Critiques, All Systems

[UKUSA]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

The subject of critiques and the lack of them has been mentioned on this board and in consultation with my partner in crime we both thought that it might be an interesting topic to discuss, something that ALL of us anywhere in the world could have a say in.

My idea of a critique and certainly over the years has been drummed into me was that a critique should tell you why 1st was 1st and why 2nd went behind 1st and so on. A picture in words, you should nt have to guess what breed is being written about, the word picture should leave you in no doubt that the breed(in our case the Whippet)is the breed you are reading about.

In England we have a written critique for all the world to see. On the continent the dogs are critiqued individually, a verbal critique dictated to the ring secretary on every dog and then handed to the exhibitor, their critiques are not shared with the world, something that F.C.I judges forget when they judge here.

So what do people think, how important is a critique? Would people in this country prefer the F.C.I way? Would those showing under F.C.I rules prefer our way and then of course what about America, who only critique for specialities?

Nicky

 

[T Hoare]

Very interesting topic Nicky(Patsy?)

I will have to have a think and respond later. :thumbsup:

Why can't I think of a good topic

 

[Sachiko]

I've always valued the written critiques since they tell exactly what is the judge's opinion on the dog. After all it is the judge that gets to examine the dog and otherwise I doubt they would say much, judges often seem guite the silent type. I like to think that due the critiq I get a neutral opinion on my dog and as I am quite green they have many times opened my eyes to my own dog.

I just hope those qriticues would be more public. It would be interesting to read, for example, what is said about the males I follow with higher intrest. I could learn a thing or two from those.

 

[JAX]

As I am in the middle of writting my critique for the Birmigham National . Id just like to add that I take my C writing very seriously,

Those who just put the very brief summery either, cant be bothered and/or have no respect for the exhibitors to whom have entered their dogs . But maybe they arent good at putting sentences together :wacko: One critique I read a few years back said simply `a pleasing picture` (w00t) from a championship show breed judge

English ( obviously ) wasnt one of my best subjects but I do my best and that is to let the exhibitors know what the reason that 1 beat 2 and what I look for in a whippet.

Im sure Im not the only one who has had a critique about one of their own dogs,that bared not a single resemblence to what it look like . and have read about dog with a super head (or whatever ) etc, when the world can see its head (or what )ever was not its fortune.

One of the reasons I like to take a picture of my first three placings is for the reason that when I get home I can refresh my memory .When writing with the dogs in front of you you know you are under pressure to judge the next class , esp ,when you have nearly 200 dogs to judge in a set time ,

Obviously what one judges see ,another dosnt and we all have points that we are or arnt willing to forgive .

Thats what makes showing so interesting , if all the judges placed us the same it would get very boring , plus a dog can go well one day and not another .

 

[anniewhippet]

Good topic :thumbsup:

I agree that a critique should give the reader the idea of why 1st was 1st, 2nd was 2nd etc etc and I, too, think it should try to convey the picture into the readers mind.

There has been much said before about pointing out faults & I would be interested in what others think on this. But I feel there is a way of writing the critique which is balanced but also mentions the better/lesser points between those placed. Does this make sense :blink:

As to the system in Europe, at least all owners know what the judge liked/disliked but as you say this is 'private', does this help in general breed terms?

And yes I believe there is a place for them. :thumbsup:

 

[seaspot_run]

I don't think very many of the critiques written over here for the US magazines are helpful.

Perhaps our judges aren't very good at it because they seldom have to do it. Here are some examples:

1) I picked the Great Fluffy because she reminded me so much of my own dear departed "Fuzzy" blah blah blah---well, that's nice, but the standard doesn't say that the best dog is the one who tugs your heartstrings because you miss your deceased dog.

2) I chose this dog because he wanted it the most--wrong. The dog wanted the liver or the squeak toy, or his owner who was standing at just the right spot ringside the most. There are plenty of dogs who love to show, but they don't show because they want a particular color and size of ribbon more than the dog placed behind them.

3) This dog is more my type--you're not out there to find "your" type, you're out there to find the most correct type.

