From the MBF Website.
I found this very interesting. Click on the table at the bottom for each year to see the numbers for Labs.

http://www.infodog.com/misc/winbrdstat.htm

JUDGES ONLY PUT UP HANDLERS, SO
HANDLERS MUST BE THE ONLY ONES WINNING AT DOG SHOWS
Really? If you speak with very many exhibitors they’ll be only too happy to express that statement. This got us thinking. So many folks believe this to be so, but upon what is this statement based? Perception? Experience? Their breed? What are the facts?

We decided to take a look at wins at dog shows. Using published records for MB-F shows held in 2008 and 2009 we looked at:


The number of Winners wins awarded
The number of Bests of Breed awarded
The number of Group Firsts awarded
The number of Bests in Show awarded
The number of these wins that were awarded to dogs with no agent listed and the number that were awarded to dogs that had an agent listed.
Here’s what we found.

For 2008:

82,724 Winners awards
11,771 (14%) were given to dogs with handlers listed and
70,953 (86%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.

50,587 Bests of Breed awards
17,033 (34%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
33,554 (66%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.

3402 Group Firsts
1857 (55%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
1545 (45%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.

488 Bests in Show awards
323 (66%) awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
165 (34%) awarded to dogs with no agent listed.

For 2009:

82,237 Winners awards
11,239 (14%) were given to dogs with a handler listed and
70,998 (86%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.

51,176 Bests of Breed awards
17,566 (34%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
33,610 (66%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.

3445 Group Firsts
1810 (53%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
1635 (47%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.

496 Bests in Show awards
310 (62%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
186 (38%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.

The numbers are what they are. To find your individual breed, go to the accompanying table to see the numbers and percentages for Winners and Best of Breed. Please remember that not all breeds compete at each show. The totals account for every time a breed was entered at a show and competed. There are separate tables (by Variety Group) for 2008 and 2009.

View the 2008 table
http://www.infodog.com/misc/winbrdstats2008.htm

View the 2009 table
http://www.infodog.com/misc/winbrdstats2009.htm

I send my dog out with a handler and never list an agent. This is not going to be accurate, if they are only going by who lists an agent for their dog.

Same here. My dog was entered at 5 shows without the handler's name because I did not have the handler # at the time I made my entries.

I do the same thind and list no agent!!!!

A relevant piece of information would be how many ENTRIES have an agent listed vs those that do not. This doesn't address the question of dogs being handled by an agent that isn't given (I've done that, too, in the past), but it would speak to the relative success rate of dogs with a listed agent vs dogs without one, which is a more interesting question to me than the proportion of winners that are handled by an agent.

Another point is that here in Wisconsin, I have often been at small shows in which no agents were showing Labs. I have never been at a show in which no owner-handlers were present (because I was there), but seriously, I don't think that happens much around here. If no agent -handled (or owner-handled) dogs are present, then they can't get the points that day!

That said, owner-handled dogs win regularly in this area. I've pointed most of the dogs I've shown and finished some myself. And I am not a really great handler. But there are some judges that do seem to give the handlers a better break, and I avoid them.

That is what we already have. If the handler is not listed then how would you know if it was handled by an Agent or not from the information provided?

I agree, MOST of the dogs I see showing with a handler do NOT have an agent listed in the catalog. So this study is totally inaccurate.
Among the other big issues with judging, like the AB judges who wouldn't know a good dog if it tripped them, this is just yet another problem.

I generally stick with breeder judges and I do quite well if I show them a nice dog.
I just don't have the money or desire to show under AB judges who are going to put up handlers with fieldy dogs.
Been there, done that. Over it now. Moving on.

"Among the other big issues with judging, like the AB judges who wouldn't know a good dog if it tripped them"

this statement is very rude and subjective. Personally - statements like that should not be made publicly.

I know some breeds have more pros than others but there have been times when I was the only non-pro in the ring. These statistics are just not true. Using entry form statistics to prove who is on a dog is junk science. It doesn't account for ring pick ups and owners that send dogs out after they have made entries.

Handlers get on the form when the handler does the entries. Even when handlers have filled out the entries for me, there are times where they have failed to list themselves as Agent.

If handlers were only winning 3 out of the 10 times they entered the ring (and sharing that 33% with the other pros in their breed) we wouldn't be hiring them. Nice try MB-F.

What's wrong, can take the truth?

Some of the worst (and more inconsistent) judging I have seen at All Breed shows has been under breeder judges. I recently watched a breeder judge put up a special for BOS (over a specialty winning WD, so there was good competition)that could not move its way out of a paper bag. Even with a pro handler, the dog moves so poorly that it looks like there is something wrong with it - most people cringe when they see it - certainly not a dog that looks like it could function in the field even on a good day. Even standing, the dog does not stand foursquare -very weak in the rear. But what a pretty head, coat and tail What a disservice to a working breed by a judge that should know better!

I have seen substance win over quality, head coat and tail win with no consideration to function, etc. Breeder judges who breed or judge based on personal preference do the breed no more favors than AB judges who do not understand the standard. In fact, they do the breed more harm because other breeders may pay more attention to what they deem as "correct".

Really, Really?
Did our breed change groups while I wasn't looking?
LOL! Just had to, sorry!

I think generalizations about all breed judges can be dangerous to those who read them and make conclusions based on that, and not first hand knowledge. I was just on a judging panel that included an "AB" judge. At hospitality, I asked how they had learned Labs (and I have shown under and judged with this judge and respect their decisions). The response was that that this particular judge went to the Potomac 9 consecutive years and believes that non-breeder judges should not be approved unless they can document attendance at that show 3 times. Granted - not all judges are that perceptive, but let's not lump them all into the same bucket.

Thanks Greg - you put into words just what my previous post was driving at including: generalizations.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Mark Twain, who attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli