>This was one comment about one overseas handler out of the 1,165 overseas dogs entered this year

True - but by a group judge and in print almost immediately, so IMO far more in the spotlight than those by individual breed judges which will trickle through over weeks to come.

>All the other foreign exhibitors who got through to the groups managed to show their dogs in the way that's expected of them

With respect you will be aware that not many breeds are shown in a similar fashion to the GSD, even those on our own shores.

>anything we say is pure speculation anyway.

Very true LOL  However the contents and negativity towards the handler of the crit itself are certainly not :)

Well if she was only 14 then my god what an achevement for her!!!!

This year was my first time in the group, and from when you go into the collecting ring, everything is forced apon you, what you have to do, How you do it and when you do it.  So not only do you have to worry about showing your dog infront of an arena of people, being in the ring with older, more experianced handlers and knowing the pressure is slightly on you.

At 20 I felt worried going into that ring, let alone if I was a 14 year old non UK person. :)

Ditto Teri on everything.  I can't believe what I read sometimes.

Forget the silly comment " ANY of our British handlers"   I think ANY top judge with knowledge could look past any poor handling and see the magnificent dog and judge just on that.  Heaven help us if wins were gained only because of Handling.  Thank Heavens the breed judge did and didn't follow in the same foot steps.

I also think the " ANY" of our British handlers was very inappropriate and really uncalled for comment in today's trouble some climate.

I thank above that my own breed is not being over run by excellent handlers.

I agree it is lovely to see a great handler in tune with a great dog but there is a balance.

We must award the dogs not the handlers.

It took me years to be able to walk round the ring and forget about me and what I looked like.

but a good handler can make an ok dog look good, a bad handler can make a good dog look awful!

But do you mean good handlers or professional handlers?  I would love to be in a breed where there are excellent handlers.  No-one can deny the good handlers getting the best out of their dog.

In fairness Blue, I don't think a judge at group level at any champ show (let alone Crufts) should have to look past handling. It would have been a no win situation to place Zamp in the group anyway, given his performance on the day - at that level, the whole package needs to be right.

That said, I still think report is inappropriate.

M.

hang on how can she be a pro handler if shes 14?

>I don't think a judge at group level at any champ show (let alone Crufts) should have to look past handling.

Absolutely. An honest judge can only react to what is in front of them at that time. To consider what they've seen a dog do before, or what they think it might be able to do under different circumstances, is cheating. If the dog before them gets spooked (as did the beagle) and doesn't recover well then it'll miss out. If the handler gets between the judge and the dog, restricting the judge's view, then they'll lose out. At a Companion show, or even an Open, then a judge can possibly be more lenient, but not at the highest level.

>how can she be a pro handler if shes 14?

If she gets paid to handle dogs in the ring then she's a professional handler.

I No-one has said she is a pro handler but if she is getting paid to handle other peoples dogs she is a professional handler.  Well technicalaly to be pro you must earn your living from it.

From about that age I would have been classed as a semi-pro handler as, when I handled other peoples dogs and got given money in exchanged thats what is was.  I no-longer charge as I'm too nice.  I should really!

lol, well you did very well in the ring on friday (your dogs gorgeous btw)

She is the owner's daughter, Julia Dietrich & her father, Reinhard, owns him. She has never handled him indoor show in the UK  & usually her younger sister is around, he would had performed better in the group with a more experienced handler, but she did handle him to his Sieger wins

If she thought the dog was shown so badly to ruin its chances in the group then why on earth did it make the cut? Were the dismissed dogs so awful or the handlers so terrible that they were worse??? If the judge thought the dog was good enough to warrant the cut and a critique then that critique should concentrate on the dog with maybe an aside remark about the handling. If this judge really warrants her reputation she should be more careful in the wordings of her assessments. How many 14 year olds would not be upset at these thoughtless words?

To consider what they've seen a dog do before, or what they think it might be able to do under different circumstances, is cheating Nobody has said anything like this at all,  nobody mentioned as far as I can see that a judge should judge on what they have seen previously.  Not sure where this comes from..

Sticking the the thread :-) 

An honest judge can only react to what is in front of them at that time. And do you think that means they need a professional handler at the end of the lead to assess the dog? Give her more credit than that to be able to pick an excellent example of a dog.   The ring is massive there is ample opportunity to see a good dog move.

I am not saying that the handling should not be good enough to allow the dog to move freely but I totally disagree with this emphasis on this top excellent handling skills. We will end up like America where so few show their own stock.

I am glad my own breed seems to focus on the dog only. 

For years and years dog showing was partaken by more older people they all didn't run around the ring like athletes. 

Exactly Fillis,  a post that to me says balance and constructive thought should have been taken here.  I don't think the words really were appropriate.

