I received a newspaper clipping from a puppy buyer in which the Westminster Kennel Club show chairman Thomas Bradley III was interviewed by Janice Lloyd of USA Today. "This is Westminster darling, not a popularity contest". The top organizer says trying to predict this year's Best in Show winner is a "crapshoot", but when asked if a black Labrador has a shot at winning, his response is quick and definite. "They are wonderful dogs, but they do not show well. They're great with kids, other dogs and cats, but they never win Best in Show. They just don't have what it takes. They just stand there and wag their tails".
Now let me tell you this man is a judge who has been regarded by the Labrador fancy with respect and has actually judged at specialty shows. I take exception to his remarks and think the Labrador breeders and exhibitors should demand an apology from Mr Bradley. This is just proof of an issue that has been frosting my cupcakes for quite a few years now. What is WRONG here is that the all-breed judges are NOT judging the Labrador TO THE STANDARD! They are comparing our breed to the other exhibits in the group and best in show ring. A Labrador should wag it's tail to show it's biddable temperament as outlined in our standard. This is part of what defines type in our breed. Frankly I don't see what is so superior with these big winners in other breeds. They just stand there and look at the bait. So the handler trains them to stand still, big deal! Frankly I am fed up with the lack of quality and knowlege in the all-breed judge ranks. If they can't consider each and every breed to be recognized for excellence then they should step down as judges. Lets organize and contact Mr Bradley as well as the president of Westminster and demand an apology!

So what are they suppose to do? Or rather what do the other breeds do that they don't? Confused.

Just as an FYI, Tom Bradley is a Labrador breeder. His kennel name is Luftnase.

I don't think he has bred any labs in a long time though. may be wrong.

Yes he had Labs many years ago. Judges talk about the dog that walks into the ring like he or she owns it and demands the win. This is the extra edge they are looking for in a show dog. But, you would not expect every breed to do that exactly the same would you? Wouldn't you take the breed's temperament into consideration in determining what defines that edge? A guard dog like a Doberman would look totally different then a Labrador while showing that "look at me" attitude. Watching James in his first appearance at the Garden he was all about the "look at me, I am the best dog here" thing. He should have won the group and pushed for best in show. He was a fantastic moving Lab and as close to the standard as you see in my opinion. What else do these people want?? Am I the only one outraged about this?

Tom Bradley is right ... a Labrador will probably never win at the Garden. Best In Show judges are looking for a flashy dog and one that moves like a Pointer, whether it's a Pointer or not. When our breeders try to reproduce that same side gate, they are losing the Labrador and what he was originally bred to do and gaining a Pointer.

Also, there's no way to deny it - Labradors look ponderous next to other breeds. he fact of the matter is, we show our dogs fat. No other breed does this. Most of the group dogs at Westminster looked so fit. I know, I know, we all say it's substance, but.. truth of the matter is, most of our dogs in the show ring carry an easy extra 5-10. Not all of them are shown like this, but most. and, our specialty winning dogs are often (not always) leaning on the edge of caricature.

Well, Stump the Sussex won...talk about laid back, and the deerhound is not a showy breed to me. I really don't get it....why a lab couldn't win if they had the right judge.

That is a bunch of bs.....if the right judge comes along - one who recognizes true labrador type...and the right labrador they could win. The problem is that both need to happen at the same time!

That is the key, the judges have to be all lined up just right, breed, group, BIS. That was why Stump was pulled out of retirement, that particular year it was a perfect lineup for him to win. There was a Lab who was shown there a few years back who would have probably gotten a group 1 under the sporting judge who happened to be judging that year, she had given him many BIS's at all breed shows, but he never made it out of the breed because the breed judge was not good for him. But one day maybe, if a Scottish Deerhound can win, then there is always hope!

When I saw the judges, I went back to info dog and looked at their past judging records for breed and sporting gr. Neither one of their past records indicated they would definetly put up a lab. Reynolds had given a group one, and I think that dog was there, but didn't win breed. A maybe better ex. was with the GWP. The top winning dog was there. (Maybe top winning in breed history) He didn't win breed. The breed winning bitch is also a big winner. He gave her a group placement (was it 2) BUT he had given BIS to the dog that didn't win. Might have been a HUGE win for the dog IF he had won breed.

Best in show has very little to do with breed type - it has to do with the showiness of the dog. I recall there was a chow on the west coast that was winning a lot of best in shows and remembering hearing judges talking about his wonderful movement and extension. Problem is - that is exactly the opposite of what the breed standard calls for a chow!

To me this demonstrates how chasing best in show can destroy breed type.

I am truly shocked that a member of AKC, at their biggest pr event of the year, would dis any breed in such a way, especially our Labradors!!!

I am writing to every address, of every name, I can find on the AKC website expressing my feelings. And would hope that everyone would boycott showing to Tom Bradley, until such time he apologizes in public.

I agree. The labradors that are winning BIS are not the correct type for a labrador. They are showy and all but you don't see any of the old timers or big breeders using them for stud service. There's a reason. Top winning all breed labradors are a different type than what the true labrador was supposed to be.
To be competitive in all-breed you have to sacrifice type.
Sad it has to be that way.

Labs had much bigger entries then most of the other entries at Westminster. I noticed that in some breeds there were only four. Why should we waste our money entering Westminster then have to listen to negative comments about our Labs. There are some flashy breeds who consistently place in groups who are known for bad temperaments. Shouldn't a breed with a good temperament like a Lab be awarded and applauded for being a good representative for all dogs.

So, what part of the comment that Mr. Bradley made do you disagree with? Labs are not that showy. They won't win Westminster. It would be a good idea to see the entire interview, if there was more. He was honest in what he said, maybe he could have been more political???? and said something he didn't believe

That may be true in your world but it certainly is not where I live. There are some very typey dogs doing very well at all breed shows, including the group level, on the West Coast.

I think there are some dogs winning at all-breed shows that may not be my cup of tea, but there are just as many winning at specialties that look nothing like the athletic dog described in the standard. A dog with good breed type is going to be successful at any venue.

As far as breeding to certain dogs goes, breeding is a very personal decision and there are many factors that go into selecting a stud dog. Where a dog has won points has little impact on my selections - there are so many other factors to consider than wins.

If any dog deviates from its breed standard significantly, it should not win in group or BIS at a competitive all-breed show. Period.

The standard says that Labradors should be of a certain height and within a certain weight range and most are not.

I am not commenting on what true Labrador type should or should not be. If dogs win at specialties under breeder judges but do not look like the standard describes, that may or may not be correct given all the extenuating circumstances regarding the Labrador standard. This is different case from an all-breed show.

But if an all-breed judge ignores a dog of any breed because that dog is significantly different from what the breed standard describes, then that may be frustrating, but how can you not understand why???

There are a ton of posts about being showy, etc., but I think you all might have your heads in the sand. I don't think that even Mr. Bradley believed what he said. I think he thought he was being political by not saying the truth.

I think you've got it backward. I think the dogs that are winning specialties are not typey - way too big and ponderous and clunky. The big winning all-breed dogs like Buzz, RJ, James are all very typey, but they're not campaigned nationwide.

Personally, I think that the problem is that Lab People don't play the game very well; there's not a lot of advertising etc. and frankly, there just isn't enough money behind Labs to win at WKC.

How can you even put those 3 dogs in the same sentence and feel good about it??
They are 3 TOTALLY different dogs.
Doesn't that alone kind of defeat your point?
PS - James was NOT shown at AB's unless it was a breeder judge with the exception of of WKC.
James is a specialty type Labrador, a correct one, who is nothing like those other 2. Those other 2 just had a ton of money behind them, AND the same handler. Gee, go figure.

Those 3 dogs are totally different in type, so what's your point?

I am completely confused by your statements as they related to Mr. Bradley who bred Labradors under the kennel name Luftnase (which is German for nose in the air) and has judged Labrador Specialty shows as well as Westminster. He's recently judged in my area, and though I might not agree with his choices, I respected his choices.

Mr. Bradley simply stated a fact that Labradors so far have not demonstrated an ability to win Westminster.

How your statement about Mr. Bradley relates to all-breed judging quality I do not understand. But, in fact, many all-breed judges come closer to evaluating Labs by the Lab standard for moderation than some specialty judges.

For example, according to the Standard,

"Labrador Retrievers shall be shown in working condition well-muscled and without excess fat."

"Above all, a Labrador Retriever must be well balanced, enabling it to move in the show ring or work in the field with little or no effort."

"Movement of the Labrador Retriever should be free and effortless."

Isn't comparing how well Labs meet their Standard (the few who make it to Groups and BIS) with how well other breeds meet their standard the point of Groups and BIS?
Perhaps Mr. Bradley and all-breed judges are seeing that Labs are not meeting their Standard as well as other breeds.

As a judge, Mr. Bradley should have exercised control over these thoughts, as judges are supposed to be held to higher standards and to also be (thought) impartial. While his statement may be a fact, it is one that would have been better left kept to himself, especially in light of the fact that the AKC is a business that operates largely in part because of the revenue generated by our million++ labradors that are registered and competed with on a yearly basis. Regardless of your take on what type of Labs are winning or should be winning ,etc. the only opinion that a judge should give is when he is in the ring making his placements.

[/quote]
Those 3 dogs are totally different in type, so what's your point?[/quote]

Those 3 dogs all have type - they are different in style. They are all competitive at both specialties and all-breed shows, as are most dogs with true breed type.

This was what I was talking about. Doesn't make any difference, whether you agree with Mr Bradley's opinion or not, as the Westminster Chairman, he shouldn't have said this about ANY breed in public.




hold your tongue Mr. Bradley

As a judge, Mr. Bradley should have exercised control over these thoughts, as judges are supposed to be held to higher standards and to also be (thought) impartial. While his statement may be a fact, it is one that would have been better left kept to himself, especially in light of the fact that the AKC is a business that operates largely in part because of the revenue generated by our million++ Labradors that are registered and competed with on a yearly basis. Regardless of your take on what type of Labs are winning or should be winning ,etc. the only opinion that a judge should give is when he is in the ring making his placements.

Hmmm. So we pay a lot to AKC, and Mr. Bradley should keep his opinions to himself if he knows what's good for him?

Surely the Emperor may not like it when someone tells him he is naked, but who better to tell him than someone who knows clothes. Maybe some of us will listen better to Mr. Bradley's statements than we do to the other all-breed judges.

I think you must be confusing type/quality with top top handler/money.
Because 2 of those 3 dogs had the latter and 1 didn't. In fact the very SAME top handler!
With a very political, top handler, a monkey on a string could achieve quite a bit.
I am not calling these dogs that, but just consider whether they won on merit, or something else.

Those 3 dogs are totally different in type, so what's your point?[/quote]

Those 3 dogs all have type - they are different in style. They are all competitive at both specialties and all-breed shows, as are most dogs with true breed type.[/quote]

I wonder why people are so upset by this statement. It is true that Labs don't win BIS very often. They aren't as showy as many other breeds. The record number of BIS awards for a Lab is only 20 or so. They just don't win groups or BIS very often. Mr. Bradley may not have been implying anything in his remarks but the obvious. Someone asked him why a Lab has never gone BIS at Westminster, and he gave his opinion.

I have always felt that this was a plus for our breed, as people who are only interested in winning lots of top conformation awards will not get into Labs in the first place. That keeps the breed in the hands of people who are interested in maintaining the temperament and trainability of the breed, as well as its wash and wear qualities. Glamour for glamour's sake has ruined a number of breeds. Of course, we now have so many specialties that the grandstanders can go that route.

I am not confusing anything. A good dog is a good dog, regardless of who is at the other end of the leash. All 3 were out with handlers. All 3 have won BISS under breeder judges at specialties in addition to their all breed wins. Does a handler help? Sure. But no dog is going to continue to win at the level at which these dogs have won without having breed type. Whether they are your style of dog is irrelevant. The one thing they all have in common is that they are all fit, athletic, clean moving dogs. Many of our labradors are shown far too heavy and do not move well - no handler can disguise that.

I own a bitch that finished with 3 majors (one was a 5 point specialty win out of BBE). Most of her points were out of BBE. Two singles were with a handler. She is the same quality of dog with a handler as she is owner-handled. Did the handler help? Of course - she got my dog to 2 shows I could not attend. If judges are paying more attention to the handler than the dog, that is a problem with judging, not with the dogs.

Kate- What it means is that because of his comments, many of us will ask why bother showing a lab in group- what is the point if it is already deemed to be a fruitless pursuit? What does this tell any newcomer to the breed- your dog is good enough to be a champion and we want you to spend money to make it a grand champion but after that, sorry- Labs just don't really go that far. What a shame and yes, judges should keep their mouth shut. You can spout rhetoric about a naked emperor, but judges are held to higher standards and SHOULD NOT- state anything that would be deemed demeaning, derogatory or in any way harmful to any breed.

Speaking an informed opinion honestly and openly IS a higher standard in my book.

What truly amazes me, however, is the power you give to what Bradley says. Really, honestly, you believe that he can get Lab breeders to give up showing in Group????? Wow! Your fear surely lends a lot of credence to his opinion.

But regardless of what you or I think about what he said, only Lab breeders can prove him wrong--or right. So if you think he's wrong, have at it.

I beg to differ about the handler comment.
2 of those dogs had a top winning, political handler. One had a young guy who had only been another pro handlers kennel helper up until then. That handler was NOT in the same league as the other handler by a land slide.
I don't think you could call that an even scale.
Without a good dog, the young man could never have achieved what he did with James.
On the contrary with the other 2 dogs.

You are correct Kate. Have at it but don't enter under Mr. Bradley.

He was wrong to say it, but he's right. All breed shows have become about presentation and showmanship and because of it more breeds are stylized to be more competitive in group and BIS. Top group dogs move alike too. Shame on judges for rewarding that.

A dog of superior build and type that 'just stood there and wagged his tail' should not be overlooked if that temperament is what his breed Standard calls for. If a Lab showed like a Terrier, a judge should be hard pressed to place it.

"Isn't comparing how well Labs meet their Standard (the few who make it to Groups and BIS) with how well other breeds meet their standard the point of Groups and BIS?
Perhaps Mr. Bradley and all-breed judges are seeing that Labs are not meeting their Standard as well as other breeds."

Couldn't agree more!! What is the point of getting a dog that is short on leg and too overdone to move without rocking and rolling to the group? These judges are reading the standard, not going by what people "like" in a Lab. the standard is the standard and until it is changed that's all they have. They are comparing how well that Lab in the group comforms to his standard vs how well the Springer compares to it's standard. That's how it works, folks.

Hmmm, I read the article as somebody emailed it to me. I think it could be read by 10 different people and there would be 10 different view points.

The one possible thought I had not read in the previous emails.....do you think Mr. Bradley was simply issuing the Lab community a challenge to step up to the plate and prove him wrong?

The lackadaisical attitude shown by some exhibitors these days amazes me. The article mentions that one handler did not bathe their dog. I'm sorry...but you can have a proper, course coat and a clean coat at the same time. Nobody is going to put up a dirty dog for Group or BIS.

Now we can all argue "style" until the cows come home.
Let's review:

Type: there are only 2 types of Labradors, most commonly referred to as American and English.

Style: Those are the subtle differences within the type. The breed standard is subjective allowing each of us to decide which style best defines our own idea of type.

Alphabetically: Buzz, James and RJ all have type but are of slightly different style. As for handlers...the two handlers of these 3 dogs actually have strong and fairly equal reputations.

The thought that money is what propels a dog to #1 is something to consider. But nobody should assume to know what kind of money has actually been put behind the dog. One of the two dogs mentioned as having a boat load of money behind him...DID NOT have as much money behind him as was behind James. I will not go into details, but this I know for a FACT. This same dog was the Labrador Community's best chance at taking BIS at Westminster. That year he received an AOM, but not the breed.

Until the Breed Judge at Westminster looks up the chain and puts up a lab that will be considered by the Group and/or Best In Show judge, a lab will not win.

Now the community has to decide....what do they want?

I have followed much of this feed which has been incredibly interesting..most people that have objections are talking about recent labs, but no matter what weight, style, in all the years No lab has won. I, personally was amazed by the Deerhound, did not know it was owned by my vet in Va for a couple days later. The deerhound was not a favorite. It comes down to the right judge at the right time. By the way I thought the Deerhound was one of the best I have seen. I also think the Lab has been highly overlooked. Place, judge and timing is everything. The only thing I can personally say is I think labs have given there best shot at W. Judges have made there choices and we will be back. Wam8

Everything written in this quote is a correct statement. And it does respond directly to the actual quote from Mr. Bradley.

But it is just so interesting to read the different posts here. There are 2 clear trains of thought among others that consistently stand out.

Are labs unfairly being singled out due to a correct (for them) temperament that may not be the best for group and BIS at an all breed type venue?

Or do lab breeders and breeder judges simply tend to favor dogs that are not consistent with the breed standard as written?

Again, I am not taking a position as to whether that standard is or is not very good. But would an all-arounder, who may know dogs in general very well, picture a dog that looks like the typical specialty winning Labrador when he or she reads the lab breed standard?

Also, and I hope I can explain this right..... Do food connoisseurs like to eat at Subway? Do music officianados (spelling?) enjoy top ten music? Even if they do sneak away for a Big Mac once in a while, do they admit to this?

Since labs are so popular, wouldn't the tendency be to simply overlook them for something more obscure? Isn't there something uncool about being so trendy?

All dogs in BIS at Westminster are under a microscope, but doesn't the longstanding #1 breed unfortunately have to deal with completely unrealistic expectations of unattainable perfection? ...not to mention jealousy.

On another note....I once asked an all-breed judge why she put up the Boxer and didn't put up the Lab for Best in Show. I assured her I just wanted to learn...her response....

It is much harder to find a nice Boxer than it is to find a nice Lab.

Sorry folks, that you just have to take as a compliment!

#1 you are wrong. There is only ONE "type" of Labrador, not two. Show me the breed standard for the American Labrador. Common misconception.

#2 style. Wrong again. Those 3 dogs are as different as night and day. They almost look like different breeds it's so vast.

#3 reputation. Wrong, the handler for James may have that rep. NOW, but that is thanks to JAMES.

#4 money. Please do not claim to know how much money is behind any of those dogs or not, unless you know first hand. Which I doubt you do by your statements.

#5 best chance at BIS? ok I will not even argue that because so many factors to consider. But I disagree.

I have to say, this is one of the more interesting discussions posted in a long time.

I was wondering if someone could post the link to the entire interview?

When reasoning why Labs don't place higher at Westminster - I don't think that it has anything to do with the dog matching the standard. I think that with all the amazing Labs out there, some of which could be found at Westminster (and , again, not all that enter are worthy), one could be selected that could do something in Group. This would have to happen under the right judge!! The problem of getting into the group placements lies with years of what goes on in the AKC and what all of the "seasoned" judges think should go into group. I'm not an insider by any means, but there's alot more going on in Group than breed type - if you know what I mean.

So, if there is a movement to overhaul the way judges make their way to the top and what they learn and how they are taught - maybe the Lab could infiltrate the upper crust.

Until then, most people keep their Labs at home for Westminster and take them to their own playground - Potomac!!!

Often all-breed judges (those who were not first Lab breeder judges) see few Specialty winning Labs. Why? Because many Lab breeders believe that all-breed judges will not reward the type of Lab who wins a Specialty. In fact, I've heard many Lab breeders boast that they only show their dogs in Specialties or to Lab breeder judges. Evidently, these breeders do not think that general judges reading the Lab standard will picture their Specialty winning dog.

When I read the standard, I remember the words "shown in working condition, well muscled and without excess fat" and movement that is "free and effortless." Perhaps all-breed judges remember those words as well.

The problem with concentrating on only Specialties for showing is that you cease to get outside feedback. It is easy to move incrementally away from the Standard and get no feedback that you are doing so.

Well, then breeder judges must also be favoring this handler because she has done very well at specialties with the dogs she shows. They are all nice dogs. They were all produced by BREEDERS who supposedly know the standard. I think people like to be petty and cannot appreciate a style of dog different from the ones in their own back yard, which is sad.


QUOTE: I beg to differ about the handler comment.
2 of those dogs had a top winning, political handler. One had a young guy who had only been another pro handlers kennel helper up until then. That handler was NOT in the same league as the other handler by a land slide.
I don't think you could call that an even scale.
Without a good dog, the young man could never have achieved what he did with James.
On the contrary with the other 2 dogs.

I believe that all-rounders are given the opportunity to judge better Labs. I am willing to give them a try. I would say that (with all-rounders) you may have a small (say 30%) chance of winning, even with an excellent dog - when put up against a well know (circuit) handler, even if your dog is typier. That's just the way it is. I really don't think that some of them are that conscientious as to what kind of statement they make, by way of what they select. I do believe that is why the entries are so low some of the time, for the all-rounders, who have been given a chance but are set in their ways.

NO FEEDBACK??? I don't know about you but honestly I ONLY care about what other Labrador breeders think of my dog, not what some Beagle breeder thinks!
If breeder judges don't like it, it's not worth it's dog food at my house :)
Afterall, the long time breeder judges ARE the ones who know, mold, protect and advance are breed.

I agree. When I end up at an all breed show and watch all breed judges judging Labs, they are consistantly putting up weedy, no angulation, terrible head, no coat specimins with political handlers on the other end of the lead.
I want to barf sometimes when I watch WD and WB. Is that what our breed is coming to? Yup, at least at all breed shows.
When I see that, doesn't make me so eager to waste my money.

Was going to make a similar comment about quite a few 'all breed' judges. I do show at both all breed and specialties but I carefully pick all breed judges that I show my dogs to. Why should I value the opinion of an all breed judge who does not recognize type, who only puts up the skinniest dog with no coat and no angles, or whose placements are all pro handlers?

Once upon a time, I believed that handlers provided a significant advantage. But being a scientist, I couldn't settle for belief alone. I conducted a little experiment.

For a year I collected data on every show I attended. At the time I was exhibiting about two weekends a month at shows within 300 miles of my home. I noted how many Labs were in each class and how many had handlers. At the time I knew most of the handlers and their assistants, but if there was a question, I asked others or the handler themselves.

For purposes of my research, I defined a handler as anyone who was paid (either by the owner or another handler) for showing a dog at any point in their lives. Even if the handler was showing his/her own dog, they were stilled defined as a handler.

I found that in the classes and WD/WB, handlers provided no advantage. Handlers won in proportion to how many dogs they showed. So if handlers showed 40% of the dogs, handled dogs won about 40% of the time, and if owners handled 60% of the dogs, they won about 60% of the time.

When it came to BOB and Groups, however, handlers did provide a modest advantage. (I also noticed that handlers seemed to put what appeared to me to be more effort into showing the dog in BOB and Groups than they did in the classes).

I was pretty surprised by the results. But most interesting is the fact that even though I conducted the research myself, I still seem to believe that handlers provide an advantage--as witnessed by my behavior in hiring handlers. Fascinating.

Okay, I just have to say this...I have watched Joy Quallenberg handle Labs for the past 28+ years. I have never seen her show a monkey on a string. She's a good handler and as such, has HER pick of clients to show for and she does not choose to show poor quality dogs. Period. Some she has shown I have personally liked more than others due to "style" differences or pedigree preferances, but even the ones I would never think of breeding to would never be classified as a monkey on a string.

There is no need to disparage another person's dog, nor the handler showing it. They paid for the judge's opinion, not yours. JMO.

Best,

Leslee Pope
Huntcrest

No one said any of those dogs WAS a "monkey on a string", just that the handler could win with one if she tried.
There's no need to be defensive. We all know there is an advantage for handlers.
But a really good dog can win without one.

Isn't this anecdotal? If there are FEWER shows where the majority of the dogs are owner-handled, the handlers still win more often. If there are more owner-handlers at certain shows it may be because the judge is a breeder judge or someone who knows the breed well or is someone known to be apolitical. That is the reason they win rather than they have better odds.

Unless all wins at all shows are compared there is really no way of telling who wins more. Even MB-F's statistics giving the edge to handlers is under reported because they assumed if an agent wasn't listed on the entry, the win was owner-handled and we know that is not the case. The show photographer probably has better statistics than MB-F. They have proof who was on the dog.

No, I would not call this anecdotal research. You might. I don't.

I counted every single dog shown and compared within shows and across all the shows for a year. Unlike the MBF statistics I actually looked at who took the dog into the ring, rather than who was listed as an agent in the catalog, which far underestimates the number of handled dogs (and I believe gives the edge to owner handlers, not agents as a result of the bias in recording who actually took the dog into the ring).

You might say that my sample was biased because I only looked at the shows I attended myself and the range of shows was 300 miles from my home. But I did attend a fairly large sample of shows both large and small over an entire year.

You might say that the sample size did not include the best handlers in the nation, but at some point over the year I actually did see the major Lab handlers on the east coast. The same dogs and the same handlers were present in some but far from all shows.

As I said, handlers do not convey an advantage over owners in the classes and WB/WD. They may win more often when they have a larger proportion of the dogs in the ring.

Actually when I did the research, I was fairly surprised by how often owners did win over handlers. Of course, George Alston always said that owners had the advantage because owners could concentrate all their attention on their own dogs. But it impressed me that perhaps we believe that handlers win more often, they and others tell us that handlers win more often, and we see what we want to see after we pay for a handler. I sure do.

Many of the dogs that are disparaged on this list as winning at all-breed shows and having no type are dogs that also have won at specialties under breeder judges - if breeder judges know type, then how does one explain that?. There are dogs who win at all breed shows that I would not want to own, but there are some massively-bodied, short legged, open coated dogs with overdone heads winning at specialties that I would also not own because they do not resemble the dog described in any Labrador standard (pick one). And there are stuffy-necked dogs with little turn of stifle winning at specialties - the lack of angulation does not exist only among all-breed winners.