I am sick of hearing people quite new to certain Breeds, and showing, complain that judges do not put enough in critiques, to advise them of where the faults are on there dogs. Despite this apparant lack of knowledge about their own dogs virtues or faults, they are planning to breed from them Grrrrr. Sorry, but if people are not yet aware of their own dogs/bitches virtues and faults, what are they doing breeding from them at this stage? I hear these people continuously ask others "whats wrong with my bitch, she's not winning and people won't tell me what the problem is". Sorry about that folks, just had to have a moan!

Kay

I think you're being a bit harsh. I have 2 dogs and have now owned this breed for 3 years. I am still learning and value comments from any judge that I may go under and feel that if I've paid up to £20 for the chance to show under a judge it is very little to ask for a few words on my dog.
I have no intentions of breeding but if I did I would ask my dogs breeder.I would also like to know what others thought were my dogs faults since shouldn't we all be breeding to improve on our current dogs.
I have an opinion as to what my boys bad points are-others don't agree...thats life but by gaining knowledge from experienced people we can but learn
Regards Archer

What I was meaning, was that the judges comments theyr'e referring to, have been mostly positive ones. It's when they lose for a period of time, they the start asking everyone, what their dogs faults are, as they say they do not know, they cannot see any faults (their words, not mine). People do offer their opionions to them, but as with judges, they conflict. What I was meaning, is, if someone does not YET know enough about their very own dog, let alone the breed, I would  be thinking, do they know enough to be breeding "to improve" the breed? That's all I was saying, I would personally wait until I did know more, before even considering breeding a litter. That's all, and I don't think that is being harsh, just sensible.
Kay

I understand exactly what you are saying, about knowing enough to breed. I would agree but equally I know we had to begin somewhere. As to judges reports only pointing out the good points, I do judge and the judge is supposed to judge the positive things about the dog not the negative. So your report requires your comments on the good points of the breed.
I was taught to write the critique by a very well known "top" breeder in my breed. He told me that when writing your critique or judging the dog you should always refer back to the blue print, i.e. the standard. He said it was like trying to drive from London to Liverpool with out a road map or compass. You would get lost and make mistakes. If you do not know every line of your breed standard, the same thing can happen.
So as most standards start with the general appearance you judge that first, then in the critique that is the first thing you 'might' mention. Note I write "might", the reason being that if the dog is lacking on a particular point you should not mention it, as you should be judging the dog for the good points it has. A good critique if worded properly will give the reader a mental picture of what you have seen and judged. The standard moves over the dog in a very definate and exacting way, to allow the judge to use the standard to go over each point in an order, so that when writing the critque you follow the same course, and cannot leave anyone in any doubt what you saw which was good. So if the judge does not for example mention movement, perhaps you should look more closely at your dogs movement.
Another way in which a judges critique might draw the breeders attention to an area which needs attention, would be to comment specifically on certain good points on the winning dog/s. An example might be that the judge thinks his or her breed is becoming too narrow through, and the standard calls for depth, and breadth of chest with well defined brisket, using the standard wording will draw attention to this particular area.
I do wonder if part of the problem is that we all have too many committments these days so we do not have time to linger at shows and learn from those with more experience than ourselves. Perhaps this should be an area addressed by a ringcraft club? Ringcraft should not only include handling, but should cover all other areas of showmanship. Advice on stewarding, judging, understanding breed standards, (not just your own but other breeds too), the choice of correct leads, appearance etc... as well as handling and socialising the puppy to get it ready for the ring. A friend of mine used to run a ring craft club which covered all these aspects of showmanship, and it was not only interesting but you actually learnt a lot. Even looking at another breed and it's standard can teach you something about your own breed and why it has the standard requiremnets it has.
I know as I don't get to many shows that a number of new people don't always recognise me when I turn up, I often get a "potted history" of the breed, and it's particular points of excellence pointed out to me. I also find very often there are what I think of as "instant experts" who dole out advice with never a thought to the novice on the receiving end or how accurate their advice is.

So funny what you said, I've been in Pomeranians for over 20 years, used to show a lot but in the last few years I haven't.  When I took Mel to a show a couple of years ago, these people who weren't showing 5 years ago were trying to tell me about the breed etc.  looking at me as if to say who's she, it was so funny.  Hopefully this year, my mum will be showing a couple of new pups, can't wait, it will be the first time in about 5 years that she has shown a pup.  One of their fathers did quite well in the show ring a couple of rcc's and CC so it will be interesting to see what the "new" faces think.

