A friend of mine and I are in an argument over the legitimacy of dog show results. My contention is that dog shows are shams because there is only one judge. I can understand judging dogs within a breed, but how can they legitimately say one example of one breed is superior to an example of another breed, particularly after a such a brief examination. If you want to make it legitimate you should have multiple judges. My contention is that the reason they don't is because they honestly can't tell if one breed is better than another. It is a subjective opinion and if they had five judges they very well could have votes for five different dogs as best in show.