WORKING GROUP JUDGES Q&A
Just for laughs, do I have a funny story I can share about my experiences judging the Working Group. I will share a funny sto- ry, but will not reveal the breed—to protect the innocent! When finishing a beloved pet in the classes, the handler fell to his knees whereupon his false teeth went flying into the next ring. Nothing in our Judges Handbook could help me decide how to react. Luck- ily, the ring of handlers helped the individual up and managed to retrieve the teeth. Had that next ring been full of Bullmastiffs, they would have dispatched the teeth rather handily. JOHN RAMIREZ
What is my original breed? What is/was my kennel name? My original and only breed is the Bullmastiff, using first the prefix with my former partner in Bandog Bullmastiffs, and currently, for more than 35 years, as Banstock Bullmastiffs. Can I list a few of the notable dogs I’ve bred? I co-bred the top-winning Bullmastiff in the history of the breed, Ch. Bandog’s Crawdaddy Gumbo, who was also #1 All-Breeds in the 1980s. Ch. Huck’s Last Hurrah of Bandog was the first multi-Best in Show Bullmastiff. Currently, Ch. Banstock’s Bruno of the Northeast is the #2 top-producing Bullmastiff. Although he’s been dead for more than 10 years, he has been a top producer almost every year since his death, and also a very popular stud dog internationally. What are the qualities I most admire in the Working breeds? The Working Group is what it implies, and I value soundness in all Working breeds; dogs that function in their original purpose. Having said that, type is what defines a breed, and partnered with structure and soundness, is a winner! Have I judged any Working Group Specialties? Over the years, many, but I am most proud of the Bullmastiff specialties that I have judged in the US and internationally. I have judged the American Bullmastiff Association National twice and many national special- ties internationally. Do I find that size, proportion, and substance are correct in most Working breeds? I think the Working Group is a strong Group and a very competitive Group. When judging the Working Group, you can assume that all the entries in the Group are of high quality. I consider silhouette, head, structure, and movement as the order of priority. After these, proportion often defines breed type. Substance should fit the standard, and health and temperament are also high priorities in judging. Is breed-specific presentation important to me as a judge? Can I offer some examples? Showmanship should not override breed cor- rectness. Many of the breeds in the Working Group don’t utilize their breed-specific movement or performance by exaggerated han- dling or moving too fast. The Group ring is not a race, and many breeds did not do their historic work by racing around a ring. I wish those breeds would slow down. What are my thoughts on cropping/docking the Working breeds? I personally do not have a prejudice against cropping/dock- ing, as many breeds are imported from where it is banned. It may be a deviation of the standard, but there are far more important qualities in a breed to consider. Are the Working breeds in good shape overall? Any concerns? I reiterate that I believe the Working Group is a very competitive Group. There are usually many multiple Best in Show dogs in the Group as well as in the Owner-Handled Group. Often, the Groups are being held up because some dogs go directly to the Group from the OH Group. Here in the Northeast, the Owner-Handled Groups are very competitive as well. There are also some very “sexy” Work- ing breeds, such as Dobermans, Boxers, etc., that seem to get their fair share of the wins. In my opinion, how do today’s exhibits compare with the Work- ing Dogs of the past? Many breeds in the Working Group have evolved and don’t look quite the same as they did 50 years ago. I do believe the Working Dogs are sounder than in years past. There are, however, some extraordinary dogs from the past that would be highly competitive in today’s Working Group! Why do I think the Working breeds are so admired as family companions? Because they were bred to work with man and they naturally adapt to that relationship. I can elaborate on this quality in my own breed. Bullmastiffs were bred to go out at night with the gamekeeper to subdue the poacher. By day, he was the family pet to protect and love. Although there are few Bullmastiffs doing their historic work today, they have evolved to make devoted companions that bond deeply with their family.
Where do I live? How many years in dogs? How many years as a judge? I cur- rently reside in Downey, California, and have been involved in dogs all my life, ranging from strays to purebreds. I am often asked how long I have been judging, and to be honest, I don’t know. I posed a question to Judging Operations today, asking that question. My guess is, somewhere between 1972
© NorCal Bulldogger
and 1975; so guessing, I think, around 47 years. What is my original breed? What is/was my kennel name? My original breeds were the St. Bernard and the Skye Terrier. My ken- nel name was Agonistes, coming from the Greek meaning Cham- pion of Champions. At the time, I was studying English literature. Thus, the name from Milton’s, Samson Agonistes . Can I list a few of the notable dogs I’ve bred? Any performance or parent club titles? Most notable dogs were mainly dogs co-owned with others, and at the time, being young and dumb, co-ownerships did fare well. Also, at the time, Saints were all over and in excess. The outfit, Saint Chalet, and several backyard breeders who were out to make a buck filled the market with less-than-quality Saints. Breeding at that time was not for me. If there were any dogs of note, I would have to say they were the Skyes, my English Toy, and the Chihuahuas. Though I must admit, I’ve always remained loyal to my Working breed roots. What are the qualities I most admire in the Working breeds? I greatly appreciate the historical aspect of the breeds, their original purpose, and the conditions they must have endured. Have I judged any Working Group Specialties? I have judged several over the years, especially in my breed, Saints, in addition to Sammies, Dobies, Boxers, Siberians, the Black Russian, Berners, Newfs, Rotties, Std. Schnauzers, and Porties. Do I find that size, proportion, and substance are correct in most Working breeds? LOL, that’s a loaded question. Overall, I might agree with the above and say, “Yes.” But in reality, several of the breeds have fallen victim to over-refinement and overly exag- gerated features. In general, while still possessing physical abilities, they would be unable to perform in their original functions in situ- ations such as draft or sled dogs working in harsh, cold, wet, and rocky terrains. Beauty and fashion now dictate what goes into the ring. I love “pretty,” but breed essence and breed type must prevail. Is breed-specific presentation important to me as a judge? Can I offer some examples? In a Working Dog, other than movement, what would be breed-specific presentation? Do I want to see a Saint, Berner or Mastiff racing around like a Boxer or Dobie? NO! Would I want to see a Mastino racing around the ring upright, and moving upright like any generic dog? NO! What are my thoughts on cropping/docking the Working breeds? Where such practices are the norm, I truly believe that cropping and docking add to the profile and beauty to the breed. I would hate to see it banned. I have judged overseas often enough to learn to overlook natural ears and tails and I can appreciate the
164 | SHOWSIGHT MAGAZINE, FEBRUARY 2022
Powered by FlippingBook