Has anyone ever read a critique and thought the judge is not describing their dog? 

I've had judges who have after awarding my dogs a ticket written and praised the dog on what i think are their obvious faults - eg, my tessy is stunning but though she had fantastic reach on the move she had what i consider a very upright shoulder (great length of upper arm though - hence the great reach) anyway judge said she had a fantastic shoulder - well?? i ask you!
Had lots of similar blurbs from other judges too, and conversely reasons for being second like prefered the movement on 1st (when every one could see winner was hopeless).  Those are the judges that don't get an entry next time lol

I was told by a very experienced judge that when judging and then writing the critque you should follow the breed standard, always referring back to it and using the phrases of the standard so that everyone reading the critique can follow exactly what you are talking about. I do agree some judges do write some very odd critiques.

Yep been there, and also had their best features not exactly critiscised but things like prefered that feature on number two, whcih I have always thought, what????

Do you know this is exactly what has set me off on my current rant.  All my dogs excell in rear ends even people who dont like them all say they have gorgeous bottoms then this judge?!?! said my dog was lacking in second thigh.  I have ranted to everyone who would listen and the biggest joke is he has complimented her on one of her worst faults saying it was excellent! 

Mind you had her first show she was described as liver although definately a black!

LOL, having won best of breed in a good Open Show entry of 18, my black and tan bitch was described as tri-coloured in the critique.

Dawn R.

I do steward a lot and some judges make you wonder how they got to be respected judges. One such I was stewarding for turned to me when judging an AV class and said "You know they are all so lovely, it's difficult to choose which one to pick. Which one do you think I should give the first to?" Mmmm no need to ask my reply, but it was polite honest!

I have actually seen judges do this when I have been exhibiting it really is shocking!

I was stewarding stakes classes once and the Judge turned to me at one point once I had got a class in and said "whatever you do - don't let me throw out a Champion".  My reply - "Madam, this is the Champion Stakes".  

Becky

I had Delta described as a dog .......... she wasn't impressed :D :D

Perhaps we should consider turning back the clock and have critiques written by the ring side? Most people have a catalogue to look at there so no mistakes about whether it was a dog or bitch and for those judges who didn't like submitting critiques it would save them the hassle.
:-D :-D :-D

After winning open dog with a big red boy the judge then asked me if he was a male ???
Terry

Also it would stop the judge altering what they might say when they discover who the dogs or owners are.

What is this about sorry it sounds a brilliant idea but I have never heard of it!

Do you mean ringside critiques?

Basically ringside critiques were written by breed specialists appointed by the papers, to report on what the judges did. These were printed if the judge did not submit a report. This was back in the 1960's and for a time in the 1970's.

Oh no I would like them to dictate the critiques on the spot for yu to take away.  I know we ahve too many dogs to do this for every dog, but can't see whey the first two as now couldn't get them right away.

I like the continental system where a critique is written on every dog entered and they are also graded - sometimes these can also be given out directly after showing if done with a carbon paper copy - it means that the judges really haver to know their stuff and justify their placings MUCH better than the usual " nice head, nice front, nice moevment...." type of critique that we tend to get here ( usually several weeks after the event !)

Yvonne

I think a critique should be written for every dog they have the time to do it on the continent so I dont see why we shouldnt do it.  At least then it would let you know if it was you or the dog who they didnt like.  Unfortunately it still wont mean you could do anything about it if they are talking crap but at least you would know not to go under them again!

Don;t you keep a list of the Judges that chuck you anyway? I do :D :D

On the continent their entries are no where near as large as ours, mostly about what we would expect at an Open show, unless it is a breed specialty.  There is no way our judges would have time to crit each do in the two or three minutes per dog rate they are expected to judge.

As they crit first and second in each class anyway they coudl certainly do those on the spot, using that carbonised paper and still get one itno the paper.

If we had individual ones in our hands then maybe the printed crits could be more general more like an expanded preamble listing main trends areas needing attentiona and of excellence, and the winners listed.  Then no one could get upset about what was written about their dog and the judge wouldn't need to hold any punches, ti would be up the the exhibitor if they wanted anyone to know what the judge had said about their dog.

As I see it judging should be about guiding the breed generally so it is important to see the breed as a whole and where it is going, or where it needs to go.

Critiques are brilliant if you are in the first two because you hear what is right with your dog but if your dog is constitantly losing you never have the chance to know exactly why!  Okay you can get the ringside critics but I personally would like to know and then I can make my mind up if the judge was correct in their decision to not place my dog.  There have been times when I have felt the judge has been quite correct to toss my dog because they have played up.  I did actually ask a judge once why she didnt place my dog and she come out with a load of balony then told someone else she was too heavily marked all I wanted was to know why. 

It would take about two seconds to jot down a couple of notes to tell someone what is wrong but this is just my opinion.  A simple form could easily be designed and handed to the exhibitor after all dog shows are not cheap and if you are going for the judges opinion then they should be happy to give it!

Interesting so many have said they'd like the continental system where every dog entered gets an assessment. When I stewarded at LKA a few years ago, the judge had a huge entry, but she demanded she be allowed to write a short critque on every dog placed 1st to 5th. She wanted to give the exhibitors an individual assessment after the show.

It took ages to get through her classes, I had the chief steward round wondering why things were going so slowly, the judge was getting cross because we were trying to keep the ring moving, and the exhibitors, even those placed in the top three places were getting fed up and impatient with the judge. We only just made it to the group for the best of breed, who was not happy at having to rush from the ring to the group.

Our shows have much bigger entries, so you'd have to limit entries at each show especially in breeds with large entries such as golden retrievers or labradors in order to allow the continental style of assessing the exhibits.

But if every judge did it then everyone would arrive at the BOB ring at the same time.

Yes but it would mean each bred judging would take all day and that some of the very popular breeds would need two days :D

Having been to overseas shows the judging is very slow because of this.  At the World show we had an expereinced judge and yet it took as long to judge the entry as it does here to do 4 times that number.

I normally expect that an entry of 40 plus takes two hours to judge here.

I do think it would be feasible to do on the spot crits for the first two, and an expanded critique of the entry as a whole for publication.

My friends in the USA are envious of our critiques as they don't get any at all.  their shows have to run very much to a time schedule.  Their breed entries are also small compared to ours so they don't ahve any guidance form judges as to the quality of their dogs, with it being rare to withold points.

I love judging in Scandinavia for this very reason - doing a critique on every dog - and you really do have to do it properly - "nice head, good shoulder, topline and tailset" really does not do at all.   It makes you look at the dogs properly and really assess them.

The KC should bring in this method when assessing new judges for CC status - that would sort out those who knew and those who didn't.

In my opinion you can judge 1000 classes and still be a bad judge - it is not about numbers it is about having a natural eye.  If you have a natural eye for a dog (or any animal for that matter) then the number of classes you have judged is irrevelant. 

Someone said recently at a seminar (and I totally endorse what he said) that there are 3 types of judges
1.  The naturals that have the eye and can see exactly what is what with no problem at all.
2.  Those that have a good basic knowledge that have to be helped along a little but would do OK.
3.  Those that just played the numbers game and got there eventually by definition of fulfilling the criteria but would never be a true judge of a dog.

Criterias are all well and good - and they do have a certain necessity but there are some people judging today who, even if they judged for 20 years are not going to be any the wiser.

Becky

Wow judging over in Scandinavia sounds brillint and i agree they should bring that way of judging in over here, i like the way they present there dogs out there as well.

We have had wrong critiques before but we think it was a printing erroe or something, i dont like it when you spend all that money to enter some of these shows and judges cant be botherd to send the critiques to the papers.

Fiona

The critiques are accepted by the exhibitor very politely too, with a smile and a shake of the hand, despite the fact that they are very precise about a dog's strengths and weaknesses.  You get a copy of the critique to take home with you, and novice exhibitors can learn a lot from experienced judges that way.  The shows I go to in Norway have a very large entry, but every dog gets a critique, and these are often reproduced on the Internet at a particular site for my breed.  Really useful when you are researching lines.
I sometimes wonder when reading a critique over here if the judge has somehow got the dogs mixed up.  Sometimes the description of the first dog rather more suits the second.  Has it been written from memory some time afterwards?

This happened with a recent critique for a freinds dog, something was said that was not true of the dog being critiqued, but certainly was about the dog placed behind him.

Albert Wight did that with Molly and the first place dog.  It said Molly was very calm and well schooled and the other dog could do with more ring craft.  We laughed as everyone noticed Ian then went around telling everyone how well schooled his dog was as she dragged him round the ring ;)

"" i like the way they present there dogs out there as well."

I think this depends on the breed. In FCR's for instance trimming is supposed to be kept to a minimum, just to tidy them up, but in scandinavia they clip off the necks of the dogs, to make them look as though they have a better front. While this is not a challenge for a good judge,  I wouldn't mind betting a few less able judges, forgetting what they saw as as they judged and placing a dog with a poor front, but lots of hair making it look like it had a good front!

Personally I would hate a show where every dog is critiqued.  The day's are long enough as it is, I really don't want to be hangging around one breed showing all day. 

Although yes it would be nice to have a critique on your dog if we had to have a critique on every dog then personlly I wouldn't bother hanging around a show all day.

JMPO.  I don't expect others to agree, but I really do hate hanging around!