Best In ShowEdit
Best in Show refers to the pinnacle prize in the world of dog conformation, the sport and hobby that has flourished for generations around the idea of judging dogs against breed standards. At its core, Best in Show is about merit, tradition, and the steady work of breeders, judges, and registries to reward animals that most closely embody a breed’s tested form, temperament, and health. The award is not given to the dog with the flashiest coat or the loudest applause, but to the one that best represents an ideal type as defined by long-standing breed standards and the practical lessons those standards encode about welfare and function. In major show circuits, the champion is chosen only after a sequence of rounds in which dogs compete first within their breed, then within their group, and finally against the winners of the other groups for the overall title. American Kennel Club and other national bodies structure these rounds and publish the criteria by which dogs are judged. The Kennel Club in the United Kingdom, Crufts, and the prestigious shows of Westminster Kennel Club in New York operate under similar conventions, each with its own sets of standards and judges.
In the public imagination, Best in Show is closely associated with the pageantry of the dog fancy: pedigreed dogs, polished grooming, and a crowded arena where spectators watch the arc of a competition that blends sport, craft, and tradition. Yet beneath the spectacle lies a practical enterprise. Breeders invest years to line up dogs that not only look the part but also carry the health, soundness, and temperaments that make a breed usable as a companion or working dog. Judges, trained in a discipline that blends anatomy, movement, and breed history, serve as custodians of that tradition. The result is a meritocratic process that rewards consistency, health, and balance, rather than mere showiness.
The Concept and Practice
Best in Show is the culmination of several rounds of competition that begin with the breed level and ascend through group judging to the overall best dog of all breeds present. Each breed standard codifies the ideal proportions, structure, movement, and character—often drawing on centuries of history and the practical needs a breed was bred to meet. In today’s registries, health considerations are increasingly integrated into judging, with health testing becoming a condition for breeding and occasionally a factor in judging decisions for certain breeds. The emphasis on temperament and trainability—especially in dogs intended for family companionship or service work—reflects a broader conservative emphasis on responsible ownership and practical utility.
The practice is anchored in voluntary associations and private governance. Participation in shows requires registration, adherence to breed standards, and compliance with welfare rules that govern handling, feeding, grooming, and care. The private, nonprofit nature of many registries means that participation and recognition are based on consent and mutual expectations among breeders, judges, and clubs. This structure—private, membership-based, and standards-driven—appeals to a tradition of self-governance, accountability, and respect for property rights in the world of animal husbandry. Dog show organizers and registries promote transparency through published judging criteria and the publication of results, which allows enthusiasts and newcomers to understand why a particular dog earned the top prize.
The best-in-show moment itself tends to be a synthesis: the dog’s conformity to breed type, its movement, and the way it carries itself in the ring. A good Best in Show winner embodies balance—neither overly extreme in any single feature nor misaligned with the breed’s functional history. This blend of form and function is the core of the merit-based argument for Best in Show: it rewards dogs that represent a responsible, health-forward interpretation of a breed’s ideal, not just superficial beauty. The role of breeders in this system is pivotal; responsible breeding practices aimed at improving health, longevity, and temperament are essential to sustaining the integrity of the sport over time. Breeding ethics, health testing, and responsible stewardship are commonly championed by major registries and breed clubs, which in turn influence how Best in Show is perceived and pursued. Health testing initiatives, including checks for hips, elbows, eyes, and other breed-specific concerns, are increasingly integrated into the breeding and showing pipelines. See, for example, discussions around hip dysplasia and other inherited conditions that concern judges and breeders alike.
Historical Development and Institutions
The modern practice of Best in Show grew out of the 19th- and early 20th-century kennel movements in Europe and North America. Private clubs formed around the concept of standardized breeding and fair competition, culminating in registries that could certify a dog’s lineage, health, and breed conformity. The United States and the United Kingdom each developed a robust ecosystem of clubs, shows, and judges. In the United States, the American Kennel Club became the principal registry and organizer of many of the nation’s most prestigious events; in the United Kingdom, the The Kennel Club has a long-standing role in defining breed standards and sanctioning major shows such as Crufts.
The Westminster Kennel Club show, the world’s most-wamous dog show in the United States, has helped popularize Best in Show through a tradition of televised coverage and wide public attendance. Globally, competing clubs align on the principle that the sport should showcase healthy, well-tempered dogs that can be good companions and capable of work when needed. This shared vision supports a stable ecosystem in which breeders, judges, and sponsors can invest with confidence in standards that are both aspirational and enforceable. The continuity of this system—anchored by private associations, professional judging, and breed-specific welfare guidelines—helps sustain the practical and cultural legitimacy of Best in Show. Westminster Kennel Club and Crufts exemplify this enduring model.
Controversies and Debates
No long-standing tradition reaches perfection without debate. Best in Show intersects with questions about animal welfare, breed-specific health, and the role of aesthetics in animal breeding. Critics—often focused on animal welfare or cultural critiques of elite hobbies—argue that the emphasis on appearance or extreme physical features can drive health problems in some breeds. In response, show organizations increasingly push for transparency about health and working ability, and many breeds now require health clearances as prerequisites for breeding or entry in certain classes. The debate over the balance between tradition and reform is ongoing, but the core argument typically centers on whether the sport can and should elevate standards that improve dogs’ health and welfare while preserving the values of merit and beauty that draw participants and spectators.
From a perspective attentive to tradition and practical governance, the critiques of dog shows as elitist or out of touch miss an essential point: the private, voluntary nature of these organizations gives breeders and enthusiasts the ability to enforce standards, invest in health programs, and reward responsible breeding. When welfare measures become mandatory or strongly incentivized, the system serves both the animal and the community that cares for it. Indeed, many of the reforms discussed in contemporary debates aim to make health and temperament the primary currency of merit in the ring, rather than a private interpretation of “the perfect look.”
Woken criticisms of dog shows—such as claims that the sport is inherently exclusionary or cruel—often treat the entire enterprise as monolithic and ignore the diversity of clubs, breeds, and show formats that exist around the world. A focused reading of reform efforts shows a trend toward better welfare standards, more rigorous health testing, and greater education for judges and breeders about responsible breeding practices. Proponents argue that these changes reflect a prudent, results-oriented approach: keep the best traditions alive while improving the conditions under which dogs are bred, shown, and cared for. The emphasis, in this view, is on reform through competence, transparency, and accountability, not on surrendering standards to a generalized moral panic. Animal welfare discussions and breed standards developments illustrate how a field can evolve without abandoning its core purpose: to recognize dogs that embody a responsible synthesis of form, function, and health.
Best in Show remains, in this sense, a study in how culture, competition, and care can converge in a way that prizes the responsible stewardship of a living creature. The ongoing dialogue about how best to reward health, temperament, and type—while avoiding excess—reflects a society that values both tradition and improvement, and that understands why a well-run show can be a useful vehicle for promoting the welfare and happiness of dogs and their owners alike. The ongoing conversations within AKC and other registries continue to shape what counts as merit in the ring, and what it means to bring a dog to the Best in Show level in a way that honors both the animal and the human participants who care for it.