The Naming Of Judges

[klink]

It is fairly obvious from these comments that all of us are only concerned with our own success and not my overall goal of the possible improvement to the judging that we encounter every week-end at shows.

Of course people are concerned with their own success. Why wouldn't they be? Its a hobby, not a learning program.

What do you see as wrong with current judging methods, that could be improved by people not knowing who the judges are?

If you browse through the canine journal each month and check results you may see some results that regularly support the claims that many peaple make on a week to week basis re judging. I would like to say at this point that i admire good dogs' whoever owns them but like many i often wonder if the same dog would win if you or I showed it. I know that many great dogs' get carted all around the country side and i often ask if they are always so good ,and i know that maybe some are, why arent' they showing against the top dogs in the larger cities/ towns...and then i check the canine journal results and it all becomes clear.I would also like to say that even after nearly 30years of showing/breeding I am still learning, arent' you.

[WreckitWhippet]

It's a no for me too. I wouldn't want to waste my time, effort and money on some judges and there's a few that I wouldn't attended even if someone paid my entries and petrol.

With the cost of entries, fuel and accommodation, I'll pick and choose those that I think I will do best under. I'll give new judges a go and I'll usually enter my home shows regardless, but that's to support the local clubs.

ETA: I don't mind the mystery Generals judge. I think that's a nice idea.

Edited May 8, 2011 by ReadySetGo

[Florise]

like many i often wonder if the same dog would win if you or I showed it.

Maybe not, because a lot of certain people's success is due to the way they know, handle, and present their own dog. Watch the judging closely sometimes, and you can easily see why certain people win, and its nothing to do with who they are. Some dogs (and their handlers) are just head and shoulders above the rest.

[oakway]

It is fairly obvious from these comments that all of us are only concerned with our own success and not my overall goal of the possible improvement to the judging that we encounter every week-end at shows.

Of course people are concerned with their own success. Why wouldn't they be? Its a hobby, not a learning program.

What do you see as wrong with current judging methods, that could be improved by people not knowing who the judges are?

If you browse through the canine journal each month and check results you may see some results that regularly support the claims that many peaple make on a week to week basis re judging. I would like to say at this point that i admire good dogs' whoever owns them but like many i often wonder if the same dog would win if you or I showed it. I know that many great dogs' get carted all around the country side and i often ask if they are always so good ,and i know that maybe some are, why arent' they showing against the top dogs in the larger cities/ towns...and then i check the canine journal results and it all becomes clear.I would also like to say that even after nearly 30years of showing/breeding I am still learning, arent' you.

Remember, that judges are restricted in time and distance as to how may times they may judge the same group in a time period.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

klink what about the people in this thread who have said it wouldn't work for them because they want to know when close friends are judging so they can avoid entering? Isn't that acting ethically?

Back in 2002 Duggan and Levitt did a study of corruption in Sumo wrestling. Basically they did a statistical analysis of the number of times fights came out a certain way when a fighter had nothing to lose by throwing a fight but his opponent had a lot to gain and the analysis demonstrated that there was corruption in the sport. Google it and you'll find a lot of info about it.

If, as you say, it's obvious from the results pages, then perhaps you could come up with a similar statistical analysis to support your theory? Otherwise it's just an allegation without anything behind it.

FWIW, I do think there are people operating corruptly in the system but your proposal wouldn't change cronyism or "you scratch my back" behaviour.

[Dogsfevr]

Sounds like sour grapes,you asked for opinions & all that have been given are very legit.

It isn't about our own success but about simple reality & what we spend our money on .

It takes me 5hrs plus to get my dogs ready for shows ,no way would i spend that time for judges who i now don't appreciate my dogs & honestly any normal person would be the same.

The people who show 2/3 times as you say & give up as its a con then i say there being taught well be other sore losers who also need to pull the head out of the sand or simply don't appreciate the other dogs winning & expect to be instant winners when we all now not everyone can.

[Bjelkier]

Although it seems like a good idea in theory there are far too many con's for me to be interested in mystery judges.

I havn't been showing my breed long enough to really know which judges will put me up and those who wont but I do know those who didn't like my dogs type, where too rough, nasty or I just didn't agree with their judging (and one of these judges put my dog up BOB and Jr in Group) and I wouldn't want to travel such long distances to find out I didn't have a snow balls chance in hell under the judge of the day.

Also I have friends who are judges and I wouldn't feel right entering under them.

And if some newbies are wanting to give it up after a few shows because they didn't win maybe they need to take a closer look at themselves and their dog. Maybe their dog really wasn't groomed well, didn't behave in the ring, and was handled terribly, all of these things can make a great dog look awful and then there is the possibility that the other dog was in fact better.

You can't get into dog showing and expect to win everything, even the big names get dumped.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Bjelkier

[poodlefan]

Many of us see some terrible things happen in the show ring re the judging of our dogs and I for one would like to see some changes to this process so that everybody has an equal chance with their dog not the sometimes foregone conclusion that we often see. It is a fact that show entries are not what they used to be and I know there are many reasons for this , but i would wager one of the main reasons is the judging.

To again strive for a more transparent system I think the time has come to either be a dog judge or an exhibitor not both. I know all the fores and against this statement but it not only has to be fair BUT it also has to look fair.

If you want to improve the standard of judging then I'd suggest you ask for ideas on how to do that. Withholding a judges name doesn't make them a better judge. It just makes who the judge is a lottery. I can't think of a faster way to reduce entries than to make people drive hours to find they're being judged by someone who's opinion they don't respect. Besides, some folk will know who the judges are anyway.

There is no way you can ensure that every handler has an equal chance at winning. We don't all have the same standard of dog, of grooming or of handling.

I keep hearing that show entries are not what they used to be but I've yet to see evidence that it's judging that's to blame.

Edited May 8, 2011 by poodlefan

[klink]

Many of us see some terrible things happen in the show ring re the judging of our dogs and I for one would like to see some changes to this process so that everybody has an equal chance with their dog not the sometimes foregone conclusion that we often see. It is a fact that show entries are not what they used to be and I know there are many reasons for this , but i would wager one of the main reasons is the judging.

To again strive for a more transparent system I think the time has come to either be a dog judge or an exhibitor not both. I know all the fores and against this statement but it not only has to be fair BUT it also has to look fair.

If you want to improve the standard of judging then I'd suggest you ask for ideas on how to do that. Withholding a judges name doesn't make them a better judge. It just makes who the judge is a lottery. I can't think of a faster way to reduce entries than to make people drive hours to find they're being judged by someone who's opinion they don't respect. Besides, some folk will know who the judges are anyway.

There is no way you can ensure that every handler has an equal chance at winning. We don't all have the same standard of dog, of grooming or of handling.

I keep hearing that show entries are not what they used to be but I've yet to see evidence that it's judging that's to blame.

In reply to your comments, I would like to say ,that if you read my posts re this matter you will see that i have said that there are many reasons for the drop in show entries not just the judging. This original forum was started primarily to address the concern that many exhibitors have regarding the blatant face judging that regularly occurs at many shows, particularly regional shows where quite often club officials also show.I know the clubs work hard to have their shows and would be upset, rightly so if they could show at their own clubs events. The point in addressing this concern was to suggest the non naming of judges etc. to help exhibitors in their own minds get a fair go. It has nothing to do with the quality of a persons dog , grooming ability, and their appearance..I myself over the years have shown under my preferred judges as we all have and everybody is the same ,but in the overall interest of the experience for all the present is quite often corrupted by certain judges, you know this and so does' everyone else unless that all have their eyes closed or live on the moon.

[WreckitWhippet]

Does sound like sour grapes now

If you think a judge is "facey" or there's corruption going on, or the hard working club members are being rewarded with wins, then don't bother to enter the show and go where you think you'll get a fair chance.

I can assure you, that there wasn't much in it for the club officials or workers at the four shows this weekend. They worked bloody hard and put on a fine show and if they managed time to show their dogs, it was the usual wins and losses for them.

[poodlefan]

In reply to your comments, I would like to say ,that if you read my posts re this matter you will see that i have said that there are many reasons for the drop in show entries not just the judging. This original forum was started primarily to address the concern that many exhibitors have regarding the blatant face judging that regularly occurs at many shows, particularly regional shows where quite often club officials also show.I know the clubs work hard to have their shows and would be upset, rightly so if they could show at their own clubs events. The point in addressing this concern was to suggest the non naming of judges etc. to help exhibitors in their own minds get a fair go. It has nothing to do with the quality of a persons dog , grooming ability, and their appearance..I myself over the years have shown under my preferred judges as we all have and everybody is the same ,but in the overall interest of the experience for all the present is quite often corrupted by certain judges, you know this and so does' everyone else unless that all have their eyes closed or live on the moon.

Club officials would always know who the judges were, whether their names appeared in a schedule or not. I don't have any issue with club officials at regional shows showing their dogs or having their dogs shown. They're the ones putting in all the effort to get the show run, why should they be penalised by not being able to show at their local grounds?

You're never going to be able to remove the possibility of face judging. After all, the faces will still be there even if the judge wasn't announced beforehand. My personal view is that exhibitors are the ones best placed to select what shows they attend based on who is judging.

I've yet to see any evidence that many exhibitors are concerned about face judging at many shows. You might like to start a poll about it.

Edited May 8, 2011 by poodlefan

[oakway]

It is starting to sound like another form of judge bashing to me.

[Keshwar]

How do you propose to keep the Judges identity secret?

In the world of the internet and social networking I would think it would be extremely difficult to keep any Judges identity secret for any length of time.

Dog showing is a competitive hobby, there will always be complaints about face judging, cronyism, corruption, etc, etc. It happens in any competitive environment.

Keeping the judges identity secret - if that was possible - won't stop that.

If you think a Judge is acting inappropriately then file a report with the relevant CC.

If you don't like the way a judge does his/her job then don't show to them - if enough people withhold their entries then the judge is likely to stop getting appointments. No club is going to appoint a judge who can't pull a decent entry.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Club officials would always know who the judges were, whether their names appeared in a schedule or not. I don't have any issue with club officials at regional shows showing their dogs or having their dogs shown. They're the ones putting in all the effort to get the show run, why should they be penalised by not being able to show at their local grounds?

At one regional show last year the club president took his family to dinner with the judges and the family members showed to them the next day and won. It looked bad, and didn't reflect well on the club or the judges. We don't all complain; it's only a dog show after all. However, many of us notice and adjust our show programs to suit.

In smaller remote centres where there are nowhere near the shows we have in eastern NSW it is a more difficult issue but if you live within 350 ks of the NSW coast I have trouble seeing an argument for showing at a club where you are on the executive committee. I'm a club secretary for two clubs where the executive commitee do not show so I miss 4 group shows and 4 AB shows a year. I am far from unique or special in this respect.

I would have more interest in klink's concerns if he could let us know how many clubs he runs shows for. From my perspective, the biggest weapon we have against corruption is people who are prepared to put the work in on properly run and accountable committees. And there are nowhere near enough of those people around.

[klink]

How do you propose to keep the Judges identity secret?

In the world of the internet and social networking I would think it would be extremely difficult to keep any Judges identity secret for any length of time.

Dog showing is a competitive hobby, there will always be complaints about face judging, cronyism, corruption, etc, etc. It happens in any competitive environment.

Keeping the judges identity secret - if that was possible - won't stop that.

If you think a Judge is acting inappropriately then file a report with the relevant CC.

If you don't like the way a judge does his/her job then don't show to them - if enough people withhold their entries then the judge is likely to stop getting appointments. No club is going to appoint a judge who can't pull a decent entry.

In a dog owners survey conducted by myself and a friend of mine several questions were canvassed at dog shows. The results were published by dog News. and briefly the question re "face judging asked,

Do you think that "face " judging at many shows is influencing your choice to stay or leave the dog scene ? The yes vote received 95% of the vote.

I realise that it would be hard to keep the judging panel secret but they would not know until show day which group was being done by who under my suggestion. Surely with the results of the above survey something needs to be tried.

Clubs now experience poor entries with some of their panels , so I dont' see that arguement holding water.

[poodlefan]

In a dog owners survey conducted by myself and a friend of mine several questions were canvassed at dog shows. The results were published by dog News. and briefly the question re "face judging asked,

Do you think that "face " judging at many shows is influencing your choice to stay or leave the dog scene ? The yes vote received 95% of the vote.

I realise that it would be hard to keep the judging panel secret but they would not know until show day which group was being done by who under my suggestion. Surely with the results of the above survey something needs to be tried.

Clubs now experience poor entries with some of their panels , so I dont' see that arguement holding water.

If I load a survey question appropriately, I'm sure I can get the response I want too. Perhaps a more objective poll might be an idea. I might start one.

[Lemonlime]

You still haven't answered the question people keep asking in this thread. What happens if you spend hours grooming and travelling and turn up to find out the judge is a friend/breeder?

If the judge tells a close friend that they are judging at a particular show, the friend tells someone else, the someone else tells their friends, its not long before everyone knows.

It only takes one to spread rumours about who the judge will be. What if a false rumour gets out and people decline entering a particular show because they heard on the grapevine that the judge for the day is "Judge A", later they find out that the judge was infact "Judge Z"

[klink]

You still haven't answered the question people keep asking in this thread. What happens if you spend hours grooming and travelling and turn up to find out the judge is a friend/breeder?

If the judge tells a close friend that they are judging at a particular show, the friend tells someone else, the someone else tells their friends, its not long before everyone knows.

It only takes one to spread rumours about who the judge will be. What if a false rumour gets out and people decline entering a particular show because they heard on the grapevine that the judge for the day is "Judge A", later they find out that the judge was infact "Judge Z"

It may come as a surprise to you, but after showing for almost 30years I have managed to get to know quite a few judges/breeders as I am sure you have, and of the judges that I mix with at various events socially I would have no reservations about turning up to a show and finding them judging. This is simply because our relationships are such that I would not be put up if my dog was not the best on the day. I have had this experience on different outings and I have no objections. Surely if all our judges are honest and non corruptable this wont' be a problem. From my experience the only people that this would worry are perhaps the ones' that expect more than they should .

[poodlefan]

It may come as a surprise to you, but after showing for almost 30years I have managed to get to know quite a few judges/breeders as I am sure you have, and of the judges that I mix with at various events socially I would have no reservations about turning up to a show and finding them judging. This is simply because our relationships are such that I would not be put up if my dog was not the best on the day. I have had this experience on different outings and I have no objections. Surely if all our judges are honest and non corruptable this wont' be a problem. From my experience the only people that this would worry are perhaps the ones' that expect more than they should .

If all our judges are honest and non-corruptable, why do we need to withold their names in show schedules?

You do realise that if you show under good friends and they put your dogs up, the perception from many will mean they are "face judging"?

[klink]

It may come as a surprise to you, but after showing for almost 30years I have managed to get to know quite a few judges/breeders as I am sure you have, and of the judges that I mix with at various events socially I would have no reservations about turning up to a show and finding them judging. This is simply because our relationships are such that I would not be put up if my dog was not the best on the day. I have had this experience on different outings and I have no objections. Surely if all our judges are honest and non corruptable this wont' be a problem. From my experience the only people that this would worry are perhaps the ones' that expect more than they should .

If all our judges are honest and non-corruptable, why do we need to withold their names in show schedules?

You do realise that if you show under good friends and they put your dogs up, the perception from many will mean they are "face judging"?

The comments made on my last post was my answer to a comment made with the reference to turning up at a show and finding a friend etc judging period. In reply to your second comment as long as I know that the judging by whoever is an honest opinion of that judge I really dont' care what anyone else thinks.

I really find the dog scene very strange at times, ringside everybody moans and groans about obvious oddities and yet merrily week after week turn up for more of the same, never daring to perhaps think that there may be a better way. The comment re all our judges being honest and non-corruptable was a subtle attempt at sarcasm which was obviously missed.