They seem to come in two flavors, too--either the breed is going to hell in a handbasket and even the winners don't have much positive to comment on other than that they are less appalling than the losers, or the whole critique is written to offend no one, and it's all shiny!happy!plum wonderful! with all dogs being equally terrific and gee, just not enough ribbons to go around for so many perfect dogs!

Photographs don't help me as much as notes I take on a little pad right after the placements.

I try to write my critique within a few days of coming home so that the assignment is fresh in my mind.

Then, I get grief from Scudder because she thinks they are massive novels. I think judging is a privilege and an honor and that if you are asked to write a critique you should be as positive and encouraging as you can be while still putting down enough information to let the owners know why they made it so far, but no farther.

The problem is length restrictions, always. It's common to write something like "Both first and second place were good movers and well-conditioned, but the second place dog gave a little on head properties to the winner." That's fine, but it actually tells you more about the judge (cares a lot about head properties) than it does about the second place dog (what head properties? Muzzle, backskull, eye, earset, planes, too wide, too narrow, something else???)

Generally, the judges who are either from overseas or who often judge overseas give better critiques. Espen Engh gave a verbal critique during his judging assignment at our National, and whether you agreed with his emphasis or not, no person in that ballroom was left in any doubt as to what he was looking for and what he valued and what properties his top winners had in common at the end of each day.

 

[playawhile]

Critiques from the whippet club shows are published in our magazine here in Sweden and if the judge is foreign they will be published in English, so sometimes the critiques are there “for the world” to read. In Finland (I don’t know if they still do this?) they used to publish all critiques from all shows on each dog every year, so that anyone could read them.

I do read Dog World and most what is written about whippets but usually it takes a while before I read everything after the issue was published, as we subscribe Dog World with a friend and she reads them first and then sends the copies to us. What strikes me when reading the English show critiques is the lack of less good things. In Sweden we are used to hearing both good and bad things and that will usually tell me why the judge did what she/he did with my dog. I hardly ever read any critical things about the ones placed in the classes at shows in the UK and to me that is frustrating…..

Henrik

 

[Scudder]

Then, I get grief from Scudder because she thinks they are massive novels.  I think judging is a privilege and an honor and that if you are asked to write a critique you should be as positive and encouraging as you can be while still putting down enough information to let the owners know why they made it so far, but no farther.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Hey! I resemble that remark. I guess if I'm reading a critique on a dog show I didn't participate in, I want a brief overview. If my dog was in the critique, I want a massive novel. :- " Guess I can't have it both ways. o

Most of the US critiques I've read just point out overall good points in generic terms (nice outline, good "type", great mover) and gloss over anything that would hurt people's feelings (like using "Houndy" instead of "Are you sure a labrador didn't sneak into your kennel when your bitch was in season because I've never seen bone like that on a whippet") :teehee: :teehee:

Kristen

 

[UKUSA]

I think that critique writing is an art , for me one of the best critique writers ever was Don Weiden. I know that he took his writing very seriously and poured a lot into it. I have also read critiques that have made me laugh out loud, when Im sure that was never the intention of the author! Then there are the critiques that show that that particular author has not read the standard as words like croup and forechest are used, words not used in our standard.

I think that critique writing focuses the mind when you are judging and something that we do in this country from the first open show assignment so I think Karen that you are right as the general show scene in America does nt ask their judges to justify or explain their decisions, it would be interesting to see how things would be and if results would be different if judges had to show their knowledge of the standard. Would there be the appetite for critiques in America?

As for the " just my type" judging comments, I would disagree with you as in this country certainly the majority of us show under those we feel would like our type and/or have the same type, so to say "was just my type" would say to me that that was how that judge interpreted their idea of the standard.

Nicky

 

[patsy]

In this country critique writing is part of your contract when you agree to judge.There are some judges that make a very good job in the ring and they will openly tell you that they struggle with critiques, then there are the judges who have not made such a good job and when their crits come into the dog paper it is a fairy story.

