37 replies to this topic

[Mark Billadeau]

I'm so naive when it comes to the dog show world. I understood that judging was very subjective and breeds standards were really what the judges were "putting up" at any given point in time. However, I didn't know that magazine ads were part of this subjective breed standard until I watched a TV show about Westminster and what goes into campaigning a dog.

I found this article about campaigning a dog for Westminster.

[quote]Hype, Money and Cornstarch: What It Takes to Win at Westminster



The ads are a bit like those “for your consideration” campaigns for Oscar nominees, and they’re bought for essentially the same reason: to sway decision makers in a realm in which there is debate about what is “the best.” Lobbying for a St. Bernard, for instance, wouldn’t work if everyone agreed about what constitutes a great St. Bernard. And if St. Bernard greatness were the sort of thing that could be measured with a ruler and calipers, you wouldn’t need judges. A computer would suffice.

But there is no unanimity about St. Bernards or any other breed, and judges are human. So at magazines like Dog News, the ads keep pouring in. Often called the bible of the dog show world, Dog News is a weekly published by Harris Publications out of an office on Broadway in Manhattan. Other titles in Harris’s eclectic stable include Guns and Weapons, the hip-hop title XXL and the comic book Vampirella.

Most magazines are struggling with a downturn in ads. Not Dog News. It’s about 75 percent ads and runs as long as 600 pages in issues coinciding with big shows. Prices vary from $250 for a full-page black-and-white ad to $4,000 for the cover.

Yes, the cover is an ad.

“I don’t have a single staffer to solicit ads,” says Matthew Stander, publisher of Dog News. “They come to us unsolicited.”

Judges are the main target — they are sent the magazine gratis — and they star along with the dogs in most of the ads. There’s a tradition at shows of taking a photograph of winning dogs along with the judges who selected them, and most of the ads are little more than that photo and a cutesy tag line.[/url]

[AgilityCrested]

I am taking one of my cresteds to Westminster and will be running an ad in TNT. My measly $250 is nothing compared to the amount that will be spent on a lot of the dogs!

[Mark Billadeau]

If the winning dog is REALLY the one that most closely meets the written standard why do breeders, owners, handlers, feel that spending the money on ads improves the odds that their dog will be selected as the one that most closely meets the written standard?

[juliepoudrier]

I agree Mark. The practice of influencing judging by paying for ads, etc., really diminishes what it means to be a champion. But then I think most of us knew that intuitively anyway....

J.

[Donald McCaig]

[Dear Doggers,
My friend Julie wrote:
" The practice of influencing judging by paying for ads, etc., really diminishes what it means to be a champion."

And being a "champ[ion" means what?

Donald McCaig

[juliepoudrier]

Dear Doggers,
And being a "champ[ion" means what?

Donald McCaig

I imagine (aside from the ego side of things) that to the owner it means more money from the offspring of said champion, because if your dog's a winner, then everyone else is going to want one just like it.

But for the rest of the world, a desgination of champion becomes essentially meaningless, since there's certainly no guarantee that the dog in question actually meets (or even comes within spitting distance) of the written breed standard, for whatever that's worth.

J.

[Pam Wolf]

Being a Ch means the owners have a bunch of money! I have often seen the judge wach the handlers as they enter the ring and not the dogs. I even had one judge say to me (I was helping a friend by being a stewart-someone who assists the judge with ribons etc)"Wouldn't you know it! The worse dog in the ring is handled by S______ G____ (handler's name)?" He went ahead and put the worse dog in first place because the prestigous handler was showing it.

Some of the old timer judges were actually 'dog men' who knew dogs and put up good structure. Alas that is not the case for the most today.

For the record, I detest breed showing! I have worked for handlers to train their dogs to show. I have taught dogs to behave in such a manner as to hide faults and these dogs won often and quickly even though they were inferior specimines. They were 'flashy' in the ring and caught the judges attention.

And Julie, in some cases the 'champion' is not actually the dog it is said to be.

[Mark Billadeau]

Which came first, the written breed standard or dogs that closey meet that standard?

Which came first, modifications to the breed standard or winning dogs that better match the modified breed standard?

[AgilityCrested]

The ads are not just for judges. I know my dog won't win because I put an ad in. For me its fun. He is my first bredby champion I finished myself.
Also, having a champion doesn't mean you have money. I make 25k a year. I have champion dogs. Doesn't mean I can sell puppies for lots of money because I don't sell dogs to show homes, I might sell them as cheap pets or GIVE them away to performance homes.

