# The Lab split: when, how, why?



## kindakinky (Dec 11, 2008)

As a person interested in retriever and sporting dog history, I've often wondered about the Lab split.

I know a little bit about Lab history (Dave Elliot, the Whygin retrievers which were some of the foundation for Shamrock Acres, Dual Ch. Shed of Arden, etc.)

But why, when, how did the split between field and conformation occur?

Was the difference in British and American Field trials a factor? 

Dog breeds are constantly evolving but when, how and why do you think Labs split?

I have no dog in the fight never having owned a lab but did hunt with two different sons of a NAFC and have "babysitted" a couple of lab pups and two adults.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

I think it happened somewhere between the 70s and 80s. I have some old Ret. Field Trial News's and see that in the 70s we still had breeders breeding FCs to CHs and they were the same dogs. Now a CH and an FC are two seperate breeds,unfortunately.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

The biggest change according to my sources was in the 80's with the English Sandylands imports. Previous to that Labs were more moderate. Briggs had the most BIS in breed history http://www.tealwoodkennel.com/LightBrigade1.html


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Give yourself credit, some don't even recognize there is a split. My guess folks are simply breeding toward two separate goals. One group breeding for what the show ring judges were looking for blocky heads, short tails and legs, and generally "chunky". And the field trial group bred strictly for the best dog in the field. Their only standard is blue.
P.S. IMO the field bred Labs look so much better than the dogs from show lines. And if I was looking for a good field dog capable of doing FT level work. I would pass if there was a CH in the recent pedigree.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Accodring to Richard Wolters, in his History of Duckdogs, the split between show and field was largely caused by Helen Warwick and her love for the British dogs. She began importing dogs from the UK and also had enough influence to get lots of British judges invites to conformation shows. You can give her lots of 'thanks ' for the pigadors that we see today.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Accodring to Richard Wolters, in his History of Duckdogs, the split between show and field was largely caused by Helen Warwick and her love for the British dogs. She began importing dogs from the UK and also had enough influence to get lots of British judges invites to conformation shows. You can give her lots of 'thanks ' for the pigadors that we see today.


I certainly believe that because they had to import the judges in the beginning to put the English imports up.


----------



## Joe Brakke (Jul 3, 2008)

I was surprised at the look and style of the FT dogs at the first FT I worked. I grew up with Labs all my life, that being in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and I was surprised that the top performing dogs were smaller, sleeker and damn fast. From the side they looked like grayhounds not the Lab I remember working pheasent in MN. That being said, confirmation Labs are not what I'd remember seeing in that same field in MN. Both are pushing on different ends of the Standard for different reasons. And thank goodness for the breeders we have working in the middle or we could loose the bred all together. What I have learned is that beyond the looks or purpose of breeding you can line that school Lab great temperment, high loyalty and great field ability in any CH or FC bred litter.


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Just Wondering.......What would it take to change the guidelines for conformation......much like they changed the crieteria in the 60-70's. Could we get some field trial/hunt test judges to judge conformation and gradually base thier judging criteria on the good sleek looks of a modern field lab, and move away from the "tanks" of the show ring. Are there any field judges who are interested in show judging also? Would this be a possible way to preserve the breed rather then split it? Would this even be remotely possible. It would be a great thing in my mind if leading field dogs also represented what the show people said labs should look like. Like I said, I am just wondering about this scenario. Bud


----------



## Brad Slaybaugh (May 17, 2005)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Accodring to Richard Wolters, in his History of Duckdogs, the split between show and field was largely caused by Helen Warwick and her love for the British dogs. She began importing dogs from the UK and also had enough influence to get lots of British judges invites to conformation shows. You can give her lots of 'thanks ' for the pigadors that we see today.


if you added 30 extra overweight pounds to the average field dog, would they compete in the ring?

If you took 30 pounds off the average show dog, would they compete in the field?

just food for thought?

Brad


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

> if you added 30 extra overweight pounds to the average field dog, would they compete in the ring?
> 
> If you took 30 pounds off the average show dog, would they compete in the field?


If "Would they" were changed to "could they" the answer would be No and No. 


Patti
________
HONDA LIFE SPECIFICATIONS


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Getting a license to judge in conformation is not an easy process. There are lots of hoops that one must jump thru to get a show license. These include breeding dogs that finish and showing dogs to bench championships as I recall.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

akblackdawg said:


> Just Wondering.......What would it take to change the guidelines for conformation......much like they changed the crieteria in the 60-70's. Could we get some field trial/hunt test judges to judge conformation and gradually base thier judging criteria on the good sleek looks of a modern field lab, and move away from the "tanks" of the show ring. Are there any field judges who are interested in show judging also? Would this be a possible way to preserve the breed rather then split it? Would this even be remotely possible. It would be a great thing in my mind if leading field dogs also represented what the show people said labs should look like. Like I said, I am just wondering about this scenario. Bud


Anything is possible, but I feel that would be improbable. Makes more sense to accept they are two different breeds and officially split them.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Yes but then where would the dogs that arent extreme from either type(or new breed as you suggest) be registered? 
I think we just have to accept that whether theyre show labs or field labs, or something in between, strive for that lab temperement that has made them the number one breed in the nation for many many years- and call it good...


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

The split started a long time ago. Look back at the pedigrees of the original US imports. They are distinctly different than the dogs behind the Sandylands dogs. 

The split in the US started in the 50s when the dogs from these lines were imported and slowly took over the show ring.

There is a picture of a Dual Champ & sons from the 30s and they look just like field Labs of today.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Ch.Sandylands Justice, born 1951



Looks like a balance between field and show to me...


----------



## DMA (Jan 9, 2008)

akblackdawg said:


> Just Wondering.......What would it take to change the guidelines for conformation......much like they changed the crieteria in the 60-70's. Could we get some field trial/hunt test judges to judge conformation and gradually base thier judging criteria on the good sleek looks of a modern field lab, and move away from the "tanks" of the show ring. Are there any field judges who are interested in show judging also? Would this be a possible way to preserve the breed rather then split it? Would this even be remotely possible. It would be a great thing in my mind if leading field dogs also represented what the show people said labs should look like. Like I said, I am just wondering about this scenario. Bud


I think it is much to late since the goals are so far apart. I have seen some incredible FT dogs with great conformation (but doubt they win a show)


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Nice dog! He was pretty balanced for his time. The one thing I think the show world has improved on in recent years in general are fronts (though now I see more issues w/ rears!). His (Justice) is pretty nice in comparison to the ones I saw when browsing some old LQs, etc recently. There used to be a lot of very straight upper arms even in the show ring and it's something that could still be improved on in the field lines.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Is it just me or was he just a bit cow-hocked?


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

Hookset said:


> Is it just me or was he just a bit cow-hocked?


Certainly appears that way in the picture. But it could be just the way he was standing at that momement. I have an otherwise nice pic of my BLM that he looks a little either hocked in or soft in the rear but actually has a nice strong, clean rear.. BUT in that pic he wasn't standing well. So unless you've seen the dog in person, you can guess but not be positive.


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=570&d=1200742378

I knew we had this conversation before and Nancy P was nice enough to post the photo. It was of DC Grangemead Precocious and his offspring, 2 of whom were FC and the other was a DC. If I remember right he was the grandsire of Cork of Oakwood Lane who is prominant in Lab pedigrees.

The commonly held belief that both sides have gone away from a single type of dog is a myth. (at least in my opinion )


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Steve said:


> The commonly held belief that both sides have gone away from a single type of dog is a myth. (at least in my opinion )


Steve, I think you missed the part about how much those in the show world have "improved" the show dogs by their careful selection.;-)


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Hookset said:


> Is it just me or was he just a bit cow-hocked?


Probably just a bad pic. I know if I tell my ob dog to stand stay he will freeze on the spot sometimes leaving himself in a very aqward postion.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Steve said:


> The commonly held belief that both sides have gone away from a single type of dog is a myth. (at least in my opinion )


I agree with you, but not in the same way. 

When I look back at photos of both CH, FC & DC dogs from the early to mid 1900s, I see some that look like field dogs from today, some that look like in shape show dogs of today and some that look like a nice blend of the two. 

I think there has always been different looking dogs and the use of popular studs in each venue has created the split we see today.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

The 2008 "Champion".


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Losthwy said:


> The 2008 "Champion".


Nice dog! He needs to lose about 10 pounds to be in working condition.


----------



## labman52738 (Jul 13, 2005)

Sean H said:


> Nice dog! He needs to lose about 10 pounds to be in working condition.


I agree! He doesn't have that rottwieler head that some of them do, and seems to have longer legs than some. I am one that likes a little of both, I like a dog to perform efficiently in the field, and is nice to look at.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

ReedCreek said:


> If "Would they" were changed to "could they" the answer would be No and No.
> 
> 
> Patti


would they -sure ,clubs take all entry fees . Could they truly be competitive - one in a million .Patti is right


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Losthwy said:


> The 2008 "Champion".


That dog is staring at the hot dog vendor !!!!!!!!!1


----------



## labman52738 (Jul 13, 2005)

John Kelder said:


> That dog is staring at the hot dog vendor !!!!!!!!!1


HA! Reminds me of a friends dog. He has all show dogs that he runs in Nahra. He has one that has gotten his WR title, his name is Tramp. That was one of the jokes when it came to a trail, Tramp would run a better trail if there was a hot dog tied to the ducks leg!


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Sean H said:


> Nice dog! He needs to lose about 10 pounds to be in working condition.


That fat boy needs to lose 20 just to make it down to furry coffee table status. Working condition prolly just ain't an option for poor old Porky.

I'd bet a cold adult beverage that even I can out run him and for reference about the only things that I can outrun consistently are green and flower in the spring. 

Canine Danny DeVito regards

Bubba


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Nice dog? Can't agree with that. IMO the standard for show Labs are a disservice to the breed. Take those blocky heads (short noses) for example. Is their sense of smell as good as the field labs with the longer noses? 
Can the 2008 "Champ" run faster than a field Lab?
Can the 2008 "Champ" swim faster than a field Lab?
Is the 2008 "Champ's" endurance greater than a field Lab?
Can the 2008 "Champ" out mark a field Lab?
Can the 2008 "Champ" do anything as good or better than field lab in the field in regards to a dog in the "Working Catagory"?


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Who is that dog-does anyone know his name and/or breeding?


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

http://www.akc.org/nationalchampion...etail.cfm?reg_num=SR40229001&event=2008277101


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Much is mentioned about the polar opposites of field and bench. Then there are those kennels that turn out well structured working dogs that don't match the current fad in the bench venue or are able to compete in the increasingly absurd setups in FT's. 

Maybe we are really talking about a tri-polar breed: bench, field, and classic Lab. The term "dual purpose" just doesn't fit on the "classic" as they are not often competitive in either bench or field as the standards for both have become so divergent. Yet there are those dogs that have good structure and looks and will work well in any hunting situation an owner may face. 

The problem for the "classics" is little opportunity for glory. Their route to recognition has been co-opted by the changing competitive climate. There is a diminishing opportunity for these dogs to prove their worth as all around dogs-- doing what Labs do and looking good at the same time. The "classic" Lab is often valued as an alternative for a hunting home as bench dogs are perceived as having questionable performance in a hunting situation. Field dogs are just too hyper to deal with. Besides they just are not that good looking either. I for one don't want to own a ugly hunting dog nor do I want to own a beautiful speed bump.

Hunting tests are only a partial way on showing a moderate dog's worth. Maybe some thing equivalent needs to be developed in bench. Perhaps some type of combo championship needs to be be established to recognize the third pole. 

I know this is going to boil somebody's water. We don't play the field trial game or the bench game because we want to contribute to the AKC on a weekly basis. We do it for vanity. ( The dog doesn't care if you take home a plaque or ribbon). We do it for breeding credentials. If our dog comes home with a ribbon, then the puppies are worth a bit more.

There will be some who say its for the betterment of the breed. Yet look what the bench and field ribbon chases have gotten us. We have "improved" the breed into the Pigador and the Trialatriever. Neither extreme is good for the breed. 

While both extremes have their vocal proponents, when I want to purchase a Lab I want a dog to look like a Lab should look and do the things Labs are supposed to do. Only a "classic" (or moderate) Lab will do for me. I know I am not alone in this viewpoint. However, there is a fading opportunity to test and prove the dog I am looking for will have those traits.

Fire away if you will.


----------



## desertdweller (Apr 13, 2008)

ZEUS 3925 very well said. I agree with you 100%.

"Can the 08 Champ run faster than a field lab?" No.

"Can the 08 Champ swim faster than a field lab?" Maybe.

"Is the 08 Champs endurance greater than a field lab?" Probably in the water.

"Can the 08 Champ out mark a field lab?" I doubt it.

"Can the 08 Champ do anything as good or better than a field lab in the field?" When it comes to working closely with it's owner all day in a boat on a large icy river, or in rough salt water, my guess is that at the end of the day a "working" conformation lab will hold it's own just fine without a vest.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Really ,if you think about it ......... The term is DUAL CHAMPION .Classic looks and performance.Like an old Vette or GTO . Classic lines , flashy chrome , and enough guts to get the job done .
Just like some dogs mentioned here , they don't make 'em like they used to.Give me an old classic car instead of the current Detroit offerings any day .
Those dogs of the past were serious ,solid animals . No e-collars ,DVDs ,seminars ,etc.A game for the well off and privileged ? yes .But it was no game to them .And those dogs were the foundation of what we have today . Except now its "clear of this , clear of that", or "only one side is a carrier " .Those old timers wouldn't think about allowing what they deemed inferior stock to breed .And from what I have read and heard , the thought of a DUAL CH. was something they strived for . Which explains the good looking (imho) field dogs shown in this thread .
The man I learned so much from , a breeder of a CNFC , told me the first litter he had with a yellow pup in the litter , he almost drowned it , because it unacceptable to have anything but black genetics. This was in the 1960s and he was going up against folks like the Belmonts and dogs Like Super Chief . Hard Corps ? better believe it .Good for the Breed ? Absolutely .


