Westminster Dog Show

[Ugo]

Sharon, I know what you mean however it can be misinterpreted. We all want our dogs to retain a healthy breed standard contingent. For example, I have seen Brittanys that dwarf setters and GSPs that dwarf Weims! Bigger is not necessarily better.
As you also mentioned Sharon, having the field accreditation goes hand-in-hand with the dog's conformation to give you the total package.

[terrym]

The NAVHDA breed clubs do a good job of that. They require physical conformation standards to go along with hunt testing in the breeding programs. I respect that.
The Brittany world is big on "dual" titles too. Many FC Britts also have show titles. The show title isn't always a weakness if it is in addition to field capability.

[Sharon]

Sharon, I know what you mean however it can be misinterpreted. We all want our dogs to retain a healthy breed standard contingent. For example, I have seen Brittanys that dwarf setters and GSPs that dwarf Weims! Bigger is not necessarily better.
As you also mentioned Sharon, having the field accreditation goes hand-in-hand with the dog's conformation to give you the total package.

Bigger is definitely not better , but I'm sure we agree that having correct needed conformation characteristics increases the chance of a better gundog - excluding pedigree etc.

.. except for the little Brittany you had.

[Sharon]

The NAVHDA breed clubs do a good job of that. They require physical conformation standards to go along with hunt testing in the breeding programs. I respect that.
The Brittany world is big on "dual" titles too. Many FC Britts also have show titles. The show title isn't always a weakness if it is in addition to field capability.

Well said.

[Waftrudnir]

The NAVHDA breed clubs do a good job of that. They require physical conformation standards to go along with hunt testing in the breeding programs. ....

and that makes complete sense.
hunting dogs have a purpose and certain physical characteristics; especially healthy genes, are part a good part of that.
Beauty? not only is beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but what does it help if you're dog looks great, but has no prey drive or doesn't accept any training. and just because they look great doesn't mean they are healthy; let alone fit for the task.

Do all those show guys really know or care about "purpose" other then selling pups for good money (sure some do, but isn't it foremost a marketing tool for breeders)?

Look at the picture; really hard to figure out the gender, eh?
http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/
and now look here again to see the judges official assessment
http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/2016/results/bis/
Sex: Dog
LMAO

[Ugo]

Sharon, there's no need to cloud the issue with facts.
What do they say, "Beauty is in the eye of the stake holder."

[welsh]

Bigger is definitely not better , but I'm sure we agree that having correct needed conformation characteristics increases the chance of a better gundog - excluding pedigree etc.

The problem arises when what is considered "correct conformation" diverges from a working standard. And this is inevitable in breeds where the number of non-working breeders greatly outnumbers the number of working breeders. This is why we see wide divergence between bench & field lines in Labs and Springers for example: lots of show breeders who have nothing to do with working dogs.

When you have a large number of breeders who have no connection at all to a working standard for the dog, the standard begins to drift according to what is considered fashionable at the time. Aspects of the conformation standard get pushed to extremes, the extremes become norms, then the new norms are used to revise the conformation standard until eventually the "correct conformation" dog bears no resemblance to what was considered correct several decades before. Pugs, which of course have no working utility whatsoever, are a particularly shameful example of this problem. The fault lies with breed clubs.

The same kind of drift in standards exists in working dogs, but it doesn't actually affect working ability, just what is considered "correct" performance.

[terrym]

The other thing is show points can easily be gamed. Those that play that game can pick and choose the venues to compete in based on familiarity of judges and contestants. You only need to beat the dogs that are there that day to accumulate points. I agree that the show game typically is detrimental to a working breed but will repeat that it also isn't the only way a dog gets judged.

Here is a finished Show Champion Brittany


Here is a Finished Field champion Brittany

http://www.wildmtnbrittanys.com/jade.html

Same dog right?
This is my dog's mother. Outstanding dog that you better bring one hell of a dog to outperform her in her prime. And she was a looker...

[Ugo]

Very nice Britt Terry!
Let's give the judge at the Westmisnster Show credit. He picked the GSP for both form and function (as discernable in that medium).
Now, google Champion English Setter or Champion Irish Setter or Champion Gordon Setter.
Beautiful, eh? Anyone can readily see function.

[welsh]

I agree that the show game typically is detrimental to a working breed ...

It's really only detrimental to a working breed when the breed club is dominated by people (a) who have no interest in or experience with the breed's working qualities, and (b) when the breed club allows the standard to drift by pursuing an exaggerated ideal (pugs being the worst example of this).

In the absence of those problems, a dog with excellent conformation should make at least a good working dog.