Crufts still hasn't aired in the U.S. yet. Does anyone know what breed won?

Best in Show was won by the Norfolk Terrier, Am Ch/Ch Cracknor Cause Celebre – pet name Co-Co. Co-Co is owned by P, S & E Beale, Ingram & Matell from Ashford in Kent and was handled by Peter Green.

I guess that Westminster was a fluke for larger dogs. I am not the only one that has noticed that small dogs win a majority of dog shows.

Well terriers aren't neccesarily what I would call little dogs. They definatly have feisty hunting attitudes just in a small body so they can hunt underground.

Yep, it's usually the smaller dogs with the longer coats that are full enough to hide any obvious faults, and has the best crowd appeal.

I don't think a long and luxurious coat helps the smaller breeds win because the judge does a careful examination under all the poof. Probably the only thing a big coat can hide is a bad gait.

There has just been so many toy breed winners because there are some top toy dogs. Cullman, Jeffrey, and Luther have excellent conformation for their breed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cloverwoof91:
I don't think a long and luxurious coat helps the smaller breeds win because the judge does a careful examination under all the poof. Probably the only thing a big coat can hide is a bad gait.

There has just been so many toy breed winners because there are some top toy dogs. Cullman, Jeffrey, and Luther have excellent conformation for their breed.

---

I don't find a big coat can hide a bad gait. However it really depends on the judge and their knowledge of the standard. It's rare that any amount of scissorwork on a poodle can trick my eye into thinking a dog is correct. The trick is to watch the feet and topline rather than the coat when a dog is moving.

I do have to agree that we have had some wonderful toy dogs lately. Another one I have to add to the list is Cruise, the Chinese Crested. He wins plenty, but theres no way you can hide faults on him seeing he's nakid :-P.

pudelgrl You're so right about Cruz. The first time I saw him move; I actually got goosebumps! He's probably as close to the standard as any Chinese Crested will ever be.

Coleman is another dog that deserves every one of his wins. I didn't see Co-Co show at Crufts, but she was not yet back in prime condition at Westminster.

Cloverwolf2 and pudelgrl, I was teasing about the small dogs with long coats in my earlier post. (Note the wink icon!) It's sort of an inside joke with many dog fanciers, especially among the sporting group.

Yesssss! Co-Co is such a great dog and I am EXTREMELY glad she won! Co-Co definatly deserved that win, I can't get over how great a conformation dog she is. Another win for terriers and wer'e very proud of that, they are such awsome dogs full of life and intelligence!!!!!

TERRIERS RULE!

Most of you know my feeling about dog shows. I think they are akin to judging cars by viewing them in a showroom. That aside, how can different breeds be judged against each other.

I understand that the first step in competition is best of breed. Lets say Fred, a JRT wins in a field of 20 other JRTs. I can see were Fred is judged as the JRT that most closely fits its breed standard. Then Fred is off to best of group.

Now Fred is competing against Airedales, Kerry Blues, and numerous other teriers. This is were I get confused. How could you say that Fred is a better JRT then Jack is an Airedale.

Now if Fred wins best of group, he will compete against all manners of AKC recognized dogs. In other words is Fred a better terrier than Bill the Bassett is a hound. My confusion is more profound at this point.

Why not continue the show with some categories. We can have best in mammal. Now the best dog can compete against mice, elephants, sea lions, and all other mammal species. Next we can introduce reptiles, fish, and others by having best in Vertabrate. Now Fred can compete against larry the Burmese Python. Is Fred a better mammal then Larry is a snake.

In other words, some of the dog show judging seems to be literaly comparing apples and oranges.

So explain to me how different breeds from different groups can be compared to each other?

[This message was edited by lizziedog1 on 04-05-05 at 09:29 PM.]

How could it be comparing apples to oranges when the apples are being judged by how the perfect apple should look and the orange is being judged on how the perfect orange should look? The dogs are not competing to see which dog looks better than the other, they are competing to see which dog most closely matches how the breed they represent is supposed to look. THE DOGS AREN'T COMPARED TO EACHOTHER AT ALL! However, in the best in show judging the dogs are judged mainly on their performance and attitude in the ring sence they are all are pretty much "perfect". That's when the competition really heats up. A wrong move can cost the best looking dog in the ring to lose a BIS.

I don't get what's not to get. By what you've posted it seems you don't fully understand how a dog show is run.

Well said russelsrule.

I have to admit, I had a bit of trouble understanding dog showing when I first started and I still have trouble explaining group and in show judging to newbies. It's much easier to understand group judging the more you've watched it and the more you have actually competed yourself.

Lets say a guy named Russ aquires a JRT. That JRT becomes the most perfect one ever seen. One hundred judges declare that this JRT meets the breed's standard to the letter.

