.com Forum · Alpha Dog Forum

I know it's up to users whether or not they want to book handlers, but I've been thinking that show results are getting screwed up in some of my breeds because people choose completely not to select handlers under judges that are "not very political" or "not political at all" (they do NOT prefer owner to handle).

Maybe people think that "not political at all" is enough reason to not select handlers and that if a judge truly is not political at all, he will select an owner-handled dog over a named handler. (This has not been the case for the entire time more detailed judge preferences has been added to the game, that I have noticed.)

To some degree I feel like I'm cheating because I know other players don't select handlers under these judges and I do and know my dogs will win because I do. But, if I don't, there's the chance some other user will select handlers and they most definitely will win. And if I go under another show, I'd just be competing against my own dogs and having to stack to build majors in that show because of all the other breed entries in other shows.

I've come to the point where I almost want to just enter under owner-handler preference judges.

On the other hand, as previously stated, it is up to each individual user to select or not select handlers. But I feel almost that I am taking advantage of the fact most users in a couple of my breeds choose not to use handlers because my dogs WILL win, even if they aren't significantly better quality.

Is anyone else experiencing this? Was the addition of judge preferences supposed to be sneaky? (I only vaguely remember the memo of this addition, so much so I'm not sure if I'm making it up, making me think that newer users will not have seen that memo.) I'm wondering if overall this is screwing up the gameplay and the accuracy of show results.

Your thoughts...

Totally agree. I have debated about picking a handler when none of the others do. I almost feel guilty. But then I figure that if they chose not to pick a handler, that shouldn't affect my decision. If I don't have the time to research the handlers (which since this fiasco happens 90% of the time) then I enter in an owner-handler show. If the judge is not an O-H judge, then I will always select a judge.

It's pretty self explanatory in my opinion. Unless it states prefers the owner to handle, then the owner is taking the chance that someone else will pick a handler.

quote

---

posted by Tarot
Totally agree. I have debated about picking a handler when none of the others do. I almost feel guilty. But then I figure that if they chose not to pick a handler, that shouldn't affect my decision. If I don't have the time to research the handlers (which since this fiasco happens 90% of the time) then I enter in an owner-handler show. If the judge is not an O-H judge, then I will always select a judge.

It's pretty self explanatory in my opinion. Unless it states prefers the owner to handle, then the owner is taking the chance that someone else will pick a handler.

---

--------------------------------

I agree with Tarot...
Unless it says judge prefers Owner Handled , I will always put a handler on my best ones.

Of course it is your choice. But it is a good way to alienate oneself by what looks like stealing points. I'm currently going with the flow in several breeds and so far, I've finished several dogs. The best dogs always place, handlers or not so for me it doesn't matter.

ETA I could care less about group placements so maybe this is why also.

-----
Last edited by Degree on 8/15/2018 5:36:50 AM

In all honesty, the amount of judges makes me want to completely quit showing, but then what fun is in that? I personally see couple of my breeds that aren’t popular where other kennels are smart and they pick a handler, since I am lazy to do that and they win. In another breed, I see that the dogs with handlers don’t necessarily win. I guess it all depends.
I pick the handlers if I have time or I know I want a certain dog to be finished soon, otherwise I don’t bother anymore because it’s just too much additional time and I’ve spread myself too thin.

I don’t think anyone should feel bad for picking a handler if they are available. The other kennel chooses not to do that for whatever reason, you don’t have to do the same.

quote

---

posted by Degree
Of course it is your choice. But it is a good way to alienate oneself by what looks like stealing points.

---

That's exactly what I am alluding to; sadly, because I'm choosing to play the game how I've always played it, I can now be seen as "stealing" points and winning because I choose to continue playing this way while the others don't.

Or, is it the others who do not choose handlers (even though it does not say the judge doesn't want handlers) who are messing with the results that "should have been"?

In my opinion this is creating a kind of big problem I have seen no one address yet.

I will just add my two cents which may or may not address what you are asking

Showdog has changed a lot during the twelve years I have been playing (on and off). But the show aspect has shifted in part due to the addition of the OH judges and the current glitch with the judges list. I will say that I don't think there is a wrong or right way to show or enter shows. Years ago, if some kennel was entering without a handler, I'd swoop in and add my (perhaps sometimes inferior) dog. Today, I would honestly think twice about doing that for two reasons: entry sizes and ease of showing.

Personally, having breeds where I can just enter against other kennels and have quality competition (with or without handlers) is, for me, great. I think this trend is encouraging more people to enter without having the stress of seeing if the top handlers are taken. It certainly encourages me to have more class dogs than I typically would but that doesn't mean I win more or even at all.

I don't think it is messing with how results may have been at the breed level with handlers as preferences on individual traits are still being taken into account. The only place that this may be messed up is at the group and show level because these dogs typically will not place but sometimes they actually do, which is always interesting to see.

I say all this to say the game is designed to use handlers but how certain breeds are playing now after seeing how easy the OH judges make life easy isn't really surprising. For me, it is no problem as I am managing four kennels and I literally do not want to sit and analyze handler lists but that's me being lazy.

I think people might disagree but that's my hot take

quote

---

posted by Degree

Personally, having breeds where I can just enter against other kennels and have quality competition (with or without handlers) is, for me, great. I think this trend is encouraging more people to enter without having the stress of seeing if the top handlers are taken.

---

I completely agree with this!

