This is a very interesting question – and difficult to answer because I think some of the changes were very subtle, but let’s try. I think when I started to judge – like most new judges – I spent a lot of time reading the standards. Actually, I practically memorized them. Therefore, this is how I approached my judging. It is what I call judging in parts: I would look at the dogs as if I were reading the standard and evaluate head, ears, eyes, bite, body, gait, etc.

Judging this way, takes a long time. Coupled with this, I found it difficult to make a decision because how was I supposed to weigh a good head against good bend of stifle? There were times that I would wind up standing in front of the dogs, staring at them (a terrible thing to do). One time, the AKC Rep came over to me and said, “They won’t get any better if you stare at them.”

All of this resulted in a lack of confidence and a feeling of inadequacy. I am sure this also caused exhibitors to not understand or trust what I was doing. I remember a friend of mine who was a show photographer and had been a Great Dane breeder tell me a true story. At the time, the Great Dane standard assigned a number of points to each section of the standard: i.e. 20 points for the head, 10 points for movement, etc. He was asked to judge a rather large Great Dane specialty match and he judged it according to these point valuations. He later told me that he wound up with some of the worst Great Danes he could imagine. That struck a chord with me, and led to major changes.

I was reminded that we are judging breeding stock to determine which dog could best fulfill its raison d’ etre - what it was meant to do. In addition to studying the standards, I now incorporated what the breed’s purpose was. I went and watched as many breeds in the field that I could (I started with mainly sporting breeds). At the same time, I was affiliated with a Pointer – Labrador kennel, and worked with many of them in the field. I had friends with English Cockers, English Springers, and Welsh Springers. We would take them out and watch them work in the field.

The result was that it became ingrained in me why a breed needed to be built a certain way to perform its function. I began to look at the dogs as a whole rather than in pieces. The standard was the foundation, and my new knowledge and understanding built on that. I began to be able to quickly evaluate the dog in front of me for balance and silhouette. My initial walk down the line quickly had me mentally evaluating head and expression. My hands then told my mind how the dog was structured, and when I moved him, it all came together.

This enabled me to judge more quickly so I did not have to stand and stare. My confidence grew as it all made sense to me, and I was more decisive. There are still times when I have two or three dogs of equal quality in front of me and then I use my priorities – depending on the breed’s function – to break the tie.

All of this, enables me to always remember that I am judging breeding stock – not who is the flashiest or has the most coat. I love judging Groups and Best in Show, but they are truly the icing on the cake. Breed judging is still the most important to me. Since it is a dog SHOW, showmanship is part of the picture, but nothing is more important than type. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, “the most common form of human stupidity is forgetting what one is trying to do.” Judging breeding stock is what I am trying to do.

I hope this answers the question.

Once again a special thanks to Mr. Sid Marx for giving exhibitors insight into what great judges may be thinking as they judge dogs.  

Our Ask Judge author also writes a column for Dog News.  You may read his fascinating, thought provoking, and humorous articles at https://www.dognews.com/sid-marx-0