about 10,000 for less than one Group. Any change has consequences. Good outcomes include better grooming and presentation by individual ex- hibitors and professional handlers. Dogs are moved to show their best gait, and judges observing them are not distracted by awkward handling. Especially for coated breeds, groom- ing of most exhibits is better now and more consistent. Workshops at shows and online have contributed to the improvement. In a nutshell, presenta- tion has become better. There are other outcomes. A greater percentage of dogs is now shown by professional handlers. They must win to keep clients; a strong motivation to prepare and exhibit their dogs well. Handlers are in the ring more than other exhibitors. AKC’s approval of large multi-show clusters and clubs’ increasing tendency to schedule them has facilitated that. Weekday shows are part of a handler’s job, but re- quire other exhibitors to take off from
income-producing work or to take some of their limited vacation time. Moreover, professional handlers can show in a much larger region. Han- dlers also become “known faces” and may develop personal relationships with some judges. Good judging that is knowledgeable of breed standards, and weighs the bal- ance of merits and faults of exhibits, is key to the future of shows. It is gratifying to see judges who make placements disregarding the other end of the lead, national rankings, and advertisements. Even a few instances when this is not the case can hurt the image of (and respect for) all judges. For example, one judge I observed recently had lengthy chats with han- dlers when they entered the ring, and these handlers then won their classes. At four successive shows with identi- cal exhibits, a different dog went Best of Breed each day. These observations are superficial and may be meaning- less, but they create the suspicion that
judges may interpret the breed stan- dards differently or that they place handlers rather than dogs. The most common complaint that I hear from both individual exhibi- tors and professional handlers is that judging is not good, that judges are not accountable for what they do, and that dog shows have largely become “people shows.” These may be over- statements, but the bottom line is that exhibitors and professional handlers may have lost confidence in judging. What can be done to restore it? Per- haps AKC could devise some mecha- nism to hold judges accountable, but how would this be done? Anything that I can think of, such as judges being asked at times to report explanations for their placements or being observed by “super-judges,” may not be practi- cal and may have their own problems. What do you think? Do you have any suggestions? Please email your views to ggmeisels@gmail.com.
“Good judging that is knowledgeable of breed standards, AND WEIGHS THE BALANCE OF MERITS AND FAULTS OF EXHIBITS, IS KEY TO THE FUTURE OF SHOWS.”
26 • T op N otch T oys , S eptember /O ctober 2022
Powered by FlippingBook