|
|
Cheapen The Title of Champion? Recently at one of our club meetings a discussion came up about the current point system and the need for a revision. Someone at the meeting commented "would that make the current Champions "Double Champions"?" That comment got me to thinking about how some people feel changing the method of calculating point schedules will produce "Cheap Champions". I honestly don't see how revising the current method of calculating point schedules for those breeds that are currently being limited to very small percentages earning the titles will cheapen it. I can see how some people will feel that because they had to defeat such a high number of dogs that in order to earn the same title other dogs should as well. But is that feeling something that should keep us from seeing that maybe the system needs to be changed? Let's look at the numbers game. When you put that Championship title on a dog which numbers are important? Is the number of dogs defeated important? How about the number of shows it took to finish? Is the dog that finishes in say 7 or 8 shows a better champion than the one that finishes in 40 shows, but defeated a lot more dogs along the way? Probably depends on who you talk to. The fact of life with dog showing and breeds is that the point schedules will rise and fall with popularity of the breed and areas of the country. Does that mean that those Ch ancestors in your dogs pedigree, and on whose genes you've built were "Cheap Champions" because they possibly defeated fewer dogs than their modern day descendants? How about if at some time in the future your breed becomes less popular and your point schedules begin to decline. Is that going to make those future dogs "Cheap Champions"? I don't know when or why the numbers became so important to people, maybe because we see them reported in all of the magazines, etc and especially when we are looking at Group or Best In Show accomplishments. Do they and should they have that much bearing on the competition to earn the right to put a Ch. in front of a dogs name? My first Champion, along the way to earning her Championship, went Winners Bitch at 1 Specialty and Reserve Winners at 3 others. All owner handled, and 3 of the 4 specialties had entries of over 100 bitches, including the specialty where she went Winners. She was retired from showing in conformation after earning both American and Canadian Championship titles to concentrate on other areas. I also had a Welsh Springer Spaniel, who finished fairly easily (very easily compared to a golden) and as a special eventually went on to become rated as the number 5 Welsh in the US based on Welshies defeated, all owner handled. He was also shown in Canada, but because of a lack of competition and our limited ability to travel up there frequently he never completed his Canadian Championship. I don't have the actual figures in front of me but I imagine that it's quite possible that first Champion Golden defeated more dogs in her career than my number 5 rated Welshie did in his. Does that mean that she was a better, or more of a Champion than him? Or that he was a "Cheap Champion"? I honestly don't think so. I believe they were both honest, good representatives of their respective breeds and deserved the titles they were awarded. The system worked the way it was supposed to. The judges found and rewarded those dogs in the classes that they felt deserved points towards a Championship. So I think that if you believe in the system, and that overall the judges will find those dogs of quality that deserve to be called a Champion, that it doesn't matter if they defeat 30+ dogs to earn a major or 17 dogs to earn the major. If you don't believe that overall the system works the way it's supposed to, then it's also not going to matter how many dogs were defeated to earn the title.
If you have comments that you would like to leave
about
Sign
My Guestbook
For any other comments or questions you can contact me
at |
