Critique Question

[Noise]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

is there any way where you can find out the critique of your dog? I know of dog world, but not every dog or even breed at a show is mentioned.

is it top secret? :teehee:

 

[T Hoare]

A judge has upto a month to submit their critique to 1 of the weekly dog papers(Dog World &/or Our Dogs).

This can take a fair few weeks to then appear.

One show can be in 1 or 2 or more weeks(not all breeds are in the same week). This is dependant on when each judge submits which can vary to the day after judging to a month or longer to not at all.

Only the paper concerned knows when the critique may (or may not) appear

Hope this answers your question.

 

[Noise]

thank you.

so technically, every show and every dog in it will get their critique published?

may I ask why is it not allowed in the UK to give the critique verbally?

 

[rls22]

Only the winning dog at an Open show and those placed first and second at champ shows.

 

[JAX]

thank you.
so technically, every show and every dog in it will get their critique published?

may I ask why is it not allowed in the UK to give the critique verbally?

Have you any idea how long that would take ? it takes for ever when judging overseas to give Crits to be written down even with there comparitivly small entries , PLUS most people would only want to hear the positive points of their dogs and not the faults :blink: . mind you , if t would certainly show up all those who dont know what they are doing and those who only judge faces and friends esp if everyone could hear what was being said

so technically, every show and every dog in it will get their critique published?

No only if the judge decided/ bothers to send it in .and in time and only if they wn their class at an open show or in the 1st two at a champ

 

[marier05]

Just an example: Im still waiting for a critique from an open show in Oct 08! There were critique's for other breeds at the same show just not the hounds - he was also the BIS judge!

 

[rls22]

Just an example: Im still waiting for a critique from an open show in Oct 08! There were critique's for other breeds at the same show just not the hounds - he was also the BIS judge!

So annoying isn't it. I am waiting for one from September last year where Rubes went BOB and G2 with me handling her, so it would have been nice to have seen it. I have emailed Our Dogs and they said they've not received it. It's very frustrating. :angry:

 

[marier05]

That just reminded me - both my girls were BOB and G2 at open shows in July of last year - none of the critique's appeared. I had forgotten about it, but week after week i looked for it i was so annoyed! :angry: It is a nice win and you look forward to what the judge thought.

 

[Noise]

bit s... innit.

I would like to hear the negatives as well, otherwise how is a person supposed to know whether the placing was due to not the best handling, faults that will not change or faults that can be improved upon (I know of several dogs that have been adviced to bulk up, get some muscle definiton to then return to the ring and do well).

for example in the European shows a pup can be noted as ''very promising'' which obviously means there's potential to do well, on the other hand not many will bother to keep draging a pup to countless shows if it never gets anything higher than ''good''.

yes, I understand that it would take a huge amount of time, that's why I asked since it didn't seem plausible.

so why can't it be verbal/written? is there a reason for it?

I'm considering to go up all the way to Scotland (just have to get time off work and make it a little break as well ) for one of the breed champ shows to get under Espen Engh, but if you don't get 1st place then you've spent a considerable amount of money/effort to be none the wiser (thankfully he's a nice enough guy to share his opinions after the ring).

edit to add: the judge is pretty much the only figure out there that you'd expect an honest opinion from, now who would say to someone's face - I think your dog is not a good enough specimen to ever achieve anything, or has anyone been told that by a fellow exhibitor. not saying it in a mean way - I know I couldn't.

 

[T Hoare]

It does also depend on wether the judge is given details (ie adress or email) for BOTH papers.

I only received (as a Secretary) from Our Dogs for the 2 judges for WCoW therefore could only give them details (ie free envelope) for the 1 paper.

Same at SWWC I received(as a judge) only from Our Dogs. Luckily I subscribe to Dog World so will be able to submit to them also.

 

[T Hoare]

bit s... innit.
I would like to hear the negatives as well, otherwise how is a person supposed to know whether the placing was due to not the best handling, faults that will not change or faults that can be improved upon (I know of several dogs that have been adviced to bulk up, get some muscle definiton to then return to the ring and do well).

for example in the European shows a pup can be noted as ''very promising'' which obviously means there's potential to do well, on the other hand not many will bother to keep draging a pup to countless shows if it never gets anything higher than ''good''.

yes, I understand that it would take a huge amount of time, that's why I asked since it didn't seem plausible.

so why can't it be verbal/written? is there a reason for it?

I'm considering to go up all the way to Scotland (just have to get time off work and make it a little break as well ) for one of the breed champ shows to get under Espen Engh, but if you don't get 1st place then you've spent a considerable amount of money/effort to be none the wiser (thankfully he's a nice enough guy to share his opinions after the ring).

edit to add: the judge is pretty much the only figure out there that you'd expect an honest opinion from, now who would say to someone's face - I think your dog is not a good enough specimen to ever achieve anything, or has anyone been told that by a fellow exhibitor. not saying it in a mean way - I know I couldn't.

Time factor at the show for 1 reason. The amount of Whippets entered at Championship shows (150-200+) in particular would mean an extra 2 - 3 hours at 1 minute per dog for a verbal!!!

There is also a KC ruling Judges are not permitted to make any oral commentry on the dogs until after the conclusion of all their judging. This would mean if (at a champ show) you may be judged at 09:00 and the judge finishes at 16:00 they can then comment verbally on your dog.

 

[Noise]

I know of that ruling. But there must me another reason than just time - since making a comment about a dog while going over surely wouldn't take any more time. It's not a utopic idea - it can be done, find it hard to believe tha there are more dogs at a UK champ show than at a European winner CACIB.

 

[T Hoare]

I know of that ruling. But there must me another reason than just time - since making a comment about a dog while going over surely wouldn't take any more time. It's not a utopic idea - it can be done, find it hard to believe tha there are more dogs at a UK champ show than at a European winner CACIB.

Yes the MAIN reason is because of the KC RULE Judges are not permitted to make any oral commentry on the dogs until after the conclusion of all their judging.

 

[Noise]

I know of that ruling. But there must me another reason than just time - since making a comment about a dog while going over surely wouldn't take any more time. It's not a utopic idea - it can be done, find it hard to believe tha there are more dogs at a UK champ show than at a European winner CACIB.

Yes the MAIN reason is because of the KC RULE Judges are not permitted to make any oral commentry on the dogs until after the conclusion of all their judging.

yes! but why aren't they?

 

[oakmoorehill]

I am still waiting for a critique for a show from september 2007. I have seen a friend of the judge and she asked her if the critique had been sent in. She said she sent it staright in but it hasn't been put in the papers :angry:

 

[JAX]

I know of that ruling. But there must me another reason than just time - since making a comment about a dog while going over surely wouldn't take any more time. It's not a utopic idea - it can be done, find it hard to believe tha there are more dogs at a UK champ show than at a European winner CACIB.

Do you get 200+ whippets at a CACIB show ? I doubt it .

and as for asking the judge after they have finished judging (w00t) Well apart from the judge feeling very intimidated and with a large enrty possibly wouldnt remember your dog any how . Imagine if 150+ people came up to ask what you tought of their bonzo ! you be there another 3 hours :lol:

Yesterday I had a lady ask what her dog had done wrong as she only got 3rd , nothing I said, but I prefer the other 2 dogs in front of her . Now if she had asked what was wrong with her dog i would have explained to her its faults and merits

. If you sit and watch your dog at home , moving at its own pace , and watch judging , and see how their winners move and what shape etc they are , then you will have an idea of what / why your dog gets placed where it does ,. Does that make sense ?

 

[moonlake]

There are few exhibitors today who want to know negative points about their dogs- or will admit there might be some - which is why when I write a critque, I write general observations first including the most prevalent faults and then in individual critiques, write just enough to explain why 1 beat 2. That way, I hope that if people do want to know why their dog didn't do as well as they hoped, they will look at it in the light of my general observations to see if it has any of those shortcomings. This does occasionally work - one exhibitor came up to me at a subsequent show and said she had never looked at her dog's feet before but as a running breed, she now realised they might be important

It is disappointing at European shows where everyone has to have a critique, if some of your entry is given to another judge because the numbers limit has been reached and as an exhibitor, it is even more disappointing to find your dog is not being judged by the person you entered the show for.

Gay

www.moonlake.co.uk

 

[fourpaws]

I am still waiting for a critique for a show from september 2007. I have seen a friend of the judge and she asked her if the critique had been sent in. She said she sent it staright in but it hasn't been put in the papers :angry:

Yes isn't this frustrating, we have exactly the same where someone asked the judge for us and was told the critique was sent straight away. In fact we are short of 6, 3 of which were BOB and it would be nice to know what the judge thought. Some shows ask for the critiques to be sent to the club as well as the newspapers and if you are lucky the secretary will send you a copy. One kind secretary rang up the judge to ask for one but others have not wanted to help.

If you subscribe to Our Dogs online you can read critiques from way past, does anyone know if this is the situation on Dog World?

 

[seaspot_run]

I had a terrible time submitting a critique of EAWC Open Show a couple of years ago. Every time I e-mailed mine to Our Dogs, they flagged it as spam and returned it to me....maybe it was my overseas e-mail address, but seriously, most of the spammers are in Africa and SE Asia. They should not be catching e-mails from Pennsylvania in the spam filter! I used two different e-mail addresses and Cathie said they were good. Finally, I had Cathie send it for me. I don't think they ever used it. It may not be the fault of the judge. My critique was written and ready to send five days after the assignment, but I didn't have any success getting it in.

I am certainly not the most experienced judge, but I find that some people are more receptive to a truly specific critique than others. I try to find the positives and then tell why I placed a dog over another. You have to add the honey with the medicine or the medicine won't go down. Anything I would say about an exhibit, I can assure would be far more brutally expressed if it was my own dog I was critiquing. Just because they have some faults doesn't mean they aren't still good dogs and worthy of being shown and having good wins. I think if there is something that the exhibitor can do to improve their dog's chances through handling, conditioning, grooming (this doesn't really apply to Whippets, but a coated or trimmed breed it may be very much the case), then I think that they should definitely be told about it.

I find it fairly easy to do a formal critique. It's as much a critique of myself as the entry, as I think the best critiques lay bare the mind of the judge and the mental process of the judge and are helpful to exhibitors in deciding if they want to show something to that judge in the future. What I find very hard is to be asked by my friends at ringside for a critique of their dogs in a social situation. :unsure: "Be honest!" they cry, and I just feel like I'm walking into a social minefield. It's one thing if you are standing there with that badge on your jacket, but quite another to be their friend and tell them that the dog's front just isn't good enough and if it were yours, you'd find a nice pet home for it. It's even harder when it's THEM who are holding back their dog, and you feel they should give the show lead to someone else.

I have an almost perfect record with dogs I've said should be retired from the ring beating my dog the next time I am showing against them, so as time has gone on, I'm less and less inclined to "be honest" with my competition. It's like a guaranteed major win over here for me to say "I think this dog isn't going to make it in the ring, so best to find something else to do with him". It may have lost 20 shows in a row, but once I've critiqued it, it will win big the very next time it goes into the ring!

 

[Noise]

OK, got my answer I think...