Engelstalig artikel over de showhond/hondenshow
Geplaatst: 27 jul 2025, 09:00
šŖšµš®š š®šæš² šš² šæš²š®š¹š¹š šæš²šš®šæš±š¶š»š“ š¶š» ššµš² šæš¶š»š“?
More and more countries are introducing rules about showing dogs on a loose leash, and honestly, it shouldāve happened ages ago. Because if a dog needs to be strung up to look good, it probably isnāt built right. If it canāt hold its head, move freely, or stand naturally on its own, thatās the real issue we need to address.
Free-standing dogs arenāt just beautiful, they represent the kind of structure that doesnāt need a handlerās help to shine. The idea that dogs need to be molded into place? Thatās totally last century. Iāll take a naturally honest outline over a handler-sculpted one any day. A confident, well-built dog doesnāt need to be shaped like clay. It stands there and says, āHere I am.ā It shows structure, confidence, and quality.
Sure, I love a beautiful stacked photo. Who doesnāt? But in the ring, the dog should be the star, not the handlerās hands.
Same goes for movement. I prefer a loose leash and a natural, ground-covering trot that shows balance, efficiency, and ease. And then thereās the race track mentality. Somewhere along the line, people decided faster equals fancier. You see handlers practically sprinting around the ring, dragging dogs into a āflashyā stride that looks dramatic but hides everything that matters. Sure, speed can mask faults; it smooths toplines, tightens movement, and creates the illusion of drive. But a dog show isnāt a speeding contest. If the only way a dog can look balanced is at a near-gallop, youāre not showing soundness, youāre showing smoke and mirrors. A correct, efficient trot should carry itself at a natural pace, showing reach, drive, and effortless balance. When judges reward the blur instead of the blueprint, theyāre rewarding performance over structure, and once again, the breed pays the price. What tells me somethingās off? Lifted fronts, kicking rears, stressed toplines, artificial head carriage. A dog pushed beyond its natural limits, chasing a false ideal. And if it needs that tight leash to hold itself together, odds are it would lose all shape the moment that leash goes slack. Thatās not pretty. Thatās sad. And when I see judges rewarding that, I just think: what exactly are we rewarding here? The dog, or the illusion?
I come from a breed where the word āmoderateā shows up more than once in the standard, and yet somehow, we keep drifting toward the dramatic. Moderate doesnāt mean dull. It means functional. It means balanced, capable, fit for purpose. And yet exaggeration keeps creeping in, hoping no one looks back at the standard.
Letās be real. If a dog needs its tail pushed up to look "correct," youāre not showcasing a strong tail set, youāre just covering a weak one. The standard clearly allows the tail to hang when standing, so why do we insist on correcting what was never considered incorrect? Because it looks
flashy
?
If it needs to be strung up to keep its head up, thatās not carriage, thatās cover-up. The endless tweaking, adjusting, and manipulating doesnāt improve the dog, it just hides the weaknesses. Itās no longer about the dogās quality but how well that quality can be faked. But a dog show is supposed to be about evaluating breeding stock, not spotlighting whoever can best deceive the judge with finesse and flash. Equal rules make it less about whoās best at puppeteering. When everyone plays by the same standards, structure finally gets to shine.
And hereās the kicker. You canāt breed good handling. You breed for structure, not showmanship. So if the only way a dog looks good is with maximum handling input, what exactly are we preserving? When breed integrity takes a backseat to impressing judges, it stops being about the dogs. It becomes about ribbons. About pride. About ego.
Honestly, itās disappointing to watch a sound, well-built dog lose to one thatās all flash and relies on tricks and presentation but falls short on true quality and structure. Itās frustrating that judges reward it. And sadly, itās become the standard expectation. Because in moments like that, itās not the dog being judged. Itās the performance.
Winning with a mediocre dog through clever presentation might get you the ribbon. But itās the breed that pays the price in the long run. If youāre fixing flaws in the ring, itās already too late. Fix them in the whelping box, where the future is made. Your breed will thank you for it.
This isnāt meant as an attack on showmanship. Itās a reminder that the real artistry lies in breeding better dogs, not just showing them better. Presentation has its place, but it should enhance whatās already there, not compensate for what isnāt. Because true legacy is built on honesty, not illusion.
Written by Norwegian Lundehund kennel 'of Vorkosmia'
Ik vind het een goed geschreven en beargumenteerd stuk en denk dat menig handler/fokker/keurmeester zich achter de oren mag krabben of dit niet voor hem/haar van toepassing is.
