# westminister



## MikeBoley

What was that black thing that stood by the sign that said Labrador Retriever. I thought it would need doggie cpr after its waddle around the ring.


----------



## FieldLab

Poor rep of a great breed


----------



## Erik Nilsson

Golden should have won


----------



## Nicole

It's ok... we think the same thing at hunt tests when we look at the catalog and see "labrador retriever" yet a solid colored whippet walks to the line. 

Pauli is a fabulous example of the breed and I congratulate her owners, breeder and handler, all of whom I'm thrilled to call friends.


----------



## MikeBoley

Guess they forgot the part of the standard that reads able to hunt all day in the Field that dog was obese! It was a poor representation of the breed. Nicole do you own a lab that can retrieve?


----------



## kelrobin

I agree Nicole.


----------



## Rob Milam

Just watched it and agree with you Mike.


----------



## Jeffrey Towler

Nicole said:


> It's ok... we think the same thing at hunt tests when we look at the catalog and see "labrador retriever" yet a solid colored whippet walks to the line.
> 
> Pauli is a fabulous example of the breed and I congratulate her owners, breeder and handler, all of whom I'm thrilled to call friends.


Thanks for leaving your chair at agility, I used it.
The Labrador looked cumbersome, non athletic in a sporting group. I would love to see the Labrador do well in the show ring. The standard says clearly that well muscled and not fat is what is expected. The show group would do well to start looking at the "whippets" at the field events and see what the Labrador is supposed to be. Someone, Albert E. I think said "doing the same thing and expecting different results is insane". Anyway, if you want to look at real labs, you know where to find me.


----------



## MikeBoley

I think the judge that put that dog up didnt understand this portion of the standard.

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.

The bench folks are so concerned about hieght they use a wicket, maybe they should buy a scale,


----------



## cakaiser

Jeffrey Towler said:


> Thanks for leaving your chair at agility, I used it.
> The Labrador looked cumbersome, non athletic in a sporting group. I would love to see the Labrador do well in the show ring. The standard says clearly that well muscled and not fat is what is expected. The show group would do well to start looking at the "whippets" at the field events and see what the Labrador is supposed to be. Someone, Albert E. I think said "doing the same thing and expecting different results is insane". Anyway, if you want to look at real labs, you know where to find me.


Right on, brother.
Funny you mention Albert Einstein...who never, I assume...won any beauty contest. ha


----------



## Labs R Us

I couldn't believe the looks of the lab. There is no way she could handle field work. The only thing we may agree on, though, is that she was a nice shade of black.


----------



## Bubba

OK- Let's stop dissing the fat boys. I will say that porker's BMI is off the chart.

Pretty sure that I can outrun that beer keg with legs and as a general rule the only thing I can outrun depends on chlorophyll for sustenance.

Gimme my whippets regards

Bubba


----------



## Sharon Potter

I thought the Golden was very nice. Moderate coat, and in lovely weight. So nice to not see a big poofball carrying 20 extra pounds!


----------



## Todd Herderhurst

Erik Nilsson said:


> Golden should have won


When he was called out into the final group, I thought just maybe there was a chance.


----------



## Dave Farrar

The only thing that dog retrieves is the food bowl.


----------



## Sharon Potter

Here's a comparison: Breed standard illustration compared to the Westminster Best of Breed.


----------



## waycool

For once big game houndsmen/women actually get something right bless their ******* a$$ ........ papers, looks, some book that describes what a dog should look like and act like don't catch bears and lions. Dogs that function do.

And that dog on TV is butcher ready. Dog Shows have ruined more working breeds than any backyard breeder ever has..... sorry pet peeve ... pun intended &#55357;&#56841;

/rant
<flame retardant suit on>


----------



## AmiableLabs

This is the BITCH that won Best of Breed.


----------



## Cindy B

Well ... she does have a pretty face. Clearly weight is not an issue in this beauty contest


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

AmiableLabs said:


> View attachment 17241
> 
> 
> This is the BITCH that won Best of Breed.


That is awful?? Can't understand why that qualifies?IMO


----------



## crackerd

Nicole said:


> Pauli is a fabulous example of the breed and I congratulate her owners, breeder and handler


Lord help you, does that mean there's finally been a successful petitioning to change the official name of the show-breds to the *Flabrador Retriever* in hopes that those "plentiful" porcine features at last get the proper "appreciation" to go BOS at Westminster?

Gotta be a reason that the most popular dog breed in history has never once ascended to the conformation throne (well, a reason beside fear of fatal cardiovascular handler error).

An old acquaintance of mine who grew up during WWII had an adult weight close to 500 pounds, and would tell people about his "conformation," "My grandma said anything I pushed back on my plate was Nazi food. I tried to starve out the whole German army." If there's any North American dog food shortage in the weeks and months ahead, we sure know where to point the finger - don't like to speak ill of anybody's dog, but that Westminster "specimen" looked like he's been eating for the Clydesdale team in the recent Bud Super Bowl commercial - eating for the Clydesdales since Anheuser Busch first, er, trotted them out.

MG


----------



## Jeffrey Towler

kelrobin said:


> I agree Nicole.


Really? Thats nice. How about getting out in the real world of the sportsman who expects a sporting breed to be just that. I put the blame on the Labrador Retriever Club of America. They need to step in. Once the judges are told to stop putting up that type of labrador, you will be amazed at how the show people will start loving the new style of Labrador.


----------



## Sabireley

If they trained every day, roaded 3 times per week, and ate a right amount, they might look ok. They would end up with a bit of a tuck, though ; ).


----------



## Paul Frey

The only thing that dog and my BLF have in common is that they are both are black. I personally liked the springer Spaniel in the sporting group.


----------



## MikeBoley

Nicole said:


> It's ok... we think the same thing at hunt tests when we look at the catalog and see "labrador retriever" yet a solid colored whippet walks to the line.
> 
> Pauli is a fabulous example of the breed and I congratulate her owners, breeder and handler, all of whom I'm thrilled to call friends.


Nicole, please elaborate on which sections of the breed standard Pauli fits?


----------



## shawninthesticks

I'm curious if the show ring folks do the same health clearances on their dogs? mainly OFA's. 

I guess I'll stick to my " solid color Whippets ,so they are able to pick at least 1 duck before they collapse from exhaustion.

My cable was screwed up last night and the only thing I could watch was Olympics , so I missed seeing the dogs.


----------



## roseberry

she obviously has a "nice personality"!
and as my young friend jacob might say, "bless her heart!"


----------



## mufb

I would have to reconfigure all of our duck blinds at my lease to make the dog openings twice the size if that was the standard that we hunted with. No way she is fitting thru the current openings!


----------



## Nick Toti

I noticed how the commentator kept reiterating that "these sporting dogs are bred to work in the field just as much as the show ring". Really? I only remember seeing one JH and one SH, which the dog representing the labrador retrievers had neither. With a flight of labs with 10" legs you're looking at 20-25 minutes a test per dog in Junior, and you better get them some water and serious rest for the afternoon series! 

Besides the previous I did enjoy watching dogs and people getting some attention on TV! Can't be mad the dogs and dog people are getting some shine time. To each their own!


----------



## gdgnyc

Sharon Potter said:


> Here's a comparison: Breed standard illustration compared to the Westminster Best of Breed.
> 
> View attachment 17239
> View attachment 17240


Thanks. That says a lot.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Lovely dog, I hope they invite that judge to judge our National one of these years. Clearly understood the concept of "moderate, well balanced". The dog was not overdone in any way. Gorgeous dog.




Sharon Potter said:


> I thought the Golden was very nice. Moderate coat, and in lovely weight. So nice to not see a big poofball carrying 20 extra pounds!


----------



## AmiableLabs

roseberry said:


> she obviously has a "nice personality"!
> and as my young friend jacob might say, "bless her heart!"


Yes.

I am sure she is a sweet pet, because she is not an athlete.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Typically yes, and then some, at least in Goldens. We do hips, elbows, eyes, heart, thyroid, PRA-1, prcd-PRA, and Ichthyosis. 



shawninthesticks said:


> I'm curious if the show ring folks do the same health clearances on their dogs? mainly OFA's.


----------



## gdgnyc

I like Glenda Brown's sentiment on working Goldens. She suggests that conformation judges get out in the field and get to know what a working dog really does and which physical traits are useful.

I have hunted my Goldens in the uplands for several hours at a time, walking miles, if I walk three the dog quarters nine. I have hunted my Goldens in a tidal creek with a strong current on a stormy day. This is much different from what many have learned to expect. A day's hunt does not consist of back to back land singles followed by back to back water singles.


----------



## AmiableLabs

waycool said:


> For once big game houndsmen/women actually get something right bless their ******* a$$ ........ papers, looks, some book that describes what a dog should look like and act like don't catch bears and lions. Dogs that function do.


You are correct. "Form follows function." When the function of the animal is to win beauty contests the form will be 180-degrees different from the form of the animal whose function is to work.


----------



## Nicole

MikeBoley said:


> Nicole do you own a lab that can retrieve?


I do! And they can go take points in the ring on the same day. How bout you?


----------



## shawninthesticks

hotel4dogs said:


> Typically yes, and then some, at least in Goldens. We do hips, elbows, eyes, heart, thyroid, PRA-1, prcd-PRA, and Ichthyosis.
> 
> 
> 
> shawninthesticks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious if the show ring folks do the same health clearances on their dogs? mainly OFA's.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Barb , just curious because I dont understand How could this be healthy for a dog and its bone structure ?
Click to expand...


----------



## gdgnyc

I did like one hound, I didn't catch the breed, it did look like the Treeing Walkers I have seen in the vet's office.


----------



## labsforme

Nicole, why don't you just answer the question in regards to the breed standard and not some show judges ignoring it and putting up dogs that don't meet it? Lab show judges should take note of how Brittany's are judged and Chesapeakes too.


----------



## Sharon Potter

MikeBoley said:


> Nicole, please elaborate on which sections of the breed standard Pauli fits?


The Flabrador folks don't agree with the breed standard. Neither do a lot of judges. Very, very sad for the poor dogs. 

And yes, I'm sure the dog can retrieve....all it has to do is waddle out and pick up something and waddle back. Retrieving is something all dogs can do. Hunting is another story. Can it hunt in real world conditions and do the job the way the breed is supposed to, in an efficient manner? (note I didn't mention trials or tests....just a good day's hunt) No way. That poor animal wold be exhausted and done after fifteen minutes of pheasant hunting. It can't even toddle around a show ring without huffing and puffing.


----------



## ChessieMom

How do you find a vet who will ignore that kind of obesity too? The first thing the vet does at our dog's appts is check the weight and examine the dog. He even has charts of pics of what an obese dog looks like at different angles. Then he discusses that with you. We used to have a middle aged redbone coohound who started to pack on a few extra lbs, and the vet caught it before we even noticed and had us on the lookout for causes.


----------



## HPL

We were watching the Olympics, but now that the photo has been posted Oh MY GOD!! AS a former livestock photographer I can tell you for a fact that that dog is NOT fat. You all think it is out of condition when, in fact it is over conditioned. Just a bit too much finish, that's all. 

Having fought my weight all my life, I know how carrying around extra pounds makes one feel and how it affects one's ability in the field. I will not have a fat dog. My dog is an athlete. The only positive thing I can say about that dog is that it is unlikely to drown. Bet that bitch floats like a cork.


----------



## Illinois Bob

There are a few members of the HRC clubs that I belong to that both run their dogs in hunt tests and show them and do pretty good in both venues. I give them a lot of credit for what they are doing. I still like my curly tailed whippet though.


----------



## jollycurl

Food for thought:

Chessie entry: 14; 3 JHs, 3 SHs
Curly entry: 8; 1 JH, 1MH
Flat entry: 21; 6 JHs, 1 SH
Golden entry: 38; 3 JHs
Lab entry: 38; 3JHs, 1MH
Toller entry: no titles

These statistics are based on the dogs that were shown. I did not count absentees.

Once again, I am humbled in the presence of the Flat-Coated Retriever people who work so hard to keep the form and function of their dogs a priority.


----------



## HarryWilliams

I missed the "Sporting" class but did see the terriers and on until the BOS. I picked the "Terrier" to win. My wife was rooting for the Bloodhound (seemed like the crowd favorite also). I bet the terrier would go down a foxhole if allowed. Not sure if the Bloodhound could catch up to the fugitive or not. HPW


----------



## shawninthesticks

Illinois Bob said:


> There are a few members of the HRC clubs that I belong to that both run their dogs in hunt tests and show them and do pretty good in both venues. I give them a lot of credit for what they are doing. I still like my curly tailed whippet though.




I've often wondered what the standard would look like if ,like at Beagle Ft's they have a bench and field competition in the same trial and you can enter one or both classes, but generally the field work takes priority over the bench . I'd often see people enter the field and not the bench ,but rarely see someone just show up and enter the bench. I will say that in beagles the 2 worlds are closer together.


----------



## 1st retriever

gdgnyc said:


> I like Glenda Brown's sentiment on working Goldens. She suggests that conformation judges get out in the field and get to know what a working dog really does and which physical traits are useful
> .


How can everyone expect the judges to start awarding wins to better field type dogs if no one will enter them? Everyone has a cow every time a keg on legs is in the show ring but yet if people don't start showing other types how can you honestly expect things to change? Granted, it will take awhile for it to happen but people have to start showing the other types to the judges for them to have a choice if you want things to change!


----------



## ChessieMom

This chart sums it up nicely I think:


----------



## 2tall

Just a random thought. Could the reason for this ugly shapeless fat look be because that is what the vast majority of dog owners (Labs being the number 1 choice once again) see on their couch every night? In the end, it's all about money. There are relatively few of us field dog lovers, so the nod will go to the others. To me it's not even a matter of moderate or extreme. I believe the field dogs are gorgeous. The others look like caricatures of dogs, like plush stuffed animals look like the real bears and bunnies.


----------



## AmiableLabs

ChessieMom said:


> This chart sums it up nicely I think:


Excellent chart!

The key here is the "tuck up." Ask any show Labrador person, they don't want tuck-up. They want a level line at the breast and belly without being obese.

Those of us who have working dogs require our dogs to be athletic. We don't want them heavy and we don't want them thin.


----------



## ryoung

Guys you have it all wrong that was a pigador not a lab


----------



## AmiableLabs

2tall said:


> Just a random thought. Could the reason for this ugly shapeless fat look be because that is what the vast majority of dog owners (Labs being the number 1 choice once again) see on their couch every night?


No. It is as simple as this -- "Form follows function." It is a well known fact.

Look at fashion models and female beauty pageant contestants (at their competition weight), how many of them can bear children, nurture them, care for a house and husband, or hold down a job outside the home? That is not their "function." Their function is to look beautiful, so their form is to have oversized breasts, tiny waists, long thin legs with little muscle, no fat at all, and skinny hips. Pretty to look at but not meant for the real world.

It is the same in the dog world.


----------



## gdgnyc

1st retriever said:


> How can everyone expect the judges to start awarding wins to better field type dogs if no one will enter them? Everyone has a cow every time a keg on legs is in the show ring but yet if people don't start showing other types how can you honestly expect things to change? Granted, it will take awhile for it to happen but people have to start showing the other types to the judges for them to have a choice if you want things to change!


The show committee picks the judges for our Specialty. There is not one single trialer/hunter on the committee. There are some who make an appearance at Hunting Tests. My gut feeling, without actually talking to anyone in Conformation but from overhearing comments, is that choice of judges is based upon what type of Golden the judge likes. And the show people own what has become the complete opposite of a hunting dog. That is for around here and I won't comment on other areas.


----------



## Sharon Potter

Bottom line: The judges should both know and judge by the breed standard. It's not acceptable for a judge to ignore the standard for a breed, but unfortunately there is zero accountability and it's done all the time. Bravo to any judge who will put up a moderate dog instead of an out of balance, overweight dog that looks very little like the standard calls for.


----------



## shawninthesticks

A friend of mines showbitch just had a singleton form her litter


----------



## windycanyon

I had to walk away from the TV and hold my breath w/ the group judging last night, I was so disappointed in what the breed judge selected to represent us in the group. Thankfully the group judge passed over the breed judge's selection.


----------



## misarskennels

Well...look on the bright side, he wasn't white-red-or silver. And I didn't see him point anything. Ha


----------



## ebenezer

A friend put her field lab in the hands of a pro handler. He got his championship but had to put on about 15lbs. The pro also knew what judges to show him under. The bottom line is you can be BOS one day and nor even take group the next. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder on any given day be darned the standards.


----------



## achiro

http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Results+2013
To me it's not just a fat issue, these dogs are all holding excess weight but look much more functional to me. Is there a tipping point where the breed club starts to insist that judges breed closer to the standard? I keep hearing the judges can't judge them if they don't get them but there are moderate dogs being shown so that is a cop out IMHDAO.


----------



## Lonnie Spann

Y'all quit hating. I just showed my boy "Jack" the photo of the bitch posted above and he looked at me as if to say "I'd hit that". It is quite obvious that our dogs and the show ring dogs are worlds apart. However, to each their own, and I'm just glad to see people from all walks of life participating in varying dog sports. How far away are we from seeing a "Silver" win best of breed?

