From: crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby)
Subject: Re: non-competitive shows (was Re: Show po
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:03:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.161617.19605@ctr.columbia.edu> mcfadden@bellman.lanl.gov writes:
= 
= Just a couple of comments on the above. The first thing is that there are
= only three or four "bench" shows still in existence in this country.
= Westminster being the most famous. All other shows are unbenched.

Sorry, folks...  I'm not a show person.  From my reading the term
"bench show" has been used as a generic for conformation show
whether literally benched or not.  Sorry for the confusion.

= The other being that at any AKC sanctioned dog show the judge IS
+ SUPPOSED TO BE
= comparing each dog to the breed standard. There is never supposed
+ to be comparison
= between two dogs. I know this isn't always the case, but, it is nonetheless
= supposed to work that way. 

Sorry--I can't buy that.  If there is a "First," "Second," ... the
dogs *must* have been compared with each other--how else can one
decide which of a set of objects is best, second-best, ...

= Maybe I'm being thick, but I really don't understand the point - any
+ time anything
= is judged it is automatically a competition, isn't it?

I can only speak of the AKC Hunting Tests (and, only those for
pointing dogs at that).  I try to (briefly, I hope) describe such a
test.

There are three levels:  Junior Hunter, Senior Hunter, and Master
Hunter.  While it isn't relevant to the present discussion the
following approximate criteria (my rule book is at home so this is
from memory) apply:

Junior Hunter evaluates a dog's potential.  It should display the
instincts that one wants in a pointing dog (e.g. it should hold a
point until the handler is within reasonable shooting range[1]).
Trainability potential--eagerness to please--etc are considered.
As I recall it requires 4 qualifications to earn the Junior Hunter
title.

Senior Hunter requires that a dog be well started.  He must hold
point, be steady to wing but not necessarily to shot, retrieve but
not necessarily to hand, stop to flush, honor, etc.  A dog that
would be a pleasure to hunt over is the ideal at this level.  Five
qualifications are required for the title at this level or four
plus a previously earned Junior Hunter title.

Master Hunter expects a finished dog.  (Finished in the training
sense, not in the show or field trial sense.)  It is expected to be
absolutely steady to wing and shot, to honor without intervention
by the handler, ditto stop to flush, to retrieve absolutely to
hand, etc.  To be, in short, among the elite of pointing dogs as to
training, instincts, and style.  Again, five qualifications or four
with a Senior Hunter title.

Dogs are run in braces (i.e. pairs) as they are in field trials.
They are judged on a scale of zero to ten in each of several
categories (it had been 4 for junior and 5 for the other two but I
think the new rules now have 5 and 6 respectively).  There is a
minimum total score and a minimum for every category to qualify.
That is to say, it is not possible to score extremely poorly in one
category and make up for it in others.  I don't recall the actual
numbers.  However, a minimum acceptable score in every category
doesn't produce a winning score but as long as that minimum is
exceeded in every category, excellence in some categories can make
up for lack of it in others.

There are *no* placements--dogs either qualify or they don't.
Notice that I do not claim that this eliminates the human-nature
tendency to compare.  My guess is that with most judges, a mediocre
dog may score less well when run in a brace with an excellent one
than would be the case if run with another mediocre one.  I see no
way to totally eliminate that human tendency.  But, in principle at
least, the objective is to compare each dog against a standard of
performance, not against the other dogs run.  In some tests there
are *no* qualifiers, in some all dogs qualify.  But mostly some do
and some don't.

As I suggested in an earlier post, I see no reason why it would not
be possible to have conformation classes with similar objectives.
As someone else suggested (and unlike the hunting tests), the
actual evaluations can be given--Excellent, Very Good, ...--but the
point is that there would be no First, Second, ...  There could be
several dogs awarded and Excellent rating or there could be none.
That is what *I* envision as a noncompetitive class or show.
Again, as long as such a class is judged by humans, there is no way
to totally eliminate human nature from the judging.  A given dog is
likely to score higher when shown in the same event with inferior
dogs than it would if shown in the same kind of class with superior
ones.  That's human nature and judges are human.

But it would, I think, encourage more strict comparison with the
breed standard and would minimize the ranking of dogs relative to
each other.  Further, it would (or should) eliminate the business
where a mediocre dog wins a first because all the other dogs were
worse.  That, in my opinion, is one of the worst features of
competion shows.  And, of course, it would also minimize the
corresponding situation where an excellent dog doesn't do as well
because there's another excellent dog and the judge *must* decide
which is the "more excellent."  In a class where dogs are judged
*only* against the standard, there could be several dogs rated
Excellent, or there could be none.

Again, I do *not* suggest this as a replacement for the current
variety of conformation show but as a supplement to it.  For those
coming into this thread late, I did not originate this idea either
in r.p.d or elsewhere (was it Chris Barnes who first suggested it
here?).  These are simply my ideas as to how it could work and why
I consider it a good idea.  Those who consider such an event to be
equivalent to walking their dogs in the park can, of course,
continue to show in the competition events.  But I suggest that,
before one condemns something out of hand, that a certain amount of
thought be given to the possibilities.

[1]  The handlers do no shooting with the possible exception of use
of a blank gun in some events under some conditions.  All shooting
is done by the "official guns."

= Russell L. McFadden
= mcfadden@nimue.lanl.gov

Russell, only a relatively small part of this is responsive to your
post.  Especially, I realize that it was not you who claimed that a
"noncompetitive show" would be equivalent to walking one's dog in
the park.


-- 
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby				"I'm the NRA!"
	  crs@lanl.gov
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs