A stack of show critiques and working results looks like the most objective evidence a breeder ever receives — and it is, as long as you remember that it describes only the offspring somebody chose to enter.
The most important first
- Official results are high-quality information about a selected subset of your offspring, never about the litter.
- Several critiques read together are evidence; one critique read closely is an opinion about one dog on one day.
- A written critique or breed description is usually worth more to a breeder than a placing, because it says which parts were good.
- Results mean different things in different systems, since each kennel club trains its own judges and each breed standard is owned by one country.
- Measure what you produced against the breed’s purpose and standard, not against the winners’ list. Start from the framework in evaluating conformation.
What a critique actually is
A breed standard is a written description of the ideal dog of its breed: how it should be built, how it should move and how it should behave, with the features chosen to suit the work the breed was developed for. Standards are written and revised by the breed’s parent club or owner country, and judges evaluate dogs against that description rather than against each other, considering structure, condition, gait and temperament, and whether the dog could still do the job it was made for. Standards also indicate emphasis, and list faults and disqualifications.
That tells you what a critique is and what it is not. A critique is one judge’s reading of one dog against that written ideal, in one set of conditions, on one day, with the dog in whatever condition and handling it happened to have. It is a measurement with a known and fairly large error term. A placing is an even noisier signal, because it depends entirely on which other dogs entered.
Systems differ, and the differences are not trivial. The Fédération Cynologique Internationale recognizes 364 breeds, each with a standard owned by one country, while its hundred-odd members each issue their own pedigrees and train their own judges, with international titles homologated centrally. Other registries, among them the American Kennel Club, the Royal Kennel Club, the Canadian Kennel Club and the Australian National Kennel Council, run their own standards, judging education and award systems. A grading in one country and a placing in another are not interchangeable units, and a breeder comparing offspring across borders has to say so explicitly.
Reading several offspring together
The single most useful change most breeders can make is to stop reading critiques one at a time. Transcribe them instead into one document, one row per offspring, with columns for the recurring elements of your own breed: head and expression, front assembly, topline, rear angulation, movement, coat and size, plus temperament in the ring. Then read down the columns rather than across the rows.
What appears is different from what you remember. A sire who felt like a success because two of his offspring won may show, across nine critiques from six judges, that fronts were mentioned critically in seven of them and movement praised in eight. That is a pattern. It is also not something any individual critique told you, and it is not something the placings told you either.
Pay particular attention to the elements several judges mention without being prompted. Judges in most systems write in a conventional vocabulary, and a fault serious enough that six independent people name it is usually real. A fault mentioned by one judge may be real, may be a difference of interpretation, or may be the dog’s condition that week. Hold both possibilities. The same discipline applies backwards: compare these adult critiques with what you wrote about the same dogs at eight weeks, which is where puppy conformation assessment and your own litter notes earn their keep.
What the results leave out
Every official result you receive has passed through two filters you did not control. First, somebody decided to show or work the dog. Second, somebody decided to continue after the first attempt. Both filters favor the offspring that looked promising, belonged to owners with the interest and means to compete, and lived near enough to events to make it practical.
The consequence is systematic. A combination that produced nine puppies may generate critiques for three, and those three will tend to be the best three, or at least the three owned by the most committed homes. If you evaluate the combination on those critiques alone, you will conclude that it was better than it was. The correction is not to discount official results but to find out, separately, what the other six became — which is what the rest of your follow-up routine is for.
It is worth asking the unshown offspring’s owners a few conformation questions directly: has the dog had any soundness problem, how does a vet describe its body condition, has anything about its mouth, eyes, coat or movement needed attention. These are weaker data than a critique, but they come from the part of the litter that critiques never reach, and that is precisely their value.
A critique that mentions labored breathing, sore eyes or uneven movement is a health signal as well as a show fault. Ask the owner whether the dog has seen a vet about it, and record the vet’s finding with the dog’s health history, not only in your critique table.
In practice
A breeder has produced four litters by two sires over seven years: thirty-one puppies, of which nine have been shown at least twice and four have working qualifications. Transcribing forty-one critiques into one table, the breeder finds that the first sire’s offspring are consistently described in positive terms for outline and movement, while the second sire’s offspring attract repeated comments about steep upper arms. The temptation is to conclude the second sire is the weaker producer. But only two of his offspring have been shown, against seven of the first sire’s, and both of his are from the same bitch. The breeder records the observation as a question rather than a finding, asks two owners of unshown offspring from the same combination whether a vet has ever commented on their dog’s front, and decides to repeat the combination once with a different bitch before judging the sire at all.
(Illustrative, composite scenario.)
Working results and what the dogs do on ordinary days
Working trials, herding tests, field assessments and the sport titles homologated by registries have one advantage over conformation events: the dog has to do something, and the result records whether it could. Where such tests exist for your breed they are the closest thing to a functional check on your breeding, and they are the natural adult follow-up to working aptitude assessment in puppies.