Lonnie Spann


----------



## hotel4dogs

While I also think the flat coated people are awesome, I do want to point out that it's *relatively* easy to get a CH on a flat coated retriever compared to a Golden retriever or a Labrador.
The flat coats only have to beat a handful of dogs, twice (plus beat one other dog several times) to get the CH. The Goldens have to beat, in this area, at least 21 other dogs at least twice, plus 3-4 other dogs several times, to get the CH. It's not easy. The labradors are even worse with the numbers it takes to get a CH.
The competition for the bench CH in Goldens and Labradors is fierce. 



jollycurl said:


> Food for thought:
> 
> Chessie entry: 14; 3 JHs, 3 SHs
> Curly entry: 8; 1 JH, 1MH
> Flat entry: 21; 6 JHs, 1 SH
> Golden entry: 38; 3 JHs
> Lab entry: 38; 3JHs, 1MH
> Toller entry: no titles
> 
> These statistics are based on the dogs that were shown. I did not count absentees.
> 
> Once again, I am humbled in the presence of the Flat-Coated Retriever people who work so hard to keep the form and function of their dogs a priority.


----------



## achiro

hotel4dogs said:


> While I also think the flat coated people are awesome, I do want to point out that it's *relatively* easy to get a CH on a flat coated retriever compared to a Golden retriever or a Labrador.
> The flat coats only have to beat a handful of dogs, twice (plus beat one other dog several times) to get the CH. The Goldens have to beat, in this area, at least 21 other dogs at least twice, plus 3-4 other dogs several times, to get the CH. It's not easy. The labradors are even worse with the numbers it takes to get a CH.
> The competition for the bench CH in Goldens and Labradors is fierce.


I'm not sure that I understand what numbers have to do with ignoring written breed standards?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp

I watched in on TV, the lab looked out of place in the sporting group; if they continue to put that look up in the sporting group, there's never going to be a Lab running for best in show @ Westminster. Now the golden was refreshing, moderate and well done compared to what they have put up previously. The judge must've liked the look as the dog took 3rd. I thought the flat coat was beautiful, more muscle and bone than you usually see in the breed. Seems weird that the cockers gets to put in 3 varieties of the same dog; sort've stacks the deck for that breed. Still this might be something for the Lab people to think about 2 varieties Show and Field. Seems like the breed divisions are off, why is the water dog in working (guarding)group and not the sporting group, why isn't the standard poodle in the sporting group? The ones I was rooting for the mini-pin, the corgy and the blood hound (he was Fat, with too much skin But Bloodhounds are COOL), Of course they choose a fluffy variety, at least it was a sporting breed. I'll never understand the appeal of that poodle look (the announcers can say it all they want no-one has ever hunted a dog cut like that). Still I think overall the judges put up really nice dogs for the final, it would've been hard to pick a winner.


----------



## JS

The dog in question is FAT! That's all we know. Fat is easy to fix.

Fat has nothing to with her genetic predisposition to hunt. That dog MAY be a marking fool! MAY be able to remember a 3-retired quad. We'll never know' All we know is what we see.

Some people choose to play a different game, that's all. And they do what they need to do to win at their game. That's what WE do. Be stupid not to. We hear a lot of people say there are probably potential NFCs laying around on peoples' sofas. Could be. Could be some of them are running around a conformation ring, too.

Whip that dog into shape and send him to Mr. Danny. Then we'll know what he can do. Or not.

JS


----------



## swampcollielover

As I watched the show I got a distinct impression that many of the judges had already decided on which dog was going to win....based on the history of the dog in competition. It seems like this should be irrelevant, as each dog will show differently at different times...yet the ones with the deepest history of wins, usually carried the show....

I agree the lab was a poor representation of the breed...but I am not a trained judge...

Like the Golden a lot!


----------



## EdA

Westminster generates these same discussions every year regarding Labradors which makes one wonder why people with field trial/hunt test/hunting Labradors care. That Best of Show Wirehaired Fox Terrier certainly was not fat like the obese Labrador that the conformation people seem to find attractive.


----------



## JS

EdA said:


> Westminster generates these same discussions every year regarding Labradors which makes one wonder why people with field trial/hunt test/hunting Labradors care. That Best of Show Wirehaired Fox Terrier certainly was not fat like the obese Labrador that the conformation people seem to find attractive.


That's right, Dr.!  We should all petition the Westminster club to move their show to June ... then none of us would be sitting inside at the computer fussin' about it. 

Only thing I don't like are all the generalizations that come out. When I take a dog to the line, I just want a judge to watch me and see what I can do. Never mind what we look like in a picture.

JS


----------



## Sharon Potter

Take all the extra weight off that dog and you would still have a very out of proportion dog, with short legs and a long body. Structurally unsuited for the purpose the breed is meant for.


----------



## CamoDog

Are there any Show Judges on this forum that can explain why Show Dogs have to be heavier ? Why is that look more appealing than that of the actual Breed Standard?


----------



## luvmylabs23139

Sharon Potter said:


> Here's a comparison: Breed standard illustration compared to the Westminster Best of Breed.
> 
> View attachment 17239
> View attachment 17240


Didn't watch and just assumed this was the usual bash the show dogs thread. Then I clicked on that pic. Yikes!


----------



## luvmylabs23139

AmiableLabs said:


> View attachment 17241
> 
> 
> This is the BITCH that won Best of Breed.


Heck I missed the part that it was a Bitch.


----------



## JS

Sharon Potter said:


> Take all the extra weight off that dog and you would still have a very out of proportion dog, with short legs and a long body. Structurally unsuited for the purpose the breed is meant for.


Maybe. But we still don't know if he can hunt.

Any hunt test or field trial you go to you will see dozens of dogs that are very out of proportion. Got one myself ... rump 2" higher than her withers, if she wasn't long in the body she wouldn't be able to run a straight line because her back feet would be stepping on her fronts. But she's jammed 6 AA stakes and got a MH in a total of 4 hunt tests, just for fun.

Used to be people with working dogs would say, "doesn't matter what my dog looks like; let me show you what he can DO.". Now, every February we come on RTF and dis a bunch of dogs that are playing a totally different kind of game because of what they look like.

BTW, I also have a bench CH that was one of the better known conformation dogs and sires in his time. He's as good a pheasant hunter as anyone needs and got his MH in 9 tests ... well better than the average. I used to get a lot of rolling eyes on the way to the line with him. It was fun.;-)

JS


----------



## achiro

CamoDog said:


> Are there any Show Judges on this forum that can explain why Show Dogs have to be heavier ? Why is that look more appealing than that of the actual Breed Standard?


Fat hides flaws(makes me pretty much perfect).


----------



## swliszka

You folks better watch it or the PC police are going to nab you for malicious comments about confirmation/show dogs. Every one I judged in AKC hunt tests were physically incapable of "finishing" their dog with a JH . In the 1950s-60s it was fairly common for show bitchs w/some field achievement to be bred to full bore FC/AFC studs. I remember one I believe was Whyden Kennels(?) NY. However I did have the opportunity to help train a Chessie called Caraways Wild Goosechase owned by Roger Reopelle and trained by Del-Tone Kennels Phil Berger. Chase had a Ch and either FC or AFC. In my book I would gladly take him home for life. He was one hell of a good looking talented dog when I met him at 3 months old there on. Too bad folks can't breed that way today.


----------



## clipper

The sire of my first dog was a Dual Ch... don't see those any more


----------



## jollycurl

hotel4dogs said:


> While I also think the flat coated people are awesome, I do want to point out that it's *relatively* easy to get a CH on a flat coated retriever compared to a Golden retriever or a Labrador.
> The flat coats only have to beat a handful of dogs, twice (plus beat one other dog several times) to get the CH. The Goldens have to beat, in this area, at least 21 other dogs at least twice, plus 3-4 other dogs several times, to get the CH. It's not easy. The labradors are even worse with the numbers it takes to get a CH.
> The competition for the bench CH in Goldens and Labradors is fierce.


Barb, your argument would seem to make my case. Yes, it requires more effort to get a championship on a Lab or a Golden. What that means is that there is a lot more time to do other things with your dogs while waiting for the opportunity to succeed in the breed ring.

Curly-Coated Retrievers are a very slow maturing breed. We try to tell our puppy people that this is a good thing and gives them time to work on other pursuits: field, performance, etc. I would say the same is probably true for other retriever breeds.


----------



## shawninthesticks

achiro said:


> Fat hides flaws(makes me pretty much perfect).


If that's the case ,I'm dam near perfect


----------



## jd6400

Along with the fact that the dog had no "wheels" under it seemes like a very short muzzle also....Anyone remember what a good American Cocker looked like before the muzzle was eliminated on them ???? Jim


----------



## achiro

swliszka said:


> You folks better watch it or the PC police are going to nab you for malicious comments about confirmation/show dogs. Every one I judged in AKC hunt tests were physically incapable of "finishing" their dog with a JH . In the 1950s-60s it was fairly common for show bitchs w/some field achievement to be bred to full bore FC/AFC studs. I remember one I believe was Whyden Kennels(?) NY. However I did have the opportunity to help train a Chessie called Caraways Wild Goosechase owned by Roger Reopelle and trained by Del-Tone Kennels Phil Berger. Chase had a Ch and either FC or AFC. In my book I would gladly take him home for life. He was one hell of a good looking talented dog when I met him at 3 months old there on. Too bad folks can't breed that way today.


Chase was my all time favorite chessie. I only spent a few days training with Roger and Chase but the dog left a heck of an impression. Left some pretty nice Dual Ch in his pedigree wake as well.



clipper said:


> The sire of my first dog was a Dual Ch... don't see those any more


you do in chessies.


----------



## twall

[QUOTE;1187952]The sire of my first dog was a Dual Ch... don't see those any more[/QUOTE]

Maybe not in Labs but you do with chessies.

Tom


----------



## Richard Finch

Why is the dual champion so much more prominent in the Chessie's as a breed???


Richard


----------



## twall

[QUOTE;1187949]Fat hides flaws.[/QUOTE]


Adding weight gives the appearance of having some traits the dog does not have. Such as, a true double coat. Once a knowledgable judge puts their hands on the animal they will be able to tell if there is a double coat or the animal is just fat.

The problem is when all the animals to be judged are of the same type. It is rare to have one animal excused for lack of merit, let alone an entire class or breed. So, the judges put up animals that are fat, short, bald, etc. People see that and then continue to show those types of animals. Winning begets winning. Next thing you know people think that is what the breed should look like. 

Conversly, whne dogs are only bred for performance they can also lose breed type. But, winners keep getting bred and soon everyone thinks that is what the breed should look like.

Tom


----------



## twall

Richard Finch said:


> Why is the dual champion so much more prominent in the Chessie's as a breed???
> 
> 
> Richard


Richard,

The simple answer is because they are not as popular so a greater percentage of breeders are concerned with both field and show. So, you have a higher percentage of animals that compete in both venues. If you do not have enough breeders dedicated to preserving the breed standard you will lose breed-type in both camps.

Tom


----------



## Scott R.

Richard Finch said:


> Why is the dual champion so much more prominent in the Chessie's as a breed???
> 
> 
> Richard



My opinion...hopefully more experienced Chessie people will chime in but...
I credit the breeders, many of whom post here, that actively seek to produce dual purpose dogs. The American Chesapeake Club should also be given it's due for helping to prevent a split within the breed. The Chessie breeding pool is small enough that if it were divided the way the Lab worlds are separated, the breed would be in real trouble. The smaller numbers also mean that you don't have to go that far back in a pedigree to find successful show, field, or dual purpose dogs.


----------



## Richard Finch

Seems like the Chessie Breeders have it somewhat figured out.... To bad we couldn't do that on a larger scale with the Labrador....




Richard


----------



## Clayton Evans

Have been playing this show scene for a couple years now. The first year we got 6 points on my dog with one judge saying It is so nice to get to judge a dog that is ready for the field.
Last year was a different story. 4 shows and no points. In the last show a pro was running him and she asked the judge afterwords why he wasn't placing. Her comments were He moves beautifully has nice conformation but he needs more weight. So this year have amped him up to 91 # and will see if that helps.
There are Labs being shown that are capable of the ring and field but those don't stand a chance against those like this one.


----------



## waycool

Clayton Evans said:


> Have been playing this show scene for a couple years now. The first year we got 6 points on my dog with one judge saying It is so nice to get to judge a dog that is ready for the field.
> Last year was a different story. 4 shows and no points. In the last show a pro was running him and she asked the judge afterwords why he wasn't placing. Her comments were He moves beautifully has nice conformation but he needs more weight. So this year have amped him up to 91 # and will see if that helps.
> There are Labs being shown that are capable of the ring and field but those don't stand a chance against those like this one.



Cheney ? Been there... home of Dunfur (Dan Hoke) ... sorry to high jack... 

Seeing that town fluttered my brain of .. fresh Oysters, Salmon and crabs cooked on a grill ! Oh and that fishing in Crab Creek.... outstanding


----------



## Mark Littlejohn

I've got to wonder how many conformation judges can identify with these references in the Labrador (or most any sporting breed) standard: "work in the field..." and, "..a working gun dog"?

To appreciate these requirements, a judge would be a hunter, or at a minimum, a performance event participant. Do any of these national level judges possess such qualifications? This might explain why their interpretation of the standard differs so much from most of ours. If they do have this experience, well then, shame on them. Let's see them pull that wet porker into a boat or onto a tailgate a few times!


----------



## windycanyon

Mark Littlejohn said:


> I've got to wonder how many conformation judges can identify with these references in the Labrador (or most any sporting breed) standard: "work in the field..." and, "..a working gun dog"?
> 
> To appreciate these requirements, a judge would be a hunter, or at a minimum, a performance event participant. Do any of these national level judges possess such qualifications? This might explain why their interpretation of the standard differs so much from most of ours. If they do have this experience, well then, shame on them. Let's see them pull that wet porker into a boat or onto a tailgate a few times!


I believe Pluis Davern judged the Brits yesterday (and that was a nice one that went to group). Pluis has done both field work and obed in addition to show. I wished she'd have judged Labs....
she seems to know a nice lab when she's judged out here. https://www.akc.org/press_center/article.cfm?article_id=4537

here is a quote of hers from another interview: http://www.pages01.net/americankennelclub/newsletters/AKCBreeder/2012/spring_helping/[HR][/HR]*How has your involvement in performance influenced you as a conformation judge?
*
_*Now when I judge, as I watch exhibitors take their dogs around the ring I am constantly reminded of the original function for which these breeds were developed, and the need to maintain their ability to do so.* 

*I therefore have a pet peeve: fat dogs. Judging breeds in the Sporting and Hound groups, I expect at the very least to see athletes in good working condition.*_


----------



## Joe Brakke

I have to agree that the Lab that was shown was Obese based on the graph above. His undercarriage was flopping around and when he made his turn it continued and rotated outward. Maybe he was hung but to me his belly continued in one direction while his head was turning. I was amazed the other sporting dogs were more in shape than the Lab. Whomever is promoting this body style needs to look back for the proper fitness of a Lab. I do not blame the contestants as they are chasing a prize and the judges are influencing this migration to Flabrador.

Now, I have owned both. The Show and Field. I have moved to field style as I too am chasing a prize. I prefer to watch the athletes in the field than the Show. That being said there are a few Duals that get it done and they may look heavy but not obese.

btw I also was confused when the announcer was explaining the utility of Pointers, flushers and retrievers. He describe each dog as they were separate jobs of each. My retriever flushes and retrieves, not one or the other. And on the dark side of things, my pointing lab points and retrieves:-}


----------



## windycanyon

Joe Brakke said:


> I have to agree that the Lab that was shown was Obese based on the graph above. His undercarriage was flopping around and when he made his turn it continued and rotated outward. Maybe he was hung but to me his belly continued in one direction while his head was turning. I was amazed the other sporting dogs were more in shape than the Lab. Whomever is promoting this body style needs to look back for the proper fitness of a Lab. I do not blame the contestants as they are chasing a prize and the judges are influencing this migration to Flabrador.
> 
> Now, I have owned both. The Show and Field. I have moved to field style as I too am chasing a prize. I prefer to watch the athletes in the field than the Show. That being said there are a few Duals that get it done and they may look heavy but not obese.
> 
> btw I also was confused when the announcer was explaining the utility of Pointers, flushers and retrievers. He describe each dog as they were separate jobs of each. My retriever flushes and retrieves, not one or the other. And on the dark side of things, my pointing lab points and retrieves:-}


Hate to tell you Joe, but that "he" was a SHE.


----------



## Joe Brakke

windycanyon said:


> Hate to tell you Joe, but that "he" was a SHE.


Wow, I just realized that after reading behind. Well she was well endowed or must have had a litter or two. I have always had a high regard for your breeding's. My wife and I had a disagreement on body style, she likes the Show style so maybe to appease her and I, we'll get one of your pups in the future.


----------



## crackerd

windycanyon said:


> I believe Pluis Davern judged the Brits yesterday (and that was a nice one that went to group). Pluis has done both field work and obed in addition to show. I wished she'd have judged Labs....
> she seems to know a nice lab when she's judged out here. https://www.akc.org/press_center/article.cfm?article_id=4537
> 
> here is a quote of hers from another interview: http://www.pages01.net/americankennelclub/newsletters/AKCBreeder/2012/spring_helping/


Yeah, Pluis knows (and has bred) a nice one or two of these too - 










and she also works Labs in SAR - so no way in h*ll would she have put up a case study in obesity that looked like a doubly-obese Clumber (if that's not an oxymoron) with a black paint job...

But we must remember above all these are "English" Labs that "stride" around the showring.