Lily Mc, I never watched it at all. My comments are really based on the article and peoples reaction to it.  I do think that the handling should be of reasonable standard but there is a time and place for consturctive comments and guidance.

When you say " given his performance"  to me that is and should be the reason for penalisation and THAT is what should have been in the critique. It implies it was the handlers fault.

We are on the same page, Blue! ;-)

M.

>Nobody has said anything like this at all,  nobody mentioned as far as I can see that a judge should judge on what they have seen previously.  Not sure where this comes from..

It's quite simple really. :) If the judge couldn't assess the dog because of the poor handling (not just this particular dog, but I've seen the same thing happen many times before) then the dog is being handicapped. Even though the judge might be aware (from competing against it in other shows, or from judging it before) of how well it can perform, that must be put out of their mind. We all know you have about two minutes to impress the judge - if you fall over and spook your dog (another thing I've seen happen) your chances might well be blown out of the water, whatever the quality of your dog. People have suggested that allowances should be made because of the handler's age, and because they're not used to the UK style of handling, and various other reasons. I disagree - the rules are the rules, and it's unfair to make allowances like that.

>An honest judge can only react to what is in front of them at that time. And do you think that means they need a professional handler at the end of the lead to assess the dog?

Of course not! Now I'm the one not able to follow the reasoning! :-D They need a competent handler. Stacked breeds need a handler who knows not to over-extend; free-standing breeds need a handler who knows not to stand too close to the dog so that it's not staring upwards, spoiling the flow of its neck; and all handlers are taught to avoid the cardinal sin of getting between the dog and the judge! Wasn't that one of ZT-A's criticisms - the poor woman was probably so frustrated at being denied an opportunity to assess such a famous dog!

>I totally disagree with this emphasis on this top excellent handling skills.

If handling is so unimportant, why are there handling classes?

Hi JG

>People have suggested that allowances should be made because of the handler's age, and because they're not used to the UK style of handling, and various other reasons

Who?

As I've read and participated in this thread I can't say anyone has suggested or even vaguely implied that allowances should be made insofar as actually judging and placing the dog - only that the critique should not have been written in such a damning way and that no judge, at any level should put such destructive criticism of a handler in print :)  Some posters have admitted they did not even see the dog and were responding on the written word by the group judge alone!

Comments relating to the handler's age and difference in overseas handling techniques have still been put forward in relation to ZT-A's group crit - and I do personally think that a judge could quite easily have taken these circumstances into account when penning her remarks.  There are many ways in which the message could have been put across that the dog could have been handled to better advantage or did not show off it's merits as well as others competing .....

FWIW when I showed more regularly under invited specialist judges from the continent, our dogs were *not gone over by the judge* at all - the only hands on was to check the males for entirety, so obviously with a bitch no contact whatsoever.  Exhibitors showed the teeth (every single one LOL) and then the dogs were moved extensively for construction, condition and movement to be assessed :)  Over and above which the judge moved around all over the place so our established handling techniques did not necessarily always ensure the dog remained between handler and judge - perhaps (I have no idea of course if this is the case) this dog and handler are a match in heaven under similar conditions.  Again, from a crit POV I don't think it's unreasonable to take that into account :)

Teri

We have all seen "minor hiccups" in the ring - dog putting the breaks on, handling faults etc. and we all know it blows the chance, so why on earth did this one make the cut? Was it just so the judge could put this in print?

We have all seen "minor hiccups" in the ring - dog putting the breaks on, handling faults etc. and we all know it blows the chance, so why on earth did this one make the cut? Was it just so the judge could put this in print?

When judging we are constantly assessing what we see.  There won't have been many, if any, dogs in that group who weren't outstanding examples of their breeds.  The judge obviously thought the GSD was more outstanding than those left out of the cut - even with his handicap.  I doubt very much that a judge of this calibre pulled him purely so she could write something about him.  To even think such a thing is rediculous IMO.  If she didn't think he was outstanding she could easily have made the same references to him without pulling him out in the final cut.

When you are really splitting hairs between dogs, performance has to come into it.

Debs

I think that it is fairly obvious that the judge was not aware that it was the Seiger....  (not obvious because it was a young girl handling)
***THE SEIGER *** until afterwards and then had to write a critique which explained why the greatest dog on Earth ( as many Germans and other continentals would have seen it) didn't win.
Yes the handler wasn't great but In Germany 'Donald Duck' could have handled that dog to Seiger if the judges knew which dog it was. Just my opinion......

Ok so I understand this a bit better what is Sieger? 

The top German Shepherd - the Seiger (in Germany The home of the breed) is taken very, very seriously there.
To win the Seiger ( to GSD  aficionados ) is akin to Best in Show at Crufts or Wesminster multiplied by winning a gold at the Olympics plus being voted in as Pope!!!  :-)

Oh I see - so quite a big thing then :-D
Is it breed specific to GSDs?

