07/06/2026
Here is an interesting read for people to better understand Championship shows and breeding. This is taken from renowned judge Louis Donald: "As my Facebook friends are aware, I occasionally share a comment someone has made in response to one of my posts, along with my response.
I do this when I believe the issue raised is topical, commonly said, and worth addressing. My intention in sharing the response is not to personalise the matter, but hopefully to make a positive contribution to the wider discussion.
Comment:
“I struggle to marry up the writings and images with the choices made. Louis advocates strongly against exaggerations, however rewards it. Maybe it’s my comprehension of what is written, or maybe my observations are biased. Either way I’m not surprised by the division and infighting in the GSD breed.”
My response:
I understand the point being made, but I think there is an important distinction that is often overlooked.
Dog judges are frequently faced with a class where the best dog overall may have a fault the judge has spoken or lectured against. That does not automatically mean the dog should be ignored or placed down the line if, taken as a whole, it reflects breed type, is sound in temperament, is not lame or ill, and remains the best animal in the class.
The judge’s obligation is to recognise the fault, mention it honestly in the critique, and reflect it appropriately in the grading.
That is very different from blindly rewarding the fault itself. It is also very different from failing to mention a fault that everyone can see, or worse still, describing a curved back as straight, an excessive hindquarter as well angulated, or a dog unsound of limb as sound.
Where the discussion becomes problematic is when people become so fixated on one issue that they lose the capacity to assess the whole dog. Ignorance, blind obsession with a single topic, and a fair dose of Dunning-Kruger can produce statements that sound very certain, but are not necessarily informed.
I also understand why some people struggle to marry up what is written, what is illustrated, and the choices actually made in the ring.
I have consistently and strongly advocated against exaggeration. However, some people interpret certain judging results as rewarding the very thing I speak against. Maybe that is a question of comprehension. Maybe it is a question of observation. Maybe bias sits on both sides.
Either way, it does not surprise me that the breed remains so divided, particularly when severe faults are not being addressed consistently at the highest levels.
As I stated in my lecture to judges at the World Dog Show, the real issue is whether we are prepared to look beyond slogans, personalities and selective examples, and honestly ask whether the dog in front of us reflects the breed standards core fundamentals, is sound, balanced, functional and importantly, fit for purpose.
And assuming, as breed judges, we actually know what we are doing, we must also have the integrity to state clearly in our critiques what we see. Sadly, it is becoming increasingly obvious that some do not".