MG


----------



## Moose Mtn

I just dont get too worked up about show dogs.. I dont see it much differently than Quarter Horses... Specifically the Halter Horses Vs. horses that are in performance classes. Looking at the make and movement of MOST (not all) Halter horses.. they would have not much use in the events (running 1/4 mile or ranchwork) that they were originally designed for


----------



## hotel4dogs

Sadly, just like sending your dog out with a field trainer, most Golden and Labrador show people send their dogs out with a handler for a year or longer. (I didn't, which is probably why my boy owns more titles than most show Goldens). It's pretty hard to train/title a dog when they are living with a handler.



jollycurl said:


> Barb, your argument would seem to make my case. Yes, it requires more effort to get a championship on a Lab or a Golden. What that means is that there is a lot more time to do other things with your dogs while waiting for the opportunity to succeed in the breed ring.
> 
> Curly-Coated Retrievers are a very slow maturing breed. We try to tell our puppy people that this is a good thing and gives them time to work on other pursuits: field, performance, etc. I would say the same is probably true for other retriever breeds.


----------



## MikeBoley

Nicole said:


> I do! And they can go take points in the ring on the same day. How bout you?


I have a solid whippet and I bet your labs could not do the retrieves mine can. Mine might make it in the ring if I was willing to abuse them by making them obese. Im am not into abusing animals.


----------



## BLAZE ELAM

It's what us Americans has done to the bench dogs 
We are never happy always have to ruin and change 
Look at bench dogs from the 90s or 80s much different!!! 
Just my opinion!!!


----------



## AmiableLabs

Nicole said:


> Pauli is a fabulous example of the breed and I congratulate her owners, breeder and handler, all of whom I'm thrilled to call friends.


Nicole I visited your website and saw your dogs -- http://www.piccadillylabs.com/The_Dogs.html -- it is evident why you defend the type of the Westminster breed winner.

Can I ask you a couple questions?

1. Looking at Pauli and at your dogs, do you think they are "fat" or have more "substance" than field-bred, or both?

2. Do you think, in general, dogs built like yours and Pauli can earn field championships? I know there are occasional show-bred Labs that have earned MH titles. But despite them being the exception rather than the rule, I am talking regarding the build and type of show Labs, heavy bone, large bodies, in your opinion is it an asset or a hindrance to field work?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## John Lash

Is there a "show lab" that weighs less than 80 pounds?


----------



## luvalab

Ten pages...... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... 

Someone knock on the cave door and wake me up in about six weeks.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN

Here's a thought people. Enter your dog in a conformation show. Ask the other exhibitors to give you an honest evaluation of the structural weaknesses of your "athlete" or the strengths. Then maybe when you see the latest greatest NFC with a HORRIBLE front assembly you wont breed your bitch to him as she is bad in the front and has a "Gay" tail like the grandsire you are line breeding on. Then 7 out of the 10 puppies will be able to work past the age 8.
Both ends of the Labrador world are out of whack.


----------



## wheelhorse

John Lash said:


> Is there a "show lab" that weighs less than 80 pounds?


Yes. Mine is 65 lbs, her dam was the number one Lab in the Nation in '06 and three of her litter mates are CH's. 

She's a retired cadaver dog, one leg left on her SH (it takes me awhile to compete because her real job was a cadaver dog) and her daughter is 60lbs. Her son (sired by a Ch/MH) is also one leg a way from his SH as well, and I hope to compete in MH as time allows because he is my current cadaver dog. 

Daughter's sire is a CH/MH, QAA. She will be working towards her HRD certification this year, finishing her JH and starting her SH, as time allows. Her litter mate made the cut in her class at the Potomac show in 2013.

There are still some of us out there that appreciate a good looking dog that can do the work. But I seriously doubt that there will ever be another Dual CH in my lifetime because of how specialized each arena is.

I, for one, are in awe of those that try to compete in both arenas, trying to get Ch, MH and I know there are some that are running in FTs to QAA. It's not only the time, but the incredible amount of cash it takes.


----------



## AmiableLabs

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Here's a thought people. Enter your dog in a conformation show.


Been there, done that. Back in the early-'80s my wife and I were very active in showing dogs. Here is my Lab "Rima" in 1981, line-bred on Brian (CH. Lockerbie Brian Boru), handled by my wife --









-- "Rima" was by no means spectacular. She was long in the back, etc., but she was typical of the "substance" of the day. You can see similar by looking at Helen Warwick's book, and look at her Sandyland's dogs like Tarquin. 

I don't think the issue here is soundness. I can't remember the last time I saw an unsound field-bred or show-bred Lab. The issue her is "type".


----------



## windycanyon

John Lash said:


> Is there a "show lab" that weighs less than 80 pounds?


Yes, I just bred to a MH from heavy CH/MH lineage who is only ~75#. The owner so far has not put him in the show ring though his sire (who she also owned) was a CH/MH. I really don't blame her.

Bandit (a CH/MH from the 90's and sire to 2 of my 58-60# girls in working condition) was only 68-72# in good working condition though they'd fatten him up to 80# or so for specialties according to my notes. 

But we are talking old lines here, before they got those deep bodies and heavier bone. Bandit died a few years ago at 15.5. I bred to him when he was 12 and 13 yrs old and he was still fertile... says a bit about longevity and health I think.


----------



## windycanyon

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Here's a thought people. Enter your dog in a conformation show. Ask the other exhibitors to give you an honest evaluation of the structural weaknesses of your "athlete" or the strengths. Then maybe when you see the latest greatest NFC with a HORRIBLE front assembly you wont breed your bitch to him as she is bad in the front and has a "Gay" tail like the grandsire you are line breeding on. Then 7 out of the 10 puppies will be able to work past the age 8.
> Both ends of the Labrador world are out of whack.


Even if folks could get out to a Conformation Certificate (CC), it'd be interesting. Last fall in the LRC newsletter, it was really neat to see some of the FC's that not only showed up to a CC (on site) but passed. I just sent a litter of pups out sired by a QAA from a very nice field pedigree, and have to tell you, it was a very nice litter structurally and VERY birdy!!!!


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN

AmiableLabs said:


> Been there, done that. Back in the early-'80s my wife and I were very active in showing dogs. Here is my Lab "Rima" in 1981, line-bred on Brian (CH. Lockerbie Brian Boru), handled by my wife --
> 
> View attachment 17254
> 
> 
> -- "Rima" was by no means spectacular. She was long in the back, etc., but she was typical of the "substance" of the day. You can see similar by looking at Helen Warwick's book, and look at her Sandyland's dogs like Tarquin.
> 
> I don't think the issue here is soundness. I can't remember the last time I saw an unsound field-bred or show-bred Lab. The issue her is "type".


Kevin, Your NOT included - you know the difference. Right Type.


----------



## Cass

Nicole said:


> Pauli is a fabulous example of the breed and I congratulate her owners, breeder and handler


I don't even own a lab and this offends me


----------



## MikeBoley

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Here's a thought people. Enter your dog in a conformation show. Ask the other exhibitors to give you an honest evaluation of the structural weaknesses of your "athlete" or the strengths. Then maybe when you see the latest greatest NFC with a HORRIBLE front assembly you wont breed your bitch to him as she is bad in the front and has a "Gay" tail like the grandsire you are line breeding on. Then 7 out of the 10 puppies will be able to work past the age 8.
> Both ends of the Labrador world are out of whack.


Drake not sure how much you no about dog antomy because the lattest NFC is a bitch, so no one can breed thier bitch to her.

Congrats Dottie


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN

MikeBoley said:


> Drake not sure how much you no about dog antomy because the lattest NFC is a bitch, so no one can breed thier bitch to her.
> 
> Congrats Dottie


Don't worry I know a dick when I see one !


----------



## 1st retriever

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> Don't worry I know a dick when I see one !


LMAO just choked!


----------



## HPL

AmiableLabs said:


> Nicole I visited your website and saw your dogs -- http://www.piccadillylabs.com/The_Dogs.html -- it is evident why you defend the type of the Westminster breed winner.
> 
> .



Good Lord! They look like nice stuffed teddy bears! Thirty minutes of early dove season would KILL any of those big felllas. I frequently run ten or twelve 75yd + retrieves in just a few minutes when just PLAYING with my knucklehead. I'll bet none of those dogs could do two without taking a break. It's really sad. For me, it isn't an esthetics question, but more a health of the animal question. Allowing a dog to carry that much extra weight is tantamount to animal abuse. Really a shame.


----------



## Migillicutty

Moose Mtn said:


> I just dont get too worked up about show dogs.. I dont see it much differently than Quarter Horses... Specifically the Halter Horses Vs. horses that are in performance classes. Looking at the make and movement of MOST (not all) Halter horses.. they would have not much use in the events (running 1/4 mile or ranchwork) that they were originally designed for


You are right, winning halter horses can't be ridden. They'd go lame. Stick legs and no feet on huge bodies. Not to mention if you did ride one their movement would be so bad it would be like riding a jack hammer. They have instituted a performance halter class. Only horses who have a certain amount of points in a riding class can be ridden. It is really ridiculous because halter is supposed to be about conformation, and conformation at its heart should lend itself to usability. This started decades ago when judges started pinning "halter type" horses, and a subset of the breed was born. In fairness a pleasure bred quarter horse wouldn't do very well in the cutting pen and visa versa, but again I have a problem when a conformation class is pinning an animal that can't even be ridden. Seems the labs have gone the same way.


----------



## wheelhorse

windycanyon said:


> Yes, I just bred to a MH from heavy CH/MH lineage who is only ~75#.


That dog is on my short list for my girl! His brother is a Ch/MH as well.

I'd be interested in seeing how those pups turn out.


----------



## DarrinGreene

jollycurl said:


> Food for thought:
> 
> Chessie entry: 14; 3 JHs, 3 SHs
> Curly entry: 8; 1 JH, 1MH
> Flat entry: 21; 6 JHs, 1 SH
> Golden entry: 38; 3 JHs
> Lab entry: 38; 3JHs, 1MH
> Toller entry: no titles
> 
> These statistics are based on the dogs that were shown. I did not count absentees.
> 
> Once again, I am humbled in the presence of the Flat-Coated Retriever people who work so hard to keep the form and function of their dogs a priority.


Very telling information but...

You really think 1/3 of the dogs in arguably the most prestigious conformation show in the world having a JH title is "working hard to keep form and function a priority"?


----------



## kona's mom

John, I have had to put weight on Kona this winter to take him into AKC ring. When we trained with you, he weighed in around 68-70. Picture below was taken with him at 80 pounds. Heaviest he has ever been in his life. He still looked smaller than most when in ring but he didn't stick out like a sore thumb as much as he did when in fighting weight. Do I think he can still run MH tests at this weight? Yes. Will he? No, once we get just a single point that weight is coming off. While he isn't fat by any means, I want him to be able to do what he loves for a long time without putting undo stress on his body.


----------



## The Snows

kona's mom said:


> John, I have had to put weight on Kona this winter to take him into AKC ring. When we trained with you, he weighed in around 68-70. Picture below was taken with him at 80 pounds. Heaviest he has ever been in his life. He still looked smaller than most when in ring but he didn't stick out like a sore thumb as much as he did when in fighting weight. Do I think he can still run MH tests at this weight? Yes. Will he? No, once we get just a single point that weight is coming off. While he isn't fat by any means, I want him to be able to do what he loves for a long time without putting undo stress on his body.
> View attachment 17258


But THAT is the whole point ..... why should you have to add weight, when your dog has the structure for the ring and can prove that the field work can be done?? The fact that judges are putting up dog's soooooo far off the standard is ridiculous! Love to watch Westminster, love to watch the sporting group, hate to see the annual representation of what is considered BOB for labs ...........


----------



## HPL

He is very handsome in that photo, but does look a little soft compared to most of the field dogs I have seen. My first lab's weight used to fluctuated about 5 or 6 pounds from hunting season to off season. That just looks like off season. Do you have a nice photo of him at running weight? That tub at Westminster would make two of him. There is just no comparison.


----------



## kona's mom

HPL said:


> He is very handsome in that photo, but does look a little soft compared to most of the field dogs I have seen. My first lab's weight used to fluctuated about 5 or 6 pounds from hunting season to off season. That just looks like off season. Do you have a nice photo of him at running weight? That tub at Westminster would make two of him. There is just no comparison.


Not the best but here you go. I do want to point out something though. There is a difference between in coat and out of coat in dog's with conformation lines behind them,. Not that I am defending excess weight but being in coat can deceive the eyes. The first pic is at 70 pounds after winter coat blow at the beginning of spring 2012 training. 2nd picture is same weight , spring training 2013 but coat had not blown yet. Also my dog does come from much more moderate lines. His bitch line is actually a blend of the Brigg's line with some older American and English FT lines. His pedigree is like comparing apples to oranges when it comes to other successful show dogs in the ring today.This just happens to be the type I prefer and what works best for me and my goals with my dogs.At least we can all agree that Labs rock!


----------



## EdA

If I don't care what your show dog looks like why do you care what my Field Champion looks like?


----------



## Sabireley

EdA said:


> If I don't care what your show dog looks like why do you care what my Field Champion looks like?


We can see too many muscles in that picture. You must be starving that poor thing.


----------



## Jeffrey Towler

EdA said:


> If I don't care what your show dog looks like why do you care what my Field Champion looks like?


Great looking lab, what's his name?


----------



## EdA

Jeffrey Towler said:


> Great looking lab, what's his name?


Call name Holland (FC-AFC Trumarc's Hollandaise)


----------



## crackerd

Sabireley said:


> We can see too many muscles in that picture. You must be starving that poor thing.


Yeah, you wouldn't want too many of those, or the English Flabrador crowd will cry foul and










want to "lump" them with the bully whippet group.

MG


----------



## MikeBoley

EdA said:


> If I don't care what your show dog looks like why do you care what my Field Champion looks like?


I agree with you Ed, but since the general public doesnt get to see many FC's much less watch one work although they do get to see what was shown at Westminister. Therefore the uninformed masses believe that is the correct look and wieght for a labrador. That is promoting obesity not only in dogs but people.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn

Yes I'm prejudiced, but this is how I think they should be proportioned; especially if this guy had a double coat.


----------



## Billie

Joe Brakke said:


> Well she was well endowed or must have had a litter or two. .


Yeah, INSIDE OF HER......


----------



## suepuff

Mark Littlejohn said:


> View attachment 17262
> Yes I'm prejudiced, but this is how I think they should be proportioned; especially if this guy had a double coat.


Nice Mark. What's the pedigree there?


----------



## paul young

windycanyon said:


> Even if folks could get out to a Conformation Certificate (CC), it'd be interesting. Last fall in the LRC newsletter, it was really neat to see some of the FC's that not only showed up to a CC (on site) but passed. I just sent a litter of pups out sired by a QAA from a very nice field pedigree, and have to tell you, it was a very nice litter structurally and VERY birdy!!!!



There were 6 or 7 with Conformation Certificates competing in the National Amateur last year. Saw the list in FT News.

I was thinking about changing my signature line. Think I'll hang on to it a while longer.....-Paul


----------



## chesaka

Sharon Potter said:


> I thought the Golden was very nice. Moderate coat, and in lovely weight. So nice to not see a big poofball carrying 20 extra pounds!


I agree with Sharon. That Golden was nice and not with too much coat and bone. I also thought the Irish Water Spaniel was lovely. Was glad to see that the Chessie judge found two out of the three dogs with working titles to give Select and a JAM too.


----------



## TollerLover

I was a little disappointed in the lack of working titles on the Tollers, but was informed that at least a few did have <some> working titles, but were only allowed to include AKC titles for this show. Several had HRC or CKC titles.

I wouldn't have wanted to hunt with some of the coats in that ring either....

The breed winner is a lovely dog - very athletic and moderate in coat - he at least has a WC.


----------



## chesaka

CamoDog said:


> Are there any Show Judges on this forum that can explain why Show Dogs have to be heavier ? Why is that look more appealing than that of the actual Breed Standard?


I am not a show judge but I have shown for many years. There is something called "show weight." It is weight you put on the dog to give it more "show presence" in the ring. The problem is, and this is even in Chessies, when you take an athletic and properly-sized and well-conditioned dog in the ring, that dog can be easily overlooked in the presence of larger, fatter, bigger-boned dogs. The field dogs end up looking scrawny. The show/field split has happened in labs and you now basically have two breeds bred for different purposes. If you want a show dog, that is the pedigree you go looking for. If you want a field champion, you go in a different direction. The split I believe is happening as well in Chessies but it is still possible to have a dual champion. The reason I say the split is happening is because if you look at most of the top field Chessies they look different from the top show dogs. The field Chessies are more slightly built, have less coat and less blocky heads. The show Chessies are bigger, have more bone, more coat, shorter legs and are more barrel-chested. Now don't start yelling. I said most, not all!! There are still quite a few Chessies out there that can be CH-MH if owners put in the effort. Now a dual champion? Can be done but only because it is less competitive for the field dogs in the show ring. Put a good handler on a not-too bad looking top field Chessy and it still can be done. Patsy Barber showed DC/AFC Distagon MH **** to his show championship in six shows. Patsy was a powerhouse in the show world and knew how to get it done. She told me a judge said to her "Patsy this is not what you normally bring in the ring." And she told him, "Just shake your head and pretend he's brown." Distagon was deadgrass and had some masking, was built like a field dog but had good conformation. That is how the game is played.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp

Hey everybody should hit up a specialty one time and get a conformation certificate on your Lab; We had a grand time parading all the MHs (45lb to 90lb) labs with whippet tails and weirdo coats around (for $10, at a hunt test once). Every single one of them was determined to be a lab, given a certificate, and the fawned upon by the judges on their movement. Only problem was none of us knew what a trot was (it's not throwing a bumper and releasing a dog, that's running), (it's not quick stepping with your dog on lead; that's jogging) It took us forever to figure out a trot is what a field lab calls a normal walk. Very entertaining to watch a bunch of old guys in camo, attempting to put their dog into a trot .

True a CE certificate is the WC of the show world, but it is a nice piece of paper to pull out and say YES I have a LAB; he's been tested .


----------



## Glenda Brown

Hi Paul:

There were ten competing Labs gone over at the National Amateur. All got a Conformation Certificate and included Grady and Trav. They were gone over by AKC conformation judges from the LRC. We have high hopes this will continue as a regular event.

At the '13 Golden National Specialty, two of the judges spent one day at the field trial (one judge could not attend due to a family emergency). They viewed the Amateur and the Qual, and at the Qual, they basically sat on the line with the judges. John Gassner and Andy Whiteley acted as their mentors and answered all questions, etc. Both judges wrote excellent critiques of their day and were impressed by the quality of the field Goldens. We hope this will become a tradition as well.

Conformation judges tend to judge what they know or are used to seeing. Early on, those that judged sporting dogs actually hunted themselves so were aware of what a good hunting dog needed in order to last out the season. One way to help educate judges, particularly those that are not breeder-judges, is to include field dogs (high level, active field dogs) in their judges' training seminars. Have the judges go over them, find out what hard working condition actually feels like under your hands, evaluate movement, and learn why the saying "form should follow function" has meaning.

I grew up riding and training horses. In an event such as hunter-jumper conformation, not only would the horses have to perform, they were then stripped of their saddles and their conformation judged at that point. Wouldn't it be great if all the conformation retrievers had to retrieve across a pond and then be judged while soaking wet for the Goldens. The Labs would have to physically run a certain distance, retrieve a bird, and return within a limited time frame and still remaining standing while being judged on their conformation. I guess the term is "dream on."

Glenda


----------



## kjsynergy

This is the same old conversation that happens every year after Westminster. I think we can all agree that we have a "type" of look in Labradors that we like. Labradors are not the only breed with the division between the "show look" and the "field look" (setters, spaniels etc). Each venue breeds the best to the best and in time they get the "best" of what does well in their particular venue. Both parties are guilting of straying from the standard. To group all show labs together is as silly as grouping all field labs together. Myself I like the look of a moderate show bred Labrador, however I can appreciate the working ability of any retriever regardless of the breeding. 
My first CH/MH was a dog who finished his title at 8 1/2 years of age, and continued to run tower shoots and hunt for 3 years after that. That dog got his Jh title and was show to his show CH first. He was training but not running at that time, he was approx 5 when he titled. He was then tragically burned over 2/3 of his body 3 months after getting his CH. He fought to live and live he did. He went on to get his SH title and MH title, he was my first MH dog and 39th CH/MH in the history of the breed. You want to talk about determination and bottom end - this boy had it - along with the sweetest personality. At the time I was running him in master, I was also running a QAA dog. There wasn't a single hunt test that I didn't wish that I could combine qualities from each of those boys. I really enjoyed it and loved each of them for their differences.
If a person wants to play the field trial games - he gets a field dog. If a person want to play in the show dog word - he gets a show bred dog. If a person wants to hunt and run hunt tests he can get whatever he wants. Any dog that hunts or runs in hunt tests or trials need to be in good working condition - period. It's really just that simple folks. The reason I run hunt tests and judge is because I love to see the dog work, and the people who love them. Just because a dog has a look that isn't my type doesn't mean that I can't enjoy and appreciate it. I work with both types and own both (CH/MH FlatCoat, field bred MH, show bred MH)

Let's all be nice, and enjoy the dog work.

Kim


----------



## Billie

kjsynergy said:


> This is the same old conversation that happens every year after Westminster. I think we can all agree that we have a "type" of look in Labradors that we like. Labradors are not the only breed with the division between the "show look" and the "field look" (setters, spaniels etc). Each venue breeds the best to the best and in time they get the "best" of what does well in their particular venue. Both parties are guilting of straying from the standard. To group all show labs together is as silly as grouping all field labs together. Myself I like the look of a moderate show bred Labrador, however I can appreciate the working ability of any retriever regardless of the breeding.
> My first CH/MH was a dog who finished his title at 8 1/2 years of age, and continued to run tower shoots and hunt for 3 years after that. That dog got his Jh title and was show to his show CH first. He was training but not running at that time, he was approx 5 when he titled. He was then tragically burned over 2/3 of his body 3 months after getting his CH. He fought to live and live he did. He went on to get his SH title and MH title, he was my first MH dog and 39th CH/MH in the history of the breed. You want to talk about determination and bottom end - this boy had it - along with the sweetest personality. At the time I was running him in master, I was also running a QAA dog. There wasn't a single hunt test that I didn't wish that I could combine qualities from each of those boys. I really enjoyed it and loved each of them for their differences.
> If a person wants to play the field trial games - he gets a field dog. If a person want to play in the show dog word - he gets a show bred dog. If a person wants to hunt and run hunt tests he can get whatever he wants. Any dog that hunts or runs in hunt tests or trials need to be in good working condition - period. It's really just that simple folks. The reason I run hunt tests and judge is because I love to see the dog work, and the people who love them. Just because a dog has a look that isn't my type doesn't mean that I can't enjoy and appreciate it. I work with both types and own both (CH/MH FlatCoat, field bred MH, show bred MH)
> 
> Let's all be nice, and enjoy the dog work.
> 
> Kim


One word here, : CLASS


----------



## alynn

Glenda Brown said:


> Hi Paul:
> 
> There were ten competing Labs gone over at the National Amateur. All got a Conformation Certificate and included Grady and Trav. They were gone over by AKC conformation judges from the LRC. We have high hopes this will continue as a regular event.
> 
> At the '13 Golden National Specialty, two of the judges spent one day at the field trial (one judge could not attend due to a family emergency). They viewed the Amateur and the Qual, and at the Qual, they basically sat on the line with the judges. John Gassner and Andy Whiteley acted as their mentors and answered all questions, etc. Both judges wrote excellent critiques of their day and were impressed by the quality of the field Goldens. We hope this will become a tradition as well.
> 
> Conformation judges tend to judge what they know or are used to seeing. Early on, those that judged sporting dogs actually hunted themselves so were aware of what a good hunting dog needed in order to last out the season. One way to help educate judges, particularly those that are not breeder-judges, is to include field dogs (high level, active field dogs) in their judges' training seminars. Have the judges go over them, find out what hard working condition actually feels like under your hands, evaluate movement, and learn why the saying "form should follow function" has meaning.
> 
> I grew up riding and training horses. In an event such as hunter-jumper conformation, not only would the horses have to perform, they were then stripped of their saddles and their conformation judged at that point. Wouldn't it be great if all the conformation retrievers had to retrieve across a pond and then be judged while soaking wet for the Goldens. The Labs would have to physically run a certain distance, retrieve a bird, and return within a limited time frame and still remaining standing while being judged on their conformation. I guess the term is "dream on."
> 
> Glenda


I was pleasantly surprised at the Golden that won the breed at Westminster. I am probably being overly hopeful, but maybe some of the judges education is working. While that dog did not look like a trial dog, he did look like he could work all day.


----------



## Tim West

Maybe this would play, except he's about two inches taller than the standard. This is Bleu, who I co-own with Frank Price. Repeat breeding of Ammo, winner of an Amateur this fall and hunted extensively this season in my waterfowl guide business.


----------



## David Maddox

Tim
I'm a black dog kinda guy, but that boy is great looking!!!


----------



## windycanyon

chesaka said:


> I agree with Sharon. That Golden was nice and not with too much coat and bone. I also thought the Irish Water Spaniel was lovely. Was glad to see that the Chessie judge found two out of the three dogs with working titles to give Select and a JAM too.


Me too. I liked both of them. Actually I liked MANY of the group reps. Our Lab judge should be reprimanded for awarding obesity,imo. It's not right, it's not healthy and it's just a terrible example to show the general public. I know several vets and they all complain about the same thing constantly-- obese labs. And if they say too much to their clients, some will walk out and never come back. How stupid when it's SO easy to feed a dog correctly (unlike us people esp if we like to eat and drink!).

And yes to Karen/Billie. I always joke that sometime between 6.5 and 7 wks pregnant, mine will finally look somewhat "show ready" (see below pic of a 6.5 wk preg girl vs before breeding last year). The whole thing about no tuck only means no TUCK (think U shape like Weims or Pointers). It doesn't mean they need to have a rounded or even straight underline. That's something pointed out to me by a Canadian show person years ago.


----------



## luvmylabs23139

John Lash said:


> Is there a "show lab" that weighs less than 80 pounds?


There is a "show lab" that lives in my house. He doesn't show after aging out of puppy classes because I keep him at 78lbs. Not too bad for an 8 1/2 year old. The field lab that is 9 months older is 76 lbs. They exist but "hide" in the blind with Dad!


----------



## CindyGal

Frances O. Smith DVM sums up the Labrador Retriever http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uVl10kK39cI


----------



## luvmylabs23139

wheelhorse said:


> View attachment 17253
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


NIce looking girl!


----------



## windycanyon

CindyGal said:


> Frances O. Smith DVM sums up the Labrador Retriever http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uVl10kK39cI


Great video that I had forgotten about but I wish I had that link about a week ago w/ puppy buyer who contacted me about so many concerns about the breed that I don't know if I did the response justice.


----------



## wheelhorse

luvmylabs23139 said:


> NIce looking girl!


Thanks! Now if I can only do her talent justice.


----------



## CindyGal

Good video to share. There are so many reasons to love the breed and their possibilities are endless. Search & Rescue - urban/avalanche, Service, DAD, Therapy, Nose work- cadaver/drug/bomb, Agility, Obedience, Field, Sport - waterfowl/upland, Dock jumping, Tracking, and on and on... We 'love' that they 'love'!


----------



## kelrobin

Jeffrey Towler said:


> Really? Thats nice. How about getting out in the real world of the sportsman who expects a sporting breed to be just that.


Well gee, I never thought about doing that. I just show my dogs in all aspect of dogdom......conformation, field, obedience and rally. My champion bitch earned 10 titles last year in all of those venues.


----------



## Maxs Mom

I have a friend with a super nice male show dog. This past year she decided she wanted to get a SH on him, so she sent to our trainer. The dog got his SH and dropped I don't know how much weight. He looks FABULOUS. He was muscled, had a tuck, could run and swim. I think it's a shame she can't show him like that. 

She came from conformation in another breed class. She isn't sure she is going to try to finish him as it would mean putting the weight back on. She agrees he's better off now. She took him in the obedience ring and the judge was gaga over his look. Too bad that's not a show ring judge. 

They (show lab breeders) say "their not fat" if they aren't, why would my friend have to put weight back on her dog to show him. He's not "skinny" now he's gorgeous. Wish I had before and after pics. 

Ann


----------



## Jeffrey Towler

kelrobin said:


> Well gee, I never thought about doing that. I just show my dogs in all aspect of dogdom......conformation, field, obedience and rally. My champion bitch earned 10 titles last year in all of those venues.


Nice,. What field titles. . Is it a total conformation bred dog?

I am beyond bored with this conversation . Have fun with your dog, to each his own.


----------



## kcrumpy9

jollycurl said:


> Food for thought:
> 
> Chessie entry: 14; 3 JHs, 3 SHs
> Curly entry: 8; 1 JH, 1MH
> Flat entry: 21; 6 JHs, 1 SH
> Golden entry: 38; 3 JHs
> Lab entry: 38; 3JHs, 1MH
> Toller entry: no titles
> 
> These statistics are based on the dogs that were shown. I did not count absentees.
> 
> Once again, I am humbled in the presence of the Flat-Coated Retriever people who work so hard to keep the form and function of their dogs a priority.


You forgot to mention the curly with the MH is also QAA!


----------



## Sabireley

CindyGal said:


> Frances O. Smith DVM sums up the Labrador Retriever http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uVl10kK39cI


Frances is the current president of the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals.


----------



## Dan Wegner

Good article by a well known and nationally syndicated pet columnist: http://www.petconnection.com/2014/02/15/fatlab/


----------



## Jeffrey Towler

Dan Wegner said:


> Good article by a well known and nationally syndicated pet columnist: http://www.petconnection.com/2014/02/15/fatlab/


Dan, thanks for the link. That's what I have been saying to the show crowd. I am not popular with them, so be it.


----------



## Sabireley

Jeffrey Towler said:


> Dan, thanks for the link. That's what I have been saying to the show crowd. I am not popular with them, so be it.


This sums it up. From the article...

But … what sort of crazy blinders do you have be wearing to think that dog is a splendid example of a working retriever? This is not about judging a hog for the dinner table. The Labrador is — or is supposed to be — an athletic working dog with the stamina for long days in the field.


----------



## wheelhorse

We are two pages of replies away from the record 18 pages of replies to previous Westminster threads! We can't give up now....


----------



## Jeffrey Towler

wheelhorse said:


> We are two pages of replies away from the record 18 pages of replies to previous Westminster threads! We can't give up now....


I don't think 100 pages would change someone we all knows mind.


----------



## Sharon Potter

And again, I ask the question of anyone here who thinks the Westminster winner is an ideal Labrador: How does this body style, so dramatically changed from the original, improve the breed for its intended purpose, field work? 

Those of you who don't like the look, please don't comment...I'd like to hear from someone who *does* like it.

I have asked this question in numerous places, and not one show person will respond with why this body style is an improvement.


----------



## Sabireley

They float better.


----------



## ndk3819

The extra layers keep em warmer in the blind. Do they make vests that big?


----------



## cakaiser

Sharon Potter said:


> And again, I ask the question of anyone here who thinks the Westminster winner is an ideal Labrador: How does this body style, so dramatically changed from the original, improve the breed for its intended purpose, field work?
> 
> Those of you who don't like the look, please don't comment...if like to hear from someone who does like it. I have asked this question in numerous places, and not one show person will respond with why this body style is an improvement.


The tails make them swim better.


----------



## ripline

They have tremendous stamina to make at least a dozen ten foot retrieves for biscuit treats!


----------



## Sharon Potter

OK, just because I was bored: I traced the outline of the Labrador breed standard illustration, outlined in brown, and then the show dog, outlined in blue, both drawn to the same scale.  You may have to click on it to enlarge.


----------



## David Maddox

Sharon Potter said:


> OK, just because I was bored: I traced the outline of the Labrador breed standard illustration, outlined in brown, and then the show dog, outlined in blue, both drawn to the same scale.  You may have to click on it to enlarge.
> 
> View attachment 17298


WOW-What a difference!!!


----------



## Mark Teahan

Wow!
That thing has thankles. 
Short story.
Was hunting the feedlot pond one afternoon. Heard shooting from the other end. Packed up and while walking to the truck, watched a guy throwing stuff into the pond for a black blob to retrieve.
Got to my truck, got binos out, and was watching him start to leave with dead birds still on the water.....
Long story short.
He had a borrowed from a friend, show pig!
Trap cleaned up the birds, and show pig, tried to pic up the goose and couldn't get its short muzzle around the goose to pick it up.
The guy was embarrassed to say the least.
He asked if Trap could pose for a trophy pic. He texted me this pic.
I have no super super dog, but at least He retrieves, handles,and doesn't look like a black pig rooting around.


----------



## luvalab

Sharon Potter said:


> And again, I ask the question of anyone here who thinks the Westminster winner is an ideal Labrador: How does this body style, so dramatically changed from the original, improve the breed for its intended purpose, field work?
> 
> Those of you who don't like the look, please don't comment...I'd like to hear from someone who *does* like it.
> 
> I have asked this question in numerous places, and not one show person will respond with why this body style is an improvement.


I am going to ignore your command to not comment... Sorry, can't help myself.

I definitely do NOT like the look--but it's because it's a (purposely-bred, living) _caricature _of a Lab.

Even the lean-macine Labs that have a pleasing Lab face have a touch of "smooshiness" to them... It's been caricatured through breeding. There's a touch of care-free lolling gait in a relaxed Lab of any type and weight--caricatured, plus pounds added. They are more square, solid, "bench-shaped" (and some Lab service dogs are taught, Ive been told, to stand solid/staunched as support in emergencies)--and that aspect is emphasized as well. And so on.

i can see how over time, competing for looks, what makes a Lab look like a Lab, especially to those who love some of the _je ne sais quoi _of the breed ("shmooshy-faced" is not in the standard!), gets distorted.

I don't like the look--but I sort of get it.


----------



## Buzz

Sharon Potter said:


> Here's a comparison: Breed standard illustration compared to the Westminster Best of Breed.
> 
> View attachment 17239
> View attachment 17240


OK, I don't know the proper terminology. but look at the length of leg compared to hight from elbow to whiter in the illustration. Now make the same measurement on the dog in the picture. Astounding...

Edit: Sharon, I just saw your post #161. Your drawing says it a lot better than I could in words. Again, the fact that this is what show judges are rewarding is astounding... What a disservice they are doing to the breed.


----------



## kelrobin

What distresses me are the terms some of you are using to describe this dog. "Show pig"? "Black thing"? Really? Whatever happened to if you don't have something nice to say, then don't say it? Discuss the breed, but honestly, using the nasty, hateful terms is unnecessary. Put yourself in the owners' shoes. How would you feel?

If you can't relate, how about your dog just nailed all of its marks at the Master National. You are stoked and walking on air. You are fist pumping, high fiving anyone and everyone around you. Some clod mentions how your dog has an ugly head, or a nose that could pick locks, or something just as hateful. What a buzzkill. You'd be hurt, you'd be angry and rightfully so.

Isn't it enough to just say that you like a different type of dog and let it go at that?


----------



## HPL

I know that several have said it before, but the thing that really appalls me is how carrying around all that weight affects the dog's total health. Even if one were to put it on a diet and exercise regimen, it's life has probably already been shortened. Very sad.


----------



## Sharon Potter

kelrobin said:


> What distresses me are the terms some of you are using to describe this dog. "Show pig"? "Black thing"? Really? Whatever happened to if you don't have something nice to say, then don't say it? Discuss the breed, but honestly, using the nasty, hateful terms is unnecessary. Put yourself in the owners' shoes. How would you feel?
> 
> If you can't relate, how about your dog just nailed all of its marks at the Master National. You are stoked and walking on air. You are fist pumping, high fiving anyone and everyone around you. Some clod mentions how your dog has an ugly head, or a nose that could pick locks, or something just as hateful. What a buzzkill. You'd be hurt, you'd be angry and rightfully so.
> 
> Isn't it enough to just say that you like a different type of dog and let it go at that?


I do agree with the name calling. I'm guilty of two: years back it was "pigador" and currently "flabrador". 

While I will apologize for that (and should!) I will not apologize for the lack of form to function, poor structure, and extreme weight some of these dogs carry. These dogs are supposed to represent the epitome of what a Labrador should look like...an active, hard working field dog....and they don't. There are, and were at Westminster, some lovely dogs that meet the breed standard, yet were overlooked and the top award given to a dog that looks very little like the breed standard, and literally rolled when it moved.

I hear over and over that breeders are supposed to "improve the breed". Yet no one will tell me why this type of dog is an improvement in a sporting dog. What, exactly, about short legs, short muzzle, chest well below the elbows, overly long body and overweight says "better in the field" than the breed standard type of dog?

I am not arguing that all field dogs are better....there are some that are pretty darned homely, wiry and funky looking. But there are a lot more that meet the standard quite well, and are able to do the job they were bred to do.


----------



## Jeffrey Towler

kelrobin said:


> What distresses me are the terms some of you are using to describe this dog. "Show pig"? "Black thing"? Really? Whatever happened to if you don't have something nice to say, then don't say it? Discuss the breed, but honestly, using the nasty, hateful terms is unnecessary. Put yourself in the owners' shoes. How would you feel?
> 
> If you can't relate, how about your dog just nailed all of its marks at the Master National. You are stoked and walking on air. You are fist pumping, high fiving anyone and everyone around you. Some clod mentions how your dog has an ugly head, or a nose that could pick locks, or something just as hateful. What a buzzkill. You'd be hurt, you'd be angry and rightfully so.
> 
> Isn't it enough to just say that you like a different type of dog and let it go at that?


If I have done the name calling, which I don't think I have, I am sorry.


----------



## shawninthesticks

kelrobin said:


> What distresses me are the terms some of you are using to describe this dog. "Show pig"? "Black thing"? Really? Whatever happened to if you don't have something nice to say, then don't say it? Discuss the breed, but honestly, using the nasty, hateful terms is unnecessary. Put yourself in the owners' shoes. How would you feel?
> 
> If you can't relate, how about your dog just nailed all of its marks at the Master National. You are stoked and walking on air. You are fist pumping, high fiving anyone and everyone around you. Some clod mentions how your dog has an ugly head, or a nose that could pick locks, or something just as hateful. What a buzzkill. You'd be hurt, you'd be angry and rightfully so.
> 
> Isn't it enough to just say that you like a different type of dog and let it go at that?




Is it better if the dog is called "husky", "fluffy" what ever makes it not so offensive ? The dog is fat and unhealthy no matter what way you say it ,and shame on all involved in making this look the "best in show", including owners ,judges, breeders and handlers. This is a poor representation of the breed. These dogs are breed to do one thing ,look good and thats its. Which they are not even close to the breed standard ,unless your trying to morph them into a solid color Rottweiler.


----------



## Mark Teahan

It is what it is..
Its appalling to me when someone asks me what breed of dog I have or if its a mixed lab, because they think a lab is supposed to look like that show thing.


----------



## AllAroundLab

Can't we all just agree that the public doesn't know what a lab looks like one way or the other. I find that people question what the breed is on show bred labs just as often field bred. Had someone at Home Depot tell me my girl must be half boxer, lol. I will say that the photo perspective,and in coat versus out of coat does make a difference, same dog out of coat and in coat, no she is not fattened up for showing. She has 3 show points and would probably have more if I showed her as often as most serious show people do. 

Perspective of the photo makes so much difference. I will say that some of the dogs I saw at Lab Nationals were MORE overdone than their photos would suggest. Pretty tasteless to rag on one particular Lab/owner though, IMO.


----------



## Jeffrey Towler

I know we have been focusing on the look of the show lab/ field lab differences. I would like to also say, the drive to retrieve seems to be bred out of the show labs. I did not say it is nonexistent , it just no where near where it should be.also the ability to be trained to a high standard, under pressure could be lost.
Before its to late, the show breeders need to get field blood back into there labs.


----------



## windycanyon

Jeffrey Towler said:


> I know we have been focusing on the look of the show lab/ field lab differences. I would like to also say, the drive to retrieve seems to be bred out of the show labs. I did not say it is nonexistent , it just no where near where it should be.also the ability to be trained to a high standard, under pressure could be lost.
> Before its to late, the show breeders need to get field blood back into there labs.


Jeffrey, 
There are still some show bred labs w/ very nice drive (AllAroundLab's is a nice example of that), but it's getting harder and harder to find the studs these days. I am doing some field breedings now and then. My most "show bred" girls are ~15/16 (~94%) show. Sonya, one of these "show" girls, is, imo, VERY typey (and PS-- I am sure that EVERY set of judges we ran JH under THOUGHT she was going to be a PIG at the test and WHAM, as soon as they said "dog" (or the number) she blasted off and they turned and said WOW, didn't expect THAT! LOL). 

Anyhow, I bred her to a field stud (QAA MH) for her last litter that just went out last weekend. So some of us ARE doing that... mainly because we are running out of viable options in the show lines at this point. I don't think anyone would argue that these pups' outlines below are outside the breed standard (though yellow and a boy was a little longer in body than I'd like-- but all had nice functional structure). Here is a video clip of the one pup w/ her pigeon-- I think I like their desire too though we need to work on that delivery w/ this one!  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10202482536099130&saved


----------



## David Maddox

Kelrobin,

With all due respect. People bash on public forums. It's good that RTF tries to limit the negative criticism, but if one has thin skin, they really need not venture into debates on public forums.

The show vs field issue has been debated for many years now. Back in the early 2000s I just happened to share a public training facility with a few really nice show people, 2 that were working on their JHs and another working on completing a Senior title. Once I got to know them well enough, out came the trash talk. I constantly heard about field bred dogs that look like "greyhounds" or "big Terriers" and the their structural issues. Now let me tell you, I too like a good looking dog, and my girls received compliments on their looks daily. Even one of the show snobs (that's what I jokingly called them) would even comment on how my bitch was a "great looking athlete". 

Finally, one day one of the gals decided that she was going to give me a history lesson on the Labrador Retriever. I politely walked over to my truck and pulled out my LRC book on the History of the Labrador Retriever and started showing them pictures of past Champions and Dual Champions. It was kind of funny, how for months, I was the one taking all of the BS without taking it very seriously (not the norm for me-LOL). Finally, I'd had enough. It was SO funny how many of the Dual Champions looked more like my dogs than theirs. I'd never heard so many excuses from grown people. Their reasoning finally got down to the fact that the LRC and AKC had made type changes during the 1980s. I was like "WTH", people can just decide when to change a nearly 100 year old conformation of a fantastic sporting dog-REALLY?!?!?!

I have a feeling that if I were to venture over to any of the sites dominated by show Lab folks and posted a photo of some of the past National Field Champions, the "type" critics would come crawling out of the walls. Believe me, the field Labs would get bashed!!! It's a shame, but people bash on public forums.







kelrobin said:


> What distresses me are the terms some of you are using to describe this dog. "Show pig"? "Black thing"? Really? Whatever happened to if you don't have something nice to say, then don't say it? Discuss the breed, but honestly, using the nasty, hateful terms is unnecessary. Put yourself in the owners' shoes. How would you feel?
> 
> If you can't relate, how about your dog just nailed all of its marks at the Master National. You are stoked and walking on air. You are fist pumping, high fiving anyone and everyone around you. Some clod mentions how your dog has an ugly head, or a nose that could pick locks, or something just as hateful. What a buzzkill. You'd be hurt, you'd be angry and rightfully so.
> 
> Isn't it enough to just say that you like a different type of dog and let it go at that?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

One could argue animal abuse.

/Paul


----------



## Jeffrey Towler

windycanyon said:


> Jeffrey,
> There are still some show bred labs w/ very nice drive (AllAroundLab's is a nice example of that), but it's getting harder and harder to find the studs these days. I am doing some field breedings now and then. My most "show bred" girls are ~15/16 (~94%) show. Sonya, one of these "show" girls, is, imo, VERY typey. I bred her to a field stud (QAA MH) for her last litter that just went out last weekend. So some of us ARE doing that... mainly because we are running out of viable options in the show lines at this point. I don't think anyone would argue that these pups' outlines below are outside the breed standard (though yellow and a boy was a little longer in body than I'd like-- but all had nice functional structure). Here is a video clip of the one pup w/ her pigeon-- I think I like their desire too though we need to work on that delivery w/ this one!  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10202482536099130&saved
> 
> View attachment 17321
> View attachment 17322
> View attachment 17323
> View attachment 17324



Hi

Very nice drive in pup on video. I like it!


----------



## windycanyon

Jeffrey Towler said:


> Hi
> 
> Very nice drive in pup on video. I like it!


Thanks, you could tell by the "gallery" there that puppies and pigeons are always fun at my house!!! It's my favorite part of evaluation week. And really, rates right up there along w/ health (eye checks, vet well checks) and structure. 

Oh, and here is a girl who delivered TO HEEL and SAT better than most JH dogs I've seen... LOL!!! I was happy to have another friend videoing also as she came to "nanny's heel" by complete surprise---- this was the mellowest girl in the litter! Sorry, I should start my own thread of cuteness but just want folks to know that show genes aren't all terrible either. We NEED one another, you guys!!! https://www.facebook.com/anne.swind...6484033&set=vb.100004474923051&type=2&theater


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

http://slimdoggy.com/no-wonder-a-lab-has-never-won-at-westminster/

/paul


----------



## Buzz

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> http://slimdoggy.com/no-wonder-a-lab-has-never-won-at-westminster/
> 
> /paul


Thanks for that. I couldn't help sharing it on Facebook with some choice comments. These dogs just get more extreme ever year it seems.


----------



## Jamee Strange

So I didn't get to watch the show because I was working and forgot about it and watched the video of our sporting group on the internet. I have to say, WHAT HAPPENED??!! That lab looked like a pot belly pig! How is it all the other breeds (the pointers, curlies, flat coats, and even the golden and chessie) still look like dogs that can work and the lab looks like that???? The flat coat was even a JH. I mean if those dogs can manage to maintain the standard set long ago (I did a 14 page researcher paper my senior year of HS on the various retrieving breeds and included the breed standard for each so I know a little about them) then WHY CAN'T THE LAB??! That dog is going to be seen as what a lab should look like. Besides her being a little tall/lanky, my bitch represents the standard better than that dog. Can we get back to the standard and save the lab, please? 

Sorry, rant over. I just know non-dog people who ask me why my dogs look so "skinny" or why they don't look like the Westminster show dog and I just shake my head because that's what people think a lab is/should be. It's just frustrating....:-x


----------



## Julie R.

kelrobin said:


> What distresses me are the terms some of you are using to describe this dog. "Show pig"? "Black thing"? Really? Whatever happened to if you don't have something nice to say, then don't say it? Discuss the breed, but honestly, using the nasty, hateful terms is unnecessary. Put yourself in the owners' shoes. How would you feel?


I don't have a dog in this hunt because mine are Peakes, but I didn't see much trashing of the dog itself; we'd probably all give her an ear scratch if we met her. Remember this isn't a show dog forum, it's a FIELD dog forum though we do have some members who do both. I'd lay money on the fact that if there's a similar forum for show Labs, some of our dogs would receive a similar thrashing.


----------



## HPL

Anybody know what the show lab forum is? I'd love to take a look at that and see what, if anything, they are saying about the Westminster outcome. As to what those folks might say about our dogs, when it comes to health and functionality, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Sabireley

HPL said:


> Anybody know what the show lab forum is? I'd love to take a look at that and see what, if anything, they are saying about the Westminster outcome. As to what those folks might say about our dogs, when it comes to health and functionality, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.


Here is one forum with some comments about the sporting group and the lab that won the breed. 

http://www.showdog.com/forum/read.aspx?id=379785


----------



## Dave Farrar

Here is a cut and paste from one of the lab forums. You can see from this that they like their dogs to be on the heavy side...

_"Another thought too, let the pup eat. He may be growing leaps and bounds right now and some people have the inclination to moderate their food so much (especially during teething) and the pup ends up losing bone. I understand keeping them lean to prevent joint issues, but you will have to balance that with making sure you are feeding enough to keep bone. _* So please do not listen to your vet if they tell you to keep your puppy thin."

*That sure seems like great advice. :shock:


----------



## 2tall

Thank you Dave Farrar!!! A very timely reminder, ANYONE can post on the Internet, even if their comments are criminally ignorant.


----------



## HPL

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> http://slimdoggy.com/no-wonder-a-lab-has-never-won-at-westminster/
> 
> /paul



Great site. I would encourage everyone to take a look and read some of the comments there. I have read several comments that the BOB lab has no waist. What really gets me is there is no delineation between head and neck. When a dog's collar has to be bigger than the head to fit the neck, the dog is FAT. Also, for a bit of irony, go to the link that takes you to the Lab div of the show and zoom ahead about 4 minutes. At 4:20 you will see, in the background, the human corollary to that lab. No one would say that she is a wonderful example of a fit member of her species.


----------



## Dave Farrar

HPL said:


> Also, for a bit of irony, go to the link that takes you to the Lab div of the show and zoom ahead about 4 minutes. At 4:20 you will see, in the background, the human corollary to that lab. No one would say that she is a wonderful example of a fit member of her species.


Hey wait a second, I am the male human corollary to that lab. I have substance, short legs, no tuck, and a double coat on my back (at least that's what my wife tells me). I think I'll get a blue ribbon to hang around my neck so the women will know I'm a champion from now on!


----------



## shawninthesticks

Dave Farrar said:


> Hey wait a second, I am the male human corollary to that lab. I have substance, short legs, no tuck, and a double coat on my back (at least that's what my wife tells me). I think I'll get a blue ribbon to hang around my neck so the women will know I'm a champion from now on!


Whats the maximum height? I might get a ribbon too. Plenty of "substance" here and my pedigree is a cross of Irish and German lines. With lots of BDCH titles (Beer Drinking Champions) in our lines.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Dave Farrar said:


> Hey wait a second, I am the male human corollary to that lab. I have substance, short legs, no tuck, and a double coat on my back (at least that's what my wife tells me). I think I'll get a blue ribbon to hang around my neck so the women will know I'm a champion from now on!


remember it's all in the bone...

/Paul


----------



## Dave Farrar

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> remember it's all in the bone...
> 
> /Paul


Paul, I got my wife pregnant 6 years after she had her tubes tied. I guess I am a champion! Where can I get a blue ribbon?


----------



## HPL

Dave Farrar said:


> Paul, I got my wife pregnant 6 years after she had her tubes tied. I guess I am a champion! Where can I get a blue ribbon?



So, is the doc paying child support? (I believe we have travelled a bit far afield now).


----------



## Kirk Keene

Sharon Potter said:


> Take all the extra weight off that dog and you would still have a very out of proportion dog, with short legs and a long body. Structurally unsuited for the purpose the breed is meant for.


Sharon, you took the words right out of my mouth!


----------



## Breck

How many of these bullets could a bench dog check off?


LOOKING FOR THE IDEAL DOG 
• Dog that has a “presence” on line and commands your attention. 
• Balance of natural and trained responses 
• Cool temperament (nice dog during total performance) 
• Full of keenness 
• Good Memory 
• Adaptability 
• Game finding ability/control 
• Desire to “do the right thing” 


General Appearance of Dog 
• Muscular, strong, athletic, powerful in water, endurance, stamina, 
• Efficient, active, free movement, stride, reach, long, agile, quick, flexible 
• Intelligence, versatile 
• Good temperament, stable 
• Eager, alert, confident, keen, willing to work, desire 
• Tender hold of game 
• Intelligent 
• Hunting ability, innate ability, cover ground, “birdy” 
• Balance: power/strong but elegant, smooth, coordinated 
• Responsive, trainable, tractable 
• Style, determined, desire to please 
• Courage, perseverance 
• Nose, natural ability/talent


----------



## MikeBoley

Nicole said:


> It's ok... we think the same thing at hunt tests when we look at the catalog and see "labrador retriever" yet a solid colored whippet walks to the line.
> 
> Pauli is a fabulous example of the breed and I congratulate her owners, breeder and handler, all of whom I'm thrilled to call friends.


Wonder if Nicole thinks Rosie O'Donnell is a fabulous example of a humane female as well?

This is a good read
http://slimdoggy.com/when-did-overweight-labs-become-the-new-normal/


----------



## Swack

Kirk Keene said:


> Sharon, you took the words right out of my mouth!


Kirk,

Thanks for the heads up on this thread. It took too much of my day to digest it all! I have little to add, except for a cut & paste from the Labrador Retriever standard. I've highlighted a few lines I think are relevant to this discussion, especially Sharon's observation that even without the excess weight the BOB Lab doesn't fit the proportions described in the 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 *or tall and leggy *in outline. *_Substance_--Substance and bone proportionate to the overall dog. Light, "weedy" individuals are definitely incorrect; *equally objectionable are cloddy lumbering specimens. Labrador Retrievers shall be shown in working condition well-muscled and without excess fat. 

*Maybe we should give show judges a reading comprehension test before allowing them to judge!

Swack


----------



## hotel4dogs

Can't help wondering why you didn't highlight these parts of the standard as well??? Seems to me that picking which parts of the standard people want to apply, and ignoring those that they don't, are what gets the breeds in this mess in the first place.



Swack said:


> Kirk,
> 
> Thanks for the heads up on this thread. It took too much of my day to digest it all! I have little to add, except for a cut & paste from the Labrador Retriever standard. I've highlighted a few lines I think are relevant to this discussion, especially Sharon's observation that even without the excess weight the BOB Lab doesn't fit the proportions described in the 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 **or tall and leggy* *in outline. *_Substance_--Substance and bone proportionate to the overall dog.* Light, "weedy" individuals are definitely incorrect;* *equally objectionable are cloddy lumbering specimens. Labrador Retrievers shall be shown in working condition well-muscled and without excess fat.
> 
> *Maybe we should give show judges a reading comprehension test before allowing them to judge!
> 
> Swack


----------



## Sharon Potter

I don't think he was ignoring anything. He highlighted the part that referred to the particular dog being discussed. Feel free to post a picture and highlight any parts you'd like...it's all good discussion.


----------



## hotel4dogs

And I didn't mean to pick on him personally, I'm sorry if it came across that way. Just making a comment that whenever anyone ignores parts of the standard to suit their purpose, in any breed, it's not a good thing for the breeds. To be honest, I read it fast and missed the part about the BOB dog completely, sorry. 
That said, I do stand by my statement that picking and choosing which part of the standard you want to follow is not good for the breed, regardless of which side of the fence is doing it. The most guilty, in my opinion, tend to be the people who breed for money and not anything else, not to excel in any venue, just to sell a lot of puppies. JMO.




Sharon Potter said:


> I don't think he was ignoring anything. He highlighted the part that referred to the particular dog being discussed. Feel free to post a picture and highlight any parts you'd like...it's all good discussion.


----------



## Sharon Potter

Barb, I agree. I guess the question I have is this: What is the purpose of a dog show?


----------



## Breck

im gonna put this specimen up against whatever that dog is..


----------



## hotel4dogs

The purpose of a dog show is *supposed to be* to pick those dogs which are closest to the breed standard, for breeding purposes. No more, no less. That's why only intact males and females can be entered in breed shows. We all tend to think our dogs are a great representation of what we think the breed ought to look like, so instead you get a set of independent, allegedly unbiased opinions as to whether or not your dog is a good representation of the breed. Originally the shows were "benched" (hence the term bench champion), where the dogs were required to stay on display through the entire show in their grooming area, so that people could view and compare the various dogs, talk to the breeders, and so on. There are very few benched shows remaining in the US (Chicago's big IKC show, Detroit's show, Westminster are the only ones that come to mind). 
The parent club writes up a standard for their breed. AKC has nothing to do with the breed standards. The standard is supposed to reflect the purpose for which the breed was originally bred. But again, that comes from the parent club, not the AKC. So if the parent club says that all Labradors should be silver, then the judges have to excuse all labradors that aren't silver, whether or not the judge thinks Labradors should be silver. Those are called "disqualifying faults", again as defined by the parent club. Golden Retriever Club of America defines overbite/underbite as disqualifying for Goldens, and also more than 1 inch over or under standard height as disqualifying, those dogs are to be excused from the ring without competing. Other parent clubs have different faults that they consider as disqualifying. 
The judges have to go through a selection and education process whereby they learn the breed standard for the breeds they are licensed to judge. They go into the ring with a "blueprint" of the ideal Golden Retriever, to use an example, in their mind. They pick the dog that comes closest to that ideal on that day as the winning dog. The dogs have to earn a certain number of points, including "major wins" (as versus minor wins) in which they defeat a larger number of other dogs, that number is defined by how popular the breed is. For Goldens, you have to defeat at least 21 other dogs at least twice to get your two "major wins". So if your dog has been selected as the best dog there, over at least 21 other dogs at least twice, plus over a few dogs a bunch of other times, you probably have a pretty good representation of the breed.
When the dog shows became a sport rather than selecting good breeding stock is probably when things started to decline. A lot of people started to breed dogs for the sole purpose of winning in the show ring, rather than as the best possible breeding stock (which would also take into account things like temperament, trainability, working abilities, and so on). 
Judging is problematic. At many of the all breed shows, the judges have to judge 30 different breeds. I assure you they have no idea what an ideal Golden should look like, so they pick the flashiest dogs with the longest coats. For this, the fault lies with the hosting club, AND the parent club. GRCA seems to be making a fantastic effort to educate the judges in the Golden ring, and we've seen a very encouraging swing back to the moderate, athletic Golden in recent years. The hosting clubs should try to hire "breeder judges" (not someone just licensed to judge, but also who has actively bred the breed for many years) for the bigger shows so that they at least understand the function of the dog they are judging. Labradors and Goldens are among the biggest entries all the time, it would be in the club's best interest to hire judges who know how to judge them. 
Some judges are poorly educated, and they start "putting up" (giving the win to) dogs who aren't truly to the standard. Breeders see what's winning in the ring, and in the quest to have the "winningest dog", they start breeding for those traits. It becomes a vicious cycle. In too many cases, it's a sport rather than a breeding tool. 
Judges simply need to stop rewarding dogs who don't meet the standard. The parent clubs need to come down on the judges who are doing it. The host clubs need to come down on those judges by refusing to hire them to judge any more. 
By the same token, I would question what the purpose of a hunt test is? Now don't get me wrong, I think they're great fun, it's an awesome sport, but I ask the same question? What's the purpose? 
JMO, I think the biggest difference is that people who do hunt tests seem to realize that it's pretty much just a sport done for fun, whereas people who enter dog shows tend to think it means a whole lot, probably because it used to. Not so much any more. Except in the case when the wins are well respected breeder judges.
My boy is a CH with some huge major wins, but to be honest I found the GRCA's conformation assessment to be a whole lot more valuable in making breeding decisions than his time in the show ring, and I think the parent clubs need to stress those as an alternate, and probably preferable, method of evaluating breeding stock. Let the shows continue to be a fun sport, and encourage the conformation assessments instead for breeding decisions.
There are a lot of CH dogs who can't pass a conformation assessment. They should not be bred.
Sorry, I ramble. A topic dear to my heart.


----------



## hotel4dogs

That's a perfect case where a conformation assessment would be a much better choice than the breed ring. At least in the case of Goldens, it's done by 3 *judges* (of which 2 are licensed to judge in the breed ring, generally are long time Golden breeders, and the other is a long time breeder) representing both the field world and the show world. They score the dog on a scale of 1 to 10 on pretty much every physical attribute you can think of, and a minor temperament test. So you get very valuable information about the dog's strengths and weaknesses from 3 unbiased parties, in writing. 
It's not for people with an ego problem about their dog. If you don't want to be told your dog is "slightly lacking in forechest" or "a bit too straight in the rear", don't go. If you can't hear that "the shoulders need a little more lay back" or "the coat isn't correct" (Breck I am NOT NOT referring to your dog here, just giving examples), stay home. But it's great information for breeding, so that you don't double up on a weakness. 
Rambling again.




Breck said:


> im gonna put this specimen up against whatever that dog is..
> View attachment 17359


----------



## Sharon Potter

A dog show is to choose the dog that best meets the breed standard *as written by the parent club*. That's its sole purpose. 

This thread is about dogs meeting the breed standard at dog shows. Let's not play the game of trying to find fault with something completely different to redirect attention away from the topic.  If you'd like to discuss the purpose of hunt tests, how about starting a thread about it?


----------



## Swack

hotel4dogs said:


> The purpose of a dog show is *supposed to be* to pick those dogs which are closest to the breed standard, for breeding purposes. No more, no less. That's why only intact males and females can be entered in breed shows. We all tend to think our dogs are a great representation of what we think the breed ought to look like, so instead you get a set of independent, allegedly unbiased opinions as to whether or not your dog is a good representation of the breed. Originally the shows were "benched" (hence the term bench champion), where the dogs were required to stay on display through the entire show in their grooming area, so that people could view and compare the various dogs, talk to the breeders, and so on. There are very few benched shows remaining in the US (Chicago's big IKC show, Detroit's show, Westminster are the only ones that come to mind).
> The parent club writes up a standard for their breed. AKC has nothing to do with the breed standards. The standard is supposed to reflect the purpose for which the breed was originally bred. But again, that comes from the parent club, not the AKC. So if the parent club says that all Labradors should be silver, then the judges have to excuse all labradors that aren't silver, whether or not the judge thinks Labradors should be silver. Those are called "disqualifying faults", again as defined by the parent club. Golden Retriever Club of America defines overbite/underbite as disqualifying for Goldens, and also more than 1 inch over or under standard height as disqualifying, those dogs are to be excused from the ring without competing. Other parent clubs have different faults that they consider as disqualifying.
> The judges have to go through a selection and education process whereby they learn the breed standard for the breeds they are licensed to judge. They go into the ring with a "blueprint" of the ideal Golden Retriever, to use an example, in their mind. They pick the dog that comes closest to that ideal on that day as the winning dog. The dogs have to earn a certain number of points, including "major wins" (as versus minor wins) in which they defeat a larger number of other dogs, that number is defined by how popular the breed is. For Goldens, you have to defeat at least 21 other dogs at least twice to get your two "major wins". So if your dog has been selected as the best dog there, over at least 21 other dogs at least twice, plus over a few dogs a bunch of other times, you probably have a pretty good representation of the breed.
> When the dog shows became a sport rather than selecting good breeding stock is probably when things started to decline. A lot of people started to breed dogs for the sole purpose of winning in the show ring, rather than as the best possible breeding stock (which would also take into account things like temperament, trainability, working abilities, and so on).
> Judging is problematic. At many of the all breed shows, the judges have to judge 30 different breeds. I assure you they have no idea what an ideal Golden should look like, so they pick the flashiest dogs with the longest coats. For this, the fault lies with the hosting club, AND the parent club. GRCA seems to be making a fantastic effort to educate the judges in the Golden ring, and we've seen a very encouraging swing back to the moderate, athletic Golden in recent years. The hosting clubs should try to hire "breeder judges" (not someone just licensed to judge, but also who has actively bred the breed for many years) for the bigger shows so that they at least understand the function of the dog they are judging. Labradors and Goldens are among the biggest entries all the time, it would be in the club's best interest to hire judges who know how to judge them.
> Some judges are poorly educated, and they start "putting up" (giving the win to) dogs who aren't truly to the standard. Breeders see what's winning in the ring, and in the quest to have the "winningest dog", they start breeding for those traits. It becomes a vicious cycle. In too many cases, it's a sport rather than a breeding tool.
> Judges simply need to stop rewarding dogs who don't meet the standard. The parent clubs need to come down on the judges who are doing it. The host clubs need to come down on those judges by refusing to hire them to judge any more.
> By the same token, I would question what the purpose of a hunt test is? Now don't get me wrong, I think they're great fun, it's an awesome sport, but I ask the same question? What's the purpose?
> JMO, I think the biggest difference is that people who do hunt tests seem to realize that it's pretty much just a sport done for fun, whereas people who enter dog shows tend to think it means a whole lot, probably because it used to.
> My boy is a CH with some huge major wins, but to be honest I found the GRCA's conformation assessment to be a whole lot more valuable in making breeding decisions than his time in the show ring, and I think the parent clubs need to stress those as an alternate, and probably preferable, method of evaluating breeding stock. Let the shows continue to be a fun sport, and encourage the conformation assessments instead for breeding decisions.
> Sorry, I ramble. A topic dear to my heart.


Barb,

Sorry I was late to the dance. I was a little surprised after 20 pages of discussion, primarily about a show dog, that there had been no post which included _anything _from the standard. Additionally, I quoted Kirk's post who was referring to Sharron's post in which she stated that even without the excess weight the dog was not in proper proportion. I understand why you could have thought I was cherry-picking the parts of the standard that offended me, but I wasn't. I was just highlighting the portions I felt related to Sharron's post which I quoted "Once Removed". Sorry for the confusion.

I don't ignore the rest of the standard. I find the other extreme equally offensive. I'm trying to breed field Labs who have what I consider to be proper conformation for a working retriever. There are still some moderate field bred Labs out there that do a fair job of representing the standard's original intent. I may not have enough life times to accomplish all of my goals, but the effort is rewarding. 

Your ramble is excused. I understand your passion.

May I state my definition of the purpose of a dog show, at least originally? A Dog Show is simply to recognize the dog who most closely exemplifies the standard. May I add that the standard is supposed to describe the traits which are needed for the dog to perform his intended purpose. Putting these two factors together, a dog show is supposed to identify the Lab that is best suited, physically and temperamentally (as best as can be determined in a show ring) to do the job a Labrador retriever is intended to perform. The titles earned through such recognition should recommend the dog for use in breeding to reproduce Labs that are suited for hunting.

We know that most field Lab breeders aren't focusing on breeding a dog that meets the standard. But isn't that the primary focus, if not the sole focus of show breeders? If so, why is it that they often miss the mark so far? A rhetorical question. I know many of the causes have been enumerated on this thread. I just think it's sad. In the interest of fairness, I think some of the field bred Labs are also sad.

Swack


----------



## crackerd

Speaking of rambling - and conformation wrecks - here's something that struck me as *a lovely parable for this thread*. And geez, on top of that, Danica 










was nowhere in the vicinity when it happened... 

MG


----------



## hotel4dogs

So well said, thanks.





Swack said:


> Barb,
> 
> Sorry I was late to the dance. I was a little surprised after 20 pages of discussion, primarily about a show dog, that there had been no post which included _anything _from the standard. Additionally, I quoted Kirk's post who was referring to Sharron's post in which she stated that even without the excess weight the dog was not in proper proportion. I understand why you could have thought I was cherry-picking the parts of the standard that offended me, but I wasn't. I was just highlighting the portions I felt related to Sharron's post which I quoted "Once Removed". Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> I don't ignore the rest of the standard. I find the other extreme equally offensive. I'm trying to breed field Labs who have what I consider to be proper conformation for a working retriever. There are still some moderate field bred Labs out there that do a fair job of representing the standard's original intent. I may not have enough life times to accomplish all of my goals, but the effort is rewarding.
> 
> Your ramble is excused. I understand your passion.
> 
> May I state my definition of the purpose of a dog show, at least originally? A Dog Show is simply to recognize the dog who most closely exemplifies the standard. May I add that the standard is supposed to describe the traits which are needed for the dog to perform his intended purpose. Putting these two factors together, a dog show is supposed to identify the Lab that is best suited, physically and temperamentally (as best as can be determined in a show ring) to do the job a Labrador retriever is intended to perform. The titles earned through such recognition should recommend the dog for use in breeding to reproduce Labs that are suited for hunting.
> 
> We know that most field Lab breeders aren't focusing on breeding a dog that meets the standard. But isn't that the primary focus, if not the sole focus of show breeders? If so, why is it that they often miss the mark so far? A rhetorical question. I know many of the causes have been enumerated on this thread. I just think it's sad. In the interest of fairness, I think some of the field bred Labs are also sad.
> 
> Swack


----------



## hotel4dogs

I guess I need to shut up as I am obviously not making my thoughts clear. I didn't want to find fault with hunt tests, nor direct attention away from the topic. I wanted to comment that dog shows have become nothing more than a sport, rather than fulfilling their original purpose. Apparently I didn't express that very well.



Sharon Potter said:


> A dog show is to choose the dog that best meets the breed standard *as written by the parent club*. That's its sole purpose.
> 
> This thread is about dogs meeting the breed standard at dog shows. Let's not play the game of trying to find fault with something completely different to redirect attention away from the topic.  If you'd like to discuss the purpose of hunt tests, how about starting a thread about it?


----------



## gdgnyc

Interestingly, Westminister was started by "sporting gentlemen (who) used to meet in a bar to drink and lie about their shooting accomplishments". The first show was covered and reported by FOREST AND STREAM magazine. Sporting men started this. Sporting dogs shown were working dogs. Today it is different.

See link

http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/about/history.html


----------



## Sharon Potter

hotel4dogs said:


> I guess I need to shut up as I am obviously not making my thoughts clear. I didn't want to find fault with hunt tests, nor direct attention away from the topic. I wanted to comment that dog shows have become nothing more than a sport, rather than fulfilling their original purpose. Apparently I didn't express that very well.


