I found it interesting that at the St Louis show in August there will be a Cut Down Class. Coat must be cut down, dogs may be neutered or spayed. I'm am not very experienced, but I have not seen this before so was very intrigued.

Yes, it sounds like an exciting class. I may be wrong, but I understand it is a class for "retired" champions. Someone please correct/clarify if I am wrong.

It said grand champions, champions, and any others as well, but no show cut.

good information provided on this thread, thanks.

Maybe this could be it's own thread, but why don't we have weigh in's at shows? Seems pretty simple logistically. The standard clearly states "Must not exceed 7 lbs".

The weigh is not a disqualifying fault therefore they do not have to weigh the dogs. There are many outstanding champion yorkies that exceed 7 lbs. Proper structure and coat are much more important. Over 7 lbs would be considered a fault just like a bad bite, bad topline, bad front, bad rear, etc. Some judges prefer the larger yorkies and some like the smaller ones.

Good Explanation about why no weigh ins at show for the yorkie. "

Thank you bjh, that was a very good explanation. That makes perfect sense. I went and looked up the word "must" in the dictionary and it is vague enough to support the historical precedent to not have weigh ins. However, I do think the word has an implication of requirement. You must eat food to live", "You must follow the law". Still the word can be used as "feel urged to; ought to" i.e. " I must buy that book".

Semantics aside.

Let me ask you a question because it's fun to think outside the box. Wouldn't weigh ins be an innovative, modern way to help a judge? In sports, I have seen that to often the answer as to why things are done is "because we have always done it that way". I don't like to think that way. If there is a better way to do something then why shouldn't you do it? How easy would it be to do? How would it hurt the judge or the breed?

I'm not suggesting an 8 lb male be immediately disqualified, but whats the downside of having that weight be known? What IS the weight limit? Is it 10 lbs, 15, 20? At what point are you beyond the standard. If a judge consistently puts up dogs that are over sized doesn't that hurt the breed on some level? As an exhibitor wouldn't you want to know the weights of the dogs the judge has put up before? Wouldn't this save time and money for exhibitors? If you can see statistically, that a judge prefers dogs over 7lbs wouldn't that help you choose what dogs you enter?

What do you guys think?

I would rather see a height maximum than have a weight in the standard. A very tall, fine boned, skinny yorkie could weigh as little as a small yorkie that has good bone and body.

Personally I think 7 lbs maximum for a yorkie is to small. I agree with Michelle that a height limit might be more fair. Those exhibitors that show regularly pretty much know their competition and the size of the dogs they go against. Those experienced exhibitors usually know what kind of yorkie the different judges prefer.

Of course it is not always easy to predict what a judge will do because it really depends on the competition on each particular day.

I think a height measurement would be awesome to. In every sport, you will see height and weight listed with the competitor. Why not record the height and weight of each dog, not to disqualify a dog but to add more statistical data. Imagine the stats you could generate with data all across the country. We could compare states or regions. Wouldn't you want to know the average size of winning yorkies in Ohio as compared to California? Which states have the biggest Yorkies that win or the smallest. This does not have to be limited to Yorkies why couldn't all breeds benefit from this type of statistical data?

bjh again you make such an interesting point with "Personally I think 7 lbs maximum for a yorkie is to small." I found this fascinating, because I really respect you, I'm interested in why you think this?

You also pointed out "Those experienced exhibitors usually know what kind of yorkie the different judges prefer." I think you are exactly right. I don't think this is a good thing. Couldn't this even the playing field a little bit. It is about the dogs right? We want the best dog to win?

For the judges, they could be helped by statistical data, even if they look at the numbers after the show to self evaluate it would very helpful to them.

Information is a powerful tool, why not use it.

When we discuss weighing in, and or changing the standard to account for height, that is a big conversation. Not to say not to have it, but when the Yorkie was first recognized in England the founders of the breed had a vision for that breed. We many, many generations later are keepers of that vision.


We need to thoroughly understand that vision, and critically review our standard to see if that vision is supported by our standard. If our current vision of the breed is different to the original founders then that is another big discussion.


