The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 21 of 26 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 260

Thread: westminister

  1. #201
    Senior Member Breck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Elverson, PA
    Posts
    2,416

    Default

    im gonna put this specimen up against whatever that dog is..
    Smoke-072.jpg
    "Darla" AFC Candlewoods Lil Smokin Tequila (2002-2013)(fondly remembered)
    "Smoke" Smokin Auggies Menace, QAA (2003- )(retired nut case, ask Rando)
    "Simba" Humewood Simba (1999-2014)(my 1st dog)

    .
    Per favore, non mi rompere i coglioni.
    Grazie




  2. #202
    Senior Member hotel4dogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SW of Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,343

    Default

    The purpose of a dog show is *supposed to be* to pick those dogs which are closest to the breed standard, for breeding purposes. No more, no less. That's why only intact males and females can be entered in breed shows. We all tend to think our dogs are a great representation of what we think the breed ought to look like, so instead you get a set of independent, allegedly unbiased opinions as to whether or not your dog is a good representation of the breed. Originally the shows were "benched" (hence the term bench champion), where the dogs were required to stay on display through the entire show in their grooming area, so that people could view and compare the various dogs, talk to the breeders, and so on. There are very few benched shows remaining in the US (Chicago's big IKC show, Detroit's show, Westminster are the only ones that come to mind).
    The parent club writes up a standard for their breed. AKC has nothing to do with the breed standards. The standard is supposed to reflect the purpose for which the breed was originally bred. But again, that comes from the parent club, not the AKC. So if the parent club says that all Labradors should be silver, then the judges have to excuse all labradors that aren't silver, whether or not the judge thinks Labradors should be silver. Those are called "disqualifying faults", again as defined by the parent club. Golden Retriever Club of America defines overbite/underbite as disqualifying for Goldens, and also more than 1 inch over or under standard height as disqualifying, those dogs are to be excused from the ring without competing. Other parent clubs have different faults that they consider as disqualifying.
    The judges have to go through a selection and education process whereby they learn the breed standard for the breeds they are licensed to judge. They go into the ring with a "blueprint" of the ideal Golden Retriever, to use an example, in their mind. They pick the dog that comes closest to that ideal on that day as the winning dog. The dogs have to earn a certain number of points, including "major wins" (as versus minor wins) in which they defeat a larger number of other dogs, that number is defined by how popular the breed is. For Goldens, you have to defeat at least 21 other dogs at least twice to get your two "major wins". So if your dog has been selected as the best dog there, over at least 21 other dogs at least twice, plus over a few dogs a bunch of other times, you probably have a pretty good representation of the breed.
    When the dog shows became a sport rather than selecting good breeding stock is probably when things started to decline. A lot of people started to breed dogs for the sole purpose of winning in the show ring, rather than as the best possible breeding stock (which would also take into account things like temperament, trainability, working abilities, and so on).
    Judging is problematic. At many of the all breed shows, the judges have to judge 30 different breeds. I assure you they have no idea what an ideal Golden should look like, so they pick the flashiest dogs with the longest coats. For this, the fault lies with the hosting club, AND the parent club. GRCA seems to be making a fantastic effort to educate the judges in the Golden ring, and we've seen a very encouraging swing back to the moderate, athletic Golden in recent years. The hosting clubs should try to hire "breeder judges" (not someone just licensed to judge, but also who has actively bred the breed for many years) for the bigger shows so that they at least understand the function of the dog they are judging. Labradors and Goldens are among the biggest entries all the time, it would be in the club's best interest to hire judges who know how to judge them.
    Some judges are poorly educated, and they start "putting up" (giving the win to) dogs who aren't truly to the standard. Breeders see what's winning in the ring, and in the quest to have the "winningest dog", they start breeding for those traits. It becomes a vicious cycle. In too many cases, it's a sport rather than a breeding tool.
    Judges simply need to stop rewarding dogs who don't meet the standard. The parent clubs need to come down on the judges who are doing it. The host clubs need to come down on those judges by refusing to hire them to judge any more.
    By the same token, I would question what the purpose of a hunt test is? Now don't get me wrong, I think they're great fun, it's an awesome sport, but I ask the same question? What's the purpose?
    JMO, I think the biggest difference is that people who do hunt tests seem to realize that it's pretty much just a sport done for fun, whereas people who enter dog shows tend to think it means a whole lot, probably because it used to. Not so much any more. Except in the case when the wins are well respected breeder judges.
    My boy is a CH with some huge major wins, but to be honest I found the GRCA's conformation assessment to be a whole lot more valuable in making breeding decisions than his time in the show ring, and I think the parent clubs need to stress those as an alternate, and probably preferable, method of evaluating breeding stock. Let the shows continue to be a fun sport, and encourage the conformation assessments instead for breeding decisions.
    There are a lot of CH dogs who can't pass a conformation assessment. They should not be bred.
    Sorry, I ramble. A topic dear to my heart.
    Last edited by hotel4dogs; 02-18-2014 at 08:49 PM.

    Barb Gibson
    with
    CH Rosewood Little Giant UDX VER RA SH MXP MJP XFP T2BP VCX WCX CCA CGC FFX-OG
    also UCH HR UUD UJJ URO1 UHIT
    (golden retriever) born 3-10-07
    a.k.a. "Tito", "The Tito Monster"
    www.GoTeamTito.com

  3. #203
    Senior Member hotel4dogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SW of Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,343

    Default

    That's a perfect case where a conformation assessment would be a much better choice than the breed ring. At least in the case of Goldens, it's done by 3 *judges* (of which 2 are licensed to judge in the breed ring, generally are long time Golden breeders, and the other is a long time breeder) representing both the field world and the show world. They score the dog on a scale of 1 to 10 on pretty much every physical attribute you can think of, and a minor temperament test. So you get very valuable information about the dog's strengths and weaknesses from 3 unbiased parties, in writing.
    It's not for people with an ego problem about their dog. If you don't want to be told your dog is "slightly lacking in forechest" or "a bit too straight in the rear", don't go. If you can't hear that "the shoulders need a little more lay back" or "the coat isn't correct" (Breck I am NOT NOT referring to your dog here, just giving examples), stay home. But it's great information for breeding, so that you don't double up on a weakness.
    Rambling again.


    Quote Originally Posted by Breck View Post
    im gonna put this specimen up against whatever that dog is..
    Smoke-072.jpg

    Barb Gibson
    with
    CH Rosewood Little Giant UDX VER RA SH MXP MJP XFP T2BP VCX WCX CCA CGC FFX-OG
    also UCH HR UUD UJJ URO1 UHIT
    (golden retriever) born 3-10-07
    a.k.a. "Tito", "The Tito Monster"
    www.GoTeamTito.com

  4. #204
    Senior Member Sharon Potter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin Rapids, WI
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    A dog show is to choose the dog that best meets the breed standard *as written by the parent club*. That's its sole purpose.

    This thread is about dogs meeting the breed standard at dog shows. Let's not play the game of trying to find fault with something completely different to redirect attention away from the topic. If you'd like to discuss the purpose of hunt tests, how about starting a thread about it?
    Sharon Potter

    www.redbranchkennels.net

    Chesapeake Bay Retrievers...too many to list.

    Team Huntsmith

  5. #205
    Senior Member Swack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hotel4dogs View Post
    The purpose of a dog show is *supposed to be* to pick those dogs which are closest to the breed standard, for breeding purposes. No more, no less. That's why only intact males and females can be entered in breed shows. We all tend to think our dogs are a great representation of what we think the breed ought to look like, so instead you get a set of independent, allegedly unbiased opinions as to whether or not your dog is a good representation of the breed. Originally the shows were "benched" (hence the term bench champion), where the dogs were required to stay on display through the entire show in their grooming area, so that people could view and compare the various dogs, talk to the breeders, and so on. There are very few benched shows remaining in the US (Chicago's big IKC show, Detroit's show, Westminster are the only ones that come to mind).
    The parent club writes up a standard for their breed. AKC has nothing to do with the breed standards. The standard is supposed to reflect the purpose for which the breed was originally bred. But again, that comes from the parent club, not the AKC. So if the parent club says that all Labradors should be silver, then the judges have to excuse all labradors that aren't silver, whether or not the judge thinks Labradors should be silver. Those are called "disqualifying faults", again as defined by the parent club. Golden Retriever Club of America defines overbite/underbite as disqualifying for Goldens, and also more than 1 inch over or under standard height as disqualifying, those dogs are to be excused from the ring without competing. Other parent clubs have different faults that they consider as disqualifying.
    The judges have to go through a selection and education process whereby they learn the breed standard for the breeds they are licensed to judge. They go into the ring with a "blueprint" of the ideal Golden Retriever, to use an example, in their mind. They pick the dog that comes closest to that ideal on that day as the winning dog. The dogs have to earn a certain number of points, including "major wins" (as versus minor wins) in which they defeat a larger number of other dogs, that number is defined by how popular the breed is. For Goldens, you have to defeat at least 21 other dogs at least twice to get your two "major wins". So if your dog has been selected as the best dog there, over at least 21 other dogs at least twice, plus over a few dogs a bunch of other times, you probably have a pretty good representation of the breed.
    When the dog shows became a sport rather than selecting good breeding stock is probably when things started to decline. A lot of people started to breed dogs for the sole purpose of winning in the show ring, rather than as the best possible breeding stock (which would also take into account things like temperament, trainability, working abilities, and so on).
    Judging is problematic. At many of the all breed shows, the judges have to judge 30 different breeds. I assure you they have no idea what an ideal Golden should look like, so they pick the flashiest dogs with the longest coats. For this, the fault lies with the hosting club, AND the parent club. GRCA seems to be making a fantastic effort to educate the judges in the Golden ring, and we've seen a very encouraging swing back to the moderate, athletic Golden in recent years. The hosting clubs should try to hire "breeder judges" (not someone just licensed to judge, but also who has actively bred the breed for many years) for the bigger shows so that they at least understand the function of the dog they are judging. Labradors and Goldens are among the biggest entries all the time, it would be in the club's best interest to hire judges who know how to judge them.
    Some judges are poorly educated, and they start "putting up" (giving the win to) dogs who aren't truly to the standard. Breeders see what's winning in the ring, and in the quest to have the "winningest dog", they start breeding for those traits. It becomes a vicious cycle. In too many cases, it's a sport rather than a breeding tool.
    Judges simply need to stop rewarding dogs who don't meet the standard. The parent clubs need to come down on the judges who are doing it. The host clubs need to come down on those judges by refusing to hire them to judge any more.
    By the same token, I would question what the purpose of a hunt test is? Now don't get me wrong, I think they're great fun, it's an awesome sport, but I ask the same question? What's the purpose?
    JMO, I think the biggest difference is that people who do hunt tests seem to realize that it's pretty much just a sport done for fun, whereas people who enter dog shows tend to think it means a whole lot, probably because it used to.
    My boy is a CH with some huge major wins, but to be honest I found the GRCA's conformation assessment to be a whole lot more valuable in making breeding decisions than his time in the show ring, and I think the parent clubs need to stress those as an alternate, and probably preferable, method of evaluating breeding stock. Let the shows continue to be a fun sport, and encourage the conformation assessments instead for breeding decisions.
    Sorry, I ramble. A topic dear to my heart.
    Barb,

