The Problems of AKC Judging - Part II

Not long after my wife and I began exhibiting our dogs, we were introduced to something that conformation veterans have fondly dubbed face judging. Put simply, some AKC judges for various reasons find it difficult to focus on the dog end of the lead. Needless to say, this is a boon for exhibitors who choose to take advantage of it.

Ethical issues aside, it is entertaining to watch, especially when one knows who to watch. One breeder / handler in particular was pointed out to us early on, and she has not disappointed – we rate her at five stars for entertainment value. She reportedly scans the premium lists watching for judges with whom she has established relationships (or who she has trained as an instructor in her breed’s judge education program). It is great fun to watch her appear out of nowhere at the last minute, rushing into the ring. There, with a big smile on her ruddy face, she shows an animal – usually a sub-standard one – gets her point(s) from the judge, and rushes back out, disappearing as quickly as she appeared.

This is not automatic, of course – she doesn’t always win. She is smart enough not to be quite that direct in her leveraging of the relationship, but I have heard her very strong and irate comments when things don’t go her way. She is careful to let the judge and other influential people know in no uncertain terms that she was displeased with the result. This is an essential component of her strategy, as that emotional pressure helps increase her chances the next time she shows for the same judge. Because she is well-known in inner circles and has spent many years cultivating relationships with judges, breeders, and various AKC and breed officials, this approach works quite well for her, and only she knows to what extent she is aware of the ethical lines she crosses. We are all vulnerable to self-deception, and I sometimes get the impression that she feels she is entitled to such treatment – that in her world view there is nothing wrong with being respected and having judges assume that her handling of a dog is an implicit endorsement of its quality (realities to the contrary notwithstanding).

This is only one variant of face judging among many. Some judges are notorious for putting up dogs handled by attractive, alluringly dressed handlers, while others gravitate toward dogs shown by well-known professionals. Some are rumored to select dogs by virtue of prior stud service or similar verbal agreements with the handler or breeder of a dog being shown. Many are swayed by the millions of dollars each year that go into campaigning dogs – the canine equivalent of product marketing that is a distant cousin of face judging. But putting aside for the moment the undeniable entertainment value of such a dysfunctional system, I’d like to address the underlying ethical issue, which hardly requires stating: Judges are ethically bound by the AKC to evaluate dogs without consideration of what is at the other end of the lead, but this is not always the case. After some shows, I find myself wondering if it is ever the case.

While it is certainly true that a handler can affect a dog’s performance in the ring for better or worse, it is the dog alone that the judge must evaluate. Whether it is professional handler Kelly Fitzgerald at the other end of the lead or an owner new to the show ring, the judge must make placement decisions based solely on the merits of the dog being handled. To do otherwise is to pollute candidate breeding stock and render moot the whole point of conformation. But the sad truth is that this happens on a regular basis; everyone who has spent more than a few months showing dogs knows it.

Now, it is important to say at this point that inferior dogs are “put up” (selected as winners) all the time in small shows simply because a judge’s options may be limited. But this is why the AKC’s point accumulation system requires that championship points include at least three “major” wins – shows in which regionally-assigned minimum numbers of entries have been reached. In theory, this helps to reduce the number of sub-standard dogs who are able to finish their championships by ensuring that they go up against reasonable competition to get a portion of their points. But face judging very neatly sidesteps this safeguard, enabling handlers who know how to play the game to win major shows being judged by those likely to give them wins.

I should also mention that all savvy breeders do pre-show analysis of judging rosters. This, to me, is a different matter. These breeders are looking at judging histories to see how many of their dogs (or dogs with characteristics similar to theirs) have been put up by the judges presiding over upcoming shows. While this is also gamesmanship to a certain extent, I see no serious ethical issue with it.

Next time around I’ll look at some final problem areas, then I’ll throw out some ideas I’ve had regarding possible solutions. As an advance warning, I’ll say that I don’t think any simple solutions exist, and that’s why I’ve called this blog “Conformation Reformation.” Nothing short of extensive reform is going to raise conformation to a status that can be considered professional.

The Problems of AKC Judging - Part I

Let me preface this by making very clear that I hold AKC judges in high regard. Many judges are very conscientious and work very hard to fairly and accurately do their jobs. But there are problems inherent in the system and it is these I want to address. All of the issues I plan to discuss are linked to the fundamental problem of subjectivity. In fact, subjectivity is so much a part of the AKC conformation world view that many judges appear to have embraced it as acceptable practice.

At the core, the goal of an AKC judge at any event is simple: Find the animal that most closely matches the breed standard as described. This sounds straightforward, but is actually a monumental task. The published standard for the English Springer Spaniel, for example, is about a four-page, 2000-word document, and is made up primarily of beautifully worded but intensely subjective descriptions like this:

"The eyes are of medium size and oval in shape, set rather well-apart and fairly deep in their sockets."

It is left to the judge to determine exactly what constitutes "medium size," "well-apart," and "fairly deep in their sockets." On the other hand, some descriptions in the standards are pretty unequivocal:

"The muzzle is approximately the same length as the skull and one half the width of the skull. Viewed in profile, the toplines of the skull and muzzle lie in approximately parallel planes."

Without examples this would likely be an impossible task. Fortunately, AKC judges are trained by example. Animals with both conforming and non-conforming characteristics are brought in and the judge trainees shown the differences. (Unfortunately, this is often done by volunteers who have vested interests themselves or are victims of their own subjective biases, but this is a topic for another posting....) Overall, this is pretty much a suboptimal solution to a suboptimal situation, but is the current state of things and is something most of us could probably live with were it not for one thing: Judges augment the standards with their own personal preferences.

I"ll never forget the first time I ever heard a judge explain why he gave one bitch (who by the way showed several significant and obvious faults against the breed standard) a win over another more closely conforming animal: "I prefer a smaller bitch," he said. I was incredulous. Both of these animals were clearly within the stated height limits for the breed, and the larger one was a much closer match to the standard. I would think it should be clear to everyone that a standards-based system becomes useless the minute those judging against the standard can make personal preferences a deciding factor over and above the standard itself.

Since that first encounter, I have heard many such remarks from judges: "I just really enjoy the chocolates more than the other colors." "I know that markings aren't part of the standard, but I have a really hard time putting up an animal with markings that aren't symmetrical. They just aren't 'typey.'" And on it goes. I don't think it is unreasonable to consider this "personalization of standards" quite unprofessional and frankly inexcusable. Standards exist so that breeders have an agreed-upon set of benchmarks against which to evaluate their litters and plan their breeding programs. There is plenty of room within most breed standards for breeder specialization, but there is no room for personal bias on the part of judges.

So this is my challenge to all AKC judges: I know you have a difficult job and I deeply appreciate what you do. But get yourselves out of the equation and judge by the standard. To do otherwise is to risk awarding superior status to inferior animals to satisfy personal preference. If you want to be widely recognized as professionals, govern yourselves professionally and stop rewriting standards to suit yourselves.

But that's just the first problem. Next time I'll address the judge / handler relationship.