Winning Ribbons Doesn’t Rewrite the Breed Standard

 

Written by Jodie Keener | JBKBorderCollies.com

​

“Popular” and “correct” are two different evaluations.

​

A dog can win. A look can become fashionable. A breeding program can attract attention. None of those things changes the words of the breed standard.

​

For those of us who breed and exhibit Border Collies, that distinction matters. Our breeding decisions influence what the next generation will look like, how it will move, and which qualities will be preserved.

​

The standard belongs in the center of the ring.

I have personally imported several dogs from these countries that fit within the AKC breed standard and complement the goals of my breeding program. My concern is with departures from the written standard being rewarded and becoming fashionable, regardless of where a dog was bred.

​

Every dog entering an AKC ring should be evaluated against the same written standard. A dog’s country of origin, foreign titles, pedigree, or popularity should not change that benchmark.

​

Imported dogs and dogs bred here deserve the same careful evaluation.

​

When breeders maintaining dogs that fit the written standard feel pressured to chase a different look to remain competitive, we need to ask a straightforward question: Are we judging the dogs against the standard, or judging the standard against the dogs currently winning?

​

Different wording matters.

The AKC Border Collie standard describes the stop as moderate, but distinct. The Australian and New Zealand standards describe a pronounced stop. The FCI standard used in Hungary describes it as very distinct.

Those descriptions should not simply be treated as interchangeable. The wording of the AKC standard must guide evaluation in an AKC ring.

​

These differences also require careful interpretation. A pronounced or distinct stop does not give unlimited permission for exaggeration. Australia’s extended breed standard specifically identifies a steep stop as incorrect.

Eye shape provides an equally clear reference. The AKC, Australian, New Zealand, and FCI standards all describe oval eyes of moderate size. Round, doll-like eyes depart from those written descriptions. Their visual appeal or popularity does not change the specified eye shape. Repeated success in the ring does not make that departure correct.

​

We need to distinguish what a standard actually says from what a fashionable population of dogs happens to look like. A regional trend is not automatically a faithful representation of that region’s own standard.

That distinction allows us to discuss the features accurately without making the country of origin the measure of quality.

​

Correct terminology matters, too.

The scapula is the shoulder blade; layback describes its angle. The humerus forms the upper arm, from shoulder joint to elbow. The radius and ulna form the forearm, from elbow to carpus, or front wrist. The rear knee is the stifle, and bend of stifle describes its angle. The accompanying illustration identifies these structures and clarifies commonly confused terms. Proportion deserves careful evaluation.

​

The AKC standard describes the Border Collie as slightly longer than tall, with an approximate height-to-length ratio of nine to ten. Height is measured from the ground to the withers. Body length is measured from the point of shoulder to the point of buttocks. That measurement excludes the head and tail. It describes the relationship between the dog’s height and body length.

​

The front assembly has its own specified relationships. The AKC standard calls for shoulder blades and upper arms of equal length. It also specifies that the distance from withers to elbow is slightly less than the distance from elbow to ground.

​

These are separate measurements. Equal shoulder blade and upper arm length does not mean equal forearm and pastern length. The elbow-to-ground measurement includes the forearm, carpus, pastern, and foot; it is not a measurement of the forearm alone.

​

Forearm length therefore needs to be considered within the complete front assembly and the dog’s overall proportions. Coat and presentation should allow those structures to be evaluated clearly.

​

Movement provides another part of that evaluation.

 

The AKC standard calls for effortless ground coverage, minimum lift of the feet, and symmetrical front reach and rear drive. It expressly identifies exaggerated movement as inefficient and therefore not useful to the Border Collie.

Those requirements should guide evaluation alongside the dog’s standing structure.

​

When a winning look becomes a breeding goal.

A trend can gain momentum without anyone formally changing a standard.

​

A particular look wins. It receives attention. More breeders select for it. More dogs carrying that look enter the ring. Eventually, familiarity can make that appearance seem like the definition of the breed.

​

Breeders who continue to produce dogs within the written standard may find themselves defending qualities that should already be understood and valued. A moderate dog can begin to look ordinary beside an exaggerated one. Ordinary in comparison does not mean incorrect.

​

The question is whether our breeding choices preserve the qualities described in the standard or gradually adjust the breed to match the current winners.

​

The Border Collie has a purpose beyond presentation.

The AKC standard places herding function at the center of its description. It describes an athletic, balanced dog and emphasizes qualities that support its work.

​

Its details reinforce that purpose: moderate bone, sufficient leg length, functional proportions, and efficient movement. It recognizes both rough and smooth coats, with neither preferred over the other.

These are meaningful instructions for evaluating a dog. An impressive silhouette or heavily furnished coat should not outweigh them. 

A beautiful presentation can help us appreciate a good dog. It should also allow us to assess the dog underneath it. Coat, conditioning, handling, and ring presence cannot substitute for the structure being evaluated.

We should be able to explain why a feature is correct by referring to the standard and the complete dog, rather than relying on how often similar dogs win. 

 

Winning should not end honest evaluation.

Every breeder should be able to recognize virtues and limitations in their own dogs.

A championship does not make a dog flawless. A loss does not establish that a dog is incorrect. A ribbon records a placement; breeders still have to decide what a dog contributes to their program.

​

That responsibility continues after the win photograph.

If a dog has a feature that departs from the standard, success does not erase it. We should acknowledge the departure, weigh it honestly, and consider it when selecting a mate or deciding whether to retain offspring.

The same care belongs in judging. Interpretation involves judgment, but it should remain anchored to the written description. Personal preference must operate within that description.

​

Preserving the breed requires consistency.

Breeders need a dependable reference when deciding what to preserve and what to improve. That reference cannot keep shifting with whichever look is attracting the most attention.

​

We can appreciate good dogs from any country while expecting them to be evaluated against the standard governing the ring they enter. We can celebrate wins while continuing to examine the dogs that earned them.

​

We also need room to question trends without automatically dismissing the concern as jealousy or resistance to change. A specific criticism supported by the standard deserves a specific answer.

​

For me, the responsibility is to keep breeding toward the written standard and the purpose it describes, maintaining continuity in my breeding program from one generation to the next, even when a different look is fashionable.

​

Popularity can influence the ring. It should not become an unofficial amendment.

​

Winning ribbons doesn’t rewrite the breed standard.