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

There are some things I like about that National Champ...good front and rear angles....but some glaring structural issues too. The biggest being that he is so out of square/unbalanced...and that is a major problem I see with the show Labs. A properly put together dog should be slightly...like maybe an inch... longer than tall, as measured via a vertical line from the top of the withers to the ground and a horizontal line from the point of the shoulder to the point of the buttock. If that dog had enough leg to put him closer to square, the whole picture would look more normal. And of course, he's overweight by 15-20 pounds.

Other than the Rottweiler heads, the two biggest structural issues I see with the show Labs are the disproportionately short legs and the obesity. If those two things would go away, we'd see better looking dogs that come closer to actually meeting the breed standard from a conformation standpoint.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Sharon, I agree, do you look at it similar to that phase of quarter horses with heavier front ends, short legged who mostly all ended up with leg problems?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Nancy, I relate it more to the job the dog does, although the QH comparison is very true. The heavier front ends certainly contributed to the soundness issues with some lines of QH. I think the extra weight the show Labs carry is a bigger detriment to their long term soundness than any other factor. A Lab has to swim....and being slightly longer than tall makes for a better swimmer than a square dog. The operative word here is "slightly", meaning an inch or so. Long bodies with short legs are less manueverable and prone to back problems...the caboose is always playing catch up with the engine.

Just for fun, I enlarged the photo of the Nat'l Champ and did some measuring. He is so out of balance/square that he is actually more than 25% longer than he is tall!!! How can judges not see this??? or better still, how can they reward it??? I know sometimes looks can be deceiving....back when I was judging hounds for UKC, I carried a small tape measure with me and used it on every dog. It took a matter of two or three seconds to check square.


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

Steve said:


> http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=570&d=1200742378
> 
> I knew we had this conversation before and Nancy P was nice enough to post the photo. It was of DC Grangemead Precocious and his offspring, 2 of whom were FC and the other was a DC. If I remember right he was the grandsire of Cork of Oakwood Lane who is prominant in Lab pedigrees.
> 
> The commonly held belief that both sides have gone away from a single type of dog is a myth. (at least in my opinion )


The pics you posted don't look like modern show dogs -especially if you have seen the modern dogs in person at shows...
Some field dogs, yes.. But show dog? No. So no, I would have to disagree and say they definately are very split at this point.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> Just for fun, I enlarged the photo of the Nat'l Champ and did some measuring. He is so out of balance/square that he is actually more than 25% longer than he is tall!!! How can judges not see this??? or better still, how can they reward it???


Could it be due to show ring politics??


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

zeus3925 said:


> Could it be due to show ring politics??


It's also possible that this was the dog closest overall to the standard in the ring that day. Remember that the judges are suposed to judge based on the total dog and the standard.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> It's also possible that this was the dog closest overall to the standard in the ring that day. Remember that the judges are suposed to judge based on the total dog and the standard.


;-) Now that is really scary...considering that this was the National Championship and supposed to be the best of the best!

As for judging to the standard...if all the dogs had to walk across a scale to be checked for weight as they went into the ring, I'll bet there'd be a lot of DQs right there. 

And here's the direct quote from the breed standard:



> _Proportion_--Short-coupled; length from the point of the shoulder to the point of the rump is equal to or slightly longer than the distance from the withers to the ground. Distance from the elbow to the ground should be equal to one half of the height at the withers. The brisket should extend to the elbows, but not perceptibly deeper. The body must be of sufficient length to permit a straight, free and efficient stride; but the dog should never appear low and long


Why have a standard if judges won't use it? This was a National Champion and it's the dog that most closely conforms to the standard yet is seriously disproportionate????? Now that is scary. And more than a little bit sad.
If the dog had the proper balance and length of leg, it would be a good representative of the breed standard.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

zeus3925 said:


> ...Maybe we are really talking about a tri-polar breed: bench, field, and classic Lab. The term "dual purpose" just doesn't fit on the "classic" as they are not often competitive in either bench or field as the standards for both have become so divergent....


Again, the picture below depicts the "classic" Lab. Classic should always mean those dogs who have proven they can win in the field and win in the ring. These are the dogs (in the picture & ones like them) we should remember when the term classic is used. And of course I strongly believe it is not the functional dogs who have changes so much as the interpretation of the std which has allowed winners of late in the ring to become typical of what the public thinks of a Labrador Retriever, all show and no function. Instead, Labs should be understood as first a working dog with a structure that enables them to work most efficiently and effectively - form follows function.

The real classic Lab:


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Losthwy said:


> The 2008 "Champion".



Actually, that dog is not the 2008 National Invitational Champion..it was "only" Best of Breed.

The 2008 National Champion (there is only one National Champion each year) is a Pointer











http://www.akc.org/nationalchampionship/index.cfm?section=special_pages&type=BIS&key_image=74376


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

John Kelder said:


> The man I learned so much from , a breeder of a CNFC , told me the first litter he had with a yellow pup in the litter , he almost drowned it , because it unacceptable to have anything but black genetics. .


To quote an ad by the immortal Herb Parker: " AKC Black Lab puppies for sale. Guaranteed no yellow genes.:lol:"


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

OK, best of breed at the National Championship....still means it's supposed to be the best representative of a Labrador, right?


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Sharon, 

Thanks for bringing informed intelligent criticism to this thread. The board could use more of that.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> OK, best of breed at the National Championship....still means it's supposed to be the best representative of a Labrador, right?



More or less...

As far as the split is concerned, I believe an important aspect is the huge popularity of the breed and the desire of the average pet labrador owner to have a very laid back, low energy, low maintenance dog with a great temperament. 

I started with one bench bred dog and all of my dogs since then have been field dogs. None of my field bred dogs would have been suitable for someone who wanted to do nothing more than walk around the block twice per day. My bench bred dog would have been fine with limited activity though she participated in several AKC venues.

Furthermore, when someone asks me where to go to find a labrador that will be a good "family dog" (no hunting, trialing, etc), I invariably send them to my showdog friends rather than to a field bred lab.


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

The BEST example? Not necessarily. The best example in that judges opinion from the dogs whose owners had the money/wherewithal/desire to send them and their handlers out to California from wherever to compete at that one competition for that judges' opinion on that given day. 

Subdivide "show" dogs into All Breed and Specialty dogs. I've been showing for 17 years, and the All Breed dogs are much more moderate than the Specialty dogs - that's where the pigadores show for the most part. Most all arounders won't look at them, which is why there are so many Lab "specialty" shows and so few majors to be had at all breed shows. 

That gross overgeneralization aside, there are some more moderate dogs that manage to do well at specialties. They're still a little large for my taste.

I say it's breeders' desire to win both games that produced the split. Standard be d$*@#ed in both cases - we want a dog that can win FT's or win Specialty shows.

There are some nice dogs at hunt tests and all breed shows. They're not going to get a lot of publicity because they're not going to win big. But that's what I want to feed and what I want to hunt with.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

jeff t. said:


> More or less...
> 
> As far as the split is concerned, I believe an important aspect is the huge popularity of the breed and the desire of the average pet labrador owner to have a very laid back, low energy, low maintenance dog with a great temperament.


Maybe I'm different but I like mine spirited, and engaged. Throw into that mixture intelligence and humor, I'll be in hog heaven with that recipe. You can keep the speed bumps and the hyper, hypers.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Something I've noticed, over many years of judging horses and dogs as well as exhibiting.....there are a lot....and I mean a fairly high percentage...of judges who really don't know or understand structure or form to function, other than to parrot what they've read or heard...they go for a certain look or way of moving, and don't judge to the actual criteria at all. They don't really now how to evaluate good legs, or proper balance, or even movement...they pick what looks pretty to them on that day.

The sad part is that I don't see a solution. What judge is going to say "I could use some education" or admit they don't know? Shows will use judges that owners and handlers will show under...and they show because they win with a certain type of dog under a particular judge. It's all too subjective, with no real accountability.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Aren't the judges in the ring paid?


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Aren't the judges in the ring paid?


Yes... I believe it is $ per dog


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

jeff t. said:


> Furthermore, when someone asks me where to go to find a labrador that will be a good "family dog" (no hunting, trialing, etc), I invariably send them to my showdog friends rather than to a field bred lab.


I do the exact same thing. I recommended these types to my sister in law and a friend, they took the recommendation and each got a very nice dog from a show breeder and are very very happy with their dogs. They each have kids and very busy hectic schedules. These dogs are good natured, healthy and do not require more time than they can give.

In my case, I specifically did not want that type for the simple reason I don't like the way they look. I did not know enough at the time to know quite HOW much more they required, but I'm still sure the field dog is for me.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

One of my friends states that there now three "types" of labs...one in the field and two in the show ring.

Many of the current best of the show ring reflect a tendency toward dwarfism - meaning the legs are shortened like a dachshund. Even if they lose 10-15 pounds, I believe that the shortened legs will still appear to be shorter and not in balance with the body.

What I have also noticed (and I by all means am not an expert in conformation), is that the show dogs do not have good extension in the front end when moving and actually look their best trotting. The gallop or run in the field is extremely choppy and appears strained to me.

It would not be a secret to anyone reading this that I prefer the active, field dog. There are also types in the field that I do not care for...


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

Well, guess how show dogs are assessed? 

I agree - I don't like the pigadores and I don't like the more extreme field types. Both sides have problems with short upper arms. 

To each his own as far as looks. WE have enough to worry about with PRA and EIC and HD and a host of other health issues. And then there are all the folks who breed just for the heck of it - I think that's a bigger threat to the breed than whose dogs are fat.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

(Um, okay, did anyone else just read the spam post and actually think they were following it for the first two sentences?

The poet is the dog with that certain something, the standard-bearer is the one with lots of type, the thief is the one who has faults but knows the judge will overlook them for something else; "Lord of the Rings--Online Power Leveling" is a book about how to win in the show ring...

Good grief, I read this stuff with too much concentration...)


----------



## ybrlabs (Aug 3, 2008)

I usually do not post but I do read and learn. I have been "fighting" in the ring for several years with my show bred labs. I refuse to let them become "pigadors" or hire a handler to win. I now have two dogs that I think are nice examples of a labs. I have shown them to other people and they always say the same thing; they need more weight. You can see them for yourself at http://www.ybrlabs.com look at Hazel and Ripley. Both dogs are from Canada and have pretty much English, European and American lines. As primarily a breeder of show style labs, I would love to train one of them for at least a JH but where do I start? What do you think of these two dogs? Are they "pigadors"? FYI, I have had much success breeding assistance dogs for a program in PA. 

TIA,

Sandy A
YellowBreeches Labs
Jefferson, MD


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Here is a pretty good link. I like the digital graphic of the 60s-2000-2004 Lab.

http://labradornet.com/typecast.html


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

YBRLabs - good luck to you. I felt the same way for about 15 years and got tired of losing to handlers under all breed judges and to "pigadores" under breeder judges. I figured out where my boy needed to go to win where there would actually perhaps BE majors (i.e., where a moderate dog could be competitive and where there were people who would actually enter under certain judges), hired a handler and got him finished. Be prepared to take your lumps but don't give up the good fight. Be prepared to struggle to find majors - and then to find them under either breeder judges or under judges who will put up certain handlers. I have won over handlers - so it can happen - but I can't say that I've won under a breeder judge. 

I've decided to just enjoy what I have, and I don't lose sleep over the "split" anymore. It's not worth it - neither side is going to budge, and I'm not really sure they should. To each his own.

Also - at hunt tests be prepared to have judges tell you that the mistakes your dog makes are because he's a "show" dog, while field bred dogs get a little bit of a break in the subjective factor. I actually had a judge tell me that he'd drop my dog on "style" in Senior because of his body type. 

ON a more positive note - if your dog goes to a hunt test and does a nice job - be prepared for people to be genuinely impressed and very complimentary. I have had judges tell me (on our good days) that they wish more folks would train and run their show dogs.

The problem - most show people wait until the dog is older to start training. You really need to start with them when they are puppies to encourage drive. I start fieldwork and obedience before anything else. We hit a real bump when my guy had to go out for extended periods of time with the handler and missed training - he was in great condition (the handler I used showed him in working condition - it IS possible) but we missed a lot of training, so now I'm not sure how far we'll go.

To get started, find a retriever club (AKC or HRC or NAHRA) and join. Go to training days, volunteer to work at hunt tests and watch. Listen to what they say. Find a training group or at least a partner and throw birds until your arm aches. Watch what the good trainers do and ask why they do it. Read books and watch videos (you can get good ideas here using the Search function). Decide what your goals are for your dog and train for those. Train a level beyond what you are testing. Do the best you can with what you have, then start fresh with your next dog. Learn something from each dog - I'm amazed at the new and creative dumba$$ mistakes I make with each one. And have fun - the fieldwork is my favorite part of the whole dog game!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

ybrlabs said:


> I usually do not post but I do read and learn. I have been "fighting" in the ring for several years with my show bred labs. I refuse to let them become "pigadors" or hire a handler to win. I now have two dogs that I think are nice examples of a labs. I have shown them to other people and they always say the same thing; they need more weight. You can see them for yourself at http://www.ybrlabs.com look at Hazel and Ripley. Both dogs are from Canada and have pretty much English, European and American lines. As primarily a breeder of show style labs, I would love to train one of them for at least a JH but where do I start? What do you think of these two dogs? Are they "pigadors"? FYI, I have had much success breeding assistance dogs for a program in PA.
> 
> TIA,
> 
> ...


Sandy-

If you'd like an honest critique, I'd be happy to give it to you. Just double checking first. ;-)


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Sean H said:


> Ch.Sandylands Justice, born 1951
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a balance between field and show to me...


I would agree. I don't think the older imports were anything like what we see in the U.S. showring today.

The "old" Sandylands head was not coarse or Rottie-like. It was a marvelous, noble-looking head. And the photo shown above certainly has a body that looks like a working dog.

I think something went wrong between 1951 and the mid-80s when the "newer" English imports came here. Seems like both UK and US took a route to the shorter, stockier, heavier dogs & those Rottie heads that were part of the package.

Years ago I knew a wonderful, yellow Whygin male. Didn't have any field titles, but he was some huntin' dawg.


----------



## ybrlabs (Aug 3, 2008)

Fire away. An honest critique is invaluable.


