I'm aware that in FCI countries that you get a critique of your dog there and then in the ring, which I think is on paper?
I was wondering if that is all entries or just the main placings?

Would this work in the UK? I think its a good idea but would depend on how long this would take, I don't know how it fully works on the continent, but think it could be worthwhile.

Its just that you read on some Ch shows that the judge thought that some dogs were great, but too many of them for the higher placings and some went unplaced. Wouldn't it be nice to really get an idea on what the judges thought of your dog in your hand rather than the top 2 in the paper(if you're lucky). I read many a critique and so many are so bog standard it could be about almost any dog in the ring.

What are your thoughts on this, maybe people who have shown on the continent can help with their opinions on how it works.

It would be interesting but strangely you are expressly forbidden to give an opinion vocally in the ring - can't see it happening either imagine the outburst of lawyers letters if people knew what you really thought of their dogs bad enough sometimes if they are just not placed. Suppose we would have to sign to promise not to sue when we entered.

You can always ask privately for an opinion and most judges would be prepared to say why you were or were not placed.

We've shown in France, Belgium and Ireland under FCI rules and the judges give you their assessment at the end of each class. It isn't a full critique, just a grade. I much prefer this system to the UK one. These are the grades and their meanings:

EXCELLENT may only be awarded to a dog which comes very close to the ideal standard of
the breed, which is presented in excellent condition, displays a harmonious, well-balanced
temperament, is of high class and has excellent posture. Its superior characteristics in
respect of its breed permit that minor imperfections can be ignored; it must however have
the typical features of its sex.

VERY GOOD may only be awarded to a dog which possesses the typical features of its breed,
which has well-balanced proportions and is in correct condition. A few minor faults may be
tolerated but none of a morphological nature. This award can only be granted to a dog that
shows class.

GOOD is to be awarded to a dog that possesses the main features of its breed however
showing faults provided these are not concealed.

SUFFICIENT must be awarded to a dog which corresponds adequately to its breed, without
possessing the generally accepted characteristics or whose physical condition leaves
something to be desired.

DISQUALIFIED must be awarded to a dog which does not correspond to the type required by
the breed standard; which shows a behaviour clearly not in line with its standard or which
behaves aggressively; which has testicular abnormalities; which has dental flaw or a jaw
anomaly; which shows a colour and/or coat imperfection or clearly shows signs of albinism.
This qualification shall also be awarded to dogs that correspond so little to a single feature of
the breed that their health is threatened. It should furthermore be awarded to dogs that
show eliminating faults in regard to the breed standard.

Dogs that cannot be awarded one of the above qualifications shall be released from the ring
with the rating :

CANNOT BE JUDGED. This rating is to be given to any dog which does not move, constantly
jumps up and down on its handler or tries to get out of the ring, makes it impossible to
assess the gait and the movement or avoids constantly to be examined by the judge and
makes it impossible to inspect teeth, anatomy and structure, tail or testicles. This rating is
also to be given if traces of operations or treatment can be observed which seem to indicate
that the exhibitor wanted to deceive the judge.
The same applies if the judge has ample reason to suspect operations that were intended to
correct the original condition or feature (e.g.: eyelid, ear or tail). The reason why the dog
was rated CANNOT BE JUDGED has to be stated in the judge's report.

The four best dogs in each class are placed provided that they have been awarded at least
the qualification "VERY GOOD".

Mick

i remember seeing a judge at east of england champ show giving a verbal critique of the top 3 in each class,a few years ago.we were waiting to go in to the adjacent ring,it was very interesting listening.

I would LOVE to get a grading of my dog, even if they weren't placed you would at least know if the judge thought it was any good or not!

It would certainly be easier from a judges point of view to just grade a dog but it does not really tell the exhibitor why the dog was awarded the grade they are. UK judges who write a well thought out critique would offer more help to the exhibitor than just a grade although I agree they are not always well though out, but to a certain extent I blame the constrains of the dog press for that not sure it applies now but at one time is was suggested that the number of words used should be very limited.

I would love it, but many of our breeds have too big an entry for it to happen over here, it can take all day just to judge, without critiquing everyone too

you would at least know if the judge thought it was any good or not!

Lucy dogs, if you particularly want the opinion of a particular judge then why not ask, most judges are happy to give you there opinion although they are unlikely to tell you the faults, only what they like, in the UK fault judging is not approved of although it would be easier sometimes. :-)

> judge at east of england champ show giving a verbal critique

As others have said and rule F(1) 21s Judges are not permitted to make any oral commentry on the dogs until after the conclusion of all their judging.

I think with my breed it would not be possible as we often attract entries of 180-200+. As a judge I would also not want to give a verbal critique.

They have a limit on number of dogs per judge in FCI shows so they higher entry breeds will have a 2 judges, one for bitches and one for dogs.  I much prefer the FCI system.  Even if they do not give a written critique grade most judges will tell you as you stand in placing why they did it and what they are looking for.  And you always get your grading from excellent down to dq'd. 

It would be very interesting here, some of our breed "specialists" clearly do not know our breed standard as a couple this year have contradicted it in their critiques.  Admitedly to suit their own stock, and justify their placings.  I think we pay enough in entries to deserve a verbal critique there and then, if only to ask brief questions and learn (as we should always keep an open mind and move forward).

I judge (UK and abroad) and I love to give a verbal critique, it is far better to explain to the exhibitor on the spot what made your final choices in each class.  It is quick, no longer than some of the judges here how struggle to write a critique in the first place.  And it give you a chance to show the exhibitor points on their dog that are good and bad.  And yes in my breed abroad we may have 150 +, here we average 50.

Last year at a show I attended I was told why I had been placed by the judge, so even though no critique due to my placing it was nice to hear why I had got a place over others who hadn't. I appreciated that and will be making sure I enter under her in future, she had such a good way about her in the way she judged and gave every dog her undivided attention and was polite and friendly to everyone.

> As others have said and rule F(1) 21s Judges are not permitted to make any oral commentry on the dogs until after the conclusion of all their judging

Wow, didn't know that, so much more to learn with showing dogs than I realised. Keep all thoughts and experiences coming, its proving very interesting reading. :-)

When we have been in Europe ALL entered dogs are graded (as previously quoted) and have full written critique issued. The judge dictates critique to ring secretary, each dog has its own carbonised document (replaces judges book) and you collect your copy at the end of judging.  Judge often gives brief verbal critique as well.

Would this work in Uk - not with numbers of dogs entered at our shows as it would take too long. At shows we have attended we have worked out that time to judge is each dog is 5 - 9 minutes ( approx 2min /dog allocated in UK) 

Value of critique from FCI system - well it is generally warts n all, the judges certainly seem to tell it as they see it. You ned to be happy to here what your dogs failing are (not sure some UK exhibitors would want to be told !!). Obviously you may disagree but if the same issues are repeatedly mentioned perhaps its time to remove the rose tinted glasses. The down side is you only see your critique not those of your competitors so can't establish rationale for placings.

Entries are lower BUT judges are willing to effectively withold the tickets by not giving out excellent grades ( you can win a class with a very good BUT to challenge you must have 1st place with and excellent grade)

I like both systems to be honest - both have plus and minus points.

K

> both have plus and minus points

Don't think the dog papers would be very happy about it either. Maybe they could give a written critique for the placings to each handler and then put forward the top 2 to the papers as we have now?

Would this work in the UK? I think its a good idea but would depend on how long this would take, I don't know how it fully works on the continent, but think it could be worthwhile.

In my breed it's already done here in the UK. For the Belgian Shepherd Championship shows (not the open shows) each and every dog entered gets graded and a written critique. Makes those shows SO much more worthwhile going to. All of a sudden even a lousy third placing means far more when it is accompanied by an excellent grading. :)

Marianne, I think that is a wonderful idea, even if they started just at breed club Ch shows, yep I like that and a good place to start maybe??? I'm thinking I may put that idea forward to our main breed club..

I like the European way 100% better.
The way it all works is slightly different in different countries.

I used to show pretty actively but have not done so in UK, I don't like the system and all critiques we have had have been pretty useless and very short = disappointing to what I'm used to. I also like that in many countries in Europe the grades have different colored ribbons meaning you can easily see what a grade dog had from the ring side.
If you read few critiques (often passed about around the ring) you also quickly learn what the judge likes/does not like and if they really do know what they are talking about!

It does save some time as well as after the individual judging, only excellent s get called back for the placings(or lower levels if not enough excellent's were given).
Also, to get to the line up for the CC, dog needs to have excellent so even if placed first in the class -if not good enough on the day- it will not compete for the CC.

The grades are also used by breed clubs (even,by registration bodies in some countries), dog needs to have for example "excellent" or two "very goods" from shows to be deemed worthy of breeding and to be proved that the dog matches the breed standard, has all teeth etc (at least in theory).