    Sorry I was late to the dance. I was a little surprised after 20 pages of discussion, primarily about a show dog, that there had been no post which included anything from the standard. Additionally, I quoted Kirk's post who was referring to Sharron's post in which she stated that even without the excess weight the dog was not in proper proportion. I understand why you could have thought I was cherry-picking the parts of the standard that offended me, but I wasn't. I was just highlighting the portions I felt related to Sharron's post which I quoted "Once Removed". Sorry for the confusion.

    I don't ignore the rest of the standard. I find the other extreme equally offensive. I'm trying to breed field Labs who have what I consider to be proper conformation for a working retriever. There are still some moderate field bred Labs out there that do a fair job of representing the standard's original intent. I may not have enough life times to accomplish all of my goals, but the effort is rewarding.

    Your ramble is excused. I understand your passion.

    May I state my definition of the purpose of a dog show, at least originally? A Dog Show is simply to recognize the dog who most closely exemplifies the standard. May I add that the standard is supposed to describe the traits which are needed for the dog to perform his intended purpose. Putting these two factors together, a dog show is supposed to identify the Lab that is best suited, physically and temperamentally (as best as can be determined in a show ring) to do the job a Labrador retriever is intended to perform. The titles earned through such recognition should recommend the dog for use in breeding to reproduce Labs that are suited for hunting.

    We know that most field Lab breeders aren't focusing on breeding a dog that meets the standard. But isn't that the primary focus, if not the sole focus of show breeders? If so, why is it that they often miss the mark so far? A rhetorical question. I know many of the causes have been enumerated on this thread. I just think it's sad. In the interest of fairness, I think some of the field bred Labs are also sad.

    Swack
    Jeff Swackhamer

  6. #206
    Senior Member crackerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    1,143

    Default

    Speaking of rambling - and conformation wrecks - here's something that struck me as a lovely parable for this thread. And geez, on top of that, Danica



    was nowhere in the vicinity when it happened...

    MG

  7. #207
    Senior Member hotel4dogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SW of Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,343

    Default

    So well said, thanks.



    Quote Originally Posted by Swack View Post
    Barb,

    Sorry I was late to the dance. I was a little surprised after 20 pages of discussion, primarily about a show dog, that there had been no post which included anything from the standard. Additionally, I quoted Kirk's post who was referring to Sharron's post in which she stated that even without the excess weight the dog was not in proper proportion. I understand why you could have thought I was cherry-picking the parts of the standard that offended me, but I wasn't. I was just highlighting the portions I felt related to Sharron's post which I quoted "Once Removed". Sorry for the confusion.

    I don't ignore the rest of the standard. I find the other extreme equally offensive. I'm trying to breed field Labs who have what I consider to be proper conformation for a working retriever. There are still some moderate field bred Labs out there that do a fair job of representing the standard's original intent. I may not have enough life times to accomplish all of my goals, but the effort is rewarding.

    Your ramble is excused. I understand your passion.

    May I state my definition of the purpose of a dog show, at least originally? A Dog Show is simply to recognize the dog who most closely exemplifies the standard. May I add that the standard is supposed to describe the traits which are needed for the dog to perform his intended purpose. Putting these two factors together, a dog show is supposed to identify the Lab that is best suited, physically and temperamentally (as best as can be determined in a show ring) to do the job a Labrador retriever is intended to perform. The titles earned through such recognition should recommend the dog for use in breeding to reproduce Labs that are suited for hunting.

    We know that most field Lab breeders aren't focusing on breeding a dog that meets the standard. But isn't that the primary focus, if not the sole focus of show breeders? If so, why is it that they often miss the mark so far? A rhetorical question. I know many of the causes have been enumerated on this thread. I just think it's sad. In the interest of fairness, I think some of the field bred Labs are also sad.

    Swack

    Barb Gibson
    with
    CH Rosewood Little Giant UDX VER RA SH MXP MJP XFP T2BP VCX WCX CCA CGC FFX-OG
    also UCH HR UUD UJJ URO1 UHIT
    (golden retriever) born 3-10-07
    a.k.a. "Tito", "The Tito Monster"
    www.GoTeamTito.com

  8. #208
    Senior Member hotel4dogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    SW of Chicago, IL
    Posts
    2,343

    Default

    I guess I need to shut up as I am obviously not making my thoughts clear. I didn't want to find fault with hunt tests, nor direct attention away from the topic. I wanted to comment that dog shows have become nothing more than a sport, rather than fulfilling their original purpose. Apparently I didn't express that very well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharon Potter View Post
    A dog show is to choose the dog that best meets the breed standard *as written by the parent club*. That's its sole purpose.

    This thread is about dogs meeting the breed standard at dog shows. Let's not play the game of trying to find fault with something completely different to redirect attention away from the topic. If you'd like to discuss the purpose of hunt tests, how about starting a thread about it?
    Last edited by hotel4dogs; 02-19-2014 at 05:17 AM.

    Barb Gibson
    with
    CH Rosewood Little Giant UDX VER RA SH MXP MJP XFP T2BP VCX WCX CCA CGC FFX-OG
    also UCH HR UUD UJJ URO1 UHIT
    (golden retriever) born 3-10-07
    a.k.a. "Tito", "The Tito Monster"
    www.GoTeamTito.com

  9. #209
    Senior Member gdgnyc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,317

    Default

    Interestingly, Westminister was started by "sporting gentlemen (who) used to meet in a bar to drink and lie about their shooting accomplishments". The first show was covered and reported by FOREST AND STREAM magazine. Sporting men started this. Sporting dogs shown were working dogs. Today it is different.

    See link

    http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/about/history.html
    "I love the rod and gun and where they take me."

    "Do not judge a man until you have walked two moons in his moccasins."

  10. #210
    Senior Member Sharon Potter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin Rapids, WI
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hotel4dogs View Post
    I guess I need to shut up as I am obviously not making my thoughts clear. I didn't want to find fault with hunt tests, nor direct attention away from the topic. I wanted to comment that dog shows have become nothing more than a sport, rather than fulfilling their original purpose. Apparently I didn't express that very well.
    That wasn't my intention, and I apologize if I've offended you. I appreciate your passion for what you're doing and I do see your viewpoint. It's just that every time the conformation stuff is brought up, folks who exhibit strictly in conformation immediately try to deflect the topic to what the field dogs do and look like, rather than addressing the real issue of how much the show Lab has morphed into something it was never intended to be. The field dogs aren't the ones who are supposed to set the example for what a breed is supposed to look like...that's the conformation dogs.

    While I will say that there are many events I would consider a sport....from obedience to agility to the myriad of other things dogs do at shows....conformation is most certainly not a sport, as there is zero athletic ability involved outside of a very short jog. It is better compared to a beauty pageant. I cringe every time I hear that Westminster announcer or anyone else mention "the sport of purebred dogs". Purebred dogs in itself is not a sport...it's the cool skill sets and things they do that qualify as a sport.

    Here's my question now: How do we get the conformation dogs back to the breed standard? Is it up to the judges? Are there enough competent judges who will stand up for what the breed is supposed to look and function like? Or is it a lost cause and the show Labrador is going the way of the Standard Poodle and the Springer and the American Cocker and will continue to deteriorate until it is no longer recognizable as a sporting breed in the show ring?
    Sharon Potter

    www.redbranchkennels.net

    Chesapeake Bay Retrievers...too many to list.

    Team Huntsmith

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •