Of judges and judging
....
As usual, ABC was a
fascinating experience and starting the week off this year was the day long educational
seminar. I THINK I was blissfully unaware of the criteria for attendance (which PROBABLY
explained the low numbers present) but it was certainly a shock to see that so few people
were taking advantage of an opportunity to learn. (Editor's Note: Yes, Tim was blissfully
unaware. This was a prepaid seminar for AKC licensed judges and seating was limited,
although we certainly welcomed the impromptu visit of our British cousins. :-)
There was the usual raft of
ambitious up and coming all-breeds judges, but very few breeders and exhibitors, and among
those breeders that were present, many were already licensed judges. I don't know where
the younger generation were. In a breed where the "stock" of exhibitors seems to
turn over rather quickly (both in the UK and in the US), one might have expected to see a
lot of new faces ready to pick up on any bits of advice and knowledge they could get their
hands on, but it was not the case.
Anyway, it was their loss,
since the rest of us enjoyed a few useful lessons. One of the most fascinating parts of
the day was the mock class of five dogs that we all got the opportunity to judge. These
five exhibits had obviously been selected fairly carefully with a full range of virtues
and faults on display and it was an interesting exercise.
Once everyone in the room had
completed their hands-on examination and had seen the dogs move, we all "owned
up" to our placements and, amazingly enough, these were pretty consistent. There were
a few wild cards where an all-breeds judge or two had over-rewarded excellent construction
without proper regard to failings in head type, but on the whole, there was broad
consensus.
This reminded me of an
exercise that I did 18 months ago when I was preparing a detailed seminar on construction
and movement for the Mancunian Boxer Club. I had selected 12 outline photographs of
American dogs (American for the simple reason that they would be unfamiliar to a UK
audience) and I sent copies of these photographs to 10 very experienced UK Championship
Show judges. I asked them to ignore heads completely and select their 1st, 2nd and 3rd
places and also the worst.
From this panel of judges who
ranged from all-breed to specialist; and from "American" type, through
"English" type and on to "Continental" type, the consistency in
selection was remarkable. Though it does have to be said that the judges found selecting
the worst was far easier than selecting the best.
Reflecting on both these
experiences and the consistency seen, I suppose that I should not have been surprised
since we are governed by one Standard which is very specific.
To give one or two examples, I
fail to see that there should be much debate over what constitutes
- a correct mouth
- a correct forehand
- a correct set of hind-quarters
- a correct topline
- correct chin
- correct colour
- correct size
- correct body proportions
- correct movement
- correct head proportions
...because these are well
covered in our blueprint.
We may have slightly more
difficulty agreeing in some other areas such as
- eye/expression
- rise of skull
- neck
- desired balance of substance to elegance
- croup/tailset
...because these are covered
less explicitly. However, I don't think that they can be blamed for the very wide range of
results that judges often come up with and although I am well aware that when quality
overall is pretty even, results from week to week can vary considerably, logic tells me
that there ought to be limits on this variation.
In the UK, we are fortunate
that judges have to report on their main winners in the weekly dog papers, giving a
balanced assessment of the dog. This window into the judge's thought process can often be
alarming. By way of example, the well known UK judge and exhibitor, Pam Broughton, once
did a little straw poll on judges' critiques and came up with the following list of
excerpts extracted from different judges' critiques on the SAME DOG at successive shows:
"lacks chin" / "correct lip placement"
"short back" / "long cast"
"excellent mouth" / "wry mouth"
In anybody's book, this must demonstrate ignorance on the part of at least some judges and
it is maybe a fault of the UK judging system where there has historically been no testing
of knowledge required and no account taken of successes in breeding.
My own point of view is that,
as a bare minimum, judges should be rigorously tested on their knowledge of the Standard
and I remain convinced that many judges still enter the ring without that knowledge at
their fingertips. I wonder how many people judging in the UK and asked to describe the
location of the stifle joint when the dog is standing naturally would be able to say that
it should be directly under the hip protruberance? I use this as my example because it so
rarely is. I would even venture to suggest that some judges might struggle to define the
stifle and the hip protruberance, let alone their relative locations.
