This is a placeholder text
Group text
by noddi on 02 December 2009 - 19:12
David,Please hold on.Frank wasn not the one who made this suggestion and i think that what he has said about this item is very relevant.Bazza do you really mean 1 judge per class or do you mean like the british sieger.1 judge re both puppy sections,1 judge re junior and spy(both sexes)and 1 judge re adult males and 1 judge re adult females,making in total 4 judges and then perhaps all 4 judging the final line ups,tho i can see problems .its our system with the kc once again.if we could be allowed to do our breed club ch.shows on german system,would be great but thats just pie in the sky and the way the kc see us Bazza ,that idea would no doubt be thrown out and i agree that 1 judge per class would be too expensive in these days of the credit crunch.i do like the idea of more than 1 or 2 judges though for our breed shows.i personally would be prepared to pay a slightly higher entry fee.ANYONE ELSE GOT ANY IDEA HOW SOMETHING ON THESE LINES COULD WORK IF THE KC WERE AGREEABLE .......DAVID HOW ABOUT YOU.GOT ANY IDEAS.HOW ABOUT ALL US GSD PERSONS BRAINSTORMING.please anyone dont go mouthing off.,ttese are only suggestions.constructive critisicsms are okay,slagging off DEFINITELY NO GO.Carole
by Mackenzie on 02 December 2009 - 20:12
i would like to draw everyone back to the theme of this thread which is about licensing judges rather than the number of judges officiating.
Licensing the judges is not just about reducing the amount of corruption but more specifically to be consistent in reducing the number of faults in our dogs which are only too common. Licensing also means a more professional approach in keeping the breed moving in the right direction and gives the breed the opportunity to move on those judges who are either past it, or, incompetent.
Whilst I could say more on the topic I would prefer all the contributors to develop their thoughts on the subject and perhaps others will join with worthwhile comments.
Mackenzie
Licensing the judges is not just about reducing the amount of corruption but more specifically to be consistent in reducing the number of faults in our dogs which are only too common. Licensing also means a more professional approach in keeping the breed moving in the right direction and gives the breed the opportunity to move on those judges who are either past it, or, incompetent.
Whilst I could say more on the topic I would prefer all the contributors to develop their thoughts on the subject and perhaps others will join with worthwhile comments.
Mackenzie
by paulie on 02 December 2009 - 20:12
What about one judge for puppies, one for 12 to 24 months and another for adults , with maybe two sets of judges alternating between sexes and classes, it works perfectly on the continent, come on lets return to the glass half full instead of half empty, in all truth it probably cant get any worse, so lets seize the moment, instead of debating whether to debate !!!!!!! This will also be a stepping stone for newer judges to grasp the nettle, ( so to speak ).
Regards.
Paul Rattigan.
Regards.
Paul Rattigan.
by Blerio on 02 December 2009 - 21:12
The corruption starts with the committee who arranges the judges, Favors for Favors is an inter club committee pastime, I agree we need to have qualified and experienced judges, who know how to judge the breed. But the selection of judges for shows must be taken by a governing body other than the club. This will ensure that the individual clubs committee cannot have an influence on selecting judges for the wrong reasons. Bill Owen.
by noddi on 02 December 2009 - 22:12
spot on bill.i go with that.Carole.
by pencil on 02 December 2009 - 23:12
bill owen-you talk on the other thread about not being brainy enought to insult videx ( will a law degree do you ?) yet you nievity towards a judging solution is quite risable.
Regardless of who picks the British judge, I and you, can guarantee that if a " non judge " was showing a top class animal amongst a line up that included judges, that " non judge" would never win ( especially the CC's ) simple because the " non judge " would not be in a position to do any returnable favours.In my years of showing I personally and yes they may have been one or two ) have never seen a CC. won by any other than a " Known Kennel " or judge.Or maybe a handler of said judge.
No ! the whole system needs a good Clean Up !!
Regardless of who picks the British judge, I and you, can guarantee that if a " non judge " was showing a top class animal amongst a line up that included judges, that " non judge" would never win ( especially the CC's ) simple because the " non judge " would not be in a position to do any returnable favours.In my years of showing I personally and yes they may have been one or two ) have never seen a CC. won by any other than a " Known Kennel " or judge.Or maybe a handler of said judge.
No ! the whole system needs a good Clean Up !!
by pencil on 03 December 2009 - 00:12
I forgot to add I am talking breed shows here not all round shows.
by bazza on 03 December 2009 - 01:12
Certainly Paulie's idea would be more workable in todays economic climate where costs have to be kept down. Bill Owen i agree 100%, Mackenzie as i have said before all the training and licensing in the world will still not stop some from giving top honours to dogs who should not be recieving them. After all the judges decision is final, not many would question their decision ? But i am all for better training of judges and follow up refresher courses on a regular basis, anything must be better than doing nothing at all.
by Mackenzie on 03 December 2009 - 07:12
Bazza Licensing will not stop all corruption but it will reduce it when the judge considers that his license is at stake which then translates into loss of reputation, loss of money etc.
The main benefit, even with a lttle corruption, is that the judges will have to judge more to the breed standard and stop giving awards to animals with such glaring faults. Judges must start to withold prize cards and C.C.'s so that breeders focus more on the dogs themselves rather than the show place. The matter of soundness, backlines and correct angulation has gone out of the window and now these faults are being accepted as the norm. Just when do breeders intend to address the problems that they have created? Even some top breeders are presenting these faults and winning.
Within the system there should always be seminars and refresher courses along with regular examination in order to maintain high quality judging and, in the long run, better animals.
Mackenzie
The main benefit, even with a lttle corruption, is that the judges will have to judge more to the breed standard and stop giving awards to animals with such glaring faults. Judges must start to withold prize cards and C.C.'s so that breeders focus more on the dogs themselves rather than the show place. The matter of soundness, backlines and correct angulation has gone out of the window and now these faults are being accepted as the norm. Just when do breeders intend to address the problems that they have created? Even some top breeders are presenting these faults and winning.
Within the system there should always be seminars and refresher courses along with regular examination in order to maintain high quality judging and, in the long run, better animals.
Mackenzie
by bazza on 03 December 2009 - 08:12
I certainly agree that judges should with hold awards to any animal with serious faults. I have seen this done years ago but not sure if there are many who have the" courage" to-day. I have not been actively involved in dog showing for some time, but is unsoundness, over angulation, and extreme top lines as huge a problem as what is being said? In a young animal this can be exused to a certain degree, but certainly not in adults. Also as i have said before no animal under junior should be allowed to even compete for the top awards, i do not care how good said dogs are.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
