In a message dated 1/16/02 2:23:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< POLITICS is an excuse!>> Sometimes it is and sometimes it is a fact of life. Saying Politics is always an excuse is like saying there are no crooked cops, nobody ever cheats, and all events are always fair. Not reality. << I personally feel that there is VERY LITTLE POLITICS involved in the sport of dogs.>> I think the only thing more political is olympic figure skating and even that may be a toss up. <<As I say in my seminar, one of the most important things you have to learn, is that it is not the DOG that is judged at a show. It is the PACKAGE.>> Now THAT may be a fact but it is also an excuse. It is supposed to be a dog show. The dog is supposed to be judged. Being a teacher sharing knowledge on showing you are doing your students a service by explaining that it IS the package that is judged. But, If the fact is (and it probably is) that factors other then the dog come in to play in judging then to blindly accept it, when it IS the dog that is supposed to be judged, is making an excuse for judges who judge things other then the dog. <<The judge has 2.4 minutes to judge your dog. That includes his paperwork, winners classes and taking pictures. That does not leave much time to judge the dog.>> So very true and a real reason sometimes the best dog doesn't win. BUT the judge should spend the 2.4 minutes judging the DOGS, not who is holding the leash or other extraneous factors. Sometimes this happens sometimes judges look for shortcuts or "help" <<Most judges do not have the ability to see, in that tiny amount of time, other than what the handler presents. Keeping that in mind, it is very simple to understand why the best dog does not necessarily win. The judge, plain, does not have time to see past a poorly groomed, conditioned, trained, presented dog to see what might be there if things were different.>> Very true and valid reasons why as you said, sometimes the best dog does not win. But some judges also CHOOSE NOT to see the fluffing, trimmming, coloring, dying, etc etc etc, that are beyond the rules. There is no excuse for this. Rather then just accept it as a fact of life I prefer to recognize that some judges DO have a better ability to judge the dog in these conditions, strive to locate and support THOSE judges, and hope that education, training, and selection of judges continues to improve to create more who have a better ability and the courage to put up what DOG they think is best regardless of handler, political correctness, etc.. <<Becoming a judge, does not change who you were before you were a judge. If you were a crooked handler - you will probably be a crooked judge. If you were a stupid breeder - you will probably be a stupid judge. If you did not have a clue as a breeder or exhibitor - you won't have a clue as a judge. That is not POLITICS that is human nature.>> This is true to a very large degree however lets talk about the "human nature" to which you keep referring. it is "human nature" to want to fit in. It is "human nature" to want to be a success and further your career as a judge. To do this politics often come into play. One hand washes the other, do what the others do, do what is most largely acceptable, support the big names and they will support you etc. This is politics fuled by human nature and is a big part of dog showing. <<If everything a judge learns about a breed comes from just one area or one breeder, then that judge is probably going to judge that breed differently than another judge who has watched the breed all across the country and has been mentored by breeders from entirely different lines. That again is human nature not POLITICS.>> Actually this is poor training. A good judge should be well versed in the breed and variations within not just one geographical segment or line. <<Every human uses one side or the other of their brain in a stronger fashion. If you happen to use your artistic side more, then you are much more likely to judge more on type. If you use the other side which is more logical and systematically then you are probably going to look more at structure. Who you are and how your mind works determines to a large extend how you judge. But here again that does not make it POLITICS.>> This one I have to agree with you on fully. This is human nature particular to the individual. Different judges like different things. <<Then factor into it the simple fact that the majority of people on this earth are followers. Not just in our sport but in the world at large. If you are born a follower, then you do not like to make waves. If everyone else is doing something then I guess that is what I should be doing also. That is why advertising works. Here again this is not POLITICS - it is human nature.>> It is human nature to tend to follow and to want to be accepted. It is politicing to promote in a manner to try to encourage or influence selection and it is politics to alter your choices to that which is acceptable rather then preferred (if they differ) and/or act in any manner "just to fit in". Your politicing to satisfy that human need for acceptance, success, and recognition. <<In the classes, there may be a lack of knowledge, but very seldom will you see any politicking going on.>> I totally disagree with this. Sure most financed, campaigned dogs, kennels, and handlers, do not invest a lot of resources to win the classes as usually with a decent dog they can get through them. But they DO seek out the judges who know them, try to get advertisements in front of these people, and use methods of influence on them. How many people have heard a breeder or handler say "I'll be at such and such show because the judge is so and so and they always put me up" Sometimes this is just the judge liking their dog and they know it. Sometimes this is a political affiliation and they know it too. How many times have you seen a REALLY poor dog win because it was on a big name? The same dog that lost to the same judge suddenly wins but looks no better. Handlers working miracles or politics? How many times have you seen a poor dog put up and find out a "connection" later between the judge and the owner or breeder or handler? It does happen. It does exist. I saw one judge at an old club show put up a dog I thought was not as good as others. I was told that was because the person who owned the dog was judging the next show and would return the favor. Guess what. They did. Coincidence or politics? The world may never know. <<When it comes to the Groups and BIS there may be a little of it involved but I think the fancy at large would be shocked at how little politics there are, even at that level.>> Here I can not speak from much personal experience as I have only been in a few groups and never BIS, but my opinion is the politics gets worse as you progress not less. The bigger the reward the bigger the politicing. <<Personally, I feel the least political show in the country is Westminster at the Garden.>> I think it is so political it is a joke. It represents the worst aspects of dog showing. Big money, Pro handlers, and win at all cost. It is so not about the dogs. <> I think some judges (most?) in this high profile venue are more concerned with doing what is acceptable and will be applauded rather then daring to put up an animal that may catch their eye but is an unknown over a big name dog or handler. <<No one ever said you had to agree but if the choice is different that yours might have been it does not make it POLITICS.>> You are so correct. But there are many times it IS politics. There are also many times it is NOT politics but those who lost will SAY it is. How do you tell the difference? Everyone has to weigh the facts and form their own opinions. Politics exists in almost any and all competitions, from little league, to beauty pagents, to running for office, to corporate promotions, to government contracts. It is everywhere that competition exists and there is a prize to be had. To think that dog showing is exempt is not realistic. Anything involving big money involves politics. And there is BIG money invested in campaigning some of these dogs. Sometimes there are so many people financing a dog they can't fit all the co-owning names in the catalogue <G> Dog showing is VERY political. But this is nothing new nor is it a hidden fact. You don't have to accept it but that doesn't change the fact that it is there. It will be very hard to change as long as there is big incentive to winning ($$$). But to not acknowledge it in my opinion is not wise. It can only lead to dissapointment on those days when you encounter it. I choose to acknowledge each time in the ring the best dog may not win for a variety of reasons. When I feel the best dog wins I am thrilled and you can bet my database gets a note next to that judges name. I will then "Politic" for that judge as we must support those who have the knowledge and courage to put up the best dog. When I feel the best dogs doesn't win I make a note of it. Later I will try to determine if it was just a different of opinion between myself and the judge, something in presentation, some other factor, or politics. I can form an opinion but it is hard to know for sure. Watching a judge over time will often expose political or poorly educated judges. As I leave the ring on these days where I feel the best dog doesn't win, I leave with the same attitude in which I arrived. My dog and I had a lot of fun with a lot of other dogs and people. And thats what it is all about for me. Dog showing should be fun. I acknowledge politics exist. These things happen. But I don't let them ruin our fun. My differing two cents, Dave CastleMyst Cavaliers http://members.aol.com/CMystCavs ========================================================= "Magic Commands": to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL to start it up gain click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance. Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author.
