Workmanlike is a Virtue!

By Dr. Marti Anderson

Our first Education Corner article discussed ‘the Standard.’ This article follows onto that article and explains how conformation judging assesses individual dogs against the standard.

Once upon a time in a galaxy far away … conformation dog shows were designed to be the proving ground for breeding stock.The philosophy went something like this ‘if a dog is worthy enough to win awards at a show under different judges, then that dog is worthy enough to be included in a breeding program .’Entrants would be put forward to get the opinion of the judge as to the quality of the dog. Placements in classes were valued. Class wins were worthy accomplishments. Championship points were heralded. The term ‘conformation’ is used to describe the process – an entrant was examined and the judge’s opinion is given on how the dog compared or ‘conformed’ to the written Standard of the breed. Ideally, the dog awarded Championship points is the best one of its gender compared to the Standard on that day. And the dog awarded Best of Breed is the one entrant that in the judge’s opinion best conformed to the written Standard.

So the Standard is what each dog is compared to. Dogs are not compared to each other, but each is compared to the Standard for the breed. This process is repeated at the Group Level when the judge compares each Breed winner to its Standard, and ideally picks the dogs closest to or best representative of their Standards.

UKC Judging Seminars are required every 3 years for every judge. What a great system! As part of the seminars, judges are required to place dogs as if in a class in the ring AND they are required to articulate why they place the dogs as they do IN TERMS OF THE STANDARD FOR THAT BREED. Example, “I award this dog 4 place today on the basis of breed silhouette.”And “This dog has the advantage over the 4 place dog on the basis of better substance.”And “This dog has the advantage over the others on the basis of correct head.”And “This dog has the advantage over all others in the class today because of correct head, substance, coat and freedom of movement.”

Furthermore, UKC judges are schooled in strict adherence to the Breed Standards. It is part of the UKC Philosophy that they should use their knowledge, observations in the ring and own judgment when making awards. ‘Independent critical analysis’ is the phrase used to describe objective judging free from the influence of advertising and free from political pressure to conform to what other judge’s are doing or what is perceived as ‘acceptable’. Judges are NOT required to limit the time they need to judge an entry of dogs. Judges are encouraged to make their evaluations complete.

Another part of the UKC philosophy is that dogs should reflect the purpose for which the breed was developed. In the case of our Labradors, this is a Working Gun Dog – in the field or in water. This implies that our Labradors must be in condition or muscular shape to do their work. What does all this mean in practical terms for us? Several things:


1.“Workmanlike” is a compliment. This is a buzzword among UKC judges, breeders and fanciers. Workmanlike says that your labrador reflects written breed standard and IS in condition to do the original field or water job of the breed. Workmanlike is a virtue.

2.Judges should be applauded for their independent critical analysis of an entry. We should not expect NOR should we tolerate judges who use any measure other than the written UKC Standard for their placements.

3. It is perfectly OK and encouraged to ask judges for their rationales for placements and awards. UKC wants judges to explain themselves to exhibitors. It is part of what you pay for with an entry fee – you pay for the judge’s opinion.

4. We as exhibitors and breeders have an OBLIGATION to bring dogs of our breed to the ring that meet the breed Standard. Yes, there is room within the Standard for different ‘visions’ of the Labrador in terms of ‘degree’ of some elements … BUT there is not room for in the UKC Standard for many of the very INCORRECT trends we unfortunately see in other major registry entries,

a. pig-fat dogs [they cannot do the work of the breed]
b. incorrect heads reminiscent of Rottweilers [water would pile up in front of their eyes and occlude vision as they swim]
c. black eyes and round eyes [black eyes mask the true kind expression of the labrador and round eyes are a magnet for debris in the field, they cannot shed or protect the eyes]
d. plodding and cumbersome movement [indicating poor structure or overweight dog who cannot work for an extended period of time]









A dog that moves well without extra weight can do the job of a Labrador retriever.





Finally, the question must be asked, “Is there a place for the ‘crossover’ dog? ” , meaning one who can excel in conformation shows in UKC and in other registries. Our written Standards are not that different, in fact, the differences are only in whether or not height is a disqualification. It is the application of the Standards that is drastically different. A dog that moves well without extra weight can do the job of a labrador retriever. It is my personal observation and experience that the judging process in the other major registry has allowed itself to be degraded over the years. It is not as described in this article, although it was designed to be the same, and at one time in the not too distant past, it was the same. But I do not think it is now. That is my personal opinion. In the case of Labrador Retrievers, the ‘parent club’ is valiantly trying to encourage judges to make awards on the basis of their Standard – by use of their Illustrated Standard and by inviting all Labrador Judges to attend and observe Field Trials and Hunt Tests. There are some cases where judges make good objective decisions and award dogs who conform to their Standard, even some notable cases where very outstanding Labradors have had great success in the other registry. Those dogs, their breeders and owners are to be congratulated, encouraged, and applauded by us all. Sadly, it is my observation that the accomplishments of these fine examples of the breed are the exception rather than the rule. The system of paid professional handlers allows dogs to be shown extensively when an owner cannot travel or chooses not to travel. But it also has pitfalls when judges rely too much on the integrity of handlers to bring only worthy dogs to the ring, when in reality, handlers often feel the pinch of making ends meet, and having many entrants to help pay their bills. Time in the show itself is a huge factor – most superintendents and field reps expect a judge to spend only 2 minutes per entrant in the judging process. There literally is not enough time to adequately objectively assess the entire entry. Add to this the effects of publications full of advertising [completely unsolicited] arriving weekly on every judge’s doorstep – advertising that extols the virtues and career wins of current contenders. And you can easily understand the potential for reliance on factors other than conformation to the standard in their judging process.

So, the answer to the question posed is that ‘yes, I do think there is a place or room for crossover dogs’ who can win in both registries. But I think that many of the dogs we see entered in the other registry are probably not workmanlike enough to fare well when compared to either Standard, and our UKC judges apply the Standard. And many of the dogs who are workmanlike enough to have top success in UKC will probably not be what the judges in the other registry are looking for compared to other entrants in those shows. It is in our interest to encourage ALL judges in UKC to continue to rely on the Standard for judging and not to be influenced by trends in judging. And it is in our interest to educate all exhibitors in the true purpose of ‘conformation’ showing, to familiarize ourselves with the Standard for the breed, and promote good sportsmanship that supports judges who practice that ‘independent critical analysis’ when judging our Labradors.