You can join our "In The Know List" and be notified by email when new articles are released.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Articles may be reproduced for personal use only.
To reproduce for public or commercial use, contact B.E.I. for permission.
Changing Estimates
Those who win are bred more often than those that lose.
by Dr. Carmen L. Battaglia
Each year there are hundreds of exhibitors who leave the ring unhappy about
the placement of their dog. Some are disappointed because they did not win
others because of a comment made by the judge. Here is an example of a
comment that will upset many owners and handlers. "I liked your dog but it
was to large". Most owners and handlers translate that in ways that would
upset most judges. The dilemma is this. Does it mean that their dog was to
big based on the standard or that there was another dog that was closer to
the standard for its height? This is not always an easy problem to
understand and emotions run high when judges make these remarks.
The facts are that the judge and breeder are central to making breed
improvements and there are rules that control the judging process. These
rules are important because they can influence a breed's function, the
quality of those that win and to some degree, the destiny of a breed. In
this respect, it is fair to say that there are certain aspects of the
judging process that are not perfect. For example, if a judge questions or
doubts the size or weight of a particular entry this could become a
disappointment for the handler and owner depending on what the judge does
or says. The judging guidelines require that an estimate be made about
height unless there is a disqualification for size in the breed standard.
For the breeders and the owners of dogs who know their dogs to be within
the standard, making an estimate about this trait can often times result in
not winning. These owners and handers believe that estimating size is not a
satisfactory way to interpret the standard.
While most breed standards do not make height or weight a disqualification,
they do place great emphasis on these traits with specific language that
speaks to gender with words like " the ideal or correct" size or weight
etc, etc. Given this language it might seem strange that out of 153 breeds
only 31 have a height disqualification. Of these only twenty disqualify for
under size, eighteen for over size and sixteen for both under and over a
specific size requirement. The remaining 122 standards do not have a
disqualification for size. Some believe that the lack of a disqualification
is to be interpreted as only guidance to the judge. This leaves the subject
open to a wide range of interpretations. When a standard refers to a
trait with words like "the ideal or correct", should one wonder what the
intended meaning is or what interpretation should be given the trait? Would
all clubs agree on how to interpret these words? Probably not. Some would
point out that there are breeders who knowingly breed and exhibit dogs that
are too large or too small based on the standard. Does this mean that
because there is no disqualification that anything goes? When a judge
suspects a dog to be over or under the standard most use the time accepted
ritual that has been passed down over the years. Some call it the
"guesstamate" procedure because they are not allowed to measure or
weigh. In a study reported by Willis, judges were asked about their
procedure. Later the dogs were actually measured using a wicket. To
everyone's surprise, Willis found the error rate to be very high even among
the most experienced judges. When Willis asked these judges about their
procedure most said they marked a place on their skirt or pant leg so they
could stand next to the dog, look down and make an estimate about the dog's
size. If the breed was examined on the table most said they spread their
fingers and determined height by looking at the distance between their
thumb and little finger. A third group said they could estimate size by
observation alone. They simply "eye balled it" based on their "years of
experience".
It seems strange that in this age of advanced technology, it would take a
simple study by Willis to demonstrate that this procedure is out dated and
fraught with error. Many have asked if it wouldn't it be better to allow
judges to measure any dog they believe to be too large or too small since
the purpose of the wicket is to measure when there is doubt. If judges were
allowed to measure or weigh, they would have more accurate information on
which to base their decision. A dog that is a little too big or too small
might still be the best one in the ring for its over all quality. The
dilemma for what happens next is called judging. The disgruntled prefer to
call it "guessing or estimating". At the end of the day it all boils down
to a judgement. Should judges be denied the right to know when the breed
standard calls for a specific size or weight? Related to this is the
reality about what we should not forget. Those that win are the ones who
will be bred to the most.
Under current AKC policy, breeds without a disqualification for size or
weight are at the mercy of a judge's ability, skills, experience and
interest at making estimates. Willis demonstrated that even the best could
oftentimes be wrong.
When I asked several judges about this, they remarked that the estimate has
always been the tradition and to "change it now after all these years would
only delay the show". If we think out of the box for a moment and admit
that the wicket and the scales are superior to making estimates, there just
might be a better way. Suppose that judges were allowed to use wickets or
scales at specialty shows as a way of testing the idea. Would this not be an
improvement over the current method?
copyright: 2002. B.E.I. Publications