Consistency - One Of The Greatest Assets
(found on Page 30, from the column Brace Yourself written by Andrew Brace in the July 29th, 2009 issue of Dog News)

It is a brave man or woman that allows himself or herself regularly to step into the middle of the breed ring, well aware that many of the spectators will probably know far more about the breed than they do. Yet time and time again we do it, happy to pit our understanding of a breed against those who are in the ring and around it.

The centre of the ring can be a lonely place and few judges manage to escape criticism from some quarter, no matter how adept at their job they might be.

It has always been my belief that the ability to "judge to type" - in other words being able to end up with class winners that display consistency in their general stamp - has to be one of a judge's greatest assets; that is, of course, when the dogs are there to be found.

A friend of mine recently showed to someone who was judging his breed at top level for the first time. He went, full of hope, and although having had a reasonably successful day, he later confided in me, "You know...if he judged the breed again I would have no idea what to take under him." My friend was of the opinion that the judge concerned was so keen to appease as many factions within the breed as possible, that his placed dogs exhibited no common traits, other than being vaguely of the same breed.

Type variation is more acute in some breeds than others. That is a fact. Certain breeds are well known to have different "camps" that advocate a very definite type, each one being more convinced that theirs is the "right" type than the next. Judging such breeds is not easy, for it requires of the judge great strength of character and the ability to repeatedly reward dogs of what he considers to be the type that best fits the Standard, often at the expense of those who don't. Experienced judges are well aware of the fact that such judging will result in their being "labelled" as an admirer of one type or another, and as a consequence their subsequent entries may dwindle in numbers. That fact does not bother them. However some, less practiced, judges find this situation troublesome, as for some misguided reason they seem to think that the size of their entry reflects their standing in a breed. An old friend of mine once said, "The best entries are always drawn by first-timers and idiots" and she may well have a point. Inconsistent judging will always tempt those exhibitors who feel the day may be nothing more than a lottery. Judges who have in the past stuck to the same stamp of dog will not, for obvious reasons, draw experienced handlers who have dogs of a different stroke.

Sometimes it is difficult to work out how some judges see a breed. There have been examples of judges awarding groups to dogs of the same breed on different occasions, yet were those winning dogs to be lined up in the same class it would be hard to say what the judge prioritises in the breed. It is true that you can only judge what the exhibitors put in front of you, but at the same time it is encouraging to think that experienced handlers and exhibitors have been able to work out what turns a judge on in a particular breed.

We may sometimes have to adapt our mental ideal when we are judging a breed in another country, if the Breed Standard in force requires a slightly different head type, size, coat or color. Even so I maintain that seasoned judges who understand a breed will find that their top winners - wherever they happen to be - are of the same basic stamp.

Breeder judges will develop personal prejudices for a number of reasons. Usually because of their own experiences as breeders they will forgive one fault but be tough on another. That is to be expected, given that their judging revolves around the Standard and not something they have convinced themselves is actually written when it is not. It never ceases to amaze me how many people quote phrases from Breed Standards that do not exist!

Although the Beagle is foremost a functioning scenthound, as a specialist judge of the breed I hold my hands up readily and admit that I find a hard expression and bird-of-prey eye quite alien to what I first loved about the breed. A mild, appealing expression is also one of the requirements of the Standard. On numerous occasions over the years I have had exhibitors tell me that they haven't brought a certain dog to me, simply because "I knew you wouldn't take his expression."

The desire to please as many people as possible can be a dangerous one when you are a dog judge. Your first responsibility is to the breed, and then to yourself. It is no good trying to put up all shapes and sizes to keep everyone happy when at the end of the day your achievement has merely been to confuse all concerned. It is impossible to make a statement about how you see the breed if there is no similarity in the highest placed animals.

Human nature being what it is, the consistency admired by so many is often misconstrued by the unsuccessful masses and rather seen as favouritism for a particular kennel or bloodline. If this is where you find the best dogs that fit the Standard, these are the dogs that should appeal and be rewarded.

At the end of the day I felt sorry for the judge who had so disappointed my friend. Maybe his inconsistency was borne out of insecurity..who knows? However, at the very least I would hope that most exhibitors can leave my ring having a pretty good idea of what I like in the breed, and better equipped to know what to bring next time.