I am also a firm believer in
the fact that experience of good Boxers teaches you more about the breed than anything
else. Once you have had an outstanding one, you want it again and you appreciate it. You
have touched it and felt it - and it felt pretty good!
One of my favourite sayings in
dogs comes from one of the most successful UK exhibitors who regularly wins Groups and
Best in Shows with her minority breed, and who also made up Champions in Boxers. She
believes that the judges you really need to steer clear of are the ones who have been in a
breed 30 years and STILL haven't bred anything half decent. She believes that their lack
of success over many years demonstrates their lack of understanding and knowledge (though
they will undoubtedly be able to give you 101 other reasons as to why they have never won
anything). Success in the ring - either as a breeder or as a handler - undoubtedly brings
credibility to your decisions as a judge.
In the UK at present things
have moved in the right direction: an exam on KC regulations, attendance at movement,
construction and breed point seminars, measured success with your own breeding programme,
and the assessment of judges have all been introduced recently to the qualification
procedure for Championship Show judges.
Enough water has not yet
passed under the bridge to see if these measures are having a tangible impact on improving
judging consistency or quality, but it looks hopeful.
In closing, I will just make
three final, unrelated, observations which come to mind as a result of what I have written
above:
1. It is obviously easier to
'judge' accurately in the benign environment of a judging seminar or from pictures in the
comfort of your own sitting room than it is on the day, when the various and many
pressures at the centre of the ring become intolerable for some.
2. Do judges who pluck animals
from oblivion, which then return to oblivion at all subsequent shows, ever pause, in the
cold light of day, to reflect on whether they got it wrong?
3. If, as I suggest, there is
so much explicitly covered in the Standard where grounds for debate should be limited, why
do some people still call for the breed to be split into the American Boxer and the
Continental Boxer? This is a simple cop out.
What a legacy that would be to
the original designers of this fabulous breed and what would these people say to the likes
of Frau Stockmann: "I'm sorry, we all found it too difficult to breed to the
Standard, so we fell out, did our own thing and split the breed into factions. I hope
that's OK by you?"
On all sides of the Boxer
spectrum, we need to shy away from exaggeration and rediscover the middle ground occupied
by such modern greats as Teck, Tabor, Arbitrage, Futurian, Cock Robin, Brock Buster... all
dogs that could happily have lived in the same breed ring. We need to rediscover this
middle ground before it is too late.
As Pat Withers says, you can
get swept away on a tide of fashion, then all of a sudden you can turn round and see that
the correct dogs died a few years ago, and that you now have no way back.
Thankfully, we are not in that
situation internationally since the worldwide Boxer gene pool is sufficiently large. What
we now need is breeders with the breadth of vision to look beyond their own borders to use
it properly, and judges with a correct understanding of true breed type to reward it when
they see it.
So, that's it for this time.
In the year 2000, I will have
seen Boxers shown in the UK, the United States, Sweden, Ireland, South Africa, Italy and
Brazil, so in my next submission to the Underground, I will try and summarize some
observations and share some experiences with you.
In the meantime, some of you
may wish to try and get hold of the July 2000 issue of Boxer Quarterly which has nine
pages of coverage from ABC.
Tim Hutchings
Editor’s note:
Subscription information for the BQ follows. We subscribe, and can tell you that it’s
well worth it!
A YEAR'S SUBSCRIPTION BY WORLD
AIR MAIL TO BOXER QUARTERLY COSTS £22.50. TO SUBSCRIBE SEND
YOUR ADDRESS AND CREDIT CARD DETAILS (NUMBER/EXPIRY) TO BOXER@QUART.U-NET.COM OR FAX
+44-1606-49828 OR MAIL TO BOXER QUARTERLY, MANOR FARM COTTAGE, LENTON, GRANTHAM,
LINCOLNSHIRE NG33 4HG UK |
