It seems the KC are considering using the FCI system of grading all dogs entered in a class and doing away with the need for judges to write critiques. How do you feel about this ?. By using grading at least all exhibitors will have an idea of what the judge thought ...using our present system only the first three placings at Champ shows really know.

Every exhibitor would be given a card with their dogs grade on (excellent+, excellent, very good, good, insufficient) - in numerically strong classes this means that even if you don't get in the first five placings you could still have a grading of excellent and a real idea of the judges opinion of your dog.

On the continent as well as grading all dogs get given a written critique in the ring , however with the numbers being shown in the UK I don't think this would be feasible ....so grading would take the place of critiques.

Would this encourage more people to show .....or less ?

Yvonne

Don't think it satisfactory at all you need to know WHY the judge has the opinion they do particularly if you happen to be a novice and think your dog perfect it is the best way to learn.

Why don't they start enforcing the rules about submitting critiques instead of thinking up a new system to make it easier for the judges who break the current rules. I would want a written critique as well as a grading. a grade is meaningless unless you know why it was given.

I agree with Jackie - this is a halfway house that does not answer a problem.  I actually do agree with grading as the preferred system, as it gives you a better idea of what the judge actually thought of your dog in comparison with the major winners at a show (first in the class may not be all that good if the entire class was poor quality), but the critique is also very important and should be maintained.  Preferably for all dogs - and yes, I'm aware of how long it would take to judge in this way.  From a historical perspective, many years down the road, people should know what a dog's strengths and weaknesses were, and a simple grading doesn't go enough into the detail of that for me - it just gives a general idea as to the quality of a dog.

I wonder how much longer that would take in strong numerical breeds like my own, where we get well over 150 dogs entered(WELKS is 198 making 256)!!!!!!!??????????

yep that's the problem with judges themselves writing critiques for all dogs entered it would simply take far too long for breeds which draw large numbers- although if every judge had a scribe and dictated their thoughts as they went over each dog it might be do able and should not take much longer than the time it takes to go over the dogs, the critique could the be handed to each owner as they left the ring.

We do this at our breed club shows when we have foreign judges and it works very well but then we rarely have more than 60 dogs entered per variety ( BSD )

Personally I like the grading system , it's instant and does not rely on judges sending in critiques or the dog papers actually printing them ! - I'm still waiting for critiques from LKA and for most of the Open shows I've won at where  I've paid my money, travelled all the way to the show , shown my dog and travelled home again with NO feedback at all from the judge apart from my placing. Despite what the Kc says many judges view writing critiques as a chore and there seems no punishment form the KC when they simply do not bother to write them.

Mind you I can see both Dog Papers suffering if this was adopted - one of the main reasons for buying them is to read your critique !

Yvonne

A long time to write critiques for all, but I have seen a similar number judged overseas at a multiple-breed show with one breed split by sex between two judges.  A secretary writes notes dictated by the judge, and so it is quicker than it would be if the judge is expected to judge and then switch to writing a critique.  The critique is part of the examination of the dog, and is not done at the end of the class as we do.

Our class sizes are bigger, it's true, in many breeds, and the other option would be to only give critiques on those dogs graded excellent.

Edited to say: because dogs that have not been graded excellent are excluded from higher honours, the choice of placings within a class is often much quicker than here.  The judge is only concentrating on a small number of dogs.  The critique writing would usually add 1-2 minutes to the examination of each dog, from observation.

Would be interested to know -
1/ are the critiques done in the ring published so others can see them and
2/ if you dictate as you go over a dog do they not become very repetitive

Do wonder as most judges would, perhaps should go over each dog in the same manner would the critique not become a list of the route the judge took followed by an appropriate adjective - Head (typical, not typical, broad, narrow, good, bad) Stop (correct, too deep, too shallow) Eyes, well you get the idea.

PS made myself smile you can imagine some judges - Teeth (yes, no, 43) Bite - (painful)

I don't show but surely that is how the judging should be done in part anyway, partly obviously it is the overall picture but really it is a series of tick boxes with the dog who ticks the most boxes on the day being the winner.  Perhaps with an individual comment if deemed necessary or relevant but if that were the case the steward could tick all the appropriate boxes and then each competitor could get there sheet on the day, critiques of the winning dogs could go through whatever the normal processes are and, for instance, if an exhibitor had a lovely dog who was just a bit below par they would merit all the relevant boxes ticked and a comment that would reflect why they had not been in the ribbons that day.

I can't see why it needs to be so complicated, after the judge goes over each dog they could give the grading card (and ask the steward to stand all the excellent together, then the very goods etc if there aren't five excellent).

The judge then places the first five and critiques the first three as usual.

I saw Mr Cavill propose a much more complicated and unnecessary system.

they could also do what they do in some countries and hand out little grading ribbons, Red, Blue, Yellow, which are tied to the dogs lead, make the stewards job easier for sorting the dogs to be placed.

Puppies of course coudl be graded Very Promising, Promising, Typical, Untypical.

> I would want a written critique as well as a grading. a grade is meaningless unless you know why it was given.

Agree totally

surely that is how the judging should be done.... but really it is a series of tick boxes with the dog who ticks the most boxes on the day being the winner.

Well yes and no - you do judge the individual parts that go to make up a dog but it is the conformation of the whole that makes a dog good or otherwise. It is no good looking at the nicest head you have ever seen with excellent movement if the dog is the wrong color or has an incorrect topline for the breed. So you do look at the things that make up the whole but it is the whole dog you are judging and ticking off a score like a golf card would not help anyone. There are so many different aspects you look for even when judging say just the head that alone would probably amount to more than 20 boxes to be ticked so I am sure the whole process would become boring for dog, judge and handler and you would finnish up with a document that meant nothing.

But just as equally the kind of generic critique that says "nice head, nice body , nice movement " is meaningless too .....and how many times have we all read these !

Yvonne

Just had a think of what I look for on ears alone and it amounts to nine items and I would think on some breeds there would be more -
Shape, Size, Use, Carriage, Set, Colour, Texture, Coat & cleanliness i.e. no infection or parasites. Now I suppose you could have Ears and tick boxes for Excellent, good, acceptable or poor but what does that tell anyone.

But just as equally the kind of generic critique that says "nice head, nice body , nice movement " is meaningless too .....and how many times have we all read these !


Yes, agree with that as well - the big problem is someone may be a very good judge but unable to write what it is they see in any detail - a practice that does not help with the  "nice head, nice body , nice movement " is the fact that the papers limit you to the number of words you can use so you may write a meaningful (at least to you) description only to find you have to prune it down until you finish with something meaningless.

Now I have an idea, all judging contracts should have a clause that states a full critique must be forwarded to the show secretary who in turn will place it on a web site, if not the clubs then the printers or the breed clubs. There should be a time limit because if a judge does not write it within 24 hours it is probably meaningless anyway.

Ok so a grade or a score out of 10 for head, topline, movement, tail, etc etc.

Surely that would be more use to breeders as you might have a girl who is consistently scoring well on xyz but not in c so you go for boys with good c scores. 

I would think that something concrete like that for everyone would be better than the critique that got posted for the lame stafford at crufts!

I don't think it would be hard to scribe or score as the judge just categorises it as a number.  Look at the way British Dressage tests are scored in the horse world in a 3 minute test you get a score for each movement.

Ok so a grade or a score out of 10 for head, topline, movement, tail, etc etc.


But that would be fault judging you would be taking marks off for things that were not perfect according to your understanding of the standard and not assessing the dog as a whole, dogs just don't come in bits the whole animal has to work as a whole.

A breeder needs to know what the judges are seeing - if a dog gets a 5 for the tail they need to know just what makes the tail mediocre (sp) is it the set, the carriage, perhaps to much or too little feathering, too high, too low, too long, too short. A breeder needs to know just what it is that is considered less than excellent if they are to improve it and a number 5 just does not help at all.

It is very much easier to tell someone what is wrong with a dog that is far from correct than it is to say in writing of a few words what is good about a good dog hence the poor level of critique on the winning dogs, there is little you can say about a dog with a correct head except it is correct or if you like "nice" horrid word that should be band from the English language not just judges critiques.