I enjoy entering dogs and seeing how they do without a handler. In some of my breeds I pretty much play against myself, so that helps me define how good the dog is especially if I overlooked something at first.

I don't see another played that enters the show where I was alone at first the last minute and picks a handler as a "stealer". I kinda look at it as "whatever", if they wanted to do that, they had a reason to do it.

My 2 Cents worth................

Although there may be some players that don't or won't use handlers, that shouldn't be an issue.

The game was designed to be like real life- ie: if you want to use a handler, go right ahead....if not, then don't go through the trouble of finding a handler....It's that simple.

Other players should not be dictating how others play or how the dogs should be shown- Handler or no Handler.

Although, unless it is an OH Judge, most will place handlers on their dogs in order to finish them quickly, or to get Group placings.

A few disgruntled or unhappy players should not dictate how others play the game.

But who am I to say......Just my thoughts......

JP

quote

---

posted by Just Pumi

Other players should not be dictating how others play or how the dogs should be shown- Handler or no Handler.

---

Yes, exactly. Everyone should enter shows the way they want to, however they want to.

Hi

I tend to enter my puppies without handlers, and will pick a show where others have done so too. Yes, there is a risk someone will enter a puppy with a handler and take the points. Generally I will only add a handler if a pup needs a major to get a championship.

If a judge doesn't specify owner handler, I will add a handler to all my champion entries. Yes I have a qualm when a good kennel enters good dogs without a handler, but I figure that's their business, and if I'm shooting for group or show placements I can't join them, but sometimes I do. Sometimes to push a fantastic dog over the gold/silver level before 120 days I will show lesser dogs without a handler in the same show.

I have also seen a kennel enter a whole heap of dogs without handlers to try and work out which one is better. I try not to jump in there with a handler and take the points, although my handler dog should not affect their ranking effort. However I also wonder why bother, when judges are so variable - if Angel likes my dogs in this order, why will that worry Brenda, for example.

Basically I try to be ethical - show enough dogs that I am contributing to points rather than just taking them, try not to eat all the points at all the shows if I have the best dogs etc. At this point I normally say that it's easy because I'm in non-competitive breeds, but my breeds have been creeping up that ladder so I can't say that anymore.

On another question - what are the ethics of showing where another player has 1 average dog, enters before me, and generally doesn't pick the best judge for the dog. If I enter the same show I will take the points. If I don't enter the same show the players gets a Best of Breed but no points. Do I start a conversation?

I really like this discussion.

I was also in a breed once where the top player used handlers, but selected them alphabetically rather than by the Judge list.

So I used handlers too, but selected mine from the Judge list.

Edited because I can't spell

-----
Last edited by Lisboa on 8/15/2018 7:17:03 PM

If I am showing in a breed where folks don't use handlers, I will steal your points.

Will

I'm glad I brought this up. It has been eye opening to see how others view the situation. Thank you for your thoughts.

p.s.
I just want to clarify that I'm not an unhappy or disgruntled player trying to dictate how others play the game. I was simply concerned. (Not sure if you were referring to me.)

( :

quote

---

posted by BarStar
If I am showing in a breed where folks don't use handlers, I will steal your points.

Will

---

Ha

quote

---

posted by Dreisaiah Hundehutte
I'm glad I brought this up. It has been eye opening to see how others view the situation. Thank you for your thoughts.

p.s.
I just want to clarify that I'm not an unhappy or disgruntled player trying to dictate how others play the game. I was simply concerned. (Not sure if you were referring to me.)

( :

---

--------------------------------

Not at all!....If I were referring to you, I am the type of person that I would have no problem saying who I was referring too hahaha!

So, not to worry, Dreisaiah Hundehutte, All is good.

JP

well, when you are showing against yourself, there is literally no point to using handlers unless the judges preferences point to a group placement. I am sometimes surprised by the results and that's always fun to wake up to.

Of course, if you are showing a bunch of dogs to see how they rank, it's different with every judge.

Personally, I have quit showing in 3 of my 5 kennels and have cut back drastically in the other 2. I just don't have the time to go through all the judges all the time. Or else I will pick a judge I know well and know what handler to pick without looking it up.

And Will, I agree with you. I am all about groups so I will steal the points if I can. LOL Okay, change that to 'take' the points. It's not stealing.

Well, here's a twist. I was just entering a dog and noticed that on the right side where it has the list of handlers and their rankings, they are all ranked #1! That wasn't the case just a few minutes ago.

t's a new surprise every day!

I seek out those owner judges. When I enter under other judges it is often just because there are very small entries and I hate seeing nobody getting any points. If it happens I win without a handler, I was just lucky I guess.

I do occasionally enter under handler judges and pick handlers. This is usually when I have a dog that I am trying to finish to some level or I think it might have a chance at group/show awards.

And if you come and use a handler when I don't and you win - Congratulations and good for you. It's a risk I accept in order to have too many kennels and stables and not enough time.

By the way, if you are interested in the history here, I just "stumbled" onto Facebook ShowDog.Com - there are links to old forum threads about this. I didn't have time to read it all so I'm going back for another look. Verrry interrresting, as they say.

I think Rachelle has "more" than a slight bias towards females!

Check these results for breed and opposite!

Rising Sun Royalty All Breed 5 · Airedale Terrier

www.showdog.com/shows/breed_results.aspx?show=Rising+Sun+Royalty+All+Breed+5&breed=Airedale+Terrier