Whilst watching one of the classes on Saturday I found myself in strong disagreement with the judges placings. However, after considering my photos and thinking aobut the dogs, I realised his reasons, and wondered how others wold react to this sort of situation. This isn't a right or wrong thing, just interested in other board users views.

Only 2 dogs present in class, one dog was most noticeable to me because he was very long backed and short legged. This is contrary to the breed standard, and put the whole dogs outline out, to my eye. However, on closer inspection he had an excellent head, neck and front assembly, with lovely sloping shoulders. MOvement was good, but due to the longback/low front leg combination he 'went on' for ages if you see what I mean. other dog is best described as adequate in all department, decent head, enough length of neck, OK front, slighlty long in loin. Better coat quality than first dog. Reasonable movement. First Dog was well handled, and presentation good allowing for the difficult coat. Second Dog was handled less well, presentation left a little to be desire on the trimming front, but coat clean and shiny.

The first described dog won. So the question is, what would you do in a similar situation, place the dog who was adequate in all departments over the dog with a couple of shining virtues and a couple of glaring faults, or do as this judge did? Would be very interested to know all your views, as this question had never occurred to me before.
bye
Gwen
(ps I have no connection to either dog, and no axe to grind, just posing this as an interesting subject for discussion)

It's an interesting one, isn't it?

I was always led to believe (by the old-timers in the breed) that a dog with some faults but with some outstandingly good features was a better animal than an averagely okay one - nothing bad but nothing good either.

I suppose if a judge knows the particular weaknesses in any breed at the time, a dog which is strong in these points is noticeable for the very absence of the fault!

Having read the guide to judges for my breed (bedlington) I notice that there is a warning against being influenced by glamour :). The judge is requested to pick a balanced animal, without exaggerations :). I am reliably told that there aren't many really bad bedlingtons being shown today, or any with terrible faults, which can make judging them very difficult :D :D.

I know if I were judging, I would be looking for dogs with few obvious faults and balanced construction who had the ability to move well, and not just when handled right. Outstanding features are all very well but if they are accompanied by glaring faults then that animal cannot be said to be balanced. Sometimes the dog which is adequate in all areas but outstanding in none is a better prospect for a breeding programme than the one with outstandig bits accompanied by obvious faults, those faults are just as likely to be carried to the next generation as the outstanding features whereas the adequate dog will at least have no obvious faults of his own to pass on.
I must admit that I find it interesting (and comforting) that in my breed at least, the best trimmed dog is not always the winner but a good healthy coat of correct texture is looked for :).

Just my 0.2p worth :D

Regards
Dill

Think I would be with you on this one, and would have gone for the dog nearest the standard, which would have been the one will moderate virtues. To my mind a dog that is that out of balance, with incorrect proportions, can't be typical of the breed, and there for no matter how good the head should not be awarded over a more representative example of the breed. After all why look at the whole dog if you are only going to judge the head.

Hi everyone, glad to say that the weight of opinion seems to be with my first reaction, which was the overall OK dog would have been my winner.

Jackie, in fairness to the dog who won, he did not just excell lin head, but his whole front assembly, just went on abnd on behind the shoulders (and leg too short).

bye Gwen

Fair enough Gwen, head is what stuck by the time I had read the other posts, to me I still think that if the long back and short legs was not what the standard called for, then the dog was not typical.

Remember watching a AV hound class, and into the ring bounced, what looked like a young Spinone, said to my husband 'someones in the wrong class' and looked in my catalogue, sure you have guessed, it was a BGV, a grand yes, but it was huge, well over my knee. The thing is this dog not only won the class but went on to win the group, same judge. Sent me home to re-read the standard.

I seem to remember being taught at judgng seminars and training not to 'fault judge', but rather to judge on the good points of an individual. So in theory outstanding good features should take precedence over average ones.

Also, not knowing the breed, but from reading the dog papers I get the impression that, in most breeds, good front assembly is a rarity. So an individual animal with a good feature that is rare in the breed is not to be sneezed at!

Of course, not having seen these two individuals, I have no idea if either exuded 'type' and showmanship. A perfectly constructed animal with no breed type or personality is also a mediocre example of its breed.
:)

It all comes down to personal opinion of course, and I do know all the warnings about fault judging. It was an interesting class to watch, and bearing in mind my own (very gradual) entry into judging I think it is a question that was worth discussing, been very glad to read all your opinions. When it comes down to it, I think I would have to stick by my original opinion and go with the balanced, 'OK" specimen, whilst giving the other dog credit for its excellent front in my critique.