Not so much a deduction as a scoring of what is in front of them, for instance with horses we go 0 - 10, I can't recall the exact wording of the lower scores (0 is not performed so I guess that would equate to "missing tail") but 4 is insufficient, 5 sufficient, 6 satisfactory, 7 good, 8 very good, 9 excellent and 10 perfect.  If the scoring system is known to be meaning ful and done along those lines along with even just a 1 word comment particuarly for anything below a 6 eg tail 5 - low set; ears, 7 etc, along with an overall comment at the end, even just a "promising young dog, lacks muscle"  or "nice front end, back end weak" or whatever (sorry when in doubt I tend to revert back to horses and these are the sort of things you would get there).  These scores do not have to be meaningful in terms of you may have a higher technincal score than the winning dog but the overall picture was better for the winner - who scored all 6s and 7s as against your 8s and 3s.  They would give people something a bit more palapable than just being lucky enough to get placed and get a critique which may or may not be detailed (or even submitted)

Suppose if it works for horses that is OK for them but I don't see it being of any help to dog breeders who need to know why the score given is what it is, otherwise they are working in the dark and may if they if they personally prefer a well feathered tail think a low tail score is because of that but the judge may well have had issue with the set and length. In this case the breeder may well work towards increasing the feathering and as a side effect make the set and length worse.

But that is the point of the brief comments, tail 5 - set low overly long.  And a tail that is conformationally correct but lacks aesthetic such as feathering should be at least a 6 anyway.

I can't see how only getting a critique for the top 3 is helpful to exhibitors and breeders either though.  Afterall everyone pays the same entry fees, surely everyone ought to get the same feedback

But if you are going to write a full reason for liking or disliking a particular feature how does it differ from the critique you would write now?

Well for a start I think these sheets sould be available to everyone and it would only be a word or two to explain anything under a 6 unless the judge wanted to add more. 

I have seen some of the critiques that have been mentioned on here in relation to other topics and I don't think they would help you much as an exhibitor or breeder (obviously that depends on the judge)  I also think if there was a proper scale from 1 to 10 or similar it would mean the judging was a bit more transparent and less "in the eyes of the judge"  To refer to the crufts stafford fiasco again, I would be interested to see how a judge would have scored that performance on the basis of the sort of guidlines of the 1 to 10s that I mentioned

I must admit I've never seen grading WITHOUT critiques. It has always either been given in the written form, like at our breed club shows as of course you know, or once abroad the judge gave it verbally to the handlers for the placed dogs, explaining she had no time to write it down. I like grading, but what I don't like (again, apart from our breed shows as there we get all the critiques printed in the newsletter) is when you don't get to read what the judge thought about the OTHER dogs in the class. I for one read critiques for my breed even for shows I've not been to.

To refer to the crufts stafford fiasco again, I would be interested to see how a judge would have scored that performance on the basis of the sort of guidlines of the 1 to 10s that I mentioned

Well, I assume a 10, grading does not improve eyesight unless it were to be applied to judges and then I may well approve.

It's simpler than that overseas, Barbara.  If you are not graded excellent, you leave the ring with just your ribbon and critique and don't come back.  There is no need to group together anything other than the "excellent" dogs in each class.  The number of "placings" depends on the number of dogs graded excellent - from memory, in any case, only four dogs in each class are "placed".

Jackie, the judge goes over the dog first before critiquing, with the Secretary making notes.  There isn't a running commentary.  At some shows, the critique is delivered verbally to the crowd as well as being given in written form to the exhibitor, but not at all shows.  Some breed show critiques are also available online for all to see.

In Ireland it would seem they use a combination method as dogs seem to placed regardless of grading, as I seem to rember some placed dogs with Very Good grades.

I don't think how the dogs that are finally placed are selected is that important because it amount to the same thing in the end surely the dogs that are placed are in the opinion of the judge the best on the day. What does concern me is how an owner or breeder selecting a stud finds out what the judges opinion actually was, how do people collect a list of possibles or a breeder work out if they are moving in the right way if the opinion of judges is not readily available to all who may have an interest.

I am not for one moment suggesting that our system is perfect, it is not and I suppose never will be because although you can insist that a critique is written you can dismiss the opinion of a good judge because they can't express themselves on paper but accept the opinion of those who can write but not assess dogs satisfactory. It is no good praising a dogs movement in the best and most expressive English if in fact it is incorrect or poor or telling someone the dogs head is excellent if it is not of breed type. Would rather have a judge who knows what they are looking at but not confident when writing say nice head, nice movement because indeed the dog had a correct head and moved well for its breed.

It would seem to me what ever system is adopted it has its draw backs and none is nor can be perfect.

In Ireland it would seem they use a combination method as dogs seem to placed regardless of grading, as I seem to rember some placed dogs with Very Good grades.