[toney]

It doesn't just happen in the dog show world. In the Quarter horse Journal a large percentage is ads, as well. Breeding studs, mares, etc. are advertised, as well as performance horses and riders. The idea is to give some "cred" to the animal and rider- in other words, the horse and rider are photographed with a QH Congress sign behind it and a blue ribbon-, subtly saying "We won here...you know we should win when you are judging or at so and so's show". Not just halter horses, either- reining, roping, cutting, they all do it. It's a subtle form of pressure, both for the judges and the other riders they will be competing against.

[Maja]

With all these things being true, please don't make the common error of judging all the show people the same way. To some people having a beauty champion means that they think they have a very beautiful dog.

Maja

[stockdogranch]

good structure.

Ahhh...there's that word! Talked to a show-ring person last week, and I thought I would gag if I heard the word "structure" one more time!
A

[geonni banner]

The word that makes me gag is "correct." Correct (or incorrect) can mean anything from good balance and angulation to a dime-sized spot of white to the right or wrong number of dew-claws. FEH!

About dogs which most closely resemble the breed standard. A breed standard is a lot like the Bible. There's all kinds of ways to interpret it. And yes, judges are human - they have preferences. If one wants to quickly finish a champion in a competitive breed one would be well advised to show under judges that share your aesthetic. This takes research and planning. I read in 1990 that it costs on average about $1000 dollars per point to finish a champion in the breed ring. This includes travel expenses, handler's fees, entry fees, etc. But I have seen a promising puppy of 10 mos. finish in 4 or five "cluster" shows, and have "Ch. bred" pups on the ground at the age of one year. By the time his first litter is a year old he may bear scant resemblance to the pup that garnered all those ribbons.

Of course you can finish a dog that is a mess if you concentrate on all-breed shows with smaller and less competitive classes than a specialty. Judges are technically permitted to withhold points if the class before them is composed of terrible representatives of the breed - but few do. The average puppy buyer doesn't know the difference between one Ch. and another. They're just wowed by all the Ch. prefixes in their pup's pedigree.

The whole breed-ring milieu is rotten. But then, I guess I'm preaching to the choir here...

[SS Cressa]

Its called not all judges are quite as up to date with the breeds as they should be. The all breeds judges aren't going to know the ends and out of all the breeds they judge. They might/ SHOULD know the differents in the breeds for DQ's and such but not all do. Most have already a desire imagine in what a dog should look like, the "correct" movement and structure. But that might not always meet what standard says. Also a flashy dog is gonna catch your eye before the darks ones do. Or if all you see is full white collar the chances of you putting up a dog with a half collar are slim. Even if all else is equal.

But yeah its preaching to the choir.

Conformation judging is what it is. If you want a CH you accept it or go elsewhere. If you don't want the CH you make fun of the process and obscurity of the little rules that rule the ring.

[Laurae]

Hypocrisy in the breed ring??? Say it ain't so!

[brndlbc]

But for the rest of the world, a desgination of champion becomes essentially meaningless......

J.

Generally speaking, the rest of the world thinks that most of the things "dog people" do with their dogs is essentially meaningless.

[Sue R]

Hypocrisy in the breed ring??? Say it ain't so!

[PennyT]

SS Cressa: "Its called not all judges are quite as up to date with the breeds as they should be. The all breeds judges aren't going to know the ends and out of all the breeds they judge."

It is not preaching to the choir. The choir does not care what the breed ring standards are because they are empty of meaning.

Penny

[Sue R]

Its called not all judges are quite as up to date with the breeds as they should be. The all breeds judges aren't going to know the ends and out of all the breeds they judge. They might/ SHOULD know the differents in the breeds for DQ's and such but not all do. Most have already a desire imagine in what a dog should look like, the "correct" movement and structure. But that might not always meet what standard says.

So, you are saying that "all breed judges" really aren't qualified to do the judging job they are paid to do, and to even begin to determine which dogs are the ones that should be winning points. Right?

It just sounds like the show ring is pretty rotten to the core (as if the concept alone isn't, judging on appearance) - money talks, judges at all breed shows are not really qualified to make decisions, and so on.

I hear the choir singing...

[juliepoudrier]

Generally speaking, the rest of the world thinks that most of the things "dog people" do with their dogs is essentially meaningless.

Okay, maybe I should have clarified that I'm talking about the world of dog people. Obviously the world at large is essentially clueless, though I imagine they are the very folks who would really be impressed by a champion title, since they'd have nothing to judge it by, other than the generic definition of champion.

J.