This also brings to mind to age old conundrum - if you have an excellent dog with a questionable mouth, and a good dog with a good mouth, which do you place first? I am begining to think judging is ot so much fun after all!:)
bye
Gwen

You're right, Gwen - judging is not an exact science, which is why people will never be in complete agreement with the line-up!

Which is one reason why showing is has its excitement - up one day and down tomorrow. Long may it last!
:)

I would have gone this way too Gwen the overall balanced dog but only OK would be placed before one with outstanding virtues in some departments but glaring faults in another.

As to the mouth question: Think it depends on the breed in this one. In my breed I would have to go for the good dog with a good mouth, as it would bother me to put up a dog that could pass on mouth faults to its offspring. Plus I am a mouth freak anyway :-D. Plus a movement freak :-D

A very experienced judge once said to me, he surveys the dogs as they come into the ring and if any of them remind him of another breed in any way they they are dismissed from his mind before he goes over them. His theory is that if they don't immediately look like there own breed then they cannot possibly have enough breed virtues to be considered.

Have read most of what has been said and I agree with all your comments. The fact is that you are all right - in your opinion, and so was the judge.

Dog judging is subjective and that's why different dogs win at different shows.

The late Cyril Witham (Townville Terriers) once said to me "Show me a dog with 3 faults and you've just shown me a good dog". And he was right.

To the Bedlington person who said that her breed were largely faultless - you must be joking. As with many breeds they are being ruined by the handful of people who dominate the breed not just in the showring (where they advocate everything that their current dog is, as being correct 'to the Standard'), but at Breed Clubs (where they impose their narrow beliefs on everyone). It is largely what is wrong and ruining the dog game with narrow-minded, short term, power-mongering.

To me it is not a matter of good points or faults, dogs should be judged as a complete entity, and a dog that is excessive in anyway is not representive of it's breed. In this case not showing the profile or balance of the breed and therefore not showing breed type.

However good a dog, if it does not look as a good example of the breed should, it is not worthy of a place.

I must say I am only a novice judge, but to me, if I am judging a smooth hair dachshund and a perfect long hair, with presence and an experianced handler enters the ring, before I even look at it I know it is not what I am looking for, the rest of the class may be on 3 legs, but if they look like smooth haired they will be placed above the dog that looks like a long hair. If you see what I mean.

I'd just like to say that I have very much enjoyed reading this thread, it is informative and interesting, particularly to those of us looking for judges opinions on what they might do and why. :-)

I don't judge (yet !) but my opinion is that when faced with a dog with obvious faults I guess you have to weigh everything up. Is it a serious fault ? Is it a major/minor fault ? Is it the only fault ? I think it is very easy to fault judge. When watching classes I can instantly see which dogs I like and which ones I don't. I try to look at the dogs I don't like and find things about them that I do like - it's bloody hard :D

I also think that a lot depends on what the judge prefers and what they will allow dogs to get away with. For example, my friends bitch is a good example of the breed and has done quite a bit of winning, getting a stud book number, BIS to name a few. However she is slightly long in the loin, and they are aware of this. They have come across judges that have placed the bitch maybe 2nd or 3rd and said afterwards that "she is just too long in loin for me and I can't forgive that". Fair enough :-) They don't have a problem with that and I think that is decent judging.

My opinion, for what it's worth. I would have chosen the 2nd dog because it sounds like it's more balanced and whilst might not be outstanding it is closer to the breed standard than the 1st dog. Presentation and handling can be improved, confirmation not necessarily so. Having said that I would definately note in my critique why this was my choice. :-)

In conversation with a well respected breed judge and all rounder, I brought up the question of faults and was given some interesting advice. The suggestion was to look for a soundly constructed dog and to judge faults on their relevance to the job the breed was expected to do, eg. a good head was all very well but was no benefit to a dog with incorrect construction and movement, on the other hand a well balanced,well constructed dog with imperfect ears was not so disadvantaged. In other words constructional faults would be frowned on more than cosmetic ones.

To WHITEDOG please read my post again, I did not say that the Bedlington was largely faultless, like all breeds they have their share of faults, what I said was that there were few dogs being shown with really bad faults. There is a world of difference.
As far as changing breed standards is concerned the standard of the breed has changed remarkably little since it was first written up, the interpretation however may have.