I still after 20 years in Pomeranian's and 11 years in Spanish Water Dogs don't know everything about my breed, I'm learning every day, I don't believe that many people know everything about their breed, except for the breeders who've been around for many more generations than I have.

There were things 20 years ago that I was told was a no, no in Pomeranian's but I see it frequently these days and the dogs concerned being placed quite highly.  I would love to know what people felt was incorrect in my dogs.  I know that they are not perfect, whereas, I wd. love to know why a certain dog was put above them.  I know in the breed I'm in now that there's one winning that is groomed incorrectly, but I suppose because it's brushed and combed (which the breed shouldn't be) that many judges think it looks better.

There was interesting reading in Dog World a couple of weeks ago about breeds changing their standards as dogs of today have changed.  Why have they changed?  Surely they should be the same as they were 30 or 40 years ago, if they are not why not?  and why are people wanting to change their breeds?

There are some dogs in top kennels that they breed with that wdn't. win a thing at shows but these breeder's know what goes with the line and how more than likely pups wd. turn out.  Looks aren't everything in breeding it's what's behind the dog that counts.  But of course to be able to do this you need lots and lots of advice from different people and to find out your dogs faults etc. and to know where to go to improve on this.

Oh yes, it makes me mad when standards are changed to fit the present dogs, because people have got the breeding so wrong over many generations that they can't produce anything that fits the standard any more. Too much coat, wrong texture coat, too tall, too small - you see it all. You only have to look at photos of breeds from 50 years ago - some of them are unrecogniseable. And very few have improved. They may have become much more glamorous - but could they still do their job?

Your comments are interesting as to the changing shape and size of the breeds. I know that Shargleam Blackcap who won the Keddle trophy for BIS at Crufts 1980 would be considered far too big for todays show ring. He was twentyfive and threequarter inches at the shoulder, our modern changed standard reads maximum height for a dog 24 inches at the shoulder, so to breed a dog that height you breed for a dog who will be under that height then if they grow on you are still in the height standard. Bitches used to be twentytwo and a half inches as ideal with a leeway of a couple of inches either side. Dogs used to be twentyfour and a half inches with a leeway of a couple of inches either side. Nancy Laughton said this was because the dogs were originally bred to vary in size according to the ground they were expected to work over. Flatcoats are becoming very narrow through the body and some look like they have what was once called "pickle fork" fronts. They should have breadth to allow for heart room. essential in a working gundog.
I have a glossary of terms booklet here which the Kennel Club used to issue to help judges describe a dog, some are hilarious! Many I don't think these instant experts would know, if they ever heard them either.
I am about to return to the show ring after a break of 10 to 11 years with a new puppy which I think is very definately worth showing. I usually only show my dogs until they are old enough to go out working on the shoots, my pekes are handled for me by a friend, so I am never seen in a ring except for short spells with a gundog. This could be interesting to see how well we do. I shall have to pick the judges however as he is an old fashioned type with heartroom, and a forechest!!! So he fufills the breed standards depth and breadth of chest with well defined brisket. He is quite a good looking puppy and is well made throughout, so I am rather hopeful we might do quite well.

My breed seems to be getting substantially larger! The last UK standard that specificied an ideal height stated 24" for dogs (and that is still the maximum height in the US). My boy is 24 and a half inches, but is considered "far too small". So who is right? I know exactly which judges it's worth showing under - but they are dying off (literally). :(

You only need to look at Chows for the changes that has been made by the breeders.Not always for the good of the breed.
Chow

In flatoats the standard for the bite of the dog has changed, and it is probably for the best. Originally a "level" or "pincher" bite was considered ideal then the standard was changed to read scissor or level bite, with scissor bite being preferable, now it is scissor bite only. As this change has come about over the last 20 years there are flatcoats which will have a level bite still, although the majority now are scissor bite.

As Archer says you know what you think are your dogs bad points and others will disagree. In a way this is actually quite good for the breeds.
If a breed is only judged by breed specialists and that breed has a certain shape to a portion of it's anatomy then the specialist judges may well concentrate on that aspect only, to the detriment of the rest of the dogs points.
A breed I have followed with interest over the years went through a phase were owners would only show under their own specialist breeder judges, This breed has a fantastic head shape and has absolutely no body to back it up!
An "all rounder" is less likely to look for exageration and may be more likely to put up a more over all balanced dog and put the excellent headed dog down the line. This will of course cause a lot of mutterings that the judge did not really know the breed, but in reality it might be one of the ways the breed is preserved, as the not so good headed dog which has the better body and overall shape is then more likely to be used at stud or bred from. Hence the breed remains a good sound dog, not just a pretty face!