When you have been showing for many years you do get the measure of the judges, there are those that are wild and you never know what type of whippet they have in their mind, usually get a good entry, Karen you mentioned Espen, I find him an open book and know what he would like. There are classes,and I have judged them where you wish you had more than one red card and in the challenge more than one C.C. , there are other classes that you struggle in finding just what you want. I find nothing wrong with putting up a first class dog that fits the standard if he or she reminds you of something from the past, that dog or bitch could be your ideal.

 

[seaspot_run]

If you have a particular great one of the past who is your mental picture of the standard made flesh, then I think that's fine to use him as a template for your judging, but to say that the dog tugged your heartstrings because he reminded you of some favorite dog of your own makes it look like you are judging based on emotional factors, and that's not judging based on the standard.

As for saying "my type dog"--that's a pet peeve of mine. Type is a word in dog parlance which has a very specific meaning--it is the appearance as described in the standard with particular regard to the things that mark a specimen of that breed as being different from all other similar breeds. I think most people say or write "type" when what they mean is "style". Styles are the differing ranges of appearance of various dogs of correct type--correct because they fit the standard in all essentials relevant to breed type.

That's what I think about that.

Karen Lee

 

[bertha]

All judges in the UK are obliged to write a critique for the dog press, it is part of the contract they sign with the club they are officiating at, it is now also a KC rule! I know there are judges who have not written critiques and they are getting away with it.

I always write up on first and second place regardless. I am fortunate in having a photographic memory which is a great help. It is after all a job you take on when you agree to judge.

Fault judging is something I do not like, comparing one dog against another and saying why you prefer one over two is fair I think.

All these exams and hoop jumping will not make a bad judge good, you have an eye for a dog or you don't, it is a simple as that.

You should judge to your interpretation of the breed standard, not everyone will agree with you, but you do your best.

Interesting thread!

 

[jayp]

Just for fun whats your most hated phrase when reading critiques?

Mine is " filled my eye " or " all of a piece " or " unlucky to meet winner "

I prefer the critiques of our judges from abroad as you are left with no doubt that they have seen both the faults and virtues of the dog and the emphasis they have placed on each, we know no dog is perfect but are sometimes left wondering if the faults have been noticed at all. and no i dont mean "Head like a Bucket" but simply "a bit strong in head" would be helpful Jan

 

[seaspot_run]

It's like reading the personal ads where full-figured means too fat to walk, and mature and worldly-wise :lol: means 15 years older than the stated age, and passionate means will stalk you and do bad things to your car if you don't return their phone calls, and fun-loving means raging alcoholic. :teehee:

My favorite ones I've used are "a bit substantial for height". That means "built like a tank" and "heavy in bone" which means "legs like a Clydesdale". "Could be fitter" means that if not for the show leash holding it up, I'd fear it would collapse like a jellyfish out of water. :unsure:

 

[ROSIE MEADOWS]

will stalk you and do bad things to your car if you don't return their phone calls,

WELL, A BIT RUDE NOT TO REPLY TO THE PHONE CALLS :clown:

 

[UKUSA]

Well Karen, I think its a case of you say tomato I say tomato, if you know what I mean. Certainly in this country, the word type would be understood ,I'm sure in the context that I have written about.

I think that in general in this country we judge on virtues, which I think is the way it should be. I don't believe that a critique should be cruel. I think that you can easily explain why dog one beat dog two without being cruel and of course this is just one opinion and again you could be wrong.

As for the F.C.I method of critiquing, I think that the critique that is shared between the judge and the exhibitor is one thing but certainly not something I would like to see published in our dog press and as most of our judges are breeder judges I could see it all turning into something like "gunfight at the O.K corral"

ALL dogs have faults but its the degree of the fault. Sure mention in a critique a fault but put it into context, most people from the ringside will see a fault, I don't think that it is something that should be laboured on. I guess its about who has the most virtues and then explaining that in your critique.

