[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: If you ask me

  • From: "Kathaleen Strong" <inflight@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <ELG440@xxxxxxx>, <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:56:57 -0800

-----Original Message-----
From: showgsd-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:showgsd-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of ELG440@xxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 7:52 AM
To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ SHOWGSD-L ] If you ask me

In a message dated 11/1/09 8:11:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
inflight@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>>they are failing in their primary duty of evaluating breeding  stock 

Here we go again Evan -- quoting a portion of a sentence which misconstrues
the intent of the whole point is very misleading -- are you a lawyer or
something??? LOL:

"If judges are not following the basic tenets of judging THIS breed's Form
for Function, and running willy-nilly at a lightning fast pace on a tight
lead is NOT it, then they are failing in their primary duty of evaluating
breeding stock and they illustrate they are nowhere near the "expert" that
their license is suppose to signify and maybe they should reconsider taking
assignments until they are ready to do the job correctly -- LOOSE LEAD and

Evan wrote this too: >>>The judge does not evaluate breeding stock. As a
matter of fact, we aren't supposed to even know what the breedings are, in
America. Not so in 
Germany, but  here, we judge what we see in the ring against the standard.
If we 
were to judge  breeding stock, we would have to know what the sire and dam 
produced in the  past, what the stud dog is producing and then give an

Evan, I suggest then that the judges lobby the AKC to change their
definition and description of what judges are supposed to be doing -- that
information I sent to the list was from their website.  It is what the
purpose of conformation events and the tenets of judging dogs are all about,
from the inception of this sport in the late 1800's.  I don't expect AKC
conformation to evolve into a German style of system where everyone knows
which dog is out of which sire and dam -- but if the AKC describes judges as
supposing to be experts in the breeds they judge; if they say that
conformation shows are supposed to be about "evaluating breeding stock" --
then judges need to take their assignments at a higher level of
accountability and judge dogs per the requirements necessary to uphold the
standard for that breed.  

>>>I believe Kathleen agrees with me, and her successful breeding program  
makes it clear she is not relying on what a judge does, but rather on what
determines from studying pedigrees, watching the inside of the ring, and 
maybe  considering who wins, but not using what any judge tells her.<<<

But maybe, just maybe, if judges were doing it right -- we wouldn't be
having this conversation and our breed wouldn't have devolved into the
structural mess we're seeing in the ring.  People probably disagree with me
greatly, because, after all, they're having such a great deal of "success"
with their dogs -- but at what cost?  Pushed forward front assemblies (I
started noticing this trend in 2003), Incorrectly angled and laid on
scapula's with upper arms at far less than 90 degrees, Backs which whip,
roll, bunch, and a lot with caves in them, croups with far less than ideal
length and angle which don't allow the dog's rear to correctly come up under
themselves and depending on the angle issue, either follow-through correctly
or provide any under-reach.  We have a lot of Tripod movers -- fronts which
move do not match the rears in terms of how much ground they cover -- they
should be the same, gives the illusion of great rear drive, but with a
severe lack of balance between front and rear you see all kinds of issues --
movement picture after movement picture in the Review tells the story.  As a
judge -- this is your responsibility to separate the wheat from the chaff --
and if it means you have to be the "bad guy" then, gee, that's why you get
paid the big bucks (yes, this is a joke! LOL).
>>>It may be that I do not think we should depend on the judge to tell us
 is good or what is not.  I know a coupld of judges who have no idea what  
they are doing, and some that think the only thing to put up is what a 
certain  handler has in the ring. I know judges who have a great deal of 
knowledge of the  breed, but are forced to go with what is brought to them
in the 
ring.  If  those outside the ring depend on what they put up, they should 
first consider  what is being shown.<<

The judges in part one of this paragraph should be outted so unsuspecting
clubs don't hire them.  The judges in the bottom part of the paragraph --
this is a cop-out.  Does anyone remember when critiques were in the review
which said things like (this is totally made up but stuff like this was
written in the past): "This dog has a nice head and body substance.  In
motion he works hard to cover the ground, he lacks reach, his scapula is
short and laid on poorly. He has a short upper arm which working with the
scapula severely limits his ability to reach. His back is long & somewhat
soft. His croup is short and flat allowing him to appear to follow through
but he kicks up on the finish of the stroke and he lacks under-reach. His
rear quarter is adequately angulated.  The whole package is one nice looking
dog standing but at a trot there is a lot of wasted, inefficient motion.
Not recommended for breeding."  Did I have a dream that I read something
like this, or did some of the oldtime reviews have such a thing in them?  I
wish I could find some of my really old reviews and put a directly quoted
critique here.  (I had a great line in here, but after Grandma read it --
she said "Noooo!"  LOL) In any event, one thing about a written critique --
it makes the judge accountable for their choices and some have educational
value -- either they are dead on, or the judge is full of crap, but at least
we can read it and know they are and avoid wasting our time and money --
these critiques we see in the Review now are too mamby-pamby, "Nice bitch.
Not as good a mover as the bitches near her, she's a little straight in
front, a little square in rear, a little soft in back, but she's nice" WTF?

>>>>>That is the clear decider.  It should always be up to you. Evan

This part I totally agree -- breeders need to be stronger in their own
independence and stop worrying about winning and do more worrying about
producing animals which don't require their handler to hold them up and race
around the ring to win.  You know -- structure??


POST is Copyrighted 2009.  All material remains the property of the original 
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind 
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the 
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 


For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx

VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/

Other related posts: