Can anyone explain why certain dogs seem to dominate the dog shows while others have never even made it above 3rd in group placement? Looking at the records, Boxers have completely dominated the shows in recent years while Mastiffs have yet to break the 3rd in group mark. It's my understanding that judging is based on how closely the dog meets the breed standard. Am I to believe that no Mastiffs have yet to meet the breed standard more closely than boxers, EVER? It's not just Mastiffs either. The Anatolian Shepard, the Black Russian Terrier, the Greater Swiss mountain dog etc. for example all have no group wins. Is it all political? Can anyone help explain this?

Each breed of dog is judged against their breed standard. The judge is required to know of that breed standard with their assignment.
Politics does play a role but also it is always what a judge sees in the ring on that day with that set of dogs.
Every dog show is completely different. You have to learn the judges likes and dislikes in what they want to see in a certain breed.
A handler needs to work at showing off their dog to the best presentation.

See, that's so rediculous. Why is it that something so simple as judging dogs against thier breed standard turns into something political and or depends on the judges "feelings" instead of his skill and ability to judge the "Breed standard? I really believe these dog shows like Westminster should be decided by a panel of judges and not just 1 judge who can be biased.

It's not all politics and judging isn't as simple as you would like to believe. To give an example: there might be a flashy looking dog that everyone thinks should win because it looks so damn good. Then the judge puts her/his hands on the dog and finds the muscle tone isn't correct or the bone structure is too thin, the fur doesn't feel correct, two toes on the front feet might be slightly splayed apart or where the tail and body meet isn't correct but the coat hides that fact, the eyes may not be the correct shape or color - it's up to the judge to find these faults, to know each breed standard so well he/she can weed out the one's with these faults and award the win to the dog with the best of everything it's breed standard calls for.

Also, not every judge can judge all breeds so the AKC only allows them to judge the breeds they are fully competent to judge.

Politically speaking, a judge may award a 3rd or 4th place to a favored dog or handler but 1st and 2nd has to go to the top two dogs in that group. Why? Because if the 1st place dog is disqualified for some reason by the AKC the group win goes to the 2nd place dog.

OK, so your telling me that no Mastiffs or any of these other breeds that have never made it past 3rd or 4th in group judging have more closely fit the breed standard than all these boxers and poodles? I don't buy it.
I understand how spectators can see a dog and, from a distance, believe the dog to be darn nice but it's the judges job to closely compare these dogs to the breed standard and make his decisions based on these standards, not how the audience feels.

Hi Dave,

Please try to keep in mind there are MANY variables that go into judging dog show and each judge's opinions are SUBjective as far as how closely any exhibit compares to it's breed standard. As far as the statistics, please be advised that many of the breeds you have listed are still considered fairly new in the scheme of things. Boxers have been recognized by the American Kennel Club for several decades, Black Russian Terriers, Anatolian Shepards, and Greater Swiss Mtn dogs have only been recognized by the AKC for significantly lesser amounts of time ... BRTs and Anatolians are both less than 10 years old. You also have to recognize that Westminster is the creme de la creme of American Dog Shows and MOST of the exhibits are going to be good representations of their breed standards; the top five dogs in each breed is invited to compete every year; no exhibit at Westminster would be called "common". To win, a dog has to be truly exceptional ... not just good ... some will argue GREAT. What makes a dog great? Some of it is charisma and showmanship, some of it is presentation and the skill of the groomer/handler, and also the condition of the dog (good nutrition, regular exercise, strong/amiable personality under stressful conditions). Mastiffs are an old breed and do not do the winning that boxers have done statistically, it's true ... but it's harder for them to showcase themselves as exceptional/great in such a venue as, typically, they are a breed with a much more laid-back disposition (not show offs with a "look at me" attitude) in the show ring. Is this fair? Probably not, but judges are HUMAN. HTH

Thanks Downhome, you bring up some good points. I still think the judging should be done by a panel of judges instead of 1 judge. I know it would be a huge change because the way it is now is somewhat of a tradition.
I'm still hoping that in the future, some judges can overlook the showmanship of a dog and judge them strictly on the breed standard.
Many breeds get thier roots from the Mastiff. There is evidence of Mastiff-like giant dogs dating back as far as 2500 BC in the mountains of Asia. All of the massive mountain dogs of Spain, France, Turkey, and the Balkans can trace their size back to Mastiff blood in their ancestry. Even the Chow Chow carries Mastiff blood, as does the Pug, which was originally a form of dwarf Mastiff.
Hard to believe that sice 1877, not 1 Mastiff has taken top honors much less Best in Group.

Dave

I love a lot of the Mastiff breeds. I have boxers in addition to my harriers.

Harriers are a very rare breed here in the U.S. They are one of the oldest AKC-recognized breeds and the ancestor to foxhounds and beagles yet they also have NEVER won a group at the Garden.
Only 3 harriers, since the late 1870's have placed in groups ... one dog did it three times, in the 1930's, a class dog (non-champion) went 4th in the 1970's, and then my dog broke the 33 year
dry spell winning Group Third this year. Our gene pool is TINY in comparison to that of beagles or
poodles and, as a breeder, I feel it is much more difficult to breed a good representation of a
scarce breed than it is some of the more popular breeds. I was, of course, thrilled beyond words
to get this sort of recognition.

Winning has a downside too. I have a friend who is a beagle breeder and he says his phone has
not stopped ringing with puppy inquiries since Uno won. EVERYone, it seems, wants one now. High
demand for puppies can encourage/increase bad breeding practices ... unethical people wanting to
make big $ while the time is ripe, will breed unhealthy/unsound dogs for profit sake. AND also, the
public can get taken for really high prices (at least short term) for dogs/puppies because a breed
won and is suddenly "in vogue" .

The best thing people who want a particular kind of dog can do is go visit the breed (or breeds) in person ... either go to dog shows or make trips to visit breeders. Touch the dogs, maybe walk one ...
experience the temperment (preferably more than one dog) and the coat and the activity level BEFORE you buy one. I have to say, I find it annoying when people call me and tell me that they just know a harrier is the PERFECT dog for them and they just HAVE to have one and then, after a little questioning, I find out they've never seen one but done some sort of internet quiz about dogs (probably designed by someone who has no experience with my breed) OR they saw one in a book or on a dog food poster and they just know ... because it's medium-sized and has short coat, it's perfect! (No consideration of activity level, barking/howling, digging or destruction.)

I know some countries do have panels of judges, and some shows even offer written critiques of the exhibits. I'm not sure this would make a difference here in America. I think usually the best dogs do end up on top at these sorts of shows. It's easy to be biased for a breed that you love yourself;( I know I can be at times) however, these judges are also usually regarded as the best of the best ...
people with decades of breed/dog knowledge some of which are professional judges (it's what they do for a living). They are tested on their knowlege, in order to be granted permission to judge each breed, and they are observed. It is JUST as big an honor to be asked to judge at Westminster as it is to have your dog shown there. The judges are chosen way in advance of the show and then sworn to secrecy until about 9 months prior to the show, when they get announced; then, they typically don't judge the breed (or breeds) they are chosen to do from then or about 6 months, prior to the Westminster assignment ... so as not to form any sort of biases/opinions prior to the show. I trust that they give me an honest evaluation of my dog ... or I wouldn't go. (It's EXPENSIVE to go to New York, with a dog, and difficult!)

HTH