Afghan Hound Times
(Afghan Hound Database and Breed Information Exchange)
User Login Home Register Community Forum Members Pages
Forgot User Name | Forgot Password | Update Your Registration | Create A Members Page |

Steve Tillotson, republished from UK "Dog World" 1993

Number of different exhibits winning awards - During the last ten years the number of different Afghans winning major awards in any one year varied between a high of 96 and a low of 70. During the last five years it has averaged around 90, so 92 winners last year is quite typical. Looking into this deeper we find that the number of different winners during a three year period is only 188, an average of 63 each year. The explanation for the lower number (63 compared to 92) is that dogs are campaigned over several years and win in consecutive years. For example, 34 of the 92 "different" winners in 1992 also won awards in 1991 which means that really year on year there were only 58 different winners. This is much closer to the average number of dogs (63) over a three year period than the 92 we started out with.

Numerical distribution of awards - The annual allocation of CC/RCC's for Afghans is 40 sets, which gives for both sexes a total of 160 awards each year. Looking over a three year period (160 x 3) gives us 480 awards. Whilst we accept the fact that 92 "different" dogs won the 160 awards in 1992 we suggest it is more meaningful to state that on average over three years 63 different dogs shared 480 awards.

Nucleus of winners - Looking at the three year period when 188 dogs shared 480 awards we find that 4 won ten or more awards, 22 won 5 or more awards, 63 won 2-4 awards and 99 won a single award. Noting that 26 winners between them won around 200 awards, this suggests that in any one year a nucleus of 25-30 dogs win 50 percent of all awards.

Number of awards per individual dog - On average looking over three years, 54 dogs win 1 award, 30 win 2-4 awards, 6 win 5-9 awards and occasionally 1 wins more than 10 awards. This pattern of awards has held true for the last ten years with just a couple of exceptions. The most notable exception being 1983 when CH Montravia Kaskarak Hitari gained 15 CC, 3 RCC and won BIS Crufts. Further study of 1992 reveals that 24 won a single CC, 28 won a single RCC, 16 won multiples of one award type only and 24 won both CC's and RCC's.

Number of awards per individual kennel - Awards appear to be spread fairly evenly around the leading kennels over the three year period with perhaps a dozen kennels having 5 or 6 different winners and another dozen kennels having 3 or 4 winners. There have obviously been a few outstanding winners, perhaps only 4 or 5, which of course inflate an individual kennels count of awards even though they might still have only had 3 or 4 other successes.

Number of different judges- Taking each CC/RCC pair as a judging appointment (so judging both sexes at a show counts in this context as two appointments) there were 240 judging opportunities in the three year period and a total of 150 different judges judged the breed as follows ; 6 judged the breed 4 times, 16 judged 3 times, 44 judged 2 times and 80 judged once only. In the current year (1993) there are 68 different judges listed to judge the breed. On the basis that there were 150 different judges over three years perhaps a more meaningful average is 50 diferent judges year on year. Approximately 30 percent of the judging appointments have been undertaken by 22 of the judges.

Breed Specialists, All Rounders, Overqeas Judges - In the three year period the breed specialists have judged 225 of the 240 appointments with all rounders and overseas judges sharing the remainder equally between them. Its interesting to look back in history when since 1977 some notable all rounders have judged the breed and include ; RM James (9), J Braddon (4), H Jordan (9), T Thorn (12), C Sutton (8), M Boggia (8), G Broadley (4) and M Spavin (7) amongst others. By contrast, of the still active breed specialists, one has judged the breed 23 times, two have judged 16/17 times.

Judge groupings - a couple of groupings have been observed which can perhaps be described as "follow me". The most obvious is where a husband judging a show this year is followed by the wife (or vice versa) judging at the same show the next year, we'll call this one the "married follow me". Another variation is the "group follow me" where a group of judges seem to revolve around a circuit of shows. This is hard to distinguish from the "geographic follow me" where judges come from the same geographic area. There is some obvious logic to the last one because breed clubs often appoint judges who are involved with that club's community and reside in the general area.

One/Two judges at a show - Some shows have appointed a single judge for the breed at their show for a long time, for example the Afghan Hound Society of Northern Ireland and Belfast since before 1977, Darlington since 1984, SKC since 1988, LKA since 1991. Some of the shows have varied between one/two judges with no particular pattern. A variation on the theme is husband and wife (or other close relative) such as at Windsor in 1983/86/88/90/93.

Type of shows/Type of judges - Very few distinct patterns emerge. Its noticeable that even the most experienced and popular breed specialists only get to judge 3 or 4 of the 12 breed club shows. The best performance for a single breed specialist is having judged at 6 of the 12 breed club shows. There are cases of breed specialists who have judged Crufes never having judged a breed show. Other cases exist where the most successfull breeders who are also busy judges have judged only once at breed club shows. In many cases its 50/50 between general and breed club shows. There are breed specialist who have judged exclusively at general shows. All rounder judges are rare at breed shows and mainly judge at general shows. Understanding the exhibitor population - In seeking to report on the distribution of awards amongst the exhibitors it is essential to understand the exhibitor population. This information is not readily available so we had to undertake some research. Our approach was to examine a recent show catalogue and identify the different types exhibitors such as exhibitor- breeder, partnerships etc and then calculate their percentage of the overall exhibitor population.

Summary of exhibitor groupings - It is noted that the exhibitor population is different for each show so we do not claim our findings are a definitive grouping, but it is an honest attempt to gain a reasonable understanding. Six groups were idenfitied as follows; 1) Exhibitor/Breeder Partnerships, exhibit owned in partnership between the exhibitor and the breeder. 2) Exhibitor/Breeder-Judge Partnerships. Exhibit owned in partnership between the exhibitor and the breeder who is also a senior judge. 3) Exhibitor only. Exhibit owned singularly by an exhibitor and who is not the breeder. 4) Exhibitor/Owner-Breeder. Exhibit owned by exhibitor who is the breeder. 5) Exhibitor/Judge. Exhibit owned by exhibitor who is also a senior judge. 6) Exhibitor/Breeder/Judge. Exhibit owned by exhibitor who is the breeder and also a senior judge.

Each group as a percentage of the exhibitor population - The largest group is the Exhibitor Only group which accounts for approximately 45 percent of the population. Partnership groups are each 10 percent, Exhibitor/Breeder group is 5 percent, Exhibitor/Judge group is 5 percent, Exhibitor/Breeder-Judge group is 15 percent

Distribution of awards amongst the exhibitor population - Having evolved a method to group exhibitors and calculate their percentage of the population we then studied the list of all award winners (dogs) during the last three years. With the knowledge of which group each exhibitor was part of we noted the number of dogs and awards for each group. The distribution revealed by this process was as follows; The biggest group the Exhibitors Only won 23 percent of awards with an average 2 each with several winning between 4-7 awards. The Exhibitor/Breeder group won 17 percent of awards with an average 2-3 each with several winning betweem 4-8. The Exhibitor/Judge group won about 11 percent of awards with an average 2 each a few dogs winning between 5-8. The Exhibitor/Breeder-Judge group won 25 percent of awards with an average 3 each with several winning between 4-18 awards. The Exhibitor/Breeder-Judge Partnerships won 21 percent of the awards with an average 3 each with several dogs winning 4-8. The other Partnership group (exhibitor/breeder/partnership) whilst having the same population (10 percent) as Exhibitor/Breeder-Judge partnerships only won 3 percent of the awards. In the case of the Exhibitor/Breeder- Judge Partnernship and Exhibitor/Breeder-Judge groups there were some big winners (9-23 awards each) which distort the averages, However it does reveal that the biggest winners came from these two groups.

Steve Tillotson 1993


Library Of Articles/Main Menu Toolbar