The way I have understood it, Very Goods are only placed if there are places left over after the Excellents have been placed, but a VG cannot challenge for the ticket or other major award.

Yes that is what I understood, and find perfectly acceptable, but in some countries only the excellents place I think.

These days classes of less than five are pretty common in our breed, especially in the lower classes wehre often it is hard to get three and JW's are rare.

Just tagging on the end, regardless of what system is used it still doesn't change that it is just one judges opinion, I cant count the amount of judges who differ with their opinion on tails in our breed. I just can't see why all this obsession with changing something that isn't broken.
Also i can't see how it will be helpful to the lesser placed dogs as now you can ask a judge why and often the exhibitor doesn't really take heed and continues to breed the same type of dog as in their eyes they are perfect.

I experience grading as we show a lot abroad.  It generally works very well as in my breed the majority of exhibits will usually have no connection whatsoever to the judges and most dogs are graded fairly and to the judges own honest opinion on the day.  However I do NOT think it would work in the UK, certainly not in my own breed, and some other breeds for the simple reason we have too many UK breeder - judges who are kennel blind.  And they would take delight in low grading other kennel lines out of spite.  And yes they really are that kennel blind and vindictive. 

I would far rather the KC require critiques for ALL placed dogs, down to VHC and enforce this.  We have been judged by a famous all rounder now at Ch shows 3 times in the past 8 years and not once has he submitted a critique as no one at the KC dares to regulate him.

I for one take young dogs under most breed specialists here regardless for experience, and tend to leave my more mature winners at home for those shows as I know some would deliberately knock them after beating their dogs.   But if grading was brought in I would not take anything at all rather than have someone deliberately grade only a Good or DQ out of spite. 

Also i can't see how it will be helpful to the lesser placed dogs as now you can ask a judge why and often the exhibitor doesn't really take heed and continues to breed the same type of dog as in their eyes they are perfect.

It would surely open the eyes to some if their dogs were never graded Excellent and the gradings were published.

But if grading was brought in I would not take anything at all rather than have someone deliberately grade only a Good or DQ out of spite.

But they'd have to be able to explain why if queried and point out the faults. Grading works well at the BSD championship shows with both UK and non UK judges.

would surely open the eyes to some if their dogs were never graded Excellent and the gradings were published.

You would think so but then the in my experience all the ones that currently getting those places in our breed atm when told by judges now tend to just shrug it off. They are the same kind that never bath them and dont figure out why the don't stand out next to the other dogs.

Same here, I have a friend whose dogs are consistently placed last or 2nd last, and she is convinced all the judges are crooked, and her dogs are fabulous! :-p

> But they'd have to be able to explain why if queried and point out the faults. Grading works well at the BSD championship shows with both UK and non UK judges.

In reality the KC will not regulate submission of critiques so getting judges to explain their gradings would be a lost cause.  We had a judge not so long ago deliberately withhold 70% of the placings who refused to explain to any of the exhibits why.  It was very pointed and very deliberate in her critique though that she did not "approve" of the origin / pedigrees of those she withheld on regardless of their merits in relation to the breed standard.  Those dogs included Ch's and multiple Crufts (under much more highly respected breed specialists).  It would deter entries in some breeds.  I have nothing against grading at all when done honestly.  I have had dogs at various stages of development get graded VG / G that went onto become World and European Winners and Multi Ch including in the UK and those gradings I was perfectly happy with and felt at the time it justified.  However in our own breed we do have a high percentage of kennel blind breed specialists who publicly denigrate other kennel lines so goodness knows what a field day they would have being able to publicly humiliate anything they liked with low grades on purpose regardless of the dogs merit.  To leave them unplaced is one thing to but taint their image with deliberate low gradings would be unsporting and also put many off entering.

It works in Europe because of the sheer geography and the fact you can travel to so many more shows under a wider variety of judges.  In the UK we are such a small community.

Some would revel in it I think, I had it happen to me before when I did not got cc as I would of beat the dog she bred for top dog only for her then to tell me my dog was the/best , but then they get away with it now so I guess it will just be more of the same.

In reality the KC will not regulate submission of critiques so getting judges to explain their gradings would be a lost cause.

Does anyone know what the situation is regarding an exhibitor contacting a judge (via e-mail or post) to request a critique if none has been published? This is something you can do with cat judges.

