I was honoured to be asked to judge the Society’s annual critique writing competition for 2024, and even more so since it now bears the name of the one and only Graham Osborne, who so tragically left us last year. This dedication is particularly apt since Graham helped many people to advance in their career judging English Springer Spaniels, the breed closest to his heart, and his advice, which I can still hear oh so clearly in my head, was always to “say what you see”.

​

Those four words apply not only to the act of judging but also to the written justifications for the judge’s placings, also known as the critique, which in accordance with Royal Kennel Club regulations must be published within 3 months of the appointment.

Why do we have critiques? Exhibitors enter shows in the hope of being placed and to get the judge’s opinion of their dog. In the UK we must wait for the written critique to be published after the event, and how disappointing it is when no critique appears! Even when the critique arrives, it is sometimes so brief and generic that it remains a crushing disappointment, leaving exhibitors none the wiser as to the judge’s opinion and preferences.

​

I have been lucky enough to win two SESSS “Critique of the Year” awards, and having been asked to judge the 2024 competition I have been pondering what makes a good critique besides simply saying what one sees, eventually settling on the following as my personal “wish-list”:

​

• You don’t have to be a master wordsmith (you can always ask someone to proof-read your work for you), but be specific in describing the dog in relation to its breed, with accurate reference to the wording of our breed standard; otherwise it risks becoming the infamous generic “nice head, nice legs, moved well” description which can be applied to any living creature possessing the bare essentials of a head and some legs on which to move.

• Give a fair and honest appraisal of the dog on the day, saying what you see; past glories and future predictions bring nothing to the party, nor do references to any personal connection with the dog, the Kennel or indeed the owner/exhibitor!

• The RKC’s suggested word count is quite limited, so use it wisely to paint a picture of the dog on the day rather than reminisce about it looking like your “Awd Spot from the 1960s”; think about those readers who weren’t at the show but who follow results since they need to be able to “see” and understand as far as possible what you saw.

• Be clear about WHY you preferred the first-placed dog over the one placed second; you are placing the dogs in order of merit, and readers want to understand your rationale.

• Be kind always, honesty and integrity don’t have to be brutal; never fault-judge; all dogs have merits, so find and promote those; if the dog has a fault (and show me a dog that doesn’t!) that affected its placing, then by all means indicate this but choose your words and phrasing very carefully.

• Treat all exhibits with equal consideration; this applies both to judging and then writing about them; Judges who write 200 words lauding their principal winners and 10 words about those who were placed second are at risk of appearing inconsistent, uninterested, and even unfair.

• The breed standard is a fairly general “blueprint” that allows for degrees of subjective interpretation and personal preference once basic “breed type” and sound construction have been identified; while a preamble is not mandatory, it gives you scope to highlight the breed attributes most important to you and provide an overview of what you found.

• Judging is an honour and a pleasure, so including a little human emotion and delight in your findings (without being sugary) alongside the more technical descriptions demonstrates a genuine interest in and love for the breed; likewise, a little humour (in moderation and not at anyone’s expense) reveals true enthusiasm and humanity; judges are after all human and allowed to love and laugh! I once described a mischievous Junior dog as “Kevin the Teenager” and was reassured that his owner wasn’t offended!

 

I am delighted to say that I found strong competition for the Critique of the Year Award 2024 among the 40 eligible critiques submitted, and it was with some difficulty that I whittled the final shortlist down to 5 that largely fulfilled my “wish-list” and gave me great pleasure to read. In reverse order (like the Crufts Best In Show!), I therefore announce and heartily congratulate the following winners:

​

• VERY HIGHLY COMMENDED (in no particular order): Wendy Walker (LKA), Anthony Allen (Richmond) and Kate Keely (Manchester), who all provided descriptive, emotive and eminently readable critiques that provided insights into not only their understanding and individual interpretations of the essence of the English Springer Spaniel, but also their love and genuine enthusiasm for our beautiful breed.

• RUNNER-UP: Dave Mitchell (SESSS), who in his considered and thought-provoking preamble stated very clearly his general preferences and opinions, and then went on to reflect these in his concise yet detailed assessments of individual dogs; he included numerous relevant references to specific attributes contained in the breed standard  and applied them accurately to the dogs present; this is a key skill in critique-writing for any breed, and it revealed his depth of understanding of and passion for the breed; for me, this critique stood out for its balanced combination of knowledge, honesty, sensitivity, enthusiasm and a little self-deprecating humour.

• OVERALL WINNER (by the finest of margins): Jenny Miller (SWESSC), whose very detailed critique filled my mind’s eye with pictures of the dogs as she had seen them on that day; her consistent and accurate application of terms contained in the standard demonstrated her complete understanding of the breed, while her passion and pleasure were evident in her more emotive expressions; she clearly described attributes that she admired, showed sensitivity when mentioning areas for improvement and shared her rationale for her placings; it was clear from her descriptions of each and every exhibit that she had given everyone equal consideration, and this ultimately reflected the honesty, fairness and integrity with which any judge should approach their appointment.   Jenny Miller's Critique

 

Teresa Dunsdon