Please explain this show placing - Page 4

georgehopwood

  Nobody is suggesting that there are different rules, but even you must appreciate that over the years there have been animals worthy of CCs not getting them because of lets say age ,   junior or yearling . The judge perceives that the CC must go to the open winner, and awards it because nobody has told them differently.
 

  Regards as always

  Paul Rattigan

Thank you Paul & Missbeed, its very confusing keeping up ,

Hi Mackenzie, yes once again we appear to be misunderstanding each other. You say you write what you mean, you dont have to name anyone personally to lump them in with all the rest, once again in your latest post directed to me you have said - and I have copied and pasted what you wrote to make the quote " If you want to believe that all judging is NOT corrupt or incompetent then you are naive.."     In that case then , I must be naive.
 

Sorry Mackenzie but once again the way I read your  sentance above, to me it still implies that ALL judging is either corrupt or incompetent !! I agree some is corrupt and that some is incompetent but to say that ALL judging is either corrupt , or if not corrupt, incompetent is what you have written (so is what I take you meant) is what I did not agree with. However,  leaving that aside what I was really objecting to was the way you implied that to enter under such judges was the FAULT of the exhibitor , that is what I found abhorrent that anyone could just nonchalantly accept corrupt judging to such a degree that to fall victim to it is the exhibitors OWN FAULT,

I do sometimes wonder if anyone on these forums actually read what is being put and recognise the implications of what some people are writing.  It does the breed no good at all to have everyone believe that every judge is either corrupt or incompetent and therefore each exhibitor must decide whether or not they are 'In Favour' with this judge before entering.
 

Now you go on to say as an exhibitor if you could not finish in the first five you wouldnt bother entering, prey tell me HOW you are supposed to know this before you enter, UNLESS YOU ARE ONE OF THE EXHIBITORS WHO ONLY ENTERS UNDER CORRUPT JUDGES WHO HAVE ALREADY ASSURED YOU A PLACING WITHIN THE FIRST FIVE.

Mackenzie, once again I find you talking much rubbish. I know my mother tongue Sir, perhaps you should revise yours.

Regards
Sue

Hello Sue

Knowing whether you can finish in the first five is something that comes with experience.  Once or twice I have been wrong but not often.

Clearly, you still do not understand what you are reading.  As to me revising my mother tongue, I can if you wish, write to you in German, French or Spanish and then you would have a genuine reason for misunderstanding me.

You can have the last word if you wish because, although it will  be meaningless, for you it seems a measure of success which of course it is not.

Goodbye Sue

see post below

Hi Paulie
I agree with Malcolm, in that the dog born in Mannheim is not necessarily any better than the dog born in Manchester and I have seen many instances where this has borne out to be perfectly true. lol We have all witnessed the multiple numbers of crap foreing imports but any judge worth their salt correctly sift these out of top honours in the ring and promote the better homebred dog.  However Paul despite what Mackenzie wants to say, what he wrote did imply that ALL judges were EITHER CORRUPT OR INCOMPETANT and that it was the exhibitors job to correctly indentify which CORRUPT ones would FAVOUR them before entering. So one assumes the only way to be sure to do this properly is to have prior knowledge that the judge will be placing your dog FAVOURABLY. Whatever he says now, this IS what his writings implied, indeed he has even re-written the same thing in his denial message to me.

Now I know you well enough Paul to know you would object to this, please dont tell me you only enter a show KNOWING you  knowing you will be in the FIRST FIVE !!??!!  That's ludicrous and also insulting to the exhibitors to suggest that those coming in the first five knew they would be there before they entered and that those who came lower than that were IDIOTS for entering. Fine state of affairs if we all have to accept the MacKenzie Idea of judging, entering and exhibiting at shows. As I said, no wonder entries are falling rapidly.

Luv Susie xxx 
Ps will this get me in the first five next time you judge please ??? lol 

Hello Sue

In your post to Paul you are once again wrong.   You have preconceived ideas as to what I mean.  you are now  trying to force your opinion on another to get support.

regards
Mackenzie

MacKenzie
What was it you were saying about having the last word?????? lol
Regards
Sue b

I tend to agree with Mackenzie to some degree, IMO many champions come from established kennels and IMO I think  the reason some of these dogs are made champions is because the name of the owner/breeder is more recognisable rather than the quality of their dog.

But what do I no :)

Hello Sue

Let me clarify for you the situation about finishing in the first five.

If you have a dog that  you want to show and let us say it is your best dog.   Further, let us say the dog has already been beaten at previous shows by five dogs who are consistently in the front (not necessarily in the same order) would you as a seasoned exhibitor really make an entry in the same class as those animals?  There is no corruption or incompetance but that is a case of sensible show planning.   We all go to win or do well, or, do you just want to make up the number?

I liked the last paragraph of your post about the last word.  It made me smile. It reminded me of the time on another thread when you said "you would,  in the future, ignore everything I said.  (lol)

regards

Mackenzie