For years and years we had a trio of dogs that held the exalted position of having won 100 all breed Bests In Show. They were the Pekinese, Ch. Chik T’Sun of Caversham, the English Setter, Ch. Rock Falls Colonel, and the Boxer icon, Ch. Bangaway Of Sirrah Crest. We marveled at their excellence, at their endurance and at the tenacity of their owners and handlers. Amazing, we all thought, and we were right. It was amazing. Kennel Review Magazine created the 100 Club to honor the canine world’s terrific trio. Then, many years later they were joined by another l00 Club honoree; then another and another. Soon it became practically de rigueur for a super dog to retire only after passing the Best In Show hundred mark. Then, not surprisingly, a dog came along that topped the two hundred mark! That was the Scottish Terrier bitch, Ch. Braeburn Close Encounter. Some creative soul initiated the 200 Club to accommodate her. So if you have a club, you need members. Right? Of course, right! More members soon followed. Then came the 300 Club and of course the 400 and 500 Clubs are inevitable.

As great and exciting as all the hoopla is though, there is an inherent danger in this Dolly Parton school of dog showing (more is more and less is less). Enrolling in this school of thought one learns that it is numbers alone that determine a dog’s quality. Unfortunately this has become inextricably ensconced in the American dog game. Today, I am sure many of our newcomers do not even question its legitimacy. Unfortunately our obsession with the kind of dog it takes to win Bests In Show blurs the difference between a well made animal and a dog of great type in any given breed.

It takes a fine animal to win consistently in Group and Best In Show competition; that goes without saying. It would be difficult not to agree that these One, Two or Three Hundred Club members are, at the very least, well made. Some of them have been both well made and of highly representative type. This is not always the case, however.

WHAT IT TAKES:

There are many factors, which enable a dog to play competitively at the top of the Group charts or among the Top Dogs of all breeds. Primary among them is showmanship, followed closely by soundness and stamina. On top of it all though, I think the candidate must be a well made animal; that is, one that must be respected for the harmony of its parts, and how those parts allow the dog to propel itself around the ring . A pleasing ringside personality is also a characteristic that adds to the picture. Finally, as much as we all must pretend it doesn’t count, definite assets in a wonder-dog’s resume appear to be a well received handler, a cleverly conceived advertising program, and a spare dollar or two in the owner’s pocket. (Campaigning a Specials dog is not cheap no matter how you cut it!)

Talk to the average judge and he or she will tell you handler, advertising or dollars spent mean nothing at all--at least not to the judge you’re talking to. So who am I to argue? It’s just that I don’t know of any mega-winning dogs that haven’t been accompanied by the right handlers, lots of ads, and the financially comfortable owner.

Like these qualifications or not. Agree or not. As I see it, all of the above are the attributes (make that absolute necessities) of a top winning show dog--a Best In Show dog.

So where does breed type fit into this picture? This may sound like complete heresy, but a dog can be a very well made animal and not necessarily be one that is particularly outstanding in breed type. Good construction is not necessarily accompanied by good breed type. A mixed breed dog can be, and often is, beautifully constructed. Every part of a well-made dog may flow beautifully into the next. It may move as straight as a die and show like a demon possessed. It can pose like a statue, wag its tail like a propeller, and compete in speed with the best at Churchill Downs. It can do all those Best In Show dog things and still not be a particularly outstanding specimen of its own breed because it lacks some, or many very important essentials of breed type or it has and does things one of its breed should not have or do. If the breeder, the handler and the judge continually favor the glamour dog at the expense of the dog that excels in breed essence they are assisting in the breed’s gradual decline into mediocrity.

STOPPING THE GENERIC LANDSLIDE:

Lack of breed type is least apparent at Best In Show level where the dog concerned is not compared with what could well be far better examples of its breed. The dog is often judged by an individual who is long on appreciation of showmanship and soundness but who could well fall short on in-depth knowledge of type in that breed. The judge responsible for having awarded the dog its Group win may well have passed upon the breed many times over. But even then, much will depend upon how versed the judge actually is in that breed’s essence. At this point a dog’s high flying presence can be very persuasive. In truth, the Group judge is faced with the dilemma, which should have been dealt with earlier in the day.

So this takes us back to the Breed level (where in my opinion, the real dog judging takes place). It is here where the person officiating starts or stops the generic dog from progressing on through to the top. I’m sure every one of you who reads this article has heard someone say, "This one will have trouble getting through the Breed but once it does, there’s a Group or Best In Show waiting." Believe me, this is not said because the dog has too much breed type!

Another thing I find even more distressing is the judge, who though totally conversant with correct breed type, can be heard to explain a decision by saying Dog A was best of its class but it was out moved (whatever that means) by Dog B, who will look better in the Group. How the dog performs in the Group is more important than breed type? Lets get serious a minute! The judge’s responsibility is to the Breed he or she is judging, not to the fellow judging the Group or the spectators watching the judging!

Please understand, this is not a condemnation of showmanship or of soundness; on the contrary. My concern is with giving them sole priority over breed type or imposing general rules of soundness on the wrong breeds. I do feel the Breed judge’s sole responsibility is to put the best dog in every class in the Number One position whether that class is the 6-9 Puppy Class or Best Of Breed. I am inclined to believe the dog show gods or whoever it was that named everything in the dog game, meant for us to place the best entry of our breed as Best Of Breed or else they would have called the win, "Dog I Think Would Be Most Likely to Win the Group."

PITY THE BREEDER:

We do not err in showmanship alone. There are many other mistakes made at the cost of breed type. We can not close our eyes to the fact that we see more and more Boxers who are finer in bone, longer in body, higher on leg and more shallow in body entering the Winners Circle. Many of the these dogs become significant winners attracting the unknowing to breed to them or endeavoring to duplicate them in their own breeding programs. Pity the poor breeder who spends years and fortunes striving to maintain breed type only to have it quickly dismissed in favor of some generic showman the likes of which the dedicated breeder has gladly given away or sold in puppyhood as a pet. It is most frustrating.

So how can a judge avoid contributing to the decline of a breed? It is absolutely essential that we be as certain as possible that the dog selected as Best Of Breed is just that. We must see to it that the breed "ringer" gets sent out of the ring with the first cut lest we paint ourselves into a corner. Some of those super showing dogs never let down. The really good dog may have only minimal presence or get bored quickly. The judge begins to see the difference in showmanship more and more clearly as the numbers are reduced in the ring, and finds he or she must now choose between the mediocre dog that is doing everything for himself and the really good dog that may be doing it right but not with much glamour or presence.