I think a key point in the above discussion is; a value if you will that *form follows function**. Historically Yorkies were ratters, was that the vision of the founders, to create a better more versatile ratting dog? Or was it something different?


Typically today Yorkies do not serve that function, in fact few serve any working function, other than a more general one to serve as companion dogs. And there is nothing wrong with that.


But I think you can see where I am going with the conversation; namely that changing of the standard is not something that should easily be done, and a massive re-direction of standard requires a whole lot of time and discussion.

Swan, yorkie size is just a matter of preference. I have been raising yorkies for over 16 years and I just prefer yorkies in the 6 to 8 lb range. There are some breeders that prefer those under 5 lbs. I have never bred a female under 5 lbs. It is hard enough for the larger yorkies to have pups. I just can't imagine a poor little 3 to 4 lb yorkie having pups. It is to risky.
For show I believe the larger yorkies are just better movers and more elegant. For me the larger yorkies are just more breathtaking when they are in full coat.

Have you read this interesting article in the interpretation of the Yorkshire Standard by Carolyn Hensley?:
Young Yorkies Present AKC Standard Yorkshire Terriers Explained by Carolyn Hensley

I recommend anyone that breeds yorkies should read and understand the AKC standard for the Yorkshire Terrier.

I have been told by a number of show exhibitors that they go by the 3 strike rule when it comes to showing. That means if a dog has 3 or more faults then it should not be shown. Of course there are some faults that are so serious that it would only take one fault for the dog to be unshowable. Some faults that are borderline might be acceptable but some faults like a really bad front, rear or topline might prevent a dog from being shown. Also a Yorkie that is to shy would not be a good show prospect, even if it is near perfect structure wise.

Another thing to consider about size is that some yorkies continue to fill out and mature until they are 4 or 5 years old. You can have a beautiful bitch that weighs 6 to 7 lbs when she finishes her championship at age two but after maturing and having pups she could easily reach 8 or 9 lbs.

As for changing the Yorkshire Terrier standard, that would have to be done by the YTCA and from what I hear is that there is a lot of disagreement in the club over lots of issues. It's just like politics in our country, everyone has their own opinion on how things should be done and it is hard to get people to come together and agree on things.

Another thing on moving - and yes the taller Yorkies well put together will move and cover ground in a very eye pleasing way. the thing I want to mention is the closer to rectangular the dog is the more his/her trot can extend! And it is a temptation to breed longer than tall.


I have found that my eye really needed to adjust to the smaller Yorkies when evaluating their movement. I prefer a Yorkie with a slightly longer body length to height -say 5% longer than tall. And like BJH I prefer the YT's closer to 6-7 lbs. But what-ever the weight and height, I want solid bone structure. Well developed bones. No matchstick legs please!


It took over 5yrs to change the USA standard for the BRT, and the discussions were exhausting to say the least.


I know with many judges I talked to doing the judging seminars most judges would prefer a very detailed standard - the more detail the better!


Breeders are of mixed viewpoints (of course). There is an old saying; get three breeders in the room, and neither one will agree on anything with the other :-)


The three strike rule is one I work with as well. But some health issues while not talked about in the standard are of such concern that the dog should not be bred...... And I am very biased for correct Temperament.


I like the Molosser judging form. Each dog is evaluated structurally and there are different categories and each category is weighted differently per breed of dog. So you might have Coat Colour Head Topline Gait Attitude/Temperament etc all these total up to 100 pts. And gaiting is a heavy hitter in all Molosser breeds as is Temperament.
Molosser dog club is for working breeds only, so a Molosser title is one that many working dog breeders want.


An interesting exercise for you to perform is to first establish the categories and then assign a pt value for each category. Then speak with experienced breeders and see where they might differ from you.


For YT You might look at these Categories


Head - includes Expression/ Shape - Earset/Earsize - Eye color - 8pts


Bite - correct Scissor bite? 10 pts


Structure - Balanced? Shoulders? Rear? Topline 22 pts


Color - Correct Tan/Steel Blue 15


Coat 15


Gait 15


Temperament 15


Tadaa Finished.........

My little one isnt so little anymore, lol. Her mom was a little over 3 :( and her dad was 5, my furbaby is already over 8. Doesnt matter to me, she is perfect :)