|
Cheap champion! Who has not heard
those words used derogatorily with a bit of a sneer? All
too often it is used to describe the competition – most
often those dogs that are the speaker’s most ardent
competitors. Of course, the epithet is also used in
explaining to ringside quidnuncs why the best of breed
winner just can not be considered suitable for breeding.
That phrase has also been used more
than once to validate the archaic show system used by the
Kennel Club of the United Kingdom in comparison to the
systems used by the rest of the world. It is not any show
system that creates cheap champions; and every champion that
you do not own or plan to breed from is necessarily a cheap
champion. There are a great many differences when looking
at the show systems, most notably in the number of shows
held within each country and the manner in which the
championships are awarded. However, what is undeniable is
there is little difference in the percentage of
championships awarded in each country. Yet, American
champions, as well as others, continue to be disparaged by
exhibitors in the United Kingdom.
The American use of the words ‘cheap
champion’ is totally different to that of the British
counterpart. Americans refer to cheap champions as those
who obtain their championships through nefarious means, such
as professional handlers who are willing to finish a dog
they know is not worthy with judges who lack the intestinal
fortitude to say… ‘Bring me something better!’ The British
however refer to ‘cheap champions’ as every dog in every
country that has a championship that is not
British. Only the UK system of awarding championships is
legitimate to them.
There are some champions in every
country that falls into the ‘could not get a championship
without the good ole boy network’ and every system should
acknowledge and work toward eliminating the way this type of
‘cheap champion’ occurs. I have already pointed out that in
the US, dogs that could not finish on their own merit are
put with professional handlers who take the dogs to judges
who turn a blind eye. There are also top breeders who can
finish the majority of dogs they handle, based on their
reputation and not the merit of the dog. Some judges
unfortunately judge by reputation and not by the performance
or competition in the ring on the day. It is no different
in the UK, where often a dog will finish based on which
breeder-specialist judge is willing to trade a win for a
future win on one of their dogs.
We all need to work to eliminate these
types of truly cheap champions through tightening up the
show system, educating judges and demanding that closer
scrutiny and greater emphasis is placed on both integrity
and ethics. With all its faults, the US system still
produces fewer champions that do not deserve the title than
other countries. Consider some of the FCI country titles
where competition is not even required, simply the
certificates from judges stating the dog has been found
worthy. Politics in the US normally occur within the group
and best in show levels, whilst in the UK, politics pervade
every single aspect of the breed level.
Even when faced with the miniscule
percentage difference, British exhibitors will point that
their dogs must compete against finished champions to obtain
the necessary three ‘challenge certificates’ for a UK show
champion. In the US, dogs compete against unfinished dogs
for the Winners’ class and then go on to compete against the
finished champions for Best of Breed. What is amazing
though is the very small number of champion dogs that
continue to compete against the huge entries for unfinished
dogs in the UK. For example, at Crufts 2004, there were
twelve champions (seven dogs, two of which were foreign and
not UK champions, and five bitches) in a total entry of 206
dogs for German Shorthaired Pointers, less than one-half of
one percent. Compare those numbers to some of the larger
shows in the US where Best of Breed classes may have eight
champions and 30 class dogs competing for spots in that Best
of Breed class. British exhibitors tend to point to the
huge numbers of entries they have at their shows as a
validation for claiming the ‘best champions’; perhaps
somehow they are confusing quantity with quality! It should
be noted also that, as Dr. Morgan-Jones’ pointed out in his
recent article, “Dogdom British Style”, politics plays an
astonishing part in KC shows.
Everyone has different criteria for
defining a ‘cheap champion.’ It may be a numbers only one
– number of dogs defeated; number of shows it took to
finish; number of champions defeated along the way. For
some it may be the judges that gave the dog the wins
necessary for that championship title. The crucial
requirement for some owner-handlers may be that the dog was
professionally handled. Still others may point to the
locale or lack of prestige at the shows where the dog earned
its title. And for the ethnocentric owner, it may be that
the dog must have obtained a title in a specific country and
all others are really not quite championship material.
The numbers of dogs defeated in the
breed, while sounding very impressive in advertising
campaigns, really does not make a dog more or less than any
other champion. It is quite possible in every single
country for mediocre dogs to win against large entries
depending on who is judging and who is handling the dog. In
the numerically small breeds it is impossible to compete at
the ‘my dog won against hundreds of dogs to win its title’
game – particularly in those breeds where the majors are
exceedingly hard to find. A Golden Retriever may have
defeated hundreds of dogs on the path to championship, while
the American Water Spaniel may have defeated a mere 20 and
taken Best of Breed along the way. Does that make one
champion more credible than the other? In Ireland, some
breeds may have seen little to no competition in their own
breed but instead may have garnered the major wins necessary
through group wins.
So, can we look at the number of shows
it took before a dog finished its title in our quest for
‘real’ champions? Many people show young dogs that need
maturing before they will ever have significant wins. If we
use the number of shows to determine our ‘real deal’ then we
automatically cheapen every dog that was shown as a
youngster, garnering experience and showmanship. And, we
may be giving more weight than necessary to that title won
by a dog in three shows under handpicked judges with the
heavyweight professional handler.