----------



## idellalabs (Feb 24, 2004)

Sharon Potter said:


> Sandy-
> 
> If you'd like an honest critique, I'd be happy to give it to you. Just double checking first. ;-)


I appreciate the fact that you asked that question before you offered your critique, seems that sometimes people forget that criticism really needn't be given unless it is asked for.
Too bad that the same courtesy couldn't have been offered to the owners of Zeus. Not only did they not offer his picture for RTF viewing, I don't recall seeing them request anyone's opinions on his conformation. 
Toni and Lorraine if you do read this forum, I'm sorry that you and your well-loved boy have been subjected to some of these posts.
Carole
ps..hey Bubba,regarding that race...my money's on the dog ;-)


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

ybrlabs said:


> Fire away. An honest critique is invaluable.


OK....here we go (and remember, I'm critiquing a picture, not the real dog):

The black dog: I like the head very much. Good definition and balance between head and muzzle. Nice expression and ear set. Neck is nice and ties into the body as it should. The body: Longer than tall, but not severely. (I had to guesstimate because I can't see the exact bottom of the feet due to the grass, but I think it's pretty accurate.) Topline is high behind, when it should be level, and the resulting roundness over the hindquarters takes away from a balanced look. I'm guessing this is related to the length/balance, since if the dog's front legs were less short, the overall balance would be smoother. Also, there's a bit too much "tuck-up" in the flank area (according to the bred standard)...which again could be related to the out of balance/short front legs. That's why so many show dogs are shown overweight...covers up the "tuck" and makes the dog look smoother and less out of balance. Legs: Front looks acceptable in angulation, but short in length of leg. Elbow and brisket close enough to suit me. Hind legs: Somewhat straight in the stifle area, but not severely so. Classic Labrador tail. 

Chocolate: Nice head, but not quite as good as the black dog. Ear set is a bit off, the plane of muzzle and top of skull don't match, and there seems to be a bit of throatiness where the head and neck meet plus the neck doesn't tie into the body as cleanly. Part of this lack of smoothness in front may be due to a slightly straight front. The hind limbs have excellent angulation and the topline is level, if quite long through the coupling. The biggest issue I see with this dog is the overall length....way out of square, much more so than the black dog. Again, a very long body on short legs, which gives an out of balance look. Classic, lovely tail on this dog as well. 

Please keep in mind that I'm critiquing photos...it's much better to have hands on the dog and see it in the flesh. Weight wise, the chocolate is better than the black, but the black dog is built on a heavier frame than the chocolate, so that needs to be considered also and the dogs will look different because of it. Bravo to you for not adding the extra pounds the showring would want to see!

I'll just duck and run now....


----------



## ybrlabs (Aug 3, 2008)

Don't duck and run. I appreciate the critique. The only I have to add in both dog's defense is that they are both pretty young. The black is 16 months and the chocolate 12 months. The black boy has had a downhill topline for a while. I don't know if it will improve but his temperament and willingness to please makes up for it. His breeder warned me that he would be very slow to mature. Overall I'm really pleased with him. The chocolate girl is long and her legs too short for me. I like her length of muzzle and she has a wonderful retrieve drive if I can learn to harness it. 

Thanks for the critique. I like to hear what people have to say about my dogs but in the end I'm the one who has to live with them,

Sandy


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Just to add...before I get tossed under the bus ....I critique my own dogs constantly, and work very hard to breed good looking Labs that have strong field ability...I like a balanced, moderate dog that can do both, and am very fussy about structure in general. 

Also, there are no perfect dogs....all have flaws...and it's only by looking for them and acknowledging them that we can work to breed for better in the next generations.

Anybody brave enough to put up a conformation shot of a "field" bred dog for critique?  Or should I use one of my own?


----------



## ybrlabs (Aug 3, 2008)

Once again, a youngen but field bred http://www.ybrlabs.com/photos/363180643_FWGsS-S.jpg

Hopefully the link works.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

ybrlabs said:


> Once again, a youngen but field bred http://www.ybrlabs.com/photos/363180643_FWGsS-S.jpg
> 
> Hopefully the link works.


Sandy, thanks for being brave ;-)....looks like a nice pup...how old?


----------



## ybrlabs (Aug 3, 2008)

In that picture about 4 months. He is 6 months old now and hasn't changed much. He is from Southland Kennel and out of HR Southland Gentleman Joe. I really like him but wish he had a little more drive. He is a little soft.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Fire away Sharon, it's hard to get an honest, unbiased critique. Unfortunately, these are the best semi-stacked pics I have of him.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Sandy, trying to judge a pup at that age is tough...they are growing so fast and really don't give much hint as to what they'll be when they're adults. I will say that it looks like he's got really nice angles behind...but until he fills out and all the parts catch up, it's hard to really say much. He does look like fun!


----------



## ybrlabs (Aug 3, 2008)

I understand. He is lots of fun! I just had elbow surgery so will be out of training and showing for a while. I can't wait to move past sit, down and heel.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Sean, thanks for being brave too! I'm impressed!

OK, to start with: Good looking head, nice ears of proper length. The top of the skull and the muzzle are of good length and proportion, with muzzle and skull close to parallel. Eyes perhaps a bit deep set, but still nice and soft expression. Front is acceptable in angle from what I can see (grass hiding pasterns and feet). This dog is also longer than tall...not severely, but still there. The big structural issue with this dog is the weak and short hindquarter. It is altogether too short and slight for the rest of the dog's body and looks out of proportion. This creates a much more open angle between the pelvis and the femur than is correct, and carries down through the hind leg through the patellar area. The saving grace here is that the hock angle still looks good. The topline has more slope than I'd like to see. Weight looks OK, coat looks correct, but I'd like to see some muscles and tone. Tail looks like a good Lab tail.


----------



## Tom H. (May 17, 2005)

Sharon _

Here is my field bred MH , He is by FC/AFC High Tech CEO x HRCH Rascal's Chocolate Pie MH , QAA . I realize its not the best pic but for now it'll have to work cause its to damn cold out to go to the kennels and take another pic .









________
Silver surfer reviews


----------



## Tom H. (May 17, 2005)

A bigger pic - Sorry I would have edited my op but it wouldn't let me
________
Buy Portable Vaporizer


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

ybrlabs said:


> As primarily a breeder of show style labs, I would love to train one of them for at least a JH but where do I start?


Sandy, I have a show-bred male who I started training a bit too late (he was over a year old). If he could get his JH, I think any dog could. I started by introducing him to birds and getting him excited about having birds in his mouth. Once he started picking up birds from a few yards away, we moved on to force fetch. After force fetch was complete, we did many many marks gradually increasing the difficulty. He got to the point of doing an ok job on singles well over 100 yards (don't need that for JH). I think with enough patience, you can get almost any dog to JH.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Sharon what about this guy? Do you still have him? He was an unusual bench/field cross. I bred to him once but never saw him but the pups sure were nice. This is the only picture I have when he was young-about a year.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Thanks Sharon. When he's a little more mature and I get some good pics on flat ground I'll post them up to revisit.


----------



## ybrlabs (Aug 3, 2008)

Thanks for the encouragement Tatyana! I'm reading and learning while my elbow is recovering. I hope to get out to training days as soon as my doctor gives me the ok. My goal for 2009 is to get my "boys" out started on training and joining a club! Now I need to see if I can find a stacked pick of my very fieldy yellow girl.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Tom, thanks for posting the pics. I'd love to see a good side view, but I'll go on what I can see here. I'd be willing to bet that he's pretty close to square, body-wise...but without that side shot, can't say for certain. I like his head...ears are set a bit too high and I'd like to see his head a little bit broader, with more distance between his eyes (they're a little too close...common in field lines), but overall has nice balance and look to it. From this angle, it would appear that he toes out slightly in front, and maybe just a little bit behind....but I prefer to see a dog moving to effectively judge that. He's in excellent weight for his frame, and in good condition. Can't see shoulder or rear angles from this view. He has good substance and bone, and appears to be a very well balanced dog. Overall, more like the moderate look back when there were duals. When it warms up, I'd love to see more.


----------



## Tom H. (May 17, 2005)

Sharon - 

You asked nicely enough , that when the temp climbs above 0 and we loose the below 0 wind chills I'll get some better side shots .

Tom
________
Plymouth x2s


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

ErinsEdge said:


> Sharon what about this guy? Do you still have him? He was an unusual bench/field cross. I bred to him once but never saw him but the pups sure were nice. This is the only picture I have when he was young-about a year.


Ah, yes...good Ol' Moses.  He was definitely a dog who sired better than he was, from a structural standpoint. Passed along his good points but not the bad, as a rule. I had two litters by him, bred to a Cash granddaughter, and the pups had better balance than either parent, so it worked. But...Moses, as you mentioned, was a very unusual cross between both worlds. His sire was NFC Rascal, and his dam was CH Plantiers Ruthless Ruthie MH...and both were chocolate. Moses is gone now, but was a sweetheart of a dog. Moses had his SH, but that was long before I had him here. I used to let him run a few marks just for fun, and from what I could tell, he was a nice dog...but not a great dog. Maybe, with a lot of time and effort,he could have made MH....but while he loved to work, he wasn't exactly going to set the world on fire. And pretty soft, too. 

Now...for the conformation part. The first time I bred to him, it was on a tip from Mary H, who had seen my bitch, Abby and figured it would be a good cross...and when I got to his former owner to drop off Abby, I saw him for the first time and thought "OMG, I'm breeding to a pigador." Didn't help that he was way overweight. But I went ahead and bred on faith(and Mary's opnion)...my Abby is all field breeding and has good size and balance and is a pretty stout girl. The pups turned out very well...wish he could have sired more before old age caught up with him. But....as you said, he was an unusual cross and it put him between both worlds, but really in neither world. I don't think he really could have made it big either way. He was long bodied and short legged...had excellent angulation in front and the rear, but those short legs...his head was too domed and his neck wasn't set on his body very well...hung way out to the front. Ability wise, he was the perfect family dog. Loved to hunt, but was pretty laid back. 

Here's a son of his, Gauge, from that first cross that turned out very well, and is in California now...pic at eight months old)











Gauge has a lovely head, ears set a bit too far back like his sire, nice neck, good balance through the body. He tended to be a little throaty...too much extra skin there. Groomed properly for the ring, his tail would have looked fine. ;-) Angles are good both front and rear (could use a bit more slope to his pasterns and I'd like to see a tighter foot), topline is nice. Ability wise, he could easily make MH, but isn't a field trial kind of dog. He loved to hunt and retrieve, and took to handling very well, but was again a bit on the soft side.

Good old Moses....a sweeter dog never lived. Lost him just about a year ago.


----------



## Certainty (Apr 17, 2008)

OK, I'm going to get brave enough to get in on this and post my show bred male, Harry. He is a Dickendall Arnold grandson, with a Starquest mother, Am. CH. Pointed Mountain Meadow Timeless Tess. Sire was Mountain Meadow Navigator.
Harry was never shown in the ring as far as I know. We purchased him from Double D Labradors when he was almost 5 yrs old. He had no formal training in anything. With a great trainer, he now has a Started title in HRC and a JH with AKC. We are going on with him as far as his learning and age will take us. He is now 6. He handles well, runs blinds, and has tons of drive.








Sharon, will you tell me what you think of him?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Katherine-

Thanks for being brave, too! ;-)

The pic is a little far away, and I can't see the bottoms of his legs, but will give it a shot. I see a very nice head, ears set on just a bit back but good length, and a neck that fits well into the shoulder and body. One thing I'd pick on here is that he's pretty "throaty", meaning a lot of extra skin under his jaws inthe throat area. He appears to be a bit straight in the shoulder..not extremely so, but not quite ideal, either....and it may just be the pic. Good topline, very nice balance....and if my guesstimate is right as to where his feet hit the ground, he's SQUARE! or pretty darned close to it. Hind angulation looks good....I'd like to see a little more bone/substance to his legs since they look a bit slight in comparison the the rest of his body, but again, not extremely so. He looks to be in good weight for his frame. Good Lab tail.


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

subroc said:


> Here is a pretty good link. I like the digital graphic of the 60s-2000-2004 Lab.
> 
> http://labradornet.com/typecast.html



Interesting breakdown, thanks for posting. I definitely favor the Holton Classic look.

I just don't understand how things can be so out of balance in the show ring yet promoted and awarded. Especially those standards that are can not be hidden as subjectiveness, I mean those that are strictly objective and can be measured.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

The problem as I see it is that neither field or show *breed to the standard*. 

Instead of being the standard for the breed, the standard has become a dividing line between the two factions, with neither side following it, and instead, using it to stay separated. The standard *should* be the cohesive factor that keeps a breed together and not the line that divides it.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> The problem as I see it is that neither field or show *breed to the standard*.
> 
> Instead of being the standard for the breed, the standard has become a dividing line between the two factions, with neither side following it, and instead, using it to stay separated. The standard *should* be the cohesive factor that keeps a breed together and not the line that divides it.


So, is it your position that excellent FT dogs should not be bred if they don't measure up to the "standard" ? Why are looks more important than performance?

What in the "standard" maintains retrieving ability?? Work ethic?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

cakaiser said:


> So, is it your position that excellent FT dogs should not be bred if they don't measure up to the "standard" ? Why are looks more important than performance?
> 
> What in the "standard" maintains retrieving ability?? Work ethic?


Excellent question. Looks are NOT more important than performance. Looks mean NOTHING without performance...but that doesn't mean performance is ultimately defined as having to be only FC or AFC, although those are certainly titles I like to have in my breedings. And I don't think just plodding out to pick up a bird and retrieving it is acceptable performance either. My Jack Russell can do better than that. ;-)
My point is this: If someone comes up to me and says "nice Lab", it probably is. But if somebody says "what kind of dog is that?" or "What's the other half?" there's a problem. ANd it can happen with both field and show dogs. I believe that there should be an even balance between looks and performance. Plus, looks isnt just about pretty or handsome..._it's about having a dog built to do the job and stay sound doing it. 
_
First of all, let me say that there is not perfect dog that fits every detail of the standard to a tee. Second, the structure of the dog described in the standard is to make form equal to function. That means working ability should be built into the dog because its form is suited to its function. There's no way to quantify things like desire and ability and trainability by writing it into the standard....and those are constantly evolving and changing at the top end of the game as well. What won in the 60s is not what wins today...both in the show ring and in field trials. It's all moved to extremes. 

So...what a dog *looks* like is described by the breed standard. What it performs like is found in the field. I do think that the trials have gotten way past practical application....it's always fun to see a good performance and I enjoy seeing it, but it (like the show ring) has gotten far away from its original purpose and some dogs have been bred for the speed and style needed to win at that game, without any thought to whether or not they look like Labs. As long as they win, nothing else matters,and I don't think that should be the be-all and end-all either....just like I don't think a show champion that can barely get a JH is worthy.

I don't think things like bad structure should be bred on...from either the show side or the field side. A good share of field trial and hunt test dogs come closer to the standard than a lot of the show dogs...there are different deficiencies on both sides and that's what separates the field and show.

The majority of field trial Labs are decent looking dogs, and some are drop dead gorgeous. And a few others look like coyotes of the wrong color, just like some show Labs look like miscolored Rottweilers with tails. I wouldn't breed to either of those. Why? Because I want a balanced dog...one that looks like its breed and can do the job it was intended to do. 

Nothing I've said here is anything other than my own personal philosophy and what I want and expect in my own dogs and my program. It's not going to change a thing as far as the rest of the world goes. I do beleive that if there is ever going to be another DC, it will likely come from mainly field lines.


----------



## Certainty (Apr 17, 2008)

Thank you Sharon! I have wandered in the last year where he falls in the standard, especially coming from the lines that he does. I am not unhappy at all with that evaluation. With his drive, excellent temperament, and eagerness to earn what is thrown at him, we lucked into a wonderful dog!


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> The problem as I see it is that neither field or show *breed to the standard*.
> 
> Instead of being the standard for the breed, the standard has become a dividing line between the two factions, with neither side following it, and instead, using it to stay separated. The standard *should* be the cohesive factor that keeps a breed together and not the line that divides it.


Sharon...

This post summarizes everything from all the threads that have been started lately. This is indeed the problem. 

The show people are pi$$ed about the standard change from the 90's and the field people (I'm guessing here) look at performance only.

Good post...

Sue


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> My point is this: If someone comes up to me and says "nice Lab", it probably is. *But if somebody says "what kind of dog is that?" or "What's the other half?" there's a problem.* ANd it can happen with both field and show dogs. I believe that there should be an even balance between looks and performance. Plus, looks isnt just about pretty or handsome..._*it's about having a dog built to do the job and stay sound doing it. *
> _
> First of all, let me say that there is *not perfect dog that fits every detail of the standard* to a tee. Second, the structure of the dog described in the standard is to make form equal to function. That means working ability should be built into the dog because its form is suited to its function. There's no way to quantify things like desire and ability and trainability by writing it into the standard....and those are constantly evolving and changing at the top end of the game as well. What won in the 60s is not what wins today...both in the show ring and in field trials. It's all moved to extremes.
> 
> ...


I agree...and another excellent post! 

Sue


----------



## Bud (Dec 11, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> Excellent question. Looks are NOT more important than performance. Looks mean NOTHING without performance...but that doesn't mean performance is ultimately defined as having to be only FC or AFC, although those are certainly titles.............. lines.


Nicely said Sharon.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Then, we must all conform to the standard in our breeding practices, in terms of the word "Labrador."

But,it remains open to individual interpretation in terms of the word "Retriever??"

By the way, FT dogs are not bred for speed and style. Speed and style do not make a competitive AA dog.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> Then, we must all conform to the standard in our breeding practices, in terms of the word "Labrador."
> 
> But,it remains open to individual interpretation in terms of the word "Retriever??"


I like that-sounds like a good signature line.



> By the way, FT dogs are not bred for speed and style. Speed and style do not make a competitive AA dog.


Deserve repeating. Many of the conformation venue just don't get how difficult it is to get a competitive AA dog and what it takes. That's why we know if there is a next dual, it will have to come from field lines.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

cakaiser said:


> Then, we must all conform to the standard in our breeding practices, in terms of the word "Labrador."
> 
> But,it remains open to individual interpretation in terms of the word "Retriever??"
> 
> By the way, FT dogs are not bred for speed and style. Speed and style do not make a competitive AA dog.


From the standard:


> The Labrador Retriever is a strongly built, medium-sized, short-coupled, dog possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced *conformation that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions*; the character and quality to win in the show ring; and the temperament to be a family companion. Physical features and mental characteristics should denote a dog bred to perform as an efficient Retriever of game with a stable temperament suitable for a variety of pursuits beyond the hunting environment. The most distinguishing characteristics of the Labrador Retriever are its short, dense, weather resistant coat; an "otter" tail; a clean-cut head with broad back skull and moderate stop; powerful jaws; and its "kind," friendly eyes, expressing character, intelligence and good temperament.
> Above all, a Labrador Retriever must be well balanced, enabling it to move in the show ring or work in the field with little or no effort. The typical Labrador possesses style and quality without over refinement, and substance without lumber or cloddiness. *The Labrador is bred primarily as a working gun dog*; structure and soundness are of great importance.


That covers what the dog's job is, without getting into the details of all the different games we play with them outside of actual hunting. The term "retriever" relates to being a gun dog and hunting. 

Of course speed and style don't make an AA dog...all the speed and style in the world won't help a dog that has poor marking ability, or isn't biddable enough to handle, or just doesn't have enough desire. But given two dogs that are both excellent markers, take a line well, and handle equally well, speed and style can well be a determining factor.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

ErinsEdge said:


> Many of the conformation venue just don't get how difficult it is to get a competitive AA dog and what it takes. That's why we know if there is a next dual, it will have to come from field lines.


Nancy, you said a mouthful right there. Especially in today's retriever games....an AA dog is so far beyond the basic requirements of a good gundog...it's going to have to be predominantly field lines if we ever see another dual in the breed.

So...here's a question: As for retrieving ability, what should be added to the standard to better define it?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> So...here's a question: As for retrieving ability, what should be added to the standard to better define it?


I think *"the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions" *does say it all. If a dog is fit to hunt upland under difficult conditions, it will have to be in shape, and not have an extreme coat because he would overheat in hot weather. I think that any CH should be *required *to perform a working title before he is awarded a championship, just as the LRC has advocated, but is a rule that is generally ignored. That would be a start and move the showring towards a working dog. JMHO of course.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

ErinsEdge said:


> I think *"the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions" *does say it all. If a dog is fit to hunt upland under difficult conditions, it will have to be in shape, and not have an extreme coat because he would overheat in hot weather. I think that any CH should be *required *to perform a working title before he is awarded a championship, just as the LRC has advocated, but is a rule that is generally ignored. That would be a start and move the showring towards a working dog. JMHO of course.


Makes perfect sense to me. A working certificate is not hard at all....but they're rarely offered. If it were a requirement before receiving a CH, bet there's be more. ;-) And a conformation certificate for field dogs wouldn't hurt either before they could earn an FC or AFC or MH. Again, not hard if a dog is reasonably well put together, which the majority of field Labs are.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

_Style _
is apparent in every movement of a dog by​ 
the gaiety of its manner, by its alertness, by its eagerness​ 

and *speed on retrieves*, by its water-entry, by its​ 

pick-up of birds, and by its return with them.​ 



http://www.akc.org/pdfs/rulebooks/RHTRET.pdf​


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Sharon Potter said:


> Makes perfect sense to me. A working certificate is not hard at all....but they're rarely offered. If it were a requirement before receiving a CH, bet there's be more. ;-) And a conformation certificate for field dogs wouldn't hurt either before they could earn an FC or AFC or MH. Again, not hard if a dog is reasonably well put together, which the majority of field Labs are.


Actually, the LRC requires that a dog achieving CH must achieve some sort of field title, certification or demonstration of retrieving ability before using the CH title - as I understand it. I think it is widely abused, and many don't even get a WC, opting for the demonstrated ability as a stretch....


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Granddaddy said:


> Actually, the LRC requires that a dog achieving CH must achieve some sort of field title, certification or demonstration of retrieving ability before using the CH title - as I understand it. I think it is widely abused, and many don't even get a WC, opting for the demonstrated ability as a stretch....


So how can we make it required? Is there any way the LRC can make it a rule with AKC so the dog cannot be recognized as a CH without a working title of some sort?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

From the field trial rules, page 30:

22. The Judges must judge the dogs for (a) their natural
abilities including their memory, intelligence, attention,
nose, courage, perseverance and *style*, and (b) their
abilities acquired through training, including steadiness,
control, response to direction, and delivery.

Page 32:

28. When ordered to retrieve, *a dog should proceed
quickly and eagerly* on land or into the water to marked
falls, or on the line given him by his handler on falls he
has not seen.

Page 33:
36. Upon finding the game, he should *quickly pick it
up and return briskly* to his handler.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Sharon Potter said:


> So how can we make it required? Is there any way the LRC can make it a rule with AKC so the dog cannot be recognized as a CH without a working title of some sort?



Actually the LRC could enforce it among its members and make owners who are members comply or not receive points from its events. They could also make recommendations to the AKC, as the breed club.


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

Yes, they are, which is why the LRC started the CC program. Unfortunately both it and the WC are rarely held, perhaps due to lack of interest? 

If a CC were held at a field trial or hunt test, would those folks go? (Some did at the Nationals I attended - most passed.) Are there owner handlers at a FT who honestly CARE how the dog conforms to the standard from a "form follows function" standpoint (not a 'look like a pigador' standpoint)? 

If a WC were held by a conformation club - would those folks attend? 

LOVE the idea of needing a WC or a CC before getting either CH title. 

I'm still looking for a field bred dog I could put points on - and I would do it in a heartbeat. Any suggestions? 

Not advertising my CH until he finishes his JH regards (not that a JH is any big deal, but it's a start, and I hope there's more to come),

Paula


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

Yes, the LRC could, as other sporting breeds have additional requirements for titles. The AWSC requires that all American Water Spaniels have to pass two Retriever Certification tests at the specific levels before they could get their AKC Spaniel titles. This was done to help the breed keep its dual purpose heritage. We're working on getting more RCT's available to members, and that would be the problem with Labs - could the club and its members provide enough CC's at FT's and HT's and WC's, perhaps at the same events? It is additional work - the LRC has presumable more money and members at its disposal than the small AWSC has. I am in both - at least I was in the LRC but I sent in my dues check two years ago, it never cleared the bank and I can't get anyone to respond to my emails about where to send a new one............


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

> Style
> is apparent in every movement of a dog by
> 
> the gaiety of its manner, by its alertness, by its eagerness
> ...


Regulations & Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers, Part III The Abilities of a Retriever, Paragraph II further continues on to say "... Style makes for a pleasing performance. Style and Marking constitute *the most important abilities of Retrievers [emphasis added]..."*

"In any hunting situation Style includes: (a) an alert and obedient attitude, (b) *a fast, determined departure both on land and into water* [emphasis added] (c) an aggressive search for the fall, (d) a prompt pick-up, and (e) *a reasonably fast return*"

overall, I think there is some room for interpretation between the usage of the words "speed" "fast" and "determined" but, to me, the Rulebooks intent paints a picture of a dog moving quickly and with determination towards it's goal....picking up and retrieving the bird...
________
Corvette Leaf Spring


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Yes, they are, which is why the LRC started the CC program. Unfortunately both it and the WC are rarely held, perhaps due to lack of interest?
> 
> If a CC were held at a field trial or hunt test, would those folks go? (Some did at the Nationals I attended - most passed.) Are there owner handlers at a FT who honestly CARE how the dog conforms to the standard from a "form follows function" standpoint (not a 'look like a pigador' standpoint)?


I would definately do a CC but I would not travel to another coast to get one. I think bothe the WC and CC would bring the lines together.
I also think Sharon should write a book with pictures so we could better access what we need to do to improve the conformation. I know one biggie is field tails-very difficult to get better tails and ear set but angulation we can surely improve which might help with the acls.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Nancy, I'll take you up on that. Seriously. But...(there's always a but, isn't there?  )

First I need the following: 10 photos of each of these: CH, MH, and FC or AFC, along with their owners permission to use them in the book and critique them.
Even better would be to do it on a DVD, so we could have movement clips of all 30 dogs, since that's important too....and then we could show the differences in the working dogs of all three styles...CH. MH, and FC/AFC...all doing what Labradors are supposed to do.

Any volunteers?


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

Are you aware of Julie Brown's Breeder's Directory? It contains hundreds of pictures of Labradors. Many CH's. Also four or five generation pedigrees. The first ed. was 1971, followed by 1972 ed. and later a 1978 ed. that I have. I find the pictures of many of these Labs very useful in getting the over all picture of what a conformation Lab is supposed to look like.

Jack


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Sharon, any chance of you posting the article you did in the RJ on structure? I don't subscribe to RJ magaizine and the time limit of republishing that article should have expired by now.;-)

Great to read the voices of moderation! I salute anyone working to maintain the Integrity of The Breed! 

The Bench and Field Speciality folks HAVE NOT IMPROVED THE BREED! They've only made their dogs more competitive in their Speciality, which is not nessesarily in the best interest of the breed.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Merrymaker said:


> Yes, the LRC could, as other sporting breeds have additional requirements for titles. The AWSC requires that all American Water Spaniels have to pass two Retriever Certification tests at the specific levels before they could get their AKC Spaniel titles. This was done to help the breed keep its dual purpose heritage. We're working on getting more RCT's available to members, and that would be the problem with Labs - could the club and its members provide enough CC's at FT's and HT's and WC's, perhaps at the same events? It is additional work - the LRC has presumable more money and members at its disposal than the small AWSC has. I am in both - at least I was in the LRC but I sent in my dues check two years ago, it never cleared the bank and I can't get anyone to respond to my emails about where to send a new one............


As I understand it, LRC members are not permitted to use a CH in front of their name, unless they have the WC. _However_, from what I can see the stipulation is either ignored or individuals simply do not become members of LRC (so they don't have to follow that rule).

GRCA evidently queried AKC on doing this, & AKC would not allow anything to interfere with AKC granting a title ... which would be the case if a WC were to be a requirement for a CH title to be used and/or listed in AKC records. They would not allow GRCA to make such a stipulation for Goldens. Perhaps the breeds that are successful in doing this do so from within their membership as the Lab club attempts to do. But then the requirement only applies to club members ... which could put them at some disadvantage in displaying their titles v. those who are not national club members.

FWIW, several Golden clubs hold WC/X tests on the same weekend as their local or regional specialties. GRCA requires that a WC/X test be offered by any club that hosts a regional or national specialty. Except for national specialties (maybe also regionals, I'm not sure), generally Golden clubs will allow Labs to participate in their WC/X tests. Our own club would run the Labs at the end so that the test for the Labs was the one required for the Lab requirements. Golden clubs are also willing to co-sponsor tests & local Lab clubs would be welcome to cooperate with putting on a test that would accommodate both breeds. Entry fees are usually in the $30 to $35 range.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I would definately do a CC but I would not travel to another coast to get one. I think bothe the WC and CC would bring the lines together.
> I also think Sharon should write a book with pictures so we could better access what we need to do to improve the conformation. I know one biggie is field tails-very difficult to get better tails and ear set but angulation we can surely improve which might help with the acls.


I've seen loss of the double coat over the years in field-bred Labs in certain lines. I've purchased a couple of FC-AFC sired pups from MH or females or females with All-age points that had adult coats like pointers. Also, that loss of hair around the tail, makes for a bloody stump which is a mess. The double-coat has an insulating factor in the field field for cold-water work so it's not just for looks, and many of the dogs require amputation of the bloody stump to eliminate the problem.

Lots of flat-splayed feet in field-bred lines now.

And yes, proper angulation...definitely..lots of straight shoulders now.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Merrymaker said:


> If a WC were held by a conformation club - would those folks attend?


Yes. Our club holds them throughout the year, usually at one of our picnics a hunt test or two, etc. They are well attended. We even do WCX. Our spring and fall Hunt Tests always offer the option for a WC. I can't speak for other clubs. Only the LRC of the Potomac, in MD/VA.

Sue


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

ErinsEdge said:


> I also think Sharon should write a book with pictures so we could better access what we need to do to improve the conformation. I know one biggie is field tails-very difficult to get better tails and ear set but angulation we can surely improve which might help with the acls.


I think, Erin, you have something here. I haven't done the bench venue, but the impression that I get the standard for bench seems to be largely a verbal interpretation. Am I right? There are no visualized guidelines? 

But adherence to a guideline for bench in not likely to solve the split. Field people will continue breed for that venue, unless a constraint is placed the practice. Do you think any of the sanctioning organizations has the courage to take up this hot potato?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> ...FWIW, several Golden clubs hold WC/X tests on the same weekend as their local or regional specialties...


Actually, the LRC did hold an AKC HT in conjunction with its fall Nat'l held at Newnan GA this past fall. There was also a WC offered and a CC. As it turns out, the HT was one of the largest ever held by the LRC (approx 300 dogs) and there were a number of CH titled dogs running with the normal area HT crowd. Some acquitted themselves very well. Since the event was run on my farm, I entered the master test, shot flyers for the senior & got to meet some folks very dedicated to keeping the "retrieve" in the Labrador Retriever. 

They also had a great tailgate party that even our local clubs had to envy!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I can post the RJ article now...it mostly covers hind limb angulation, but it's a start. Would it be preferred that I put it in this thread or start a new one?

Edited to add....I'll check with my editor....I know they're going to also run it in Just Labs for the January issue. I'll double check so I don't cross any lines I shouldn't.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> I can post the RJ article now...it mostly covers hind limb angulation, but it's a start. Would it be preferred that I put it in this thread or start a new one?
> 
> Edited to add....I'll check with my editor....I know they're going to also run it in Just Labs for the January issue. I'll double check so I don't cross any lines I shouldn't.


If you can, I would start a new thread.
Thanks


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Just got word from my editor, with permission. I'll start a new thread with the article posted, as soon as I figure out how I need to do it so it's legible. ;-)


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

How many pigadores could even pick up and tote a Canada Goose? Form is supposed to follow function!


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

zeus3925 said:


> I think, Erin, you have something here. I haven't done the bench venue, but the impression that I get the standard for bench seems to be largely a verbal interpretation. Am I right? There are no visualized guidelines?


This came up on the Dual Purpose thread. We do have an illustrated standard, it is very good:

http://thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Publications

On the other thread there may be a link to it online, but I'm not sure you can get it without purchasing it. I have it and I think when you become a member of LRC, you get a copy.

Sue


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Well, this is all way over my head, but if I'm understanding correctly;

An NFC, NAFC, FC, AFC, should not be bred if they don't conform to the standard, lack type/ structure. Constraints need to be placed upon those breeders who do not comply.

Ok to breed working/ hunting, gun dog if they do have proper looks/structure. No need to breed for performance, because the "standard" only dictates retrieving gun dog.

Is that what you mean?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

cakaiser said:


> Well, this is all way over my head, but if I'm understanding correctly;
> 
> An NFC, NAFC, FC, AFC, should not be bred if they don't conform to the standard, lack type/ structure. Constraints need to be placed upon those breeders who do not comply.
> 
> ...


No....and I doubt we'd find many NFC, AFC, FC, AFCs that don't conform to the standard enough to get a conformation certificate. And this being the good old USA, good luck trying to place constraints on breeders who don't comply....even though I didn't say that there should be constraints. 

Again....proper "looks" have more to do with ability to function in the field than they do in a show ring beauty contest. There is a reason for all the details outlined in the standard, and it has to do with a working retriever. I'd be happy to explain them in detail and how form fits with function. Just pick a topic from the standard and ask.

On the flip side, are you suggesting that performance *only* equals FC, AFC, NAFC, NFC? And that a dog that can't achieve that is lacking in performance as a Labrador retriever? A solid working gun dog that picks up hundreds of birds a year but will never see a field trial is not "performing"?

Botom line: What is a Labrador Retriever supposed to be?


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> No....and I doubt we'd find many NFC, AFC, FC, AFCs that don't conform to the standard enough to get a conformation certificate. And this being the good old USA, good luck trying to place constraints on breeders who don't comply....even though I didn't say that there should be constraints.
> 
> Again....proper "looks" have more to do with ability to function in the field than they do in a show ring beauty contest. There is a reason for all the details outlined in the standard, and it has to do with a working retriever.
> 
> ...


It seems to me I said type/structure, I uderstand the difference. What does type have to do with working ability? 

As far as performance., I don't think I defined it. You did, when you highlighted the standard.

Contraints were suggested in post #116, and not by me, either.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

cakaiser, thanks for asking such great questions and bringing up points that should be duiscussed. This is all good stuff. 

Type....what is type? Does the dog look like a Labrador Retriever? If so, it has adequate type...and remember, there are sub-types within breeds, which are acceptable as long as they fit into the standard. Can the general public easily recognize the dog as a Lab, or will they ask what kind of dog it is? 

What does type have to do with working ability? I'm assuming you mean working ability as compared to other Labradors. Type defines a breed and differentiates it from other breeds. Does it look like a Lab? Would it be OK if Labs had tight curly coats, or came with a pinto type coat? Or maybe had really long hair like a Golden? Those would be off type. If type shouldn't matter, then all of those would be acceptable for breeding onto the Lab gene pool, as long as they could get an FC?

To smaller type deficiencies...how about a Lab with hound ears, a narrow, snipey nose, a single coat or a long whippy tail like an English pointer? That dog may be a good field dog, but a lot of people will ask what it's crossed with. I wouldn't care if a dog like that had an NFC in front of its name...I wouldn't breed to it. So far, I haven't seen a butt ugly NFC, and doubt I ever will.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> cakaiser, thanks for asking such great questions and bringing up points that should be duiscussed. This is all good stuff.
> 
> Type....what is type? Does the dog look like a Labrador Retriever? If so, it has adequate type...and remember, there are sub-types within breeds, which are acceptable as long as they fit into the standard. Can the general public easily recognize the dog as a Lab, or will they ask what kind of dog it is?
> 
> ...


I never said type doesn't matter, just not clear why it affects working abilty. Otter tail helps in swimming?? Haven't noticed it. You get my drift. Butt ugly head, still can pick up ducks and bring them back, right? That's all, I understand that type is what makes a lab, a lab.

As far as performance, would never say that a dog that can hunt all day in the field is not performing. That is extremely valuable and should be preserved. 

But, I do distinguish that from performance events, where testing and competition select outstanding qualities, marking, trainibility, intelligence, etc, to use in selecting breeding stock.

And, you are right, it's all good. i suspect we may be a lot closer in what we would hope a lab to be, than this thread indicates.


----------



## prophet (Mar 2, 2005)

Sharon 
Here is 1 of my boys Tell me what you think









Yes they can Bob










By the way he is approx. 78 pounds in both pictures
Pigadore I do not think so
________
Bmw M5 (E34)


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

prophet, here goes:

Overall, nicely balanced and close to square, from what I can tell...pic is slightly quartering. Nice head and expression. 90 degree front which is good. Brisket at the level of the elbow, also correct. Now for the holes: appears slight and somewhat weak in the rear...more muscles and less weight would perhaps balance the dog better. Too straight in the femur. The big issue: sickle hocks...meaning over angulation in the lower hind leg....fairly common in show lines, and rarely seen in field lines. (they lean toward the other extreme...too straight behind) Topline slightly sloped downhill, most likely due to the excess angle in the hocks and camped out stance. Other than the rear issues, I think this dog is nicely put together. Definitely not a "pigador", although more condition/muscle and less weight woud be good.;-).


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Angulation article is up in a separate post. Thanks to the generosity of my editor at RJ, who gave me permission to post it here, even though it's being republished in Just Labs in January.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Sharon, if you're still willing to critique, here's my field girl. This is a show pic. It's pretty dark originally (I've had to play with the contrast & brightness quite a bit to even get to see this much detail, so sorry if it's too scratchy). I wore black pants (which now have been retired, lol) which only made the lighting worse...Sorry, she doesn't like to put her tail out, but I can tell you, besides being properly clothed, it needs improvement...










Even though I'm pretty aware of what her strengths and faults are, I'm looking for an honest critique and am offering her up for education value. So, absolutely no need to hold back. TIA!


----------



## prophet (Mar 2, 2005)

Sharon 
Thanks for your critique It is always good to have other peoples perspective. 
A little history on him He has 14 points & only needs 1 major to finish. I have been told by many if he weighed more he would have his CH by now I refuse to put more weight on him Will he ever be a* AA *dog *no*, but that is not my game. Does he have style, perseverance, marking ability, & trainability IMHO yes 
Thanks again
John
________
Herb scales


----------



## prophet (Mar 2, 2005)

Sharon
This is great Hope we have not put you in overload
what is your opinion this girl
no attempt was made to "stack" this little bitch in this
picture; she is just standing there, tail wagging!









________
NEW JERSEY MARIJUANA DISPENSARY


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

I have a bit of a dilemma with my young dog. I took my pick in lieu of a stud fee. The pup looked like he was going to be a nice classic looking Lab. My dog was the sire and a Master Hunter. Maternal grandparents had hunt test titles. Both grandfathers had big classic looking heads with a classic style build. Mom is a retrieving maniac and so were the pups from the first breeding. 

I chose a pup that looked like he would also have a nice blocky head with a well muscled body. Now 16 months later, I have a dog that is radically different than I expected. I got this dog whose head is still pleasing to look at but not nearly as blocky as I had hoped. The body looks like an Afghan somehow crept under his skin. He has a long tail that curls over his back and he carries it high. He is very lanky and lean. In short, he is in no way conformal.

To the good, he has by far the softest Lab temperment I ever have encountered. He is eager and alert. He marks like a laser. His casting needs more development but he responds to every cast--he hasn't gotten the concept of oblique casts, yet. His speed and agility afield is positively breathtaking. He is a workaholic in the field and openly enjoys it.

We have had no major training issues and we hope to be running him starting this winter in derbies. The trainer fells he has a potential of serious competitor.

For the sake of argument, the dog goes on to win an FC or AFC. Would breeding him be unethical, considering he clearly deviates from the standard, yet, his field work is quite impressive?


----------



## Donna Kerr (May 19, 2003)

Oh Sharon… please, please, please? One more? My boy was evaluated as pup and I was told he was quite nice but to leggy for the show ring. Not the best photos but can you try? 


















The immages are not the best and I am standing above him in the yard so he looks a bit squat but he isn't.

I know that size is a problem as he is too big for the standard.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Nice head and ears...can't really see the eyes, but they may be a bit light? Neck ties into the shoulder well, but the shoulder is a bit on the straight side. Overall body is nicely square. Feet look a little flat...I'd like to see a tighter foot. While her bone is acceptable, I'd like to see a little more to match her frame. Topline is OK until I get to her hindquarter....it goes uphill, rounds off and slopes down, and the angle of the femur looks pretty straight. More than likely, it's because of her pelvic angle...it all ties together. Again, I think more condition...not necessarily weight but more muscle and tone...would change the overall appearance for the better. As you mentioned, the tail isn't visible.




LabLady101 said:


> Sharon, if you're still willing to critique, here's my field girl.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

While I like the overall look of her head, the skull tapers down and rounds into the stop...I'd like to see a less rounded look there so the top of the skull and the top of the muzzle run close to parallel. Expression is good, ears set well, head and neck blend smoothly together and tie into her shoulder neatly. Shoulder looks straight, with a too-open angle between the scapula and humerus. Topline slopes down toward her hindquarters when it should be level, and she also has a bit of a tuckup in the flank (if she's quite young, I'd expect her to fill in). Tail nicely shaped and set well. Hind legs look like they have good angles.



prophet said:


> what is your opinion this girl
> no attempt was made to "stack" this little bitch in this
> picture; she is just standing there, tail wagging!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

zeus3925 said:


> I chose a pup that looked like he would also have a nice blocky head with a well muscled body. Now 16 months later, I have a dog that is radically different than I expected. I got this dog whose head is still pleasing to look at but not nearly as blocky as I had hoped. The body looks like an Afghan somehow crept under his skin. He has a long tail that curls over his back and he carries it high. He is very lanky and lean. In short, he is in no way conformal.
> 
> To the good, he has by far the softest Lab temperment I ever have encountered. He is eager and alert. He marks like a laser. His casting needs more development but he responds to every cast--he hasn't gotten the concept of oblique casts, yet. His speed and agility afield is positively breathtaking. He is a workaholic in the field and openly enjoys it.
> 
> ...


