed under Dog Show History, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.