They are the same kind that never bath them and dont figure out why the don't stand out next to the other dogs.

Goddness, you'd think the penny would drop eventually, don't you! Then again I know of a particular cat exhibitor who has their cats' CCs withheld on on a regular basis, always due to the same reason: poor preparation of the cat. (I.e. dirty, not well groomed etc -and these cats really do look dreadful.) Yet they keep throwing over £30 away per entry time and time again.

I know I just can't figure it out, you would think after spending 50 for 2dogs they would maybe just pay a groomer.

> Does anyone know what the situation is regarding an exhibitor contacting a judge (via e-mail or post) to request a critique if none has been published? This is something you can do with cat judges.

You are supposed to report any judge that does not submit a critique to the papers within 3 months of the date of the show to the KC who will then take action.  In reality the KC only ever acts if it is NOT one of their own offending.  I and others have complained by phone and letter about a particular famous name judge who has never submitted a critique for my breed the 3 times he has judged us in the past 7 years yet nothing has been done and still no critiques.  There is another judge who still has to submit a critique from August last year but of course in the same vein she is a co-breeder with a KC committee member so complaints from several parties have not been acted on.

Just tagging on the end, regardless of what system is used it still doesn't change that it is just one judges opinion,

Agree with this totally. You also have individual interpretation of the breed standard. I know of a particular dog who sot his stud book number one week and was placed 4th in a local open show the following week.

In my breed we had a  bitch chucked out at last weeks ch show and BCC and BIS this week.It happens.
There are often 'Marmite' dogs I call them....in breeds...judges either love or hate them, often due to a pet foible of theirs. Thats why a good balance of allrounders and breed specialists are needed.

At our Breed club show in March we had an entry of 440 and judging in two rings ran from 9am til 6pm.
Couldnt grade that lot.

At our Breed club show in March we had an entry of 440 and judging in two rings ran from 9am til 6pm.
Couldnt grade that lot.

Only way would be for the judge to reject those they did not like before judging the rest - it is possible in a large class to note those who you know will not be placed and you could send them from the ring - however numbers are dropping and who is going to pay £20+ and then not even be judged beyond a first look?

Mind you in my breed I have only ever had one dog brought before me that I knew was not of sufficient breed type to be placed before individual assessment.

There are often 'Marmite' dogs I call them....in breeds...judges either love or hate them, often due to a pet foible of theirs. Thats why a good balance of allrounders and breed specialists are needed

That's exactly what we call my one lad who was on 2ccs and 8rccs before his accident, he was either top of the pile or out never in between,

Should there be some education on breed standard? Waiting for the backlash.....

> Should there be some education on breed standard? Waiting for the backlash.....

YES !!!  But will the KC do anything - NO.  We have had several fast trackers judge us in the past 3 years none of whom obviously had a clue about my breed.  They have never attended a breed specific seminar, only the fast track day at Stoneleigh and according to my friend who took a dog there each time they never went over the breed anyway.  They have no idea even about it's bred for purpose.  And don't get me started on the "experts" who in their critiques praise conformation aspects that are faults and totally contradictory to the breed standard. 

Example...
I sold a male puppy to a novice with my words ringing in her ears as she left..." Some breed specialists will not forgive his freckles,it's not in the standard and will just be a personal no-no".
And so it has come to pass....BOB one day, chucked out the next! Cest la vie.

At our Breed club show in March we had an entry of 440 and judging in two rings ran from 9am til 6pm.
Couldnt grade that lot.

Yes and no. I believe the limit per judge abroad (at home in Sweden in any event!) is something like 70 or 80 dogs judged per day, but then they will do a write up for each dog. But technically speaking it wouldn't take any time extra at all to grade each dog as you have the minute or two when going over it to decide, and like they do abroad just hand out a coloured ribbon at the same time.

Should there be some education on breed standard?

Well yes, to a certain extent as there is nothing more annoying than when a judge for instance claims a dog is either too big or too small yet it is within the acceptable range of the breed standard, or doesn't like a particular colour etc. But at the same time, there are certain items in each breed standard that will ALWAYS be subject to personal interpretation and which will not have a definitive meaning. Such as the following examples from my own two breeds:
Medium-sized dog
With fine proportions
Eyes Medium size
Ears Very large
Neck Medium length
Body Fairly long