That's up to you and to the people who would breed to him. Only you can decide what you feel is best to do with your dog. And he may just be going through a stage of the "juvenile uglies"...sometimes bodies fill out more after they hit two or so. 

To me, unethical is stuff like not disclosing genetic defects that can be tested for, like CNM or EIC,or breeding dogs without any health clearances jsut because they were born with the appropriate plumbing.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Well, some may feel he's too leggy for the show ring, but he's certainly not too leggy to be a good specimen of a good, balanced Labrador. It's really hard to see enough in these pics to say much, but I'll try. Nice head and neck, adequate bone and substance. His front looks well angled, and so does his rear from what I can see. He looks like he may be a bit too long in the body, but again it's hard to tell from the pics. Topline looks OK...again, hard to see. Show folks might want a thicker look to the tail (and groom accordingly) but I find it quite nice as is and it certainly looks like it fits the standard.




Donna Kerr said:


> My boy was evaluated as pup and I was told he was quite nice but to leggy for the show ring. Not the best photos but can you try?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Tom H. (May 17, 2005)

Sharon -

It's warmed up to a balmy 15 here , When my fiancee gets home I'll have her snap some side shots of Jax for you to get a better look at .

Tom
________
RHODE ISLAND DISPENSARIES


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> That's up to you and to the people who would breed to him. Only you can decide what you feel is best to do with your dog. And he may just be going through a stage of the "juvenile uglies"...sometimes bodies fill out more after they hit two or so.
> 
> To me, unethical is stuff like not disclosing genetic defects that can be tested for, like CNM or EIC,or breeding dogs without any health clearances jsut because they were born with the appropriate plumbing.


I guess it cuts to issue of this thread --Breeding to one extreme or the other, creating the great divide in the breed.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

I would look for more than just Field Trial titles. Field titles do not mean that a Lab is suitable as a hunting retriever for several reasons. Many successful FT dogs are wound too tight to make a great hunting companion. What duck hunter wants a noisey hard to control dog? Which some FT dogs are. Lets not forget that top Field breedings are about producing FT performers with little or no consideration as to what kind of hunting companion the animal will make. Also, one has to wade through all the genetic junk that FT breeders insist is important for thier progney to be competitive in FT's. I have a pup coming next month from a National finalist and current annual #4 Open dog. Choosing him as a sire, his FT accomplishments were only one-third of the consideration in getting a pup sired by him. The other parts are the female he was bred to and a big consideration as to both's health clearences. I'm wanting it ALL; Intelligence, real desire, trainability and great working conformation!


----------



## prophet (Mar 2, 2005)

Sharon Potter said:


> While I like the overall look of her head, the skull tapers down and rounds into the stop...I'd like to see a less rounded look there so the top of the skull and the top of the muzzle run close to parallel. Expression is good, ears set well, head and neck blend smoothly together and tie into her shoulder neatly. Shoulder looks straight, with a too-open angle between the scapula and humerus. Topline slopes down toward her hindquarters when it should be level, and she also has a bit of a tuckup in the flank (if she's quite young, I'd expect her to fill in). Tail nicely shaped and set well. Hind legs look like they have good angles.


Sharon, 



Thank you so much for your critique. I realize you were looking at a picture, and an informal snap shot at best! Your critique as it relates to the picture is probably accurate. It was not fair to ask you to critique from a picture (it never is, unless people understand you are critiquing the picture not the dog!!) However, in real life this little bitch has a beautiful face, head and neck. The top of her skull and the top of her muzzle are perfectly parallel to each other (of course, in all fairness, you can?t tell that in the picture) and you could get the impression that it is rounded?.but it is not. At this point in her growth the angle between the scapula and the humerous does appear to be too open giving her a straight appearance. Time will hopefully correct this as her chest develops and ?drops?. Her arm and shoulder are of equal length (just open). She does have a bit too much tuck up for my liking; but as you said, she is young and I look for that to fill in (hopefully). The picture is again deceiving as it relates to the topline, which in real life is beautifully level and does not slope downward towards the rear. However, note in the picture, she is sitting back into her rear as she sees a bumper about to be thrown and is getting ready to leap towards it. Again, thank; this was informative!
________
Arthur Chevrolet History


----------



## Tom H. (May 17, 2005)

Sharon -
here are some side shots - forgive the quality , but it's still damn cold outside 



























________
Yamaha Tx500


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Tom, believe me, I know it's cold. That's why, outside of airing dogs as needed, I've spent the day inside in front of the computer. 

In addition to my earlier comments, his angles look very good...again hard to judge, but I can see the shoulder for sure and it looks good. Looks to be a little rounded in the hindquarter? Hard to tell...just a guess...in fact, it would probably level off if he were standing square. I really like his overall balance...he is a good representative (from the pics) of a moderate, well built Lab.


----------



## Tom H. (May 17, 2005)

In the pic the hind quarter is a little rounded , due to him ready to rip the bumper out of my hand . This sping when we can actually stand to be outside for more than 2 minutes I'll take another shot of him . I see that you live in Wisconsin , What are the chances that you would be at a HT in or around Madison this year ? I usually run up there and would like to bring him for you to take look at .
________
VAPIR OXYGEN


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> An NFC, NAFC, FC, AFC, should not be bred if they don't conform to the standard, lack type/ structure. Constraints need to be placed upon those breeders who do not comply.
> 
> Ok to breed working/ hunting, gun dog if they do have proper looks/structure. No need to breed for performance, because the "standard" only dictates retrieving gun dog.


It would improve the breed if the FT world was better educated in physical structure. I wish I understood the structure better and how it related to performance. I don't trust the interpretation of a show judge because they don't ask their dogs to do what our dog have to do. Are cruciate tears linked to structure? Things like that I'd love to know.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Steve said:


> It would improve the breed if the FT world was better educated in physical structure. ... Are cruciate tears linked to structure? Things like that I'd love to know.


It all depends on what "improve the breed" means to the breeder & the pup buyer. I don't think it's just the FT world that should be singled out. In fact, it seems to me that the FT world has been the primary factor keeping function as priority in the breed.

And yes cruciate tears are in many cases related to structure....and have been demonstrated to be more prevalent in particular lines. Meaning there is likely an inheritance aspect too.


----------



## zeus3925 (Mar 27, 2008)

Steve said:


> It would improve the breed if the FT world was better educated in physical structure. I wish I understood the structure better and how it related to performance. I don't trust the interpretation of a show judge because they don't ask their dogs to do what our dog have to do. Are cruciate tears linked to structure? Things like that I'd love to know.


I don't think it would make a difference. The field builds to win. It would be nice if an Indy race car would be front engined like a family sedan but that's not going to happen. I am afraid unless there is an adherence to criteria for assessing Labs and Goldens, then the divide will get even wider. The only way I can see putting Humpty Dumpty together again isby some kind of consensus of the masses to putting pressure on the sanctioning organizations to do something.


----------



## idellalabs (Feb 24, 2004)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> How many pigadores could even pick up and tote a Canada Goose? Form is supposed to follow function!


I know of at least 2..pictured are my son and a friend with my Best In Specialty winning bitch and her sire. Both CHs with hunt test and Obedience titles and both hunted over well into their old age. We lost Gussie at 14 and Tracker was 13.
Carole


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Tom H. said:


> In the pic the hind quarter is a little rounded , due to him ready to rip the bumper out of my hand . This sping when we can actually stand to be outside for more than 2 minutes I'll take another shot of him . I see that you live in Wisconsin , What are the chances that you would be at a HT in or around Madison this year ? I usually run up there and would like to bring him for you to take look at .


Tom, I may well get to a hunt test or two in the Madison area....and, as of April 1st, I'll be moving to my new property 2 hours south of where I am now, just east of Wisconsin Rapids  and about an hour and a half north of Madison. I'd love to take a look at him in person!

It's a brisk -14 up here...just got in from chores and am froze!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Steve said:


> It would improve the breed if the FT world was better educated in physical structure. I wish I understood the structure better and how it related to performance. I don't trust the interpretation of a show judge because they don't ask their dogs to do what our dog have to do. Are cruciate tears linked to structure? Things like that I'd love to know.


I don't trust the show judges either....first of all, the standard for the breed goes right out the window, and second, politics often dictate winners...as well as what you mentioned...the majority of their dogs don't do what ours do. I've yet to set foot in a show ring (at least not AKC...I've shown coonhounds in UKC but that's a whole 'nother ballgame ;-)).

My study of structure/conformation has always been with regard to form to function and how structure affects the animal's performance and soundness. It's fascinating stuff, and it seems there's a valid reason for everything. I've been studying it for decades and am still learning.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> I don't trust the show judges either....first of all, the standard for the breed goes right out the window, and second, politics often dictate winners...as well as what you mentioned...the majority of their dogs don't do what ours do. I've yet to set foot in a show ring (at least not AKC...I've shown coonhounds in UKC but that's a whole 'nother ballgame ;-)).
> 
> My study of structure/conformation has always been with regard to form to function and how structure affects the animal's performance and soundness. It's fascinating stuff, and it seems there's a valid reason for everything. *I've been studying it for decades and am still learning*.


Have you seen any studies on a dogs gait as it pertains to them running straight

john


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

Sharon, 

I have been trying to resist jumping into this thread as it applies to breed standard. However, I am a bit confused as to many of your critiques and I agree with John (Profit) when he says it is difficult to tell much at all from a picture (they can be very deceiving, especially when the angle of the shot is not good). I think you need to be clear that you are critiquing the picture and not the dog. I also question what standard you are critiquing the dogs against. Is it the AKC (American Standard revised in 1994)? Are you critiquing the pictures for a Conformation Certificate or for their potential ability to enter a breed ring and what standard are you using?
________
Volcano Classic


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Sharon Potter said:


> Nice head and ears...can't really see the eyes, but they may be a bit light? Neck ties into the shoulder well, but the shoulder is a bit on the straight side. Overall body is nicely square. Feet look a little flat...I'd like to see a tighter foot. While her bone is acceptable, I'd like to see a little more to match her frame. Topline is OK until I get to her hindquarter....it goes uphill, rounds off and slopes down, and the angle of the femur looks pretty straight. More than likely, it's because of her pelvic angle...it all ties together. Again, I think more condition...not necessarily weight but more muscle and tone...would change the overall appearance for the better. As you mentioned, the tail isn't visible.


Thanks, Sharon! For the most part, I agree. Eyes are a nice burnt sugar (light brown, not yellow) color. Spot on for the rest; her feet are a bit flat, croup is a rounded/sloping, and tailset low. Although I do feel her topline has leveled out some since the pic was taken in May- no way for you to know that by looking at the pic though. I do hope to improve the shoulder angulation, croup, coat, and the bone a little with her breeding this next year.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

ReedCreek said:


> Sharon,
> 
> I have been trying to resist jumping into this thread as it applies to breed standard. However, I am a bit confused as to many of your critiques and I agree with John (Profit) when he says it is difficult to tell much at all from a picture (they can be very deceiving, especially when the angle of the shot is not good). I think you need to be clear that you are critiquing the picture and not the dog. I also question what standard you are critiquing the dogs against. Is it the AKC (American Standard revised in 1994)? Are you critiquing the pictures for a Conformation Certificate or for their potential ability to enter a breed ring and what standard are you using?


Glad you jumped in!  It is hard to see the real dog from a picture....I mentioned that way back when this started, that all I can critique is what I can see in a picture...but it's good to bring that up again. As others have mentioned, I'm critiquing pictures, not live dogs. ;-) There are some things that can be determined from a good picture with a dog stood square...like whether or not a dog is longer than tall, for example.

When I look at a Labrador, I look at it as the current breed standard describes. That has very little to do with judging in the breed ring...of which I am not a part. So I guess you could say I'm looking at a conformation certificate...and I haven't found a dog so far that wouldn't earn one, at least in my book. Good structure is good structure. The standard was written to describe a working dog. That doesn't often fit with what wins in the breed ring,sadly.

My main purpose in doing this is not to say "that's a poor dog" or "that's a good dog"...it's to help people look at their dogs more objectively and be able to know their dogs strong and weak points. That helps make better breeding decisions down the road. It's my hope that by starting good dialog like this we can all learn and know more about structure as it relates to performance and soundness.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Have you seen any studies on a dogs gait as it pertains to them running straight
> 
> john



 Well, other than the fact that as a dog's speed increases on a straight line, the feet should come further under the center of the dog's body, converging toward a central line...and the fact that a dog that has conformation issues may "dog track" or sidewind, usually more to one side than the other...that could affect a straight line. 

I'm inclined to think that strong marking ability coupled with good training has as much to do with it as anything.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I heard that there were some such studies and was looking for a link

john


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

john fallon said:


> I heard that there were some such studies and was looking for a link
> 
> john


Not sure where to send you, John...this is all pretty well documented in books on movement...but I'll look around and see what I can find online.

Meanwhile, watch your dogs. When you send them on a mark, watch the way they track. Watch how they move coming toward you and away, at speed and slowly, at a walk. Even humans feet move in under the body at speed, converging toward a center line. And body alignment can and does affect the way mammals travel. 

Something as simple a concept as watching your dog's spine and tail when at the line for a mark or blind....it's pretty common for an intense dog to take a line based on the angle its tail is directing it. Same goes for spinal alignment...if all we watch when sending on a mark or blind is the dog's head, we're likely to have a dog veering off line pretty quickly if the body isn't aligned as well.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

john fallon said:


> I heard that there were some such studies and was looking for a link
> 
> john


John Sherman DVM and Chris Zink DVM have a study they probably have completed by now. They looked at gate analysis of performance dogs and used a treadmill and x-ray to evaluate movement. Some of our local dogs participated.

Chris would be a good one to contact. I don't have any references right off hand, but I know that they are out there John. When I get a minute this week, I'll go look.

Dr. Sherman is in NC and has vethab.com and Chris Zink is at Johns Hopkins.

Sue


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Sue, I'd also be very interested in that information. Thanks!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Thanks Sharon & Sue.

john


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> It all depends on what "improve the breed" means to the breeder & the pup buyer. I don't think it's just the FT world that should be singled out. In fact, it seems to me that the FT world has been the primary factor keeping function as priority in the breed.


I think the FT and HT people have done plenty to maintain the working abilities of the Lab. I think the show people have chosen a different direction to the point that it is nearly a different breed. I don't see what they do as having any impact on the average hunter's ability to find a well bred hunting dog.


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

Sue is correct. Chris Zink, DVM, PhD has done some wonderful research on the Canine Athlete. I have two of her books "Peak Performance - Coaching the Canine Athlete (M. Christine Zink DVM, PhD) and Jumping from A to Z (M. Christine Zink DVM, PhD and Julie Daniels). While neither of them is specific to a retrieving dog, they do break down the process and importance of correct structure as it relates to movement. Another book you might be interested in is Dog Steps - A New Look (Rachael Elliot) and to get a nice eye on structure (for all breeds) I recommend An Eye for a Dog (Illustrated Guide to Judging Purebred Dogs) Robert W. Cole. I am sure there are more good ones out there! As I mentioned, none of these relate specifically to retrieving, however, I believe that if you understand the basics of structure and how it applies to function in all canines, it is far easier to recognize correct structure and movement in your own breed.
________
Buy herbalaire


----------



## ybrlabs (Aug 3, 2008)

I attended a seminar by Chris Zink while at the cattle dog speciality. While she tailored her discussion to cattle dogs, it was fascinating to hear what she had to say and her research. I highly reccomend her books and attending one of her seminars if you get a chance.


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Will do. Give me a couple of days. I'm on the road for work and then Christmas. I don't have access to my stuff.

Sue


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

Sharon and John, 

Here is more info on Chris Zink, also contact info and a link to one of her articles:

http://www.caninesports.com/fitness.html

There may be higher caliber research available that she has been involved in. 

M. Christine Zink, DVM, PhD, Dip ACVP

email: [email protected] 

Dr. Zink obtained her DVM and PhD from the Ontario Veterinary College. She is a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine where she teaches pathology and conducts AIDS research. She also has a consultation business in canine sports medicine and rehabilitation, and is the author of several books on canine health including Peak Performance: Coaching the Canine Athlete, Canine Nutrition for Dummies,and Jumping A to Z. In 2007, Dr. Zink and Dr. Laurie McCauley released Building the Canine Athlete,a therapeutic exercise DVD for canine rehabilitation therapists. Dr. Zink lectures nationally and internationally on the topic of canine sports medicine. She teaches Canine Sports Medicine.
________
Citation


----------



## Hoosier (Feb 28, 2008)

Sharon could you point us to a dog that in your opinion best represents breed standard


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Hoosier said:


> Sharon could you point us to a dog that in your opinion best represents breed standard


Check out the drawings and photos here:
http://thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Breed%20Standard

Take a good look at the drawing showing the outline and bone structure. The drawing shows a dog with good working structure, and solidly square when measured from withers to ground and point of shoulder to point of buttock.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I have a stupid question that I am not even sure if I can word correctly, but here goes. Sharon, in the drawings on the LRC site this ideal dog is pictured in a "stacked" stance, with the hind legs kind of out behind. It seems only natural that if instead his legs were directly underneath as a dog stands naturally, that it would make the rear look higher and the back leg straighter. So I guess this is sort of a chicken or the egg question. Does the better angulation and flatter topline "ALLOW" the dog to stand in the stacked position, or does my dog's higher rear and straigher hind leg "NOT ALLOW" to stand in that position? (or maybe I just don't know how to get him to)


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

2tall said:


> I have a stupid question that I am not even sure if I can word correctly, but here goes. Sharon, in the drawings on the LRC site this ideal dog is pictured in a "stacked" stance, with the hind legs kind of out behind. It seems only natural that if instead his legs were directly underneath as a dog stands naturally, that it would make the rear look higher and the back leg straighter. So I guess this is sort of a chicken or the egg question. Does the better angulation and flatter topline "ALLOW" the dog to stand in the stacked position, or does my dog's higher rear and straigher hind leg "NOT ALLOW" to stand in that position? (or maybe I just don't know how to get him to)


Not Sharon, but not a stupid question at all and I hope I've got this right. As it's been explained to me, a correctly structured dog will free stack appropriately. Meaning, that if the dog's angulation is correct, his natural stance will provide a correct picture. Also, if you notice when looking at the picture, the dog's feet are in line with the point of his buttock- as they should be.

This dog displays a similar picture (not a great picture for detail, but I hope you can see the dog's outline):


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Okay...coupla things, below are some links to abstracts dealing with movement and kinetics. There is lots of research out there, quite a bit in the 2000's. Also, you need to go to Auburn Vet Schools website. They have a center for sports medicine and are doing a lot of the research on this. Here's a link to Dr. Gillettes site..it's a shame he couldn't continue with what was an excellent newsletter. 

http://www.sportsvet.com/Gaitanal.html[/url]

Also, see picture below; the line from Bree's pelvic bone to the ground, touches to just before her toes (if you can see them). That is adequate turn of stifle. Bree stands like this naturally, you can see her nice topline and tailset and wrapped tail. There is no tuckup in the belly area. In this picture she is 14 months old and still has lots of growing to do. She is 60 pounds and not fat, though she is fitter now and a svelt 57 pounds and packed with muscle.

If you can draw a line perpendicular from the hocks to the floor AND that line from the pelvis to the floor touches the tips of the toes, you have the turn of stifle you need. Anything beyond that deviation is generally not wanted. You either get too much reach in the rear, (paws in the back should imprint the paws in the front when moving at the trot to get an energy conserving gait), or not enough reach (posty dog). Either extreme sets you up for injury, but as someone else said, there are no guarantees...










The other red lines are depicting shoulder and upper arm (humerous). She is a little upright in the shoulder and could use more length of upper arm. In an ideal world, that length should be equal. The field dogs do a better job of getting closer to this then the show lines, but there are still issues there. The important thing here though, is that her angles fore and aft are balanced. If she had too much rear angulation with that front, she'd have a terrible trot...she'd sidewind and it wouldn't be real energy conserving.

Ok: Here are the links for those that want to read Abstracts from reserach papers...sorry, there are a lot...and there are gobs more out there:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...inkpos=5&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

Pectoral and other front end Muscles:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

ED and gait:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Dealing with Glucosamine: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...nel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Happy reading!

Sue

P.S. Bree will be running Seniors in the spring and hopefully Master next fall if work doesn't eat up my time. She'll also be getting bred to a CH/MH...I like moderate in my dogs!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

2tall said:


> I have a stupid question that I am not even sure if I can word correctly, but here goes. Sharon, in the drawings on the LRC site this ideal dog is pictured in a "stacked" stance, with the hind legs kind of out behind. It seems only natural that if instead his legs were directly underneath as a dog stands naturally, that it would make the rear look higher and the back leg straighter. So I guess this is sort of a chicken or the egg question. Does the better angulation and flatter topline "ALLOW" the dog to stand in the stacked position, or does my dog's higher rear and straigher hind leg "NOT ALLOW" to stand in that position? (or maybe I just don't know how to get him to)


First off, let me say that there is no such thing as a dumb question. All questions are good questions. 

There are two ways to look at stacking or a stacked stance. A well put together dog will naturally stop (when relaxed) in a similar position to a "stack" because it's comfortable and balanced (not in an intense situation...just stopping and standing relaxed). There are some pics in this thread of field dogs just standing that are very balanced in a natural sort of "stack" as opposed to being posed. In the show ring, stacking is often used to cover up flaws...some dogs are stretched slightly to disguise angulation or topline issues. The back of the dog's leg below the hock should be vertical, not angled in or out. If you review some of the stacked poosed shown in this thread, you'll notice those differences...and some judges will see them and some judges won't. A dog that is really post legged behind can stand in the correct pose as far as where his feet are positioned, but it will really accentuate the straightness. That same postlegged dog naturally tends to stand with his legs too far underneath because it's most comfortable, like that chocolate dog is doing. If you go to the pics in my article and look at the post legged chocolate dog, and imagine his hind legs further back so the feet are at the back edge if the hindquarter, yikes! Often, a dog with a straight rear is taught to crouch a bit when stacked to give the illusion of better angles. Again, a knowledgeable judge can see it easily.

What really sorts it out is seeing the dog in motion. That's where a correct dog will shine, and a faked dog will fall apart. A post legged dog will not use the joints in the hind lib as well...less bend to the hock, less drive upunderneath, and overall less power.

(p.s. If you only knew how hard it was for me to find pics for that article....NOBODY wanted their dog used as an example. The chocolate dog belonged to some close friends of mine, and they agreed as soon as I asked because they hoped that seeing their dog, who had both ACLs repaired, may help someone else not have to go through that probelm...and the yellow dog belongs to some other friends who got him from the pound. The Chessie at the top belongs to a good friend and client in New Zealand, and I didn't even need to ask him...knew he'd be glad to help and he was...and the pups at the end are from a litter of mine from a year ago.)


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

kindakinky said:


> As a person interested in retriever and sporting dog history, I've often wondered about the Lab split.
> 
> I know a little bit about Lab history (Dave Elliot, the Whygin retrievers which were some of the foundation for Shamrock Acres, Dual Ch. Shed of Arden, etc.)
> 
> ...


A bit like what came first, the chicken or the egg? 

We could look wwwwwaaaaaay back, heck how dogs evolved. Some say wolf tameness selection, other may add good additions - after a few generations - to help humans hunt. Way before showing, which become popular after WWII. 

There have been so many threads on the various field games mainly UK and US trials. I believe each has merit, but......US games ask the dogs for multiple marks and water retrieves.


----------



## Dostafflabs (Jan 25, 2008)

This has been a wonderful thread!! Thank you to Sharon and Sue for helping explain correct angles and the purpose they serve. Being fairly new to the show ring and REALLY new to the hunt test venues, I'm trying to better understand the structure I see, in hunt tests and in the show ring, and help with my lines. I'm currently enjoying Rachel Page Elliots DVD on Canine Cineradiography and her DVD Dogsteps: What to look for in a dog. I've ordered Dogs in Action: A study of Anatomy and locomotion as applying to All Breeds, by McDowell Lyon. Again, thank you to those of you who are posting pics and for Sharon and Sue for evaluating/explaining them. This is a very educational thread!

Hope you don't mind looking at one more, please. This is my girl, Anna, who we are starting on force fetching and hope to run in at least started by the spring. I would like to see a better angled front, but it is in balance with her rear... Would like to know what you think, Sharon or Sue, or both.. Be completely honest!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

There's a lot to like about this dog....and I'm going to, since it's a great picture that really allows a good evaluation, draw some lines on this dog for demo purposes. My comments will be below the picture.(and please remember, I'm commenting on what I see in a picture...which may not reflect the actual dog in the flesh.);-)










First, this is a very attractive picture. Very nice head, with good expression. Ears may be slightly long...can't tell for sure without pulling them forward to check for length, but it's no big deal one way or the other, as long as the ears aren't "houndy". Nice neck and it ties in well to a nicely angled front. I see a good 90 degree angle between shoulder and humerus, but the humerus could be longer. This would give the dog better reach in front and a longer stride. Pasterns could use a bit more angle, and it looks like, although I can't see the very bottoms, that the feet could be somewhat tighter? Can't see for sure. Topline has a very slight...and I mean very slight... uphill slope. We're seeing a very attractive dog, but one that is out of square....longer than tall by about 14%. Translated to inches, that would mean if she stands 22" at the withers, she would measure 25" from point of shoulder to point of buttock. Rear angles are very good,again with an even set of almost 90 degrees at both bends. Classic Lab tail, carried well.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

i think there is a lot of overkill in this thread - if a dog looks good it looks good, draw all the lines and angles you want, i dont see where the breed standard calls degrees of angles of what sometimes seems as imaginary lines, and i am certain bench judges do not carry around a protractor in the ring as well. i dont think you can pinpoint the exact spot in a joint from which to draw a line from without an xray.

i'm just fine with my little buddy Brady in my avatar, he is absolutely perfect in every way and that's just all there is to it, without subjecting him to a grade school geometry lesson! 

(now dont critique him and dis him because of his ears, he is only 4-1/2 months in that pic and will grow into them... ;-) )


----------



## Hoosier (Feb 28, 2008)

surfgeoD300 said:


> i think there is a lot of overkill in this thread - if a dog looks good it looks good, draw all the lines and angles you want, i dont see where the breed standard calls degrees of angles of what sometimes seems as imaginary lines, and i am certain bench judges do not carry around a protractor in the ring as well. i dont think you can pinpoint the exact spot in a joint from which to draw a line from without an xray.
> 
> i'm just fine with my little buddy Brady in my avatar, he is absolutely perfect in every way and that's just all there is to it, without subjecting him to a grade school geometry lesson!
> 
> (now dont critique him and dis him because of his ears, he is only 4-1/2 months in that pic and will grow into them... ;-) )


To me this thread has been very interesting, and educational.


----------



## Sharon R. (Dec 28, 2005)

I am also learning a lot from this thread, and I'm pulling out pics of my dog, which isn't even a Lab, and looking at our standard. I still have a lot of trouble with being able to see angles the way that Sharon does. In the ring, an experienced judge will be able to see those angles also. No judge carries measuring tools into the ring (though some will call for a height measurement on some dogs where over or undersize is a DQ). But I do on occasion see judges that will use their hands and forearms to kinda informally measure. So I'm finding this discussion (and the structure article) fascinating. Looking forward to seeing more on front angulation.


----------



## dixidawg (Jan 5, 2003)

Sharon R. said:


> (though some will call for a height measurement on some dogs where over or undersize is a DQ).


Does this happen with labs? Do they ever call for a scale to check weight?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I think the point of this thread has been to find some middle ground between the split...and to do that, defining what should bring the two sides together means analyzing their differences and comparing them to the written standard. 

As for compasses and protractors, and even drawing the angles...you're right, locating the exact beginning and end of some of the bones is hard from a picture. But by using the angles that can be drawn (example pelvis to femur is not the exact head of the femur, but by using the angle of the pelvis and from there to the stifle), we can get a pretty good guess as to whether or not the dog is structurally sound.

It's simple physics and mechanics. A car can look good and have bad shock absorbers or a bent frame...and neither will allow the car to perform as well as one with good shocks and straight frame. Dogs are pretty much the same. (although we have to account for heart and drive,which overcome some structural issues)


----------



## Sharon R. (Dec 28, 2005)

I know that with Flatcoats, the height is a suggestion and no DQ for being over or under. Standard says preferred height for males is 23 to 24-1/2 inches. You don't see a lot of them under the height requirement, but I'm seeing a number of oversized ones, even up to about 26". I used to have one almost 27", but he wasn't shown.

I have heard the comment a LOT about taking a scale into the ring, LOL!!

Sharon, are you limiting yourself to Labs, or do you want to look at other breeds? As I said before, I have a lot of trouble seeing the angles you're talking about, and I think this info applies to all the retrievers.


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> I think the point of this thread has been to find some middle ground between the split...and to do that, defining what should bring the two sides together...



Hunting sure brings them together!!!


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

I'm writing this between making my umpteenth batch of cookies, trimming the roast for tomorrow's dinner, wrapping the presents and checking that all the beds have been changed before the crew gets here...still time for dogs; always time for dogs;-)



> Hunting sure brings them together!!!


Sean for me, those are the final words...what I think we are looking for...after the lines have been drawn (and they do serve a purpose) and the differences analyzed between field trial, hunt test, hunting and the breed ring...the question that brings it all together for this forum is can the dog hunt....not just chase a ball, win a breed ring ribbon, or run the fastest; but does it bring back the bird (marking, style, perseverance and trainability) to the level of the game we individually decide to play. My mom used to say ?the proof of the pudding is in the tasting? and Mary Roslyn Williams does say that some dogs succeed in spite of structure?they succeed because of heart. In my opinion heart counts too!
________
BUY EASY VAPE VAPORIZER


----------



## Sean H (Feb 13, 2008)

Completely agree Patti!


----------



## Dostafflabs (Jan 25, 2008)

Thank you so much Sharon for pointing out some things for me! I really like this girl and I'm hoping she will do well in hunt tests. You make it very easy to understand! You SHOULD right a book!



> i think there is a lot of overkill in this thread


Being fairly new to the breed ring and the hunt test venue, I apprieciate the time that these fine people have taken to educate those that want to be educated. Thank you so much for this informative thread! 



> It's simple physics and mechanics. A car can look good and have bad shock absorbers or a bent frame...and neither will allow the car to perform as well as one with good shocks and straight frame. Dogs are pretty much the same. (although we have to account for heart and drive,which overcome some structural issues)


Good analogy, Sharon!



> Hunting sure brings them together!!!





> the question that brings it all together for this forum is can the dog hunt....not just chase a ball, win a breed ring ribbon, or run the fastest; but does it bring back the bird (marking, style, perseverance and trainability) to the level of the game we individually decide to play


Words to live by! I think that if more and more people thought this way the gap wouldn't be as large as it is today. In the end these are Labrador Retrievers and must be able to RETRIEVE.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

ReedCreek said:


> I'm writing this between making my umpteenth batch of cookies, trimming the roast for tomorrow's dinner, wrapping the presents and checking that all the beds have been changed before the crew gets here...still time for dogs; always time for dogs;-)
> 
> 
> 
> Sean for me, those are the final words...what I think we are looking for...after the lines have been drawn (and they do serve a purpose) and the differences analyzed between field trial, hunt test, hunting and the breed ring...the question that brings it all together for this forum is can the dog hunt....not just chase a ball, win a breed ring ribbon, or run the fastest; but does it bring back the bird (marking, style, perseverance and trainability) to the level of the game we individually decide to play. My mom used to say “the proof of the pudding is in the tasting” and Mary Roslyn Williams does say that some dogs succeed in spite of structure…they succeed because of heart. In my opinion heart counts too!


I couldn't agree more! Well said!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Sharon R. said:


> Sharon, are you limiting yourself to Labs, or do you want to look at other breeds? As I said before, I have a lot of trouble seeing the angles you're talking about, and I think this info applies to all the retrievers.


I'm not limiting myself to Labs at all....any breed is fine with me. My assessments are based on working, functional structure, coupled with the standard for the breed (which defines a breed...for example, differentiates between a Chesapeake and a Flatcoat..sound structure is important to both, but the look is different).


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

Best of luck with you and Brady. I hope he is everything you want him to be. However, if you ever aspire to be a successful breeder, you will need to shed those rose-colored glasses and take a hard, critical look at your dog/dogs. The biggest deterrent to a successful breeding program is the owner's kennel-blindness or inability to see the faults in his own dogs. Some of it comes from ego and for others it is an educational deficiency. It's like the only thing two trainers can agree on is what a third trainer is doing wrong.

I'm planning on my 4th generation of Archway pups and every day I look at my dogs with the hope of finding that one more thing that will help me improve their conformation and performance. I just wish I could share your pleasure of owning a perfect dog, but until that dog comes along for me I'll stick to being super critical of what I have. Since I have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge I have really enjoyed this thread and Sharon's critiques.




surfgeoD300 said:


> i think there is a lot of overkill in this thread - if a dog looks good it looks good, draw all the lines and angles you want, i dont see where the breed standard calls degrees of angles of what sometimes seems as imaginary lines, and i am certain bench judges do not carry around a protractor in the ring as well. i dont think you can pinpoint the exact spot in a joint from which to draw a line from without an xray.
> 
> i'm just fine with my little buddy Brady in my avatar, he is absolutely perfect in every way and that's just all there is to it, without subjecting him to a grade school geometry lesson!
> 
> (now dont critique him and dis him because of his ears, he is only 4-1/2 months in that pic and will grow into them... ;-) )


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Ken Archer said:


> The biggest deterrent to a successful breeding program is the *owner's kennel-blindness or inability to see the faults in his own dogs*. Some of it comes from ego and for others it is an educational deficiency.
> 
> I just wish I could share your pleasure of owning a perfect dog, but until that dog comes along for me *I'll stick to being super critical of what I have*. Since I have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge I have really enjoyed this thread and Sharon's critiques.



Well said...and a problem that will always be with us and I hope that I never lost the ability to be critical of what I have. Though there may be many that find this thread useless, it is very educational. Thanks Sharon for helping it to move that way. This thread is the first of this type that hasn't deteriated into nastiness like they type/structure threads usually do. (not talking RTF here, but all forums/lists).

Merry Christmas everyone! Don't forget to give your dogs turkey!

Sue Puff


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

In my book, this is THE thread of 2008 on RTF!I salute all those breeders working to maintain the integrity of the breed and I had no idea there were so many of you.Who knows, we may even see a return of the straight otter-like tail to the field Lab. (wink)Wouldn't it be helpful if there was an organization of breeders dedicated to maintaning The Standerd as originally intended? I'm not saying abandoning the LRC but, an organized group of breeders with like-wise ideals. Those wanting it all; field talent, intelligence, working conformation. Call it The American Standard Labrador Retriever Association and have a written standard. One that doesn't contradict the current one but, has more meat to it. Recognized dogs and bitches would have to be at least QAA with a bench major. If that's asking too much, then a tougher AKC CC evaluation with a Qualifying placement.


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

Here, here, I nominate Frank for President of the ASLRA and I vote for the tougher AKC CC evaluation with a Qualifying placement for a starting point. Hell, we got two distinct groups in the Lab world. Why not have a third.



Mr Booty said:


> In my book, this is THE thread of 2008 on RTF!I salute all those breeders working to maintain the integrity of the breed and I had no idea there were so many of you.Who knows, we may even see a return of the straight otter-like tail to the field Lab. (wink)Wouldn't it be helpful if there was an organization of breeders dedicated to maintaning The Standerd as originally intended? I'm not saying abandoning the LRC but, an organized group of breeders with like-wise ideals. Those wanting it all; field talent, intelligence, working conformation. Call it The American Standard Labrador Retriever Association and have a written standard. One that doesn't contradict the current one but, has more meat to it. Recognized dogs and bitches would have to be at least QAA with a bench major. If that's asking too much, then a tougher AKC CC evaluation with a Qualifying placement.


----------



## Tom Mouer (Aug 26, 2003)

A few years ago,(10+) there was a lawsuit involving the AKC and the Labador Retriever Club of America.
Was it ever resolved? 
It was in regards to the breed standard.
Can anyone here tell me if it was ever resolved?


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

There is a copy of the court decision at http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/standard_appeal.php.

Plaintiffs argued that the change in the standard providing for disqualification of dogs with heights that were more than 1/2 inch over or under the standard had the effect of eliminating shorter British dogs from competition and that this change was instituted by breeders of taller American Labs in a manner that violated anti-trust laws. The case was dismissed and the dismissal was upheld on appeal.


----------



## Tom Mouer (Aug 26, 2003)

Thank you, Jeff
I'll read it tonight. 
RTF has many members with a wide spectrum of knowledge, kind of like mimi-Google


----------



## shootncast (Dec 30, 2008)

I have hunted with both English and Field types and have noticed one thing, the English style seemed to last and tolerate longer the 33 degree waters when we would duck hunt, every field dog I have had the pleasure to sit in the blind with seemed to eventually go into the shakes, wether it was from excitement or chills, whining with anticipation from start to finish in comparison to the english style that seemed to have a bit more calmness and wasnt effected by the inactivity of sitting still in 25 or less degrees. but when I have pheasant hunted (which I very rarely do, waterfowling pretty much exclusivley) the english style couldnt hold a candle to the field labs, thier stamina and energy (I assume from not carrying the extra muscle weight) I have owned the breed my whole life, and can tell you this, If I wanted a upland lab I would want the thinest, lankyest parents I could find, when it comes to waterfowling I always look for the stoutest, thickest parents available, and as far as "show" and "field" championships go, I have watched with my own eyes a mixed breed (maybe shepard and something) out hunt dogs whos relatives had half the alphabet behind thier name. I remember hunting with a friend who brought his 74 year old Uncle along, He ran two english pointers, the dogs where like machines, trained by him, the old school way I suppose (which I dont condone to, the "pain is the best teacher" attitude) and it made me kinda chuckle when he said after spitting out a wad of some kinda nasty tabacco product, and seeing a chessie working the field, " Never could understand why people use Duck dogs to hunt pheasants". Guess my point is, Field, Show, really doenst matter, what matters is how they are trained.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Sharon, what do you think of the Lab that was BOB at the Eukanuba Championship?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Nancy-
Go back to post 37 in this thread...already been done, and the pic was posted earlier.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I guess I agreed with you. The few seconds we saw him that was exactly what I saw. Nice front but not enough leg and seemed out of balance. With the Labradors being the most registered 17 years in a row you would think they could come up with an individual that was better than that to take BOB, and two years in a row? I see he is the #3 Labrador with 100 BOB. You have to wonder why he has achieved that. My first thought was he would be out of balance hunting on land. I also noticed no hunting titles in his pedigree.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Nancy, there's a lot I like about this dog and a couple of glaring faults. Just from looking at the pic I can say he has a very handsome head, although a bit short in the muzzle. Great angles front and rear. His flaws are in his proportion of length to height, and the depth of his chest...it is supposed to end at the elbows, but hangs substantially lower. He is stretched in the stance in the photo..I'd like to see him stand in a balanced and natural position, and I'd really like to see him in motion. Wonder what he'd look like muscled up and and in working condition?

I loved the Pointer that won...at least structurally. Outstanding movement.


----------



## leo455 (Aug 15, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> Nancy, there's a lot I like about this dog and a couple of glaring faults. Just from looking at the pic I can say he has a very handsome head, although a bit short in the muzzle. Great angles front and rear. His flaws are in his proportion of length to height, and the depth of his chest...it is supposed to end at the elbows, but hangs substantially lower. He is stretched in the stance in the photo..I'd like to see him stand in a balanced and natural position, and I'd really like to see him in motion. Wonder what he'd look like muscled up and and in working condition?
> 
> I loved the Pointer that won...at least structurally. Outstanding movement.


Well I did not want to quote this. Here is something to think about. Time the time it takes to get each title. I agree with what is said about non compliance to the LRC standard. So why don't we have our own bench show for Field labs? Judges Field Judges not show judges. Could it be done?


----------



## Jo Ann Reynolds (Jul 2, 2007)

kindakinky said:


> As a person interested in retriever and sporting dog history, I've often wondered about the Lab split.
> 
> I know a little bit about Lab history (Dave Elliot, the Whygin retrievers which were some of the foundation for Shamrock Acres, Dual Ch. Shed of Arden, etc.)
> 
> ...


These are questions that I have found interesting, as well. They sent me back to a book entitled, "The Official Book of the Labrador Retriever" edited by Dr. Bernard W. Ziessow and published under the aegis of the Labrador Retriever Club, Inc. in 1995. While, not, I'm sure, the definitive source of information, the early chapters are the most interesting and relevant to the question of the split. And it is the pictures which really tell the tale. I find pictures dogs from the 00's to the 30's to be very appealing. Some were bench champions, many were field champions, and many were dual champions. They look more like what are called "moderate" dogs today. Ch. Earlsmoor Moor of Arden, a first generation decendent of an British import, whelped in 1937 was an extremely handsome dog and a good example of this moderate type but was only moderately successful in the field. According to his owner, Dr. Milbank, " . . . I was sorry that I couldnot make Moor a dual champion. I could place him and win at unlicensed trials but just couldn't make that first in Open. . . ."

In this book, the first picture where the heavier body and blockier head type shows up is in a picture of Lady Jacqueline Barlow's dog Sandringham Chive who was bred by H.M. the Queen in 1979. However, there are still pictures of quite moderate dogs in the breed ring in 1991.

I think it is more likely that the physical and mental demands placed on field trial dogs moved their "type" in one directly while the conformation dogs did not have those same demands and their success is based on visual rather than performance criteria. I've always thought it odd that breed standards didn't have pictures, or preferably a composite drawing of the "ideal" lab, maybe then both types wouldn't have strayed so far from the center. Then again, maybe not.


----------

