While participating in our dog show world, do you ever find yourself asking, “Do the Breed Standards even matter?”
The answer is clear: “YES, THEY DO.” Breed Standards are not just guidelines but the very foundation that differentiates each breed and maintains its integrity.
I present this question because I often see people at shows, on social media and elsewhere, questioning results with the comment, “Does that judge even know what breed type is? Have they even read the Standard?” These ongoing doubts highlight a persistent theme in our community.
This question has persisted throughout my fifty years in the sport. Still, I sometimes wonder why Breed Standards continue to change.
It seems like almost every month another breed parent club proposes revisions to its Standard. Are these changes to clarify language, address specific concerns, or because breeders are altering the Standard to fit what they produce?
In my opinion, the breed’s founding fathers put a great deal of time and thought into the physical descriptions of each breed; what they were bred to accomplish and what, in fact, makes them unique among other breeds. These breed developers put a lot of thought into their Standards and into what, in their opinion, would be the perfect specimen to strive to breed.
In the past, most Standards used a point scale to indicate where the founders felt most attention should be placed. The point scale indicated areas of importance in the overall evaluation process. The founders of many breeds also placed high value on several areas, as evidenced by the DISQUALIFICATIONS they inserted in those areas.
Most Standards stayed unchanged for years until the AKC requested more uniform revisions from parent clubs decades ago. These rewrites let influential parent club members introduce both positive and negative changes.
I think we would all agree that the United States Constitution is like a Breed Standard, as the founding fathers wrote it to govern the new country. It has also undergone many changes, as constitutional amendments were added to adjust to the changing landscape of our nation.
Under our nation’s constitution, we have the courts and various branches of government to ensure that we, as a country, conform to the standards set by the founding fathers. In contrast, in the sport of purebred dogs, there are truly no checks and balances to ensure breeders and judges follow the blueprint, making adherence to Standards a more personal responsibility.
While many may claim the judge does not know the Standard, the key question should be: Do the dogs themselves actually conform to that Standard? The responsibility begins with breeders providing specimens that meet these guidelines, ensuring judges have quality dogs to evaluate. This highlights my main point: Adherence to Breed Standards is essential at all levels.
We all know that breeding is not an exact science, and there can be many pitfalls in breeders’ journeys to produce high-quality animals that not only meet the Standard but are also healthy in both mind and body. But I must ask, “Is it not the breeder’s responsibility to conform to the Standard?”
When considering this topic, I looked more closely at one of my own Breed Standards. Carol and I have been breeding Vizslas since 1976. I looked at the AKC Standards from 1963, revised in 1982, 1996, and again in 2009.
For the purpose of this article, I will only look at one aspect that falls under the disqualification section, as it refers to “Color.” The bold emphasis is mine.
From the 1963 AKC Standard:
“Color: Solid. Rusty gold, or rather dark sandy yellow in different shades, with darker shades preferred. Dark brown and pale yellow are undesirable. Small white spots on chest or feet are not faulted.”
From the 1982 AKC Standard:
“Color: Solid golden rust in different shadings. Solid dark mahogany, red, and pale yellow are faulty. Small white spots on the chest are not faulted, but massive areas of white on the chest or white anywhere else on the body are a disqualification. Occasional white hairs on toes are acceptable, but solid white extending above the toes is a disqualification, as is white anywhere else on the body.”
From the 1996 AKC Standard:
“Color: Solid golden rust in different shadings. Solid dark mahogany, red, and pale yellow are faulty. White on the forechest, preferably as small as possible, and white on the toes are permissible. Solid white extending above the toes or white anywhere else on the dog except the forechest is a disqualification.”
From the current AKC Standard of 2009:
“Color: Golden rust in varying shades. Lighter shadings over the sides of the neck and shoulders giving the appearance of a “saddle” are common. Solid dark mahogany and pale yellow are faulty. White on the forechest, preferably as small as possible, and white on the toes are permissible. Solid white extending above the toes or white anywhere else on the dog except the forechest is a disqualification. When viewing the dog from the front, white markings on the forechest must be confined to an area from the top of the sternum to a point between the elbows when the dog is standing naturally. White extending on the shoulders or neck is a disqualification. White due to aging or scarring must not be faulted. The Vizsla is self-colored, with the color of the eyes, eye-rims, lips, nose, toenails, and pads of feet blending with the color of the coat.”
As you can see, the Vizsla is a self-colored breed, as are other breeds such as the Weimaraner, and we can assume the founders of these breeds wanted a truly solid self-colored breed.
White has always been an issue in Vizslas. Most world Standards only allow about a two-inch area on the chest. The AKC Standard followed this for years, but the 2009 revision permits a much larger area. In my view, this change reflects breeders accommodating what they produce.
As a breeder, on those rare occasions when you had a puppy that had marginal white that might have been more than a small spot exceeding two inches, they were placed in loving pet homes, even if they were exceptional specimens. Whereas today, we see many specimens with very large, questionable white areas that would not have been exhibited or used in breeding programs in the past.
When you look at Breed Standards, we all have an obligation to breed according to them and judge by them. We should not just rewrite or adjust the Standard because it is hard to breed for the best specimen.
When looking at the Standards for many breeds, “Tails” is another area that breeders seem to pay little attention to. The tail is a very important component of the skeletal system; its set and carriage are very specific in most of our Breed Standards. When faced with the question of how to correct the problem of incorrect tails in the breed, the phrase “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” is often invoked to justify deviations from the Standard.
It is the responsibility of both breeders and judges to pay attention to the Standards and their specifics, because if we don’t, the “GENERIC” exhibits will continue to win more often.
Not only do breeders and judges have a responsibility to adhere to the Standards, but the AKC and parent clubs have an obligation to their breeds. Breeding should protect the integrity and vision of each breed as set by the founders. The central argument is this: It is the breeders’ responsibility to breed to the Standard. Standards should not be altered just to suit current breeding challenges.
YES! Standards matter. Whether you are a judge, breeder, exhibitor, or owner, never forget it is the Standards that differentiate one breed from another.
I had the privilege to judge again at the Black Diamond Cluster in Morgantown, West Virginia. Over the years, this cluster has just continued to get better. The 2026 edition featured five days of shows, starting with two shows in one day hosted by the Greater Clarksburg, West Virginia, Kennel Club followed by two one-day shows, one each by the South Hills and Mountaineer Kennel Clubs.
I chose to drive to this assignment, and although it was a long drive, the beauty and majesty of the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Shenandoah River, and the valley make it a truly awesome tribute to the beauty and handiwork of God. As the old John Denver song states, “Almost Heaven, West Virginia.”
The shows are held in Morgantown, home to the University of West Virginia and truly a college town with a lot to offer and explore. Mary Yoders, Ray Harrington, Barbara Baker, and many great volunteers work hard to make it a great show for exhibitors and judges alike.
There were Specialties for Golden Retrievers, English Springer Spaniels, Bassett Hounds, and English Toy Spaniels, with Supported Entries for Dachshunds, Miniature Bull Terriers, Scottish Terriers, Collies, and Shetland Sheepdogs.
The Best in Show line-ups were filled with many high-quality and top-ranked dogs.
I judged on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, and I enjoyed my time with the wonderful ring stewards and the opportunity to spend time with fellow judges during and after the shows.
The Hazel & J.W. Ruby Community Center is a very nice, well-lit, climate-controlled building, and these shows should be on your schedule for a future visit that I am sure you will enjoy.
Summer is coming, and we all need to remember that it does not take long for our vehicles to get very hot. Ensuring the safety of our dogs needs to be our top priority as we travel and attend upcoming shows, especially those that are held outdoors.