In Europe most critiques get written in foreign language(by all international judges) where as in UK, I would imagine it would mainly be in English so this would also make it quicker...

I think giving critiques out to all would increase amount of people showing(or dogs in the ring)as even if you have a dog that is not the top notch, you can still take them under different judges if just to see what the judges opinion is.
In UK, there really is not much of a point to pay +£25 for a run around a ring if the dog is very unlikely to place in the "better classes" so if you don't like just throwing your money away, dog like this will just be retired...

Changing the subject slightly you see dogs in the UK show ring with all sorts of Championship titles from Europe and it does make you wonder as the example would be lucky to be placed here. Does not apply to all some do carry UK titles as well but others have probable never been placed above VHC unless the class numbers  allow it.

As I see it in Europe numbers do not come into it as even if there is only one you would not get anywhere unless the judge consider you excellent, do wonder if the system was applied in the UK just how many would be awarded that ribbon.

> even if they started just at breed club Ch shows

It would not work at even our breed shows as we have 250+, with one show in July having 368 dogs making 448 entries. Anyway with the KC rule, it is not at all possible to have a verbal critique.

> Anyway with the KC rule, it is not at all possible to have a verbal critique.

But is there a rule which stops written critiques? Thats what i'm thinking.. We don't have entries anywhere near like you do for your breed..

> Changing the subject slightly you see dogs in the UK show ring with all sorts of Championship titles from Europe and it does make you wonder as the example would be lucky to be placed here. Does not apply to all some do carry UK titles as well but others have probable never been placed above VHC unless the class numbers  allow it.
>
>

In my breed, it is very easy to make up a  Champion throughout the various countries in Europe, the entry is very low (Single figures) and having looked at the judges gradings to the dogs I have seen in the flesh/on photos, I think the judges are very lenient with their gradings in Europe.     The UK is definitely the hardest country in the world to make up a Champion.  Long may that continue.

Judges these days can't even be bothered doing critiques on second placed dogs so wouldn't see any of them wanting to do this.  This is even in small classes with only a few dogs in.  Annoying when you've paid your money and get no comment.  Even happens with judges for first placings where they don't do any critique.

Anyway with the KC rule, it is not at all possible to have a verbal critique.

Like I said last night, grading and critiques is already done in the UK at the BSD champshows. It's not verbal at all, the judge sits down at the table and dictates to the secretary and as an exhibitor you don't hear a thing, nor does anyone ringside. I'd have said those that speak their critiques into a dictaphone after having placed the dogs are far more a case of giving verbal critiques in the ring! And that's a LOT of judges.

Judges these days can't even be bothered doing critiques on second placed dogs so wouldn't see any of them wanting to do this.  This is even in small classes with only a few dogs in.  Annoying when you've paid your money and get no comment.  Even happens with judges for first placings where they don't do any critique.

Think to some extent it is the fault of the papers, at Open shows they will only print the critique on the dog placed first and at Championship shows they will only print the first two add this to the fact that you are encouraged to only use about 25 words and critiques will fall into the "nice head, good neck, correct front" sort of comments particularly when the judges words have been edited. Don't know about others by I could write a novel and would be happy to but you write down your thoughts and observations and then you start pruning to the point when what you have said is nothing like what you mean. You would like to explain why you placed the first dog over the second but that is impossible and you have to content yourself to a initial paragraph to make comment on anything that struck you as being either good or bad.

Think to some extent it is the fault of the papers, at Open shows they will only print the critique on the dog placed first and at Championship shows they will only print the first two

Our Dogs seem to print more than this if the judge supplies it. Champshows is the first 3 and I have seen many an Open show report where it has been the first two critiqued. Just a couple of examples for BSDs for 2010: Crufts had first 3 critiqued and WPBA of Wales also did. I've also seen several Open shows for other breeds where the first two have had critiques. So maybe it's a case of sending it in and hoping for the best when it comes to OD  and Open shows (champshows they do say they will print first 3) -they do seem a lot more flexible than DW, the breed notes being a prime example.

They may print the first three but they say they will only print the first two, well DW do. I have always supplied the first two for open shows but never had it printed - in fact, I can't remember when DW has printed all I did write they always seem to prune it. OD does seem to print what you write but not often the first two for Open shows.

I like to write info on the first two for my own records but it is of no help to the owner if it is not published.

DW print the first two, but more and more it seems that the judges are only supplying critiques for the first.

