When I said majors are majors I meant that they are all worth between 3-5 points and will title your dog and that is a fact.
Labs should have way more dogs in shows since they have had double the registration of any other breed of dog for what 10 years or longer?
I just think they should have a more 'fair way' of pointing the top 10 breeds. I don't think it is fair that breeds of larger numbers (in which Boxers-- are another), have to compete against insane competition, and rare breeds only need to compete against several dogs.
JMO but in shows where there are 40+ dogs and 40+ bitches of one breed competing, I think reserves SHOULD get points, just less points.
I can't argue with that. I've seen some dogs of rarer breeds that have gotten majors (and in some cases, Ch. titles) merely because they have no disqualifying faults and are within the standard. Which a judge is perfectly within their right to do, after all Winners dog goes to the dog that is closest to the breed standard of the dogs present.
But you will definitely see a lot more physical variations between 20 dogs of one breed than you will 4 dogs of the same breed.
I actually was shocked that some breeds did require more entries than labs. But the points progression schedule is done off of how many dog have actually been shown/entered of that breed, not by pure registration numbers. Thank goodness. If it was done off of registration numbers, it'd take 60 male dogs to make a major :P
Never trust a tall dwarf... he's lying about something.
Well, and like when you are at the NATIONALS for your breed. Why aren't the winners of every class getting points? At nationals there are often as many dogs in each class as are in major shows. Not to mention at Nationals it should be the best of the best anyway. Yet only winners dog and winners bitch get points? Crazy. I don't understand it.