Certainly we can look at the number of
champions defeated on the ribbon-strewn road to glory – or
can we? Some dogs may not have defeated even one champion,
particularly if the dog competed against a heavily
campaigned, well-advertised champion shown week after week
with multiple Group and BIS wins. Others may have won over
a mediocre champion or two, or have won under sexist judges
who would not dream of putting a bitch, even if she were a
champion, up over a dog.
The country where the dog won has to
surely be important then, right? That is, some countries
have systems where non-champion dogs have to compete against
champions and win over those elite title-holders before they
can be called ‘champion.’ Surely, that has to mean that
fewer champions are produced and that those champions have
to be better than the dogs that competed against only class
dogs to win. A recent analysis into the championship trends
between the US and the UK showed that there is actually a
very small difference between the numbers of champions
finished yearly when compared to the numbers of dogs
competing – 1.3% of all dogs competing in the US finish
their titles in a given year, while in the UK 1.0% do the
same, a very insignificant difference of less than one-third
of one percent. Hardly a statistic momentous enough to
raise the hue and cry about ‘cheap American champions’!
In some countries where
breeder-exhibitor-judges are the norm and not the exception,
the waters can be even more muddied, depending upon who bred
what dog to what bitch, who is rewarding stud fee
considerations with wins, who is ensuring their stud dog
progeny wins, who is willing to return win favours, and
breeder-exhibitor jealousy. Too cynical, you say? After
over thirty years of showing in multiple countries, I simply
call them as I see them. Who hasn’t been to a show recently
and heard by 8:00 a.m. who will win the breed or the group
or BIS that day and then hours later have had all the
rumours confirmed as the BIS ribbon is handed out?
Hmmm! If it’s not the numbers or the
system that matters, then by process of elimination it must
be the prestige of the judges that makes the difference;
right? Certainly esteem could be considered a defining
factor, but then what determines the valuation of the judges
involved? Some exhibitors and breeders would consider
breeder-judges to be held in higher regard, while others
believe that the breeder-judge can often be tainted with
breed-blindness and current trends, and prefer the manner in
which an ‘all-rounder’ places emphasis on balance rather
than any one or several aspects. Perhaps the popularity and
frequency of judging assignments could be considered an
indicator. Popularity is often based upon personality
characteristics, willingness and ability to interact with
the exhibitors rather than a clinical assessment of judging
abilities. Some very taciturn judges are very competent and
rely upon keeping themselves apart as a means to further
ensure they will not be subconsciously influenced by
friendships or camaraderie.
Are there really any ‘Cheap Champions’
then? Of course, there are! We have all seen dogs with
that almighty ‘Champion’ in front of their name that we have
scratched our heads and wondered how on earth it happened.
If we enter the foible world of dog shows then sometimes
subjective judging will come back to bite us.
However, it is not the numbers
defeated, the numbers of shows it took, the judges under
which the dog won, or even the country that determines
whether a dog is champion-material or not. It all begins
with the breeder who sold the puppy as a show-quality or
show-potential dog and continues through the owner who takes
a hard look at the dog and determines whether it really IS
championship quality or if extraordinary means are going to
be necessary to accomplish the task. The handlers who take
on a client, knowing that the dog is of average quality but
relying on their ability to hide faults, courting ‘friendly’
judges, and the all-mighty advertising campaign, continue to
add to the mixture. The judges who turn a blind eye to
faults because of a friendship or professional relationship
with the handler who ‘really needs to get the dog finished
and out of the truck so they can start showing a dog that
can win on its own merits’ help to undermine the future of
all the breeds. And, finally, those people who will then
breed to the dog solely based upon that impressive
appellation in front of the dog’s name complete the
cheapening process.
Dog shows should be about finding the
best possible future breeding stock. Unfortunately, for
many competing has become the 21st century
equivalent of the 1950’s bowling teams – a chance for a day
out with other enthusiasts, spent in gossip, mutual
self-appreciation and trophy garnering. Dog shows have
become big business and staged with a view toward
entertainment. Look at the number of televised dog shows
currently, the ‘special events’ rings at major dog shows,
and the large number of vendors. As highly entertaining as
the new fads of fly-ball and dog-dancing has become, they
really have little to do with the primary reason that dogs
should be shown and shows should be held – that of finding
the best possible breeding stock to enable breeders to
continue on their quest for better quality, healthier dogs
in a breed they love. Not all dogs should finish their
championships and certainly many of the dogs currently being
shown on every continent should not be encouraged to be
shown.
Championships should be about the
quality of the dog – not the ego of the person owing the
dog, showing the dog or even judging the dog. All involved
need a good dose of reality.
-
Judges need to
take a firm stance and, great as the handler or owner
may be, judge the dog solely upon merit, forgiving less
and expecting more. It is about quality – not
friendship!
So what is a cheap champion? It is
whatever you and I as breeders make of it!
|