Search

Mrs. Duana Young, Judge for Bitches at the 2000 ABC

November 1999

Right after the 1999 Regional, the contract for ABC arrived with the sad news that Audrey had passed away and now I was the judge for year 2000 for bitches. I had to respond to the contract, which stipulates that you may not judge Boxers or Group at any AKC event (that includes Matches) for six months prior to the ABC.

March 2000

It would be about two months later before folks realize I am now the judge, as I hadn't told anyone. All of a sudden many smiling faces appeared. At that point, the newsletter was out and confirmed the identity of the new judge. Now everyone becomes Saintly and you'd have thought we'd all gone to the Monastic ritual of eating less bread than our fellows. An occasional hand gesture of a friendly nature now replaces all speech.

May 2000

Departing date is nearer and what to pack?

Our plane flights are such that we arrive in Baltimore at 6:30 p.m. (a 3-hour difference from California time). We can have a room on Tuesday night, but Monday night is not available at Frederick (See - even the judge can’t get a room!). After deciding to fly into Baltimore we stayed at Pier 15 at a crazily decorated place (Picasso inspired I am sure), and with help from the hotel found a local seafood restaurant - shell crab served on tables topped only with paper. Folks here are handed a hammer and away they go pounding the crab to get the meaty parts and eating it with corn on the cob and a tall glass of the local beer, which on a hot day was pretty good stuff (only 90 degrees). Leaving in the morning on Tuesday, we are immediately lost and ended up on the truck route through Baltimore. I always say if you want to see an area, just get lost! These buildings are row after row of a living picture of times past.

The question of how one judges Boxers has been a matter of controversy for years, even among the very best of breeders. My thoughts are thus: each dog compared as a whole against the standard and then they are placed one by one as they each are deserving.

Looking at our standard at the beginning, the very first part is like a program for a play, starting with the first act, the second act, and so on.

General Appearance, the first paragraph (Act I) of our standard is the most important as it describes the breed in general. The second paragraph (Act II) explains proportion and balance of the muzzle to the head and then speaks of proportion of head to the body. I have found that some folks read the third paragraph (Act III) like the ingredients of a cereal box, with first ingredients the most important and so on. These acts are written to follow the order of the judging procedure in the ring. Take the standard with you and follow the judge as he or she proceeds. For each part of the dog (the play), there is a written description (in actuality, they are smaller standards).

The American Boxer Club does not ask for a written critique of the judging, but various magazine editors ask at the beginning of the day or after the show if you would be so kind as to write up something for their readership. Sooo...knowing there are many more losers than winners here, my first comment is that, with the huge classes to sort out, good sportsmanship ran high and the patience of the exhibitors and spectators was tremendous.

On general thoughts comparing the Boxers of 20 years ago, I'd say a great deal of work has been done towards improving the feet and pasterns. I can remember seeing flat feet and hearing explanations of snow, mud, rain and you name it as an excuse for bad feet. (If the commercial was out then with the guy stepping on the little duckies’ toes, breeders would use that as an excuse, too.) No one ever admitted the dog just had a bad front all the way to its toes! Today I believe folks have tried to correct this problem and seem more aware of the structure of the various parts of the dogs.

The standard asks for a dark brown eye, but I can recall many light eyes in the past. Overall, eye color is uniformly correct now. Adding here from a breeders point of view, dark brown and eyes not lighter than coat color are quite agreeable to look at.

The head shapes are a’changing though, and I do suspect that is due to breeders in certain areas of the country, rather than over the whole breed. Square head shape is becoming more numerous than the desirable rectangular shape......did you get those last three words? (1/3 muzzle to 2/3rds skull length - muzzle in proportion to the skull (Act 2) you can call it a brick- you can call it 2 squares to one square-you can call it what you want. But the standard still calls for a rectangular head. The muzzle should be 2/3 the width of the head, but often we seem to go overboard with proportions, and bigger and more is better.

The square headed dogs lean towards heavier, thicker necks and rounder eyes and that is not correct. The neck should be clean at the throat and arched at the top behind the connection of the neck to the head (crest of neck). There were some entries that had very narrow backs and narrow loins.....and a few bitches who had some temperament problems (very soft), although temperaments are better overall. Comparing today’s Boxers to our own first dogs of the 60's who were fighters of the first degree and rough-tempered dogs, it is apparent that we have come a long way with cooling our dogs down temperament-wise and that's a big plus! But we do not want them hiding behind their handlers, either.

Our breed has a variance of sizes and I would hope it stays this way. A dog for every job or lap size. Balance and proportion comes in many sizes and we as breeders have to learn how to use these terms. Is the bone adequate for the size of the dog? These last 15 or so years I started to notice a finer boned dog and a legbone that was too long, giving the appearance of a dog shorter in length than in height (too tall for it's length). The end result we want is of a sound dog with substance as well as a dog with the boxer headstyle. These items are asked of our breed.

A great variety of mouth types here due to the larger entry I would guess, and this is the first time I have run across an extremely narrow underjaw with tiny teeth. There were more than one of those, which makes me wonder where it comes from? A toy Poodle would happily spit these teeth out! This was a surprise.

Negative thoughts, you say? Yes I agree, but we weigh the positive and the negative to make decisions so that we may move forward.

The WB, Dreamweaver's Black Cherry, will forever be "Cherries Jubilee" to me. She came from the American Bred Brindle class - a dark brindle with plenty of type, and was just a stand out. She moved easily and with her square silhouette could not be ignored. The RWB from the Open Brindle class, Hi-Tech’s Mona Lisa, also had good head type and moved easily, but was a bit longer in body. Both Bitches were of good substance and yet retained elegance.

The Bred By Exhibitor class was grand to see with 20 entries here - I applaud you all! This should be our best class in the whole show!!! It wouldn't hurt to separate the colors here if this large an entry continues. What if there were a Best In Show Bred By Exhibitor Winner? That would be a Grand Finale!

Puppy Classes had many good ones with great futures ahead of them, such good sports these girls were and in some cases showed the big girls how to do it right!!

There were many beautiful, well balanced bitches here, and being a winner of one's class at ABC would be deserving of a major at any other show. My guess would be that many of these winners will be Champions by next year!

The only thing missing is a WB Fawn Class and WB Brindle Class. With the huge numbers of the entry, it seems hardly fair for one dog to take home all the points! What if there were a Best of Variety?

Yes, I enjoyed every minute with all those beautiful bitches. Thanks for the memory.

Duana Young