There was a column in the October issue of Dog World about judging, and the author was talking about the issue of a judge not awarding a ribbon/points if he/she didn't feel the dog(s) being presented in a class was/were adequate. She basically said that she's been presented, many times, with dogs who were essentially pet-quality in terms of show potential, and usually does give ribbons if she has no choice, reserving her withholding for situations where the dog is of very poor quality.
Now, I was surprised how vehement she was, and how many dogs she said she'd seen in the ring that were not show-quality. I've never showed a dog, and most of what I know about it is gleaned from books or a few years I spent helping someone show setters as a kid. I've always gotten the impression that your average show dog may not be a world-beater, but is at least qualified to be in the running. I was curious how you guys who are into showing feel about it, and about the idea of withholding ribbons in general.
Now, I was surprised how vehement she was, and how many dogs she said she'd seen in the ring that were not show-quality. I've never showed a dog, and most of what I know about it is gleaned from books or a few years I spent helping someone show setters as a kid. I've always gotten the impression that your average show dog may not be a world-beater, but is at least qualified to be in the running. I was curious how you guys who are into showing feel about it, and about the idea of withholding ribbons in general.