Field dogs have proven their worth beyond a shadow of a doubt by actually performing the work and being judged to have turned in the best performance. Show dogs on the other hand have proved nothing, they are merely judged posses physical attributes that some folks have decided are the making of a superior field dog.
I find it offensive to consider denying a dog who has proven his worth a title because he/she doesn't "represent the breed" well when stacked up against a set of standards INVENTED by folks who think they are smart enough to determine what makes a suitable specimen. I see nothing wrong, on the other hand, with requiring folks who believe they know what makes a great specimen to go out and prove their theory with actual results competing against great dogs.
I've heard the saying, life is too short to hunt with an ugly dog.
I prefer, life is too short to hunt over a dog with no talent.