Lets say Liz has a Newfoundland. The world has never seen a more perfect Newfie specimen. Again. one hundred judges pronounce this dog to be perfect by its standard.

If these two dogs were judged against each other, who should win? Why?

Isn't "attitude" a very subjective criteria. Coat color is pretty forward. The way a dog walks likewise. Crooked bites are easy to detect. An improperly set tail should be obvious to even the novice. But attitude is subject to personnal interpataion, isn't it.

If the Newfie and JRT from the above example were paraded in front of one hundred judges, and they all wrote JRT secretly on a sheet a paper, I could also buy that.

I guess a similar human endeavor is figure skating. That is also not the most objective sport to score. But don't they use more than one judge to try to at least lesson the subjectivity. Don't juries have more than one member to increase objectivity? Why don't dog shows at least use multiple judges? If the BIS is so closely contested, the more eyes the better. Baseball has more than one offical, one person can be expected to catch everything.

[This message was edited by lizziedog1 on 04-06-05 at 12:42 AM.]

Lizziedog1, in the first place there is no such thing as a perfect dog any more than there is a perfect human!

When a judge picks the BIS he's judging ONLY THOSE 7 DOGS ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY! He/she judges each dog according to the standard for that breed, including gait, coat texture, head type, length of stop, eye set, ear set, tail set, shoulder layback, turn of stifle, length of hock, pasterns, feet, length of back and neck, tuck up etc.

Aside from the conformation they also judge the dog on breed specific attitude, enthusiasm, temperament, and most importantly for BIS judging--showmanship.

Let's use Westminster and take Co-Co as an example. On that day even though Co-Co is a crowd favorite; it was obvious to anyone that is familiar with BIS judging that she was not 100 percent in top show condition. Even though she was not in top condition, her confirmation is such that she deserved the group win. However the lack of condition, was enough to keep her from taking BIS. Her coat was not up to par, she did not move with the necessary enthusiasm and at one brief point her gait was incorrect. A sign of a tired dog!

Carly on the other hand was well muscled and in top condition, she practically showed herself and never let down for a moment. In addition her movement was absolutely flawless with all the reach and drive that epitomizes the near perfect GSP. On that night, in that ring, Carly's enthusiasm and love of showing dared the judge not to put her up. According to the response from the crowd her unfailing showmanship spoke volumes to them too.

Since all dogs in the ring that night were all excellent specimens of their breed--what it boiled down to is that Carly outshone the other 6.

A few weeks later at Crufts, Co-Co was back in top condition and she managed to outshine the the other 6 dogs she was competing against. That's show biz!

Why don't they use several judges for BIS? Would that not make it less subjective? I realize that you can not eliminate human emotions, but until they develop an andriod that can judge dogs, they should use a panel to pick BIS.

If one expert pick dog A and five experts pick dog B, wouldn't that make B better.

There used to be a judging panel for BIS at some shows. However, when showing every dog has it's day. Judges are well educated in their breed standards and this is the reason why we see certain dogs winning more constantly than others (for example, the wonderful Mr. Coleman!). Every dog has it's day, it's how the show world works.

A panel of judges would make the process too long and drawn out.

It would also be too hard on the dogs to expect them to stand in one position for an extended period of time while multiple judges go over them. As it is now, the dogs enjoy their time in the ring. If it became a long drawn out process many dogs would quickly sour on the whole idea.

Also there aren't enough judges qualified to judge BIS to have multiple BIS judges at every show.

I am not suggesting or implying anthing funny is going on between the BIS judge and contestants, but wouldn't multiple judges make suggestions of this diminish. A panel of judges would raise the level of integrity.

Rightly or wrongly, someone can say that there was some unethical connection between the judge and the winner. Have five judges, and that accusation really becomes silly.

In any competition there are always rumors of impropriety as you pointed out when you mentioned skating. Those rumors persist in spite of the opinions of multiple judges.

As far as your suggestion that the judge was biased toward Carly--I've already explained that.

She was undeniably the best dog on that day!

You are right, one judge or seven judges, corruptions is still possible. But if I paid off seven judges, sooner or later one of them will squeal.

As far as figure skating goes, they are performing to a standard. In theory, the winner was the closest.

And in figure skating scoring, the highest and lowest scores are thrown out. This just about makes cheating impossible.If you were skating in competition and you paid me to up your score, how would I accomplish that if the highest score doesn't count. I would have to score you just a bit lower than what the high score is going to be. Then that judge would have to be involved in the scheme. But now, the third highest judge will have to be brought into the scheme. You get were I am going, near impossible to have any monkey business going on. You would be forced in involve the whole panel. And you would have to have complete faith in all of them.

If the BIS dog can pass the scrutiny of one judge, a few more added to the team should not make a difference, should it?