(Sorry it's just I'd never heard of it before :-o)

To win the Seiger ( to GSD  aficionados ) is akin to Best in Show at Crufts or Wesminster multiplied by winning a gold at the Olympics plus being voted in as Pope!!!
LOL
But its purely for GSD's so doesn't necessarily mean that it will be the best dog at an all breeds show - might have been a surprise if it didn't win the breed (although it may have had an off day) but no reason to suppose that it would win the group at all.

(I didn't know what it meant either - had to Google LOL)

I think that it is fairly obvious that the judge was not aware that it was the Seiger....  (not obvious because it was a young girl handling)
***THE SEIGER *** until afterwards and then had to write a critique which explained why the greatest dog on Earth ( as many Germans and other continentals would have seen it) didn't win.

Are you serious?!?!  OK so some people think the dog is great.  That's personal opinion - as is ALL judging of dogs.  I don't think this particular judge would have a given a flying fig what the dog had won before she saw it or after her judging was complete!  If she liked it she liked it - if she didn't she didn't.  Previous show wins would mean absolutely zip to her.  Never heard anything so rediculous as to suggest she wrote the critique to get her out of some sort of tight spot that she wasn't in to begin with!

Debs

Soli, I think you should start reading a few more of this judges critiques.

Soli, I think you should start reading a few more of this judges critiques.

I've been doing just that for more years than I care to recall :)

Debs

So you saw one where she placed the dog 2nd, qualified it for Crufts and in her critique wrote that its mouth was so dreadful that it would never make a show dog?

What a difference any one of our British handlers could have achieved with this wonderful dog. I was very impressed with his conformation and fantastic side gate.
One I would loved to have given the group to but unfortunately it was not to be.

As I said only my opinion but looks a promising hypothesis .....again.....IMO

Well there's show dogs and there's show dogs isn't there ;)  It all depends on what you see as a 'show dog'.  I've judged dogs that, if they were mine, would never set foot in the ring, yet other judges have put them up.  What you call a show dog (apart from the obvious i.e. a dog that gets shown) may well be different to what I call a show dog.

Personally I won't show an adult dog unless it has a good chance of being made up so I can see her point. "Making a show dog" is totally different in my eyes to having a dog that goes to shows.

The written word is so easily misinterpreted.  What we write can sometimes be taken in many different ways, as we've seen many times on this forum.

Debs

As I said only my opinion but looks a promising hypothesis .....again.....IMO

I'm sorry but I really can't see how you're reaching your conclusions.  She obviously liked the dog.  At that level you really are splitting hairs.  This particular hair was a handler who let the dog down very badly indeed - that is surely not in any dispute.

Debs

But she qualified it for Crufts! Why if it had such an awful mouth? She was judging the dog on the day and as said previously on this thread what it did in the past or may do in the future under a different judge should not come in to it. Its not easy to misinterpret the words "a dreadful mouth"

I think someone in GSDs could better describe what an hugely iconic figure the Seiger is and how someone very keen to be respected in Germany may feel that they'd dropped a bit of a clanger.  I dont believe that he was even placed second in the group at Crufts yet one would read the critique as an exceptional dog.
To many Seiger fanatics It's a bit like the Queen comming to open the community centre in your area and you mistaking her for ' just a very nicely dressed old lady'

OK - so she called it 'exceptional'.  The fourth in the group was refered to as 'truly great'.  The third in the group was 'amazing'.  The runner up was 'exquisite'. The winner was 'outstanding'.  Your point is...?

I also feel I must apologise.  I didn't realise you were on such close terms with the judge that she'd tell you she's "very keen to be respected in Germany ".  It would have to have come from her alone as anything else would be pure speculation and hearsay so you obviously know her far better than I do and I'll bow to your more intimate knowledge of her.

I think I've said enough on the matter now.  In my personal experience gathered over a fair few years, this particular judge knows a good dog when she sees one, judges without fear or favour and is always keen to learn a bit more from breed specialists about their breeds.  I don't always agree with her decisions (let's face it - I wouldn't have pulled that GSD at all - thought it was awful to be honest) but I do firmly believe that what you see with her is what you get and until I see something to change my mind (and not just someone putting forward wild theories) I'll carry on respecting her opinion (although it may differ from my own) and her critiques :)

Debs

I dont think the point at issue is whether the GSD should have won, but the way the critique was worded. We will always have differing opinions on which dog we prefer, and to be honest, winning the Seiger (or any other countries prestigious events) should not mean an automatic group win at Crufts. What was written about a young girl was just cruel, and unwarranted. I dont think that anyone should defend what was written or say that it is misinterpreted. I stand by my opinion that a good judge does not need to offend anyone - she did not place the dog and that is her right: no need to then rub salt in. 

> Well there's show dogs and there's show dogs isn't there ;-)  It all depends on what you see as a 'show dog'

surely though if she felt it had a terrible mouth and would never make a show dog she shouldn't have qualified it? i mean if it was a poor dog then why do that?

i agree fillis, i saw the gsd being shown in group and it did look like the girl had some trouble... however there is no need to be mean about it, everyone screws up and if you 14, in a different country, in a huge hall, on tv etc i image your cacking it enough to go a bit wrong (not that she should have been placed better because of this, just a bit more sympathy in the write up might have been nice).

Much as I'd like to comment...I can't even find the bloomin write up !!!!
Am I just dozy or what?

Go further up the thread, Merlot. :-)

M.

Soli:  "very keen to be respected in Germany ". 
You only need look at the judges website, not 'IMO' this time but black and white.

Tried that M but only got the group judging ?? maybe it's just me...duh!
Have to say I think Zamps 14 year old handler did well to get to the final pull..she must have been overawed, I don't know if she handles him in Germany but someone must have worked him and done manwork etc for him to make sieger.
To come here and show in such a different way in a small (To  her) ring with lights and TV etc.. no outside attraction and different language she has my respect. Good on you kid keep up the good work..we need young handlers to keep the showing full of vitality!
Aileen.

Soli:  "very keen to be respected in Germany ". 
You only need look at the judges website, not 'IMO' this time but black and white

Which bit of her website?  Do you mean where it says she was honoured by the German Kennel Club(VDH) being the only breeder outside Germany to be awarded the Baron Von Gingins medal for outstanding achievement in breeding Dachshunds to the correct type, over many years?  That doesn't tell us she's 'very keen to be respected in Germany' - only that she IS respected there for her Dachshunds and, quite rightly, proud of it.  It's listed as part of her many achievements.  What does that have to do with her comments regarding the handling of a GSD?

Debs

soli you seem to be getting very upset about some of the comments, i appreciate that you like this judge but no ones attacking her, people simply said they would have liked to see a more constructive less overtly critical comment.

i don't think anyone is doubting her ability, clearly she would not have been chosen to judge the group if that were in anyway lacking.

soli you seem to be getting very upset about some of the comments

Nah Astarte.  I've been showing dogs for far to long to get upset by peoples' comments :) ;)

i appreciate that you like this judge but no ones attacking her

I beg to differ.  See various comments below:

I'm afraid this judge is always harsh - if theres nothing good about the dog it shouldnt be in a position to be given a critique, and in most of hers there are far more negatives than positives. Not the exhibitors favourite from what I can make out.

We have all seen "minor hiccups" in the ring - dog putting the breaks on, handling faults etc. and we all know it blows the chance, so why on earth did this one make the cut? Was it just so the judge could put this in print?

I think that it is fairly obvious that the judge was not aware that it was the Seiger....  (not obvious because it was a young girl handling)
***THE SEIGER *** until afterwards and then had to write a critique which explained why the greatest dog on Earth ( as many Germans and other continentals would have seen it) didn't win.

how someone very keen to be respected in Germany may feel that they'd dropped a bit of a clanger

It's the insinuation and the putting together of two and two making 5 that gets me.  None of the above statements have any factual proof, they're just insinuations of exhibitors not liking her, pulling a dog in a group purely so she could slag off it's handler, that previous wins could influence her and that she did it to get out of upsetting someone in another country!  It double standards really.  A judge can't put her thoughts in print but everyone else can say what they like about the judge on an open forum read worldwide.    I guess I'm just a sucker for fair play...

Debs

Debs

i see your point but hopefully this judge is confident enough in her own abilities and prestige not to be fussed by it.

to be honest i think everyones started going in circles here anyway, the comment was a bit harsh which was i think the original point and it seems to have decended into an argument.

Actually the judges motives where questioned by one of the posters opinions and as far as I can see this is what Soli is now debaiting.

fair enough

(btw, wasn't saying soli was starting an argument, just in general it seems to be going that way)

personally i think that the judges motives were probably to do a good job at a prestigious event. no need to have other motives at that level i should think, she's obviously extremely respected to have been asked to judge. having seen the dog show i can understand why he didn't do better, he wasn't shown to his best compared to some wonderful looking, moving, handled dogs. in the best of the best you've gotta be perfect and on the night he wasn't. i don't show myself but most of you do- sure you've all had bad days where you know your dogs amazing but it's just not happening that day.

No worries Astarte :)  Nothing wrong with healthy debate.

But yesterday I wrote out my Crufts critique (and didn't mention handling! LOL) and this afternoon I've been trying to do another one on 18 classes I did last week and this forum is just way too addictive!  I'm bowing out in the name of sanity LOL

Debs

> (btw, wasn't saying soli was starting an argument, just in general it seems to be going that way)

Nah didnt think you were :) was just replying to  one part of your post should really have quoted but was being lazy.