Nicky

 

[patsy]

Just for fun whats your most hated phrase when reading critiques?
Mine is  " filled my eye "  or  " all of a piece "  or " unlucky to meet winner "

I prefer the critiques of our judges from abroad as you are left with no doubt that they have seen both the faults and virtues of the dog and the emphasis they have placed on each,  we know no dog is perfect but are sometimes left wondering if the faults have been noticed at all.  and no i dont mean "Head like a Bucket" but simply "a bit strong in head"  would be helpful    Jan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

There is a lot of difference between fault judging and judging on virtues even the great ones have faults but their virtues are very strong, you don't want the non entity dog with no great faults and no great virtue.When we judge it is our own interpretation of the standard. I have given top honors to animals that in certain areas where for example I would have prefer-ed a longer neck, the next judge comes along and thinks the neck is long enough for them. In FCI countries it is a lot different ,the critique is between the judge and exhibitor and is not put into print. I was told many years ago that the perfect dog could not be bred, if one was the best thing to do would be to shoot it and stuff it. So for me it is judging on virtues every bit of the way.

My pet hate is compact........soft gentle expression is not bright and alert.

 

[seaspot_run]

Words do indeed carry different meanings even between English-speaking countries.

Over here, what jayp was describing as "strong in head" would be taken as a compliment (strong would be taken to mean that the head had a lot of strong points or as in "his greatest strengths were his beautiful outline and expression"). What she called strong in head, we would either say that the head was somewhat coarse, or a bit underrefined or underchisled or broader in skull. I had this situation with Cathie reading my critique where I wanted to say that a dog seemed unable to carry his head above his withers (iow, his carriage was less appealing) on the go-around and I was calling that heavy in head, and she said it would be taken as saying the dog had a big ol' coarse buckethead, so it's true that what reads one way to me might not read at all the same to a fancier elsewhere.

It's very hard to say where you faulted a dog without at least describing why you faulted him. You can just say "not as correct in gait coming" OR you could say "front movement would whip cream to stiff peaks in no time", and there's a lot of room in between and still you haven't been completely specific as you would be if you said "elbowed out, crossed over, lifted, and paddled in front".

 

[rls22]

Obviously only speaking as an exhibitor here; but I know I always look forward to reading the critiques. However, I am often disappointed when there is no explanation as to what the judge preferred in the dog placed first.

For example when beaten by the ticket winner, just to say "another good example of the breed" isn't very helpful.

It is so encouraging to read here that everyone seems to write carefully considered and concise critiques, explaning what you preferred between the first and second placed dogs. And also that nobody nit picks about the minor things. As we all know, none of us have the perfect dog. :thumbsup:

Not sure if I have quite said exactly what I wanted to, I'm never much good at putting my thoughts into words :b

 

[anniewhippet]

Words do indeed carry different meanings even between English-speaking countries.
Over here, what jayp was describing as "strong in head" would be taken as a compliment (strong would be taken to mean that the head had a lot of strong points or as in "his greatest strengths were his beautiful outline and expression").  What she called strong in head, we would either say that the head was somewhat coarse, or a bit underrefined  or underchisled or broader in skull.  I had this situation with Cathie reading my critique where I wanted to say that a dog seemed unable to carry his head above his withers (iow, his carriage was less appealing) on the go-around and I was calling that heavy in head, and she said it would be taken as saying the dog had a big ol' coarse buckethead, so it's true that what reads one way to me might not read at all the same to a fancier elsewhere.

It's very hard to say where you faulted a dog without at least describing why you faulted him.   You can just say "not as correct in gait coming" OR you could say "front movement would whip cream to stiff peaks in no time", and there's a lot of room in between and still you haven't been completely specific as you would be if you said "elbowed out, crossed over, lifted, and paddled in front".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

:teehee: :teehee: what a lovely picture that paints :teehee: :teehee: but i agree that some terms are unspecific ie loose in front......where exactly? elbows, pasterns etc. But I think that the majority of us can say that it is a term that we could or might use at some time or other.

When reading back over 'old' critiques that you have written how many think "OMG did I really use that/those words" and do you think crtique writing has changed over the years?

Would be interesting to see some really old critiques to compare the styles. And I agree Nicky, Don could write a good critique and 'teach one' too... :thumbsup: