Min menu

Pages

Latest News [LastPost]

If you happen to know Geir Flyckt-Pedersen — this is not at all who this is about …

 

Over the last few months, I have attended a number of shows where I had the opportunity to not only watch dogs being judged but also the behavior and professionalism of judges whose actions at times might seem like proof of knowledge — and other times, the opposite.

I hasten to add, not many, but a few older as well as quite fresh judges seemed to run their ring as a military operation – and at the same time not very nice nor respectful to the exhibitors. Having had several pleasant conversations with some of these judges over the years, it reminded me of how some people change from being the nicest persons in the world until you put the steering wheel of a car in their hands: It immediately creates a personality change — and all of a sudden a Monster appears …

Similar transformations seemingly happen with an AKC judge’s license in hand for some.

You may also like

So I return to the very old question: What role or mission is a judge supposed to fulfill?

In this country, the standard answer seems to be “evaluating a breeding stock,” which possibly makes some sense. However, where I originated the instructions were slightly — or considerably — different: Remember that you are judging the “product” (or result)! You are not supposed to be psychic, or in any way, shape, or form try to predict the future …

But I think that in both worlds the most important message to judges is to focus on the positives! Still, I think, especially in countries where written critiques are part of the process, too many feel they have to prove to the world that they noticed every detail that could be improved. And I could name a few examples from the past of fairly well-known faces who actually at times lost their way, as they were so obsessed with trying to prove to the world their talent and fabulous “eye”!

I suppose those of us who judge dogs from time to time have come across situations where a dog in his critique listed with a number of “shortcomings” then defeats a dog (or dogs) that by the critique definitely seems like a superior animal. This can be proof that charisma, showmanship, class, or simply type can be compensation for a multitude of sins.

Comments

2 comments
Post a Comment

Post a Comment