Mijn showervaring met de Laekense Herder ligt al jaren achter me maar ik vroeg me toen al regelmatig hetzelfde af.
More and more countries are introducing rules about showing dogs on a loose leash, and honestly, it shouldāve happened ages ago. Because if a dog needs to be strung up to look good, it probably isnāt built right. If it canāt hold its head, move freely, or stand naturally on its own, thatās the real issue we need to address.
Free-standing dogs arenāt just beautiful, they represent the kind of structure that doesnāt need a handlerās help to shine. The idea that dogs need to be molded into place? Thatās totally last century. Iāll take a naturally honest outline over a handler-sculpted one any day. A confident, well-built dog doesnāt need to be shaped like clay. It stands there and says, āHere I am.ā It shows structure, confidence, and quality.
Sure, I love a beautiful stacked photo. Who doesnāt? But in the ring, the dog should be the star, not the handlerās hands.
Same goes for movement. I prefer a loose leash and a natural, ground-covering trot that shows balance, efficiency, and ease. And then thereās the race track mentality. Somewhere along the line, people decided faster equals fancier. You see handlers practically sprinting around the ring, dragging dogs into a āflashyā stride that looks dramatic but hides everything that matters. Sure, speed can mask faults; it smooths toplines, tightens movement, and creates the illusion of drive. But a dog show isnāt a speeding contest. If the only way a dog can look balanced is at a near-gallop, youāre not showing soundness, youāre showing smoke and mirrors. A correct, efficient trot should carry itself at a natural pace, showing reach, drive, and effortless balance. When judges reward the blur instead of the blueprint, theyāre rewarding performance over structure, and once again, the breed pays the price. What tells me somethingās off? Lifted fronts, kicking rears, stressed toplines, artificial head carriage. A dog pushed beyond its natural limits, chasing a false ideal. And if it needs that tight leash to hold itself together, odds are it would lose all shape the moment that leash goes slack. Thatās not pretty. Thatās sad. And when I see judges rewarding that, I just think: what exactly are we rewarding here? The dog, or the illusion?
I come from a breed where the word āmoderateā shows up more than once in the standard, and yet somehow, we keep drifting toward the dramatic. Moderate doesnāt mean dull. It means functional. It means balanced, capable, fit for purpose. And yet exaggeration keeps creeping in, hoping no one looks back at the standard.
Letās be real. If a dog needs its tail pushed up to look "correct," youāre not showcasing a strong tail set, youāre just covering a weak one. The standard clearly allows the tail to hang when standing, so why do we insist on correcting what was never considered incorrect? Because it looks
If it needs to be strung up to keep its head up, thatās not carriage, thatās cover-up. The endless tweaking, adjusting, and manipulating doesnāt improve the dog, it just hides the weaknesses. Itās no longer about the dogās quality but how well that quality can be faked. But a dog show is supposed to be about evaluating breeding stock, not spotlighting whoever can best deceive the judge with finesse and flash. Equal rules make it less about whoās best at puppeteering. When everyone plays by the same standards, structure finally gets to shine.
And hereās the kicker. You canāt breed good handling. You breed for structure, not showmanship. So if the only way a dog looks good is with maximum handling input, what exactly are we preserving? When breed integrity takes a backseat to impressing judges, it stops being about the dogs. It becomes about ribbons. About pride. About ego.
Honestly, itās disappointing to watch a sound, well-built dog lose to one thatās all flash and relies on tricks and presentation but falls short on true quality and structure. Itās frustrating that judges reward it. And sadly, itās become the standard expectation. Because in moments like that, itās not the dog being judged. Itās the performance.
Winning with a mediocre dog through clever presentation might get you the ribbon. But itās the breed that pays the price in the long run. If youāre fixing flaws in the ring, itās already too late. Fix them in the whelping box, where the future is made. Your breed will thank you for it.
This isnāt meant as an attack on showmanship. Itās a reminder that the real artistry lies in breeding better dogs, not just showing them better. Presentation has its place, but it should enhance whatās already there, not compensate for what isnāt. Because true legacy is built on honesty, not illusion.
Written by Norwegian Lundehund kennel 'of Vorkosmia'
Ik vind het een goed geschreven en beargumenteerd stuk en denk dat menig handler/fokker/keurmeester zich achter de oren mag krabben of dit niet voor hem/haar van toepassing is.
Mijn showervaring met de Laekense Herder ligt al jaren achter me maar ik vroeg me toen al regelmatig hetzelfde af.