That wasn't my intention, and I apologize if I've offended you. I appreciate your passion for what you're doing and I do see your viewpoint. It's just that every time the conformation stuff is brought up, folks who exhibit strictly in conformation immediately try to deflect the topic to what the field dogs do and look like, rather than addressing the real issue of how much the show Lab has morphed into something it was never intended to be. The field dogs aren't the ones who are supposed to set the example for what a breed is supposed to look like...that's the conformation dogs. 

While I will say that there are many events I would consider a sport....from obedience to agility to the myriad of other things dogs do at shows....conformation is most certainly not a sport, as there is zero athletic ability involved outside of a very short jog. It is better compared to a beauty pageant. I cringe every time I hear that Westminster announcer or anyone else mention "the sport of purebred dogs". Purebred dogs in itself is not a sport...it's the cool skill sets and things they do that qualify as a sport. 

Here's my question now: How do we get the conformation dogs back to the breed standard? Is it up to the judges? Are there enough competent judges who will stand up for what the breed is supposed to look and function like? Or is it a lost cause and the show Labrador is going the way of the Standard Poodle and the Springer and the American Cocker and will continue to deteriorate until it is no longer recognizable as a sporting breed in the show ring?


----------



## EdA

Sharon, Don't forget the Irish Setter


----------



## hotel4dogs

I agree that beauty pageant is a better description of what conformation has morphed into rather than sport.

As for your question, I think that is the most productive thing people can do is to try to figure out realistically how to change things. There are no easy answers, but in my opinion the change has to come from the rank and file. (Rhetorical question coming up) How many are members of LRCA, and after the debacle at Westminster wrote/called/emailed the board of LRCA to express their dismay at what the BOB lab looked like? The membership of LRCA needs to let the parent club know how upset they are with the direction the breed has taken in the conformation ring. The LRCA is the ultimate authority on what is happening. 
If enough people raise hell with LRCA, perhaps they will begin to address the issue by educating the judges as to how to judge a labrador, and educate the clubs as to how to select judges who know what a labrador should look like. The parent clubs are responsible for educating the judges. 
People will breed for what wins in the ring. If the judges are educated as to what a proper Labrador should be, and then pressured to judge accordingly by not getting any judging assignments otherwise, perhaps the Labradors can start to swing back a more realistic dog for their function.
There has been progress in the conformation Goldens that way. Plus some very strong advocates for the breed, a few of whom are members of this forum. 




Sharon Potter said:


> That wasn't my intention, and I apologize if I've offended you. I appreciate your passion for what you're doing and I do see your viewpoint. It's just that every time the conformation stuff is brought up, folks who exhibit strictly in conformation immediately try to deflect the topic to what the field dogs do and look like, rather than addressing the real issue of how much the show Lab has morphed into something it was never intended to be. The field dogs aren't the ones who are supposed to set the example for what a breed is supposed to look like...that's the conformation dogs.
> 
> While I will say that there are many events I would consider a sport....from obedience to agility to the myriad of other things dogs do at shows....conformation is most certainly not a sport, as there is zero athletic ability involved outside of a very short jog. It is better compared to a beauty pageant. I cringe every time I hear that Westminster announcer or anyone else mention "the sport of purebred dogs". Purebred dogs in itself is not a sport...it's the cool skill sets and things they do that qualify as a sport.
> 
> Here's my question now: How do we get the conformation dogs back to the breed standard? Is it up to the judges? Are there enough competent judges who will stand up for what the breed is supposed to look and function like? Or is it a lost cause and the show Labrador is going the way of the Standard Poodle and the Springer and the American Cocker and will continue to deteriorate until it is no longer recognizable as a sporting breed in the show ring?


----------



## labguy

EdA said:


> Sharon, Don't forget the Irish Setter


Probably the best example of intelligence, ability, and instinct being bred out of an animal for the sake of the show ring.


----------



## Sharon Potter

EdA said:


> Sharon, Don't forget the Irish Setter


Another great example of what breeding for hair and overdone features can do.  Let's see how narrow we can make the skull, and how long the hair can grow. 

I'm glad to see that a few breeds are getting back toward functionality, like Barb mentioned with the Goldens. I love seeing a dog that looks like it could do its job in the field, like this year's Golden at Westminster. Some English Setters are heading that way too, with owners working toward show and field with some success. One that really makes me laugh is when they say the haircut on a standard poodle comes from the days when it needed to retrieve, to keep the joints warm. How about leaving all the hair and keeping the whole dog warm?


----------



## Jeffrey Towler

labguy said:


> Probably the best example of intelligence, ability, and instinct being bred out of an animal for the sake of the show ring.


The show bred English Springer Spaniel  is right there with show bred Irish Setter.


----------



## Steve Amrein

I will repeat this but not give out the name of the owner. A person who is in to Goldens does field show and agility work. He went to one ot the Golden specialties and along with other stuff had entered a dog to get its confirmation certificate. The dog failed. The dog went on to get quite a few show ribbons, Dont know if it made CH.


----------



## windycanyon

Sharon Potter said:


> Another great example of what breeding for hair and overdone features can do.  Let's see how narrow we can make the skull, and how long the hair can grow.
> 
> I'm glad to see that a few breeds are getting back toward functionality, like Barb mentioned with the Goldens. I love seeing a dog that looks like it could do its job in the field, like this year's Golden at Westminster. Some English Setters are heading that way too, with owners working toward show and field with some success. One that really makes me laugh is when they say the haircut on a standard poodle comes from the days when it needed to retrieve, to keep the joints warm. How about leaving all the hair and keeping the whole dog warm?


Just a side note, but that poodle looked crazed in the eyes. Who on earth would want to run out and buy one after seeing that? I agree, that cut is completely ridiculous.


----------



## Dan Storts

The American Border Collie Association fought against akc recognition for years and finally lost in 1995. They still feel it will distroy their true quality and working instinct. Still a lot of the working breeders have kept their stick from being registered with the akc.


----------



## Kirk Keene

Dan Storts said:


> The American Border Collie Association fought against akc recognition for years and finally lost in 1995. They still feel it will distroy their true quality and working instinct. Still a lot of the working breeders have kept their stick from being registered with the akc.


If I'm not mistaken, a group of Boykin breeders did the same thing. Any Boykin folks out there want to verify this for me?


----------



## Kirk Keene

Here's a shot of Ch. June of Sandylands. I believe she was whelped in the late 1930's. She is my favorite representation of female Labrador type, as set forth by the breed Standard.


----------



## crackerd

Dan Storts said:


> Still a lot of the working breeders have kept their *stick* from being registered with the akc.


What kind of stick, working stick or walking stick - or










both?

Many Boykins are registered with AKC now if for no other reason than the opportunity to compete in AKC retriever hunt tests (and spaniel HTs for those few who want to have themselves a cakewalk). They're dual registered with the Boykin Spaniel Society, which most still see as the true parent club for the breed.

MG


----------



## EdA

Dan Storts said:


> The American Border Collie Association fought against akc recognition for years and finally lost in 1995. They still feel it will distroy their true quality and working instinct. Still a lot of the working breeders have kept their stick from being registered with the akc.


Jack Russell Terrier Club of America also opposed recognition as show breeders tend to homogenize a breed, the Jack Russell Terrier comes in multiple shapes and colors. The AKC could not steal the breed name hence the AKC name Parson Russell Terrier.


----------



## Sharon Potter

EdA said:


> Jack Russell Terrier Club of America also opposed recognition as show breeders tend to homogenize a breed, the Jack Russell Terrier comes in multiple shapes and colors. The AKC could not steal the breed name hence the AKC name Parson Russell Terrier.



AKC now has two: The Parson Russell, and the Russell. The Parsons are the leggier version, while the Russells...at least for now....are recognizable as what we're all familiar with. They haven't been in AKC shows long enough to morph.


----------



## Glenda Brown

Hi Barb:

The LRC Board is well aware of the comments being made about Westminster and have seen the majority of the comments made on this forum. All letters sent to them about the subject are read, and in many cases, discussed. 

As you stated, they need more breeder-judges rather than all breed judges to start being used to begin meeting the standard in the conformatioin ring. Also, like the GRCA is doing, get good examples of field labs shown together with conformation labs at judges' seminars. Go over dogs actually in hard working condition so you know what muscles really feel like. Have the conformation judges attend field trials/hunt tests with competent mentors answering their questions. Take a judge hunting with you.

The LRC's Board is composed of half field trial members---all having/had titled field trial Labs, are 8 pts judges, the majority having judged a National. The other half is composed of many breeder-judges, who also compete in hunt tests and other performance events. One of the Board meetings is held during the National Amateur. They all know what a hard working, athletic dog should look like. Their dogs fit that criteria.

I think the CCA or CC (Conformation Certificate) is really helping with people knowing more about what is and what isn't good conformation. Many retrievers competing in field events are taking part in them. We have a beginning of field Champions who have them and more and more Master Hunters.

The biggest factor is getting the judges who know the Labrador (Golden, Chessie) standard as just more than written words. They know how it should be applied. Talking about it really won't be what causes the changes. The changes have to come about when Labs are not rewarded in the conformation ring if they do not physically meet the standard as well as the purpose of the standard---primarily working/hunting dogs. Field people are pragmatic, if the dog can't retrieve and do the work for which it was bred, they don't use it for breeding. There has to be some reason for people not to breed Labs (or any retriever) that cannot fulfill its original purpose whether it is being used for that or not. If they can't win in the breed ring with a grossly obese, or even overweight, dog, you will soon see some changes being made. If no one wants to buy pups from them or use their dog at stud, you will see even bigger changes made.

It won't happen overnight, but I have seen a lot of changes already in Goldens with the number of conformation people becoming involved in field work and thus wanting a Golden that can compete in both. Maybe the one they have now is not perfect for the job, but they are determined that the next one they own will be. Chessie's lead the pack with Duals.

We, as the stewards of the retriever breeds, have to be the ones to get involved and get the job done. We cannot count on the AKC --- silvers being registered as chocolates even tho the LRC is very strongly opposed to this is one example. Get people to watch Fran's video that was mentioned earlier in this thread. We need to dig out those old photos of the early breed champions---the ones that were just as much at home in the field as in the ring, and equally accomplished in both.

Glenda


----------



## Jeffrey Towler

Glenda Brown said:


> Hi Barb:
> 
> The LRC Board is well aware of the comments being made about Westminster and have seen the majority of the comments made on this forum. All letters sent to them about the subject are read, and in many cases, discussed.
> 
> As you stated, they need more breeder-judges rather than all breed judges to start being used to begin meeting the standard in the conformatioin ring. Also, like the GRCA is doing, get good examples of field labs shown together with conformation labs at judges' seminars. Go over dogs actually in hard working condition so you know what muscles really feel like. Have the conformation judges attend field trials/hunt tests with competent mentors answering their questions. Take a judge hunting with you.
> 
> The LRC's Board is composed of half field trial members---all having/had titled field trial Labs, are 8 pts judges, the majority having judged a National. The other half is composed of many breeder-judges, who also compete in hunt tests and other performance events. One of the Board meetings is held during the National Amateur. They all know what a hard working, athletic dog should look like. Their dogs fit that criteria.
> 
> I think the CCA or CC (Conformation Certificate) is really helping with people knowing more about what is and what isn't good conformation. Many retrievers competing in field events are taking part in them. We have a beginning of field Champions who have them and more and more Master Hunters.
> 
> The biggest factor is getting the judges who know the Labrador (Golden, Chessie) standard as just more than written words. They know how it should be applied. Talking about it really won't be what causes the changes. The changes have to come about when Labs are not rewarded in the conformation ring if they do not physically meet the standard as well as the purpose of the standard---primarily working/hunting dogs. Field people are pragmatic, if the dog can't retrieve and do the work for which it was bred, they don't use it for breeding. There has to be some reason for people not to breed Labs (or any retriever) that cannot fulfill its original purpose whether it is being used for that or not. If they can't win in the breed ring with a grossly obese, or even overweight, dog, you will soon see some changes being made. If no one wants to buy pups from them or use their dog at stud, you will see even bigger changes made.
> 
> It won't happen overnight, but I have seen a lot of changes already in Goldens with the number of conformation people becoming involved in field work and thus wanting a Golden that can compete in both. Maybe the one they have now is not perfect for the job, but they are determined that the next one they own will be. Chessie's lead the pack with Duals.
> 
> We, as the stewards of the retriever breeds, have to be the ones to get involved and get the job done. We cannot count on the AKC --- silvers being registered as chocolates even tho the LRC is very strongly opposed to this is one example. Get people to watch Fran's video that was mentioned earlier in this thread. We need to dig out those old photos of the early breed champions---the ones that were just as much at home in the field as in the ring, and equally accomplished in both.
> 
> Glenda


Thank you for this post. Can you post LRC address? I would like to write them a letter also.
Regards
JT


----------



## Dwayne Padgett

How about they make it "The Standard" to have a MH title in order to get a CH title ? Sounds fair!


----------



## Dazed

Like most of the opinions stated in these 23 pages, i watched Westminster sporting group, and was not thrilled with what the breed group judge chose as "representative" of the lab breed. Once again, any chance of a lab taking BIS was thrown out the window. I did go back and watch about 1 1/2 hours of Lab Breed Group judging, it was 2.23 minutes in length if i remember right. It was evident about 4 minutes in, that the judge was favorable to the body type that later represented the breed. Each time, 5-10 dogs were pulled out (out of 76 total entered)at a time and judged. I would estimate that at least 1/2 of those dogs, longer in leg, and indicative of the "Breed standard" were passed by with barely a look. It appeared that the judge was not familiar with, or maybe biased against the leaner, more athletic appearing lab. Every one of them was dismissed. 

I rarely voice my opinions, however i Emailed both westminster council, the LRC, voicing my displeasure at such a sad representation of this wonderful breed. I suggested in the future that any future judge be selected from FT, HT judging, as well as Confirmation background. In all fairness, i am a proud owner of a "Show Lab", who is seeing first hand that they are capable of doing the work labs were bred to do. But, as an admirer of all things Labrador, I believe we must all stand up for the breed, no matter what the "Type", and promote this wonderful working, loving animal, by voicing our opinions en masse to the appropriate panel, or official representatives, and get this train back on the rails.

Dazed.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Thanks Glenda. Were your ears ringing when I posted that there have been some amazing, wonderful advocates for the Goldens?


----------



## Aussie

Frankenstein.


----------



## Sharon Potter

Glenda, I'm very glad to hear this. Looking forward to seeing things happen!


----------



## Glenda Brown

Interested in contacting the Labrador Retriever Club, you can go to their web site at www.thelabradorclub.com. If you go under the heading "about LRC" you can scroll down and find how to reach various contacts. For general contact go to [email protected]. Your letter will be read, a reply will be sent, and the Board will know about it if it is on a pertinent subject. If it is asking for info re getting a pup, breeding a dog, etc. , you still will get a reply, but it won't necessarily be presented to the Board. Be sure that under subject on your e-mail it is obvious you are asking a question or wanting to discuss a subject. If it is empty or says something like "hi" or mentions Russian girls, it will not be opened! 

There are a lot of good areas on the web site you might wish to explore. Every member of the LRC Board cares deeply about the future of the Labrador Retriever. All have been actively involved with the breed for many, many years.

Glenda


----------



## windycanyon

Dazed said:


> Like most of the opinions stated in these 23 pages, i watched Westminster sporting group, and was not thrilled with what the breed group judge chose as "representative" of the lab breed. Once again, any chance of a lab taking BIS was thrown out the window. I did go back and watch about 1 1/2 hours of Lab Breed Group judging, it was 2.23 minutes in length if i remember right. It was evident about 4 minutes in, that the judge was favorable to the body type that later represented the breed. Each time, 5-10 dogs were pulled out (out of 76 total entered)at a time and judged. I would estimate that at least 1/2 of those dogs, longer in leg, and indicative of the "Breed standard" were passed by with barely a look. It appeared that the judge was not familiar with, or maybe biased against the leaner, more athletic appearing lab. Every one of them was dismissed.
> 
> I rarely voice my opinions, however i Emailed both westminster council, the LRC, voicing my displeasure at such a sad representation of this wonderful breed. I suggested in the future that any future judge be selected from FT, HT judging, as well as Confirmation background. In all fairness, i am a proud owner of a "Show Lab", who is seeing first hand that they are capable of doing the work labs were bred to do. But, as an admirer of all things Labrador, I believe we must all stand up for the breed, no matter what the "Type", and promote this wonderful working, loving animal, by voicing our opinions en masse to the appropriate panel, or official representatives, and get this train back on the rails.
> 
> Dazed.


Thank you Dazed. Without the comments from the membership, no one ever knows-- do they? We can be part of the solution... but if not, we become part of the problem. It's obvious to me why I'm a member of LRC.


----------



## MikeBoley

Nice to see after all the name calling finger pointing and other general BS it apears that all folks concerned with the future of the labrador agree that this years representative was a gross misrepresentation of the breed (Nicole and paulies owners excuded). My question is why did the LRC see the need to change the standard in the 90's? Did the previous standard not represent the breed? Hopefully some folks much more knowledgeable than myself can elaborate on why we need to continue to change a breed standard on a dog that has been the mnost popular AKC registered dog for many years?


----------



## Swack

MikeBoley said:


> Nice to see after all the name calling finger pointing and other general BS it apears that all folks concerned with the future of the labrador agree that this years representative was a gross misrepresentation of the breed (Nicole and paulies owners excuded). My question is why did the LRC see the need to change the standard in the 90's? Did the previous standard not represent the breed? Hopefully some folks much more knowledgeable than myself can elaborate on why we need to continue to change a breed standard on a dog that has been the mnost popular AKC registered dog for many years?


As I recall, one of the changes was to make more than 1/2" under or over the height in the standard (of an adult dog) a disqualification. That's when the wickets came out. And also when the show breeders who bred the English style specialty type Lab started howling like smashed cats! I don't think many judges follow this part of the standard. Why should they? They don't follow the rest of it either, for the most part.

I think the other change was that they allowed for a slight wave in the coat down the back and on the rump.

There may be other changes or my interpretations above may be incorrect. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Swack


----------



## Kirk Keene

Glenda-

Thanks so much for your post. Maybe there is hope after all!


----------



## Bridget Bodine

In my opinion the change to the standard has nothing to do with the look and weight of the show Labrador of today. If anything it may have TRIED to help by having a DQ for undersized dogs that we saw in those days.
The problem is the BIG breeders and breeder judges present their dogs in fat condition and place the same type. I feel really bad for the owner , that this years BOB winner is getting slammed all over , but it is about time we started screaming! At least take the weight off , even if you don't create an athlete structurally ...


----------



## Hunt'EmUp

It's one thing for the field lab people to whine about dogs being over-weight, they've been whining for years, (the 80's at least ) the show people do not care. When they start getting it from other sources, the other breeds, the dog health advocates, the vets, and media (all those people who like to stick their nose in), they may start to care. If they keep making the Lab the biggest Laughing stock in sporting breed, on a national stage. Then you might actually see some change, or at least the dog be transferred into the working group with the rottweilers, where it won't look as out of place .

I congratulate the Golden's a few more years of showing such dogs and we might see a golden in the final. Heck they might have a chance at the big prize. Golden's just might beat out a Labrador at something yet j/k


----------



## windycanyon

http://slimdoggy.com/when-did-overweight-labs-become-the-new-normal/

I don't think this newer article got posted but actually has some neat info in it. I had sent it to one of my vets the other day and she loved it. Today, had Sr well checks and to be honest, I held my breath as I felt the one was 2# overweight (60 instead of my preferred 58#). We talked about the depth of bodies/chest that are so en vogue. She feels those dogs are going to be at higher risk for bloat/torsion possibly. So not only are we looking at shortening life spans by 2yrs on average, how would people feel if their dogs started dropping to torsion even earlier? It just makes me sad.


----------



## Wingshooter

Good info in that article.


----------



## jenbrowndvm

windycanyon said:


> http://slimdoggy.com/when-did-overweight-labs-become-the-new-normal/
> 
> I don't think this newer article got posted but actually has some neat info in it. I had sent it to one of my vets the other day and she loved it. Today, had Sr well checks and to be honest, I held my breath as I felt the one was 2# overweight (60 instead of my preferred 58#). We talked about the depth of bodies/chest that are so en vogue. She feels those dogs are going to be at higher risk for bloat/torsion possibly. So not only are we looking at shortening life spans by 2yrs on average, how would people feel if their dogs started dropping to torsion even earlier? It just makes me sad.


I too really liked this article, posted it on my FB page as well. I think that it's root point is critical - regardless of the breed standard - that any dog carrying that much weight is unhealthy. Specific to Labradors it is especially disconcerting, considering the popularity of the breed, to promote a look (obese) that has significant physiologic and musculoskeletal impact. Such a big impact that it shortens lifespan by up to 2 years. As a veterinarian I have never understood why breeders and competitors in this area of competition would want to risk their dogs health and longevity. Not to mention the potential effects on reproduction. 

My opinion is that obesity should not be promoted in such a public way. It would be nice if the organizations governing the conformation competitions, who also emphasize the fact that they support the health of the purebred dog, would work to assure that dogs representing ANY breed are healthy, in addition to meeting breed standards. They are not ignorant of these facts - the following from the AKC website as general information for dog owners:

"Weight – A healthy dog’s weight is the result of the balance between diet and exercise. If he is getting enough nutritious food and exercise but still seems over- or underweight, he may have a health problem. Don’t let your dog get fat by giving him too many between-meal snacks; obese dogs often develop serious health problems. The best way to tell if your dog is overweight is to feel his rib-cage area. You should be able to feel the ribs below the surface of the skin without much padding."

As many have pointed out -- it all starts with the judges -- they pick the winners, and if they were selecting fit dogs instead of obese dogs then things would change. Without that fundamental change it will continue. Again as this well done editorial points out it happened in human body building. It happens with halter horses (pigs on stilts). Dogs are no exception. Sad.


----------



## HPL

What's really ironic is that while the BOB lab has been compared to a pig or a steer, due to the American public's supposed desire for healthier food and a coinciding wish for leaner meat, neither FAT pigs nor FAT cattle do well in the show ring.


----------



## Sharon Potter

They also wouldn't look so overweight if they had legs of the proper length.


----------



## crackerd

Sharon Potter said:


> They also wouldn't look so overweight if they had legs of the proper length.


That's what happens when the paradigm for "bettering the breed" is not a working Labrador retriever, 










but the Vietnamese pot-bellied pig.

MG


----------



## riskyriver

I am curious - does the LRC do anything in the way of (conformation) judge education?? If not, has it been discussed? If this was already mentioned my apologies - have not read the entire thread yet.


----------



## Glenda Brown

Re continuing Judges Education by the LRC. Yes, they do. They will be continuing to do more in that regard. 

Glenda


----------



## Terri

Today I was talking to my mom about the show Labrador because she posted a picture of her pig (her pig and the show Labrador look almost like twins) on facebook. My mom told me her pig is not fat because her stomach does not touch the ground. After viewing your posted piture I'm starting to think my mom's pig must be too tall and lanky.


Sorry to go off topic.
Terri



crackerd said:


> That's what happens when the paradigm for "bettering the breed" is not a working Labrador retriever,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but the Vietnamese pot-bellied pig.
> 
> MG


----------



## luvalab

I am NOT in any way advocating this or saying it is called for in this instance, because I just don't know enough. I don't know even how I feel about the idea.

However, I find myself wondering...


Is there any sort of sanction for a judge who awards a first place that is outside of the standards? Or is the judge the judge, and must be allowed to judge?


----------



## Swack

luvalab said:


> I am NOT in any way advocating this or saying it is called for in this instance, because I just don't know enough. I don't know even how I feel about the idea.
> 
> However, I find myself wondering...
> 
> 
> Is there any sort of sanction for a judge who awards a first place that is outside of the standards? Or is the judge the judge, and must be allowed to judge?


Greta,

I don't know the answer to your question, but I'm guessing that the judges decision is final. There may be some method of protest through AKC, but I'm not familiar with dog show protocol. 

Short of a Lynch Mob, I think the best thing to do would be to contact the LRC and voice your opinion. I think Glenda posted a link in this thread and assured us they would be read.

Swack


----------



## Glenda Brown

They are being read. The majority of the comments on this Forum have been passed on. 

Anyone seeing my dogs will know my beliefs re both Labs and Goldens being in hard working condition.

Glenda


----------



## .44 magnum

I'd like to make a comment, but first thank the RTF forum for many, many years of helpful insight. Knowing I am just a hunter and not in the game of being a professional FT. I've never felt the need to join this forum. But Westminster and the reactions got me motivated. 

There are many fine, well balanced, Show type Labradors that were either not chosen or did not participate in this years Westminster Dog Show. My thoughts are the judge had an agenda. She either likes "Typy" Labradors and chioose the most fitting to her eye(which may mean she needs her eyes examined) or she did not want a Labrador to have any chance winning the Best in Sporting Dog group. 

The opposite happened at Crufts this past year. A Panel of judges chose Loch More Romeo, a three year old Italian bred Labrador with a Sire from the States. Romeo went on to come up just short of winning Crufts, Europe's most prestigious show. Crufts uses a judge to look at the "Bitches", and another to evaluate the dogs. This year the two judges could not agree who should win best in breed and a higher ranked judge chose Romeo. Romeo is a well balanced Labrador with much muscle and plenty of air under him. Best of all he is a Showman. The bright lights and crowds bring out his best. 

Not all Show breeders are equal. There are plenty that put Balance and temperament first as well as knowing what the breed standard calls for. A certain group of breeders from Michigan have "Over done" Labradors and have gained influence over what the judges put up for winners. The "Typy" Labrador is something of an abomination today because the lady from Michigan who started it all passed away a few years back. Annie Cogo knew what balance meant and her Windfall Kennel produced beautiful "Typy" Labradors. One Black Piper perhaps the most perfect girl ever produced. Once Annie Cogo died Show Labradors have continued to get more "typy" at the expense of Balance. Annie had a following and without her to critique pups big and typy just got bigger.

Maybe one day judges at Westminster will put up a Labrador that would have a chance to win. Not having five posts I can't post URLS , but just google *Romeo Reserve winner at Crufts* and watch the You Tube videos of a special Labrador. He may be Italian, but his roots are in America.


----------



## 3blackdogs

I very much appreciate most of the commentary and debate in this thread. I too, like most of you, couldn't believe what I was seeing when I saw the picture of that poor bitch. This is just me, but my first thoughts were "that poor animal is destined for early joint problems and a shortened life". 

I haven't read every single post, so if this has already been mentioned, please forgive the redundancy. 

Perhaps what I find the most troubling is that weight issues in dogs, much like in people, shorten their lives. No respectable breeder, owner, judge - whomever - should promote something so directly contrary to good health and longevity. There is some science behind this, for those that need to see it in writing rather than rely on a healthy dose of common sense. While the Purina 14 yr life-span study is somewhat long in the tooth (2002), I don't believe that the fundamental conclusion has changed: being overweight shortens a dog's life. Period. How appropriate that the study population was Labrador retrievers. 

_"Median life span was increased by 1.8 years, or 15 percent, in the lean-fed dogs compared to the control dogs. Median life span (age at which 50 percent of the dogs in the group had died) was 11.2 years in the control group compared to 13 years in the lean-fed group."_

http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=26745

The original study: 

https://www.avma.org/News/Journals/Collections/Documents/javma_220_9_1315.pdf.


----------



## Jeffrey Towler

.44 magnum said:


> I'd like to make a comment, but first thank the RTF forum for many, many years of helpful insight. Knowing I am just a hunter and not in the game of being a professional FT. I've never felt the need to join this forum. But Westminster and the reactions got me motivated.
> 
> There are many fine, well balanced, Show type Labradors that were either not chosen or did not participate in this years Westminster Dog Show. My thoughts are the judge had an agenda. She either likes "Typy" Labradors and chioose the most fitting to her eye(which may mean she needs her eyes examined) or she did not want a Labrador to have any chance winning the Best in Sporting Dog group.
> 
> The opposite happened at Crufts this past year. A Panel of judges chose Loch More Romeo, a three year old Italian bred Labrador with a Sire from the States. Romeo went on to come up just short of winning Crufts, Europe's most prestigious show. Crufts uses a judge to look at the "Bitches", and another to evaluate the dogs. This year the two judges could not agree who should win best in breed and a higher ranked judge chose Romeo. Romeo is a well balanced Labrador with much muscle and plenty of air under him. Best of all he is a Showman. The bright lights and crowds bring out his best.
> 
> Not all Show breeders are equal. There are plenty that put Balance and temperament first as well as knowing what the breed standard calls for. A certain group of breeders from Michigan have "Over done" Labradors and have gained influence over what the judges put up for winners. The "Typy" Labrador is something of an abomination today because the lady from Michigan who started it all passed away a few years back. Annie Cogo knew what balance meant and her Windfall Kennel produced beautiful "Typy" Labradors. One Black Piper perhaps the most perfect girl ever produced. Once Annie Cogo died Show Labradors have continued to get more "typy" at the expense of Balance. Annie had a following and without her to critique pups big and typy just got bigger.
> 
> Maybe one day judges at Westminster will put up a Labrador that would have a chance to win. Not having five posts I can't post URLS , but just google *Romeo Reserve winner at Crufts* and watch the You Tube videos of a special Labrador. He may be Italian, but his roots are in America.


"44 Magnum" that will get the job done for sure . It would be great if you used your real name and where your from. I understand where your coming from, I think. Thru anecdotal contact at hunt test with show people, I have heard the vernacular "over Done" to describe a lab. Never have I heard a hunter use that term to describe a dog. If your here to say the "Michigan Mafia" screwed up the show labs all by themselves, I ain't buying it. Please use your real name and where your from.


----------



## PalouseDogs

luvalab said:


> I am NOT in any way advocating this or saying it is called for in this instance, because I just don't know enough. I don't know even how I feel about the idea.
> 
> However, I find myself wondering...
> 
> 
> Is there any sort of sanction for a judge who awards a first place that is outside of the standards? Or is the judge the judge, and must be allowed to judge?


The club hosting a show gets to select judges. The "sanction" for a judge that choses a dog that doesn't look like the show dog norm is that the judge would not get many future assignments. Remember, most of the dogs in conformation shows are professionally handled and the owners of the dogs usually don't do any dog activities other than conformation. (Most breeds don't have any function in today's world except companion, anyway, and an awful lot of them, IMO, make terrible pets.) An expectation develops among pro handlers and exhibitors about the type of dog that should win and, if a judge defies those expectations, that judge won't be making a living as a judge very long.


----------



## Breck

Crufts?
The only Labrador worth looking at that has been to Crufts is .....
2XNOC/OTCH Count Tyler Show Me The Money UDX7 OM6 MH
.
www.offa.org/healthch/healthch_lab.html


----------



## Steve Shaver

.44 magnum said:


> I'd like to make a comment, but first thank the RTF forum for many, many years of helpful insight. Knowing I am just a hunter and not in the game of being a professional FT. I've never felt the need to join this forum. But Westminster and the reactions got me motivated.
> 
> There are many fine, well balanced, Show type Labradors that were either not chosen or did not participate in this years Westminster Dog Show. My thoughts are the judge had an agenda. She either likes "Typy" Labradors and chioose the most fitting to her eye(which may mean she needs her eyes examined) or she did not want a Labrador to have any chance winning the Best in Sporting Dog group.
> 
> The opposite happened at Crufts this past year. A Panel of judges chose Loch More Romeo, a three year old Italian bred Labrador with a Sire from the States. Romeo went on to come up just short of winning Crufts, Europe's most prestigious show. Crufts uses a judge to look at the "Bitches", and another to evaluate the dogs. This year the two judges could not agree who should win best in breed and a higher ranked judge chose Romeo. Romeo is a well balanced Labrador with much muscle and plenty of air under him. Best of all he is a Showman. The bright lights and crowds bring out his best.
> 
> Not all Show breeders are equal. There are plenty that put Balance and temperament first as well as knowing what the breed standard calls for. A certain group of breeders from Michigan have "Over done" Labradors and have gained influence over what the judges put up for winners. The "Typy" Labrador is something of an abomination today because the lady from Michigan who started it all passed away a few years back. Annie Cogo knew what balance meant and her Windfall Kennel produced beautiful "Typy" Labradors. One Black Piper perhaps the most perfect girl ever produced. Once Annie Cogo died Show Labradors have continued to get more "typy" at the expense of Balance. Annie had a following and without her to critique pups big and typy just got bigger.
> 
> Maybe one day judges at Westminster will put up a Labrador that would have a chance to win. Not having five posts I can't post URLS , but just google *Romeo Reserve winner at Crufts* and watch the You Tube videos of a special Labrador. He may be Italian, but his roots are in America.






Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not saying Romeo is a bad looking dog, he is NOT. Although in my opinion he is still a little on the heavy side but not nearly as bad as some.
I'll come right out and say it.... I think the American field bred lab in general is much better looking. Ya there are some really ugly ones, saw a couple today, but over all I by far prefer the looks of the American field bred lab in general. Again just my opinion but if the field bred labs has strayed from the standard that somebody wrote (their opinion) I say it is for the better of the breed (my opinion).


----------



## Bridget Bodine

Breck said:


> Crufts?
> The only Labrador worth looking at that has been to Crufts is .....
> 2XNOC/OTCH Count Tyler Show Me The Money UDX7 OM6 MH
> .
> www.offa.org/healthch/healthch_lab.html


Who, unfortunately passed away from cancer last fall....very sad


----------



## HPL

Seems to me that perhaps there should be a rule that photos from about four angles of all winning show labs should have to be sent to the parent organization before the points are recorded. Or perhaps the photos should be filed by judge and if a particular judge seems to be choosing inappropriate champions review that judge's credentials.


----------



## polmaise

Crufts ! Crufts You say?..Pictures from all angles>? Conformation and 'Show' - Off'! 

Watch out for this little guy at 'Crufts' . I reckon proof that they can do it in the shooting field no matter the gundog breed!..So why not start with an ''American'' ?


----------



## Sabireley

Breck said:


> Crufts?
> The only Labrador worth looking at that has been to Crufts is .....
> 2XNOC/OTCH Count Tyler Show Me The Money UDX7 OM6 MH
> .
> www.offa.org/healthch/healthch_lab.html


Check out Tyler's pedigree...

http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=494484


----------



## Breck

I know Steve. If I had the right bitch I would look at going to him. Hope she banked some straws.


----------

