I dunno Jack. It's a fairly common method of judging. The blinds become pass fail and wind up having little weight when making placements. I don't judge like that, but I don't outright condemn it either.
I don't think judging like that goes against the rule book. After all, marking is of prim.... blah, blah, blah.
To be sure, marks are of primary importance.
Guess we need to have a discussion as to the meaning of "primary".
My Webster's sez: "First in order of importance; principal".
I don't believe that relegates blinds to the status of tiebreaker.
Now we're getting to the point of the thread........where the relative merits of the marks and blinds actually bear-out how judges interpret the rules.
But what it will do is see to it that when comparing two dogs with one or two passing blinds, the dog with the best marks will prevail, which I feel is what is meant by using the words primary and paramount so often in the rules in describing the the status of marking in the overall scheme of things .
If the blinds aren't to be judged why run them???? This pass/fail concept is not supported in the rule book or in The Judges Manual. Judge the blinds.
John one dog has two outstanding blinds, another dog has two mediocre, but passing, blinds. When you are placing the dogs the fact that one dog has done better than the other on the blinds won't enter into the places the way you do it. I think they should.Quote:
I wouldn't say that that type of judging relegates the blind to the status of tie breaker, in as much one must have two PASSING blinds to even see the water marks....
I always feel that the winner needs to be the "Total Package"...
It's simple. The dog from Georgia wins. Just kidding.
dog one: 6 perfect, 1 good, 1 poor
dog two: 4 perfect, 1 very good, 2 excellent, 1 poor
one wins based on your description. perhaps you add more weight to water Vs. land or vice a verse. Still I vote for Georgia.
So... Which dog did win?