No OD definitely say they will print to 3 for champ shows. They changed a few years ago and there used to be a box in the show section on most pages saying this, to inform judges.

To be honest I have only looked at Dog World of late but accept the Our Dogs are better at printing all that you have written.

Have now taken a look at the envelopes that the paper give to judges and Our Dogs wins hands down they ask for the first three if possible but Dog World only want a first at Open shows and first and second at Championship. I am guilty of not looking at what they are asking for of late so apologies to Our Dogs.

So do judges decide themselves which paper to send them into or do they send them into both?

When we first started showing I asked all the judges after the breed class was complete what they thought and how I could improve, many were more than happy, I even asked them to tell me what my dogs weak points were so that I wouldn't become kennel blind. If you really want to know there is no harm in asking though you might not always get the response you want.

The show report on Bernese from WKC in this weeks Dog world is a very good report. Heather Head was the judge and it made for interesting reading - she has also rated the first 2 in each class.

DB,
Here is her full report on the Bernese site, loads of updates if you don't already know about it.
I agree I liked her write up, shame I couldn't get over there to enter under her.
http://www.bernesenews.btik.com/

So do judges decide themselves which paper to send them into or do they send them into both?
Quote selected text


Judges should send their critique to both papers and we ask that they also send a copy to the Show Secretary so it can go on the web site as well - sad to report that not all judges oblige and we really should follow it up but don't as by the time you realise there has been no critique you are well into the next show.

> So do judges decide themselves which paper to send them into or do they send them into both?
> Quote selected text
>
>
> Judges should send their critique to both papers and we ask that they also send a copy to the Show Secretary so it can go on the web site as well - sad to report that not all judges oblige and we really should follow it up but don't as by the time you realise there has been no critique you are well into the next show.

The rule says that judges only have to supply to one of the weekly papers. Plus sometimes it depends on which (if any) envelope that the papers supply to the sec, then in turn to the judge.

I have noticed in DW that if the judge gives a critique then the name of the 3rd placing doesn't appear...this is for open shows normally

It depends on what the contract says, most ask for both papers and some for the show society as well. Don't think I have ever been asked for just the one nor have I issued a contract to that effect.

You may not have been asked for just one, it's just what the KC rule says F(1) 22d

Yes, Lexy I understand that the Red Book says at least one but you are always given both envelopes and most contracts ask for both to be sent your critique - it is the way of things that some will only send to one paper but having written the critique most will send it to both, sometime in the same e-mail.

The thing is that although the KC say that critiques must be written there are a number of judges who do not or do it too late and there are times when what you write is not what is published. Think a good deal of the problem is that not enough exhibitors complain to the KC that there has been no critique, complaining to the show secretary will get them to ask the judge to write it but they have no clout at all.

> you are always given both envelopes

Not always...there have been many occasions I have only received one

Well that is up to the show secretary to make sure they have them, both papers are a bit shy on sending them out but will if you nag. Do you only send the one if you only get the one envelope?

out of curiosity as we are missing many of this years shows who exactly do you send you complaint to? is there a particular arm of the kc that deal with it?

As far as I know it would be the Canine Activities at the London address.

> Well that is up to the show secretary to make sure they have them, both papers are a bit shy on sending them out but will if you nag. Do you only send the one if you only get the one envelope?

Prior to me being online I only sent for the envelope I had(if I only had 1 envelope). The last time I only recieved one envelope it was for the paper I dont subscribe to, so was able to look up the email address in my own paper.

Well still waiting for Manchester critique, and the first time CC judge is judging again next year

Ok thanks i'll take a look, get fed up of getting no imput back when i spend around £70 to enter a show.

That is interesting Lexy think in future I will make sure the judges have the e-mail address for the papers as well as the postal ones. To be honest it never dawned on me that people would not deal with both papers suppose times have changed and people do not automatically use the post any more.

I think as it saves actually printing off the critique, it probably is more convenient to email nowadays...as much as I hate to say it. It's only a problem if one paper doesn't give any or enough envelopes.
Yes I would agree, as a sec, you would know that the judge has deffo got email/address for both papers by doing that :)

I think we have strayed a little from the original question...oppps

Well still waiting for Manchester critique, and the first time CC judge is judging again next year

Yes, well there are some judges that are more interested in themselves than the exhibitors, will now have a look see who it was.

I think we have strayed a little from the original question...oppps

Guilty as charged but as they say every little helps - knowledge that is.