Showdog.com Forum · Real Show Dogs

It has been awhile since I have been to a UKC show, but from talking to several people recently I am stunned at some of the things I am hearing. I am not mentioning kennels, people, or dogs in particular, but I will say this spans many breeds. I used to think, from what I saw, that as far as ethics and politics were concerned both UKC and AKC were fairly even...just UKC was more relaxed. Now I am thinking that the UKC has become no better than some of these fly by night organizations. Seems if people know your dog or your dog’s breeder you win no matter what. I have been told of dogs with serious faults by the UKC standard finishing easily. Among many many other things. I will say this worries me, since I used to really back the UKC as a registry. I wonder if anyone else has thoughts on this. Good or bad, but lets keep it civil. I am really curious as to what everyone else thinks, and has experienced.

Jennifer

Well I don't show dogs, but I'm pretty sure there is no perfect dog and that ALL of them will have faults. Just like on this game, different judges think some things are more important than others, and also on the game, the handler and judge "relationship" plays a role, even if it is biased. It's not a perfect world, even in the world of dogs. Thats the only reasons I can think of, but like I said, I dont show dogs.

-Jackie

jackie you would understand what she is talking about if you showed dogs. it can be really political depending on who you are showing againest. i do not know anything about the UKC, i show with the AKC, which i do know if very political!!
Serena

Thank you for the response. Just to clarify a couple points for anyone who doesnt know. UKC is a registry similar to AKC. They have a wider breed selection and I do not believe it is as hard to get some of the newer and rarer breeds on thier books to be looked at. They also allow no pro handlers.

I know I am not the only one seeing this, because I believe it was the end of last year or the beginning of this year that AKC stopped allowing thier judges to cross judge for UKC. I do not have the paper any longer, so I can not remember the exact date or reason given.

Jennifer

I'd think not allowing pro handlers would eliminate a big chunk of the politics

Jennifer,

I can only answer according to my experience, but my dogs have breezed through their UKC titles and I am a nobody. I have also taken many dogs back in the ring to help breeders with mulitple entries and won. I have seen some questionable judging, yes, but not because of politics, but from poorly trained judges. Hmmm, how do I put this delicately -- some UKC judges do not have the knowledge base, experience and training that AKC judges do. They know their breed, but not the others well enough to deserve the title "all breed judge." But, again, that is just my experience, and that is just limited to my local area (Colorado). That said, I still enjoy the laid back atmosphere and exhibitor camraderie at UKC shows, even when the judging is worse that you would see at a match. It is a lot of fun, and I would encourage everybody to give UKC a try.

JMHO

Amy

Excellent post, thank you. Yes, I do not think its enough to make me never show with them again. If nothing else its excellent practice. I had not thought about lack of judge training, but that makes alot of sense.

Jennifer

Velvet Rose

This AKC rule covering judges did not take place until Monday, May 15, 2006....
So anything you think you were saw prior to that date had nothing to do with the judges not being an "AKC" judge.

I have shown in both UKC and AKC in several different breeds but will only speak of Vizsla for now...

I have seen dogs finish in both AKC and UKC who were far from show quality. Maybe it was bad judging in either or both clubs or maybe in AKC it was who held the leash.

I have seen a BROWN Vizsla take best in breed over very nice specials in an AKC show.
Vizslas who are clearly DQ in size win in the AKC ring.

Sorry I do not think the UKC is any worse then AKC. I personaly think they both may have their bad points just in different ways.

In both AKC and UKC, you either take your chances with the judge, or learn what (or who) your judge looks for and show accordingly. If you are out for practice, who cares, but if you know your judge only puts up professional handlers and you aren't, then don't show to him or her. If the judge is a 'tooth fairy' and doesn't look at anything else, you know whether to show a dog to him or not...

Some possible reasons for 'questionable' results:

-I haven't been to a lot of UKC shows, but I think the poster who said that some UKC judges don't seem as qualified as some AKC judges may have a point.

-It all comes down to what a judge looks for. They are human, after all, and will interpret breed standards differently. For example, Belgian Tervuren are supposed to be heavily penalized if they have a 'gray' coat instead of a mahogany or fawn color. Do the grays win sometimes? Absolutely. Some judges will put up the better dog regardless of color. Some will put up a lesser dog structurally if it's color is outstanding. Some will put up a dog with a beautiful head, while others don't look at the head as much as the overall balance.

-Sometimes a dog may look great, but the judge gets her hands on the dog and can feel more than others can see. Fancy grooming can hide lots of faults that can be picked up by feeling. The better looking dog may not be the better dog.

-Also remember that its a dog SHOW. A dog who is not as nice but shows his heart out will usually win over a spectacular dog that doesn't care.

-One other thing to bear in mind-- I've seen judges put up a poorer quality or badly-groomed example of its breed on more than one occasion over nicer dogs on purpose twice. Both times, this was done when there were no points or no majors to be had, or if it is just a 'class win' and not for points. The reason? The judge recognized a new beginner to the sport who was doing their best with what they had and what they knew. That one win can be immense encouragement to a newbie in a sport where most new people drop out after just one show. The handlers griped, but the judge asked them if it was more important for them to have a meaningless win or for that other exhibitor to have a great experience and want to learn more and continue in the sport? She had a point. With fewer and fewer matches being held today, newbies are forced to enter sanctioned shows and are overwhelmed with the attitudes and shuns by many other exhibitors. I was lucky and had a wonderful breeder to mentor me who continues to do so even though I am now showing a different breed. Without her encouragement and a couple of nice wins, I don't know if I'd still be showing.

Are there politics in all aspects of dog sport? Of course. Is it any better in UKC? I think a little, just because there is not as much prestige involved. Judges are also human. If they know a breeder usually has nice dogs and sees that breeder showing a dog, it's human nature to give that dog an advantage, particularly if you aren't as familiar with that breed and don't know anybody else in the ring.

quote

---

posted by Bensdogs
I'd think not allowing pro handlers would eliminate a big chunk of the politics

---

No it wouldn't

I agree, it wouldn't. Because then instead of judging the pro handlers, the judges would look for the breeders/owners or whatnot that have been in the breed the longest, or people that they know personally. Its sad to say, but people will always find a way to cheat and win.

No comment on the UKC thing... because honestly, they are just a good show for socialization and practice IMO.


Ryan

Thanks for starting this thread Jennifer.
I like reading everyone's opinion on the 2 clubs, and it even answers some questions.

~Anna

I enjoy UKC more, but the reasons won't apply to everyone:

I have a Standard Poodle and coat care is *not* easy - especially if I need to re-bathe him as soon as I get home to take out all the hairspray! That adds another 3-4 hours after a long day at the show
UKC allows any hair style and is very strict with their no hairspray rule (yes!).

Also, they are two shows per day, which equals a lot less driving for the show experience, plus the shows are usually small enough to gaurantee two times in the ring per show - lot's of experience, and with at least two judges... very good for practice

I agree that it seems a lot of UKC judges do not have the knoweledge of every breed enough to judge them, but in Poodles AKC has done a good job of ruining the breed in many cases - ewe necks, straight fronts, over-angulated rears... - ugh!

-Jillian

How about this one.... I have entered my UKC reg. drever in a show next weekend. As far as I can tell there is no UKC standard for the drever. Shall I bring the CKC one along with me?

Hmmmm... that's weird. It's possible they won't allow you to compete until a time when they do have a Standard. If it's a long drive, make sure you call or email the secretary before going. If you do go, bringing the other Standard would be a good idea - maybe hand it in for the judge to go over when you arrive...

-Jillian

I personally do not show in UKC. I believe that their judges are not trained enough, and there for I do not value there opinion. I know a dog that took a UKC best in show that cannot even finish in the AKC. I have shown my Tibetan Spaniels once, and it was pitiful. First of all the judge thought he was judging pekes, honestly. He actually said to the steward what an odd line up of pekes. THAT pisses me off. At least be able to identify a breed that you are judging.

Tressor, I agree with you exactly... but did you know that some UKC judges also judge in the AKC ?????


I saw a boxer that went BIS both times in one day, that was like 4 and only had like 2 singles in AKC

quote

---

posted by Tresor
I personally do not show in UKC. I believe that their judges are not trained enough, and there for I do not value there opinion. I know a dog that took a UKC best in show that cannot even finish in the AKC. I have shown my Tibetan Spaniels once, and it was pitiful. First of all the judge thought he was judging pekes, honestly. He actually said to the steward what an odd line up of pekes. THAT pisses me off. At least be able to identify a breed that you are judging.

---

Actually, Tresor, I agree with you completely on your assessment of UKC judging. However, UKC shows are fantastic for prepping puppies for AKC shows, and they are so much more fun as an exhibitor, especially the novice one that needs that extra boost of confidence that comes with a win, which are so much easier to procure at a UKC show. It is a bit like being rewarded with a title for what you accomplished at a handling class. And, because of the relaxed atmosphere, it is often so much more fun for all the people involved. I have had the opportunity to show, and win with, breeds I never thought of owning or handling. UKC shows in this area are like a big family reunion. And that is something I cherish. I guess that might sound stupid and pitiful to some of you all, but it is JMHO.

Amy

PS: Ryan, I picked of a UKC GRCh leg on my bitch one weekend under a judge and showed to him in AKC the next weekend. There are qualified judges -- the trick is finding them

LOL your right Amy... but it just seems they are very hard to find!

Divine...
You may want to try writing or calling Carrie at the UKC to see what is going on with the Drever standard. I know when the WHV became UKC a few months back the standard was up the same day...then again there were breed reps. who took care of all of it start to finish.

but did you know that some UKC judges also judge in the AKC ?????>>

There are more then you may think. Just go to the UKC forums and take a look...there were many of them very unhappy about the new AKC rule.