They also have the same selection problem, more severely. Trial entry requires a trained dog, and training is the owner’s contribution, not yours. A failed trial may record a dog’s limitation or an owner’s inexperience, and the record rarely distinguishes them. Qualifications therefore say more when several offspring from different homes earn them, or fail to, than when one does.
This is where ordinary life becomes evidence rather than anecdote. Whether a gundog retrieves calmly for a shooting owner who never enters trials, whether a herding dog is useful on a working farm, whether a companion breed copes with a busy household: none of this appears in any register, and all of it addresses the breed’s purpose. Ask about it in words the owner can answer, record the answers with dates, and treat them as a separate column from the official results.
Against the standard, not against the placings
The question worth answering is not whether your offspring won, but whether they match the written standard and can do the breed’s work. Those are related to placings, but loosely, and the correlation varies with entry size, judging panels and fashion. A breeder who optimizes for placings is selecting on a noisy, locally determined and sometimes drifting target.
Show-ring health monitoring makes this concrete. Breed Watch, the Royal Kennel Club’s early warning system, places breeds in three categories according to visible conformation-related health concerns, requires championship show judges to complete a health monitoring form after every appointment, and expects judges to take breed-specific points of concern into account and penalize them. In category three breeds, best of breed winners at general and group championship shows must pass a veterinary check before competing in the group, and a dog cannot have its champion title confirmed until it has passed at least one such check. The point for a breeder reading offspring results is that exaggeration can be rewarded in a ring and still be a fault, and that your own records should note the points of concern for your breed alongside the awards.
The UK is not alone in asking judges to put health observations in writing. The Nordic kennel clubs, as FCI members, use Breed Specific Instructions that tell judges to check every dog’s health and soundness, to comment on listed risk areas in their written critiques, and never to prefer extreme type over correct, healthy construction. When you transcribe critiques, give these health comments a column of their own.
For the traits where numbers exist, estimated breeding values are the natural complement to critiques. Published by the Kennel Club for hip and elbow dysplasia in a growing number of breeds, they combine a dog’s own screening result with those of its relatives, using data from dogs examined between one and four years old, and gain confidence as more relatives are scored. They are a reminder of what conformation follow-up is ultimately for: not a verdict on individual dogs, but an estimate of what a parent is likely to pass on. In the United States, the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals’ open database plays a similar supporting role: dogs in its CHIC program have all their breed-recommended screening results published, normal or not, so offspring health can be read alongside show and working results.
When to call your vet
- An offspring is described by a judge or owner as lame, uneven or “not moving soundly” on more than one occasion.
- A dog snores or breathes noisily at rest, tires quickly, or collapses in warm weather or after exercise.
- Eyes are red, watery or squinting, or the dog keeps rubbing its face.
- A working dog is stiff after rest or reluctant to jump, climb or work.
- A dog fails a show veterinary check (Breed Watch Category 3 or an equivalent) — ask the owner’s own vet to follow up.
- If in doubt, call — your vet would rather hear from you early.
Work on it
A few minutes here will teach you more than re-reading the article.
Ask yourself
- What proportion of your offspring have ever been formally assessed, and what do you actually know about the rest?
- If you read your critiques by column rather than by dog, which comment appears most often?
- Are you selecting against the breed standard and its purpose, or against last season’s results?
Find out & check
- Find out which category your breed sits in under the Royal Kennel Club’s Breed Watch, or the equivalent monitoring in your own registry, and what the listed points of concern are.
Do one thing
- Transcribe every critique you hold for one sire or dam’s offspring into a single table and read it by column.
Was this article helpful?
Anonymous. We do not store your name, email or IP address.
Sources & further reading
- American Kennel Club — What is a purebred dog breed standard? akc.org
- Fédération Cynologique Internationale — Presentation of our organisation. fci.be
- Royal Kennel Club — Breed Watch: health and welfare of show dogs. royalkennelclub.com
- Royal Kennel Club — Estimated breeding values. royalkennelclub.com
- Nordic Kennel Union (hosted by the FCI) — Breed Specific Instructions (BSI) regarding exaggerations in pedigree dogs, 3rd edition (2023). fci.be
- Orthopedic Foundation for Animals — CHIC programs. ofa.org
Where evidence is limited, recommendations rest on established practice and expert judgment, and may be updated as knowledge develops. The reliability of show critiques and working results as breeding information has not been quantified in the way health screening has, so the reading method proposed here is practice rather than validated procedure; conformation and working systems also differ substantially between registries and countries, and any comparison across them is approximate.
Next steps
- Read next: Evaluating conformation in the adult dog.
- Related: Assessing working aptitude in puppies · Your first dog show: preparing a young dog for show season.
- Return to the area hub: Closing the loop: follow-up and the next generation.