# Labrador Conformation



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

I thought you all would like to know what a Lab is supposed to look like as evidenced by the cover of this book THE LABRADOR RETRIEVER, part of the "Best of Breed Series" from Howell Publishing.

"The Dog That Does it All." Yup. Un-huh.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

C'mon Kevin... we all know some show dogs are overweight just as some field dogs look like whippets. I think we've all gotten that t-shirt.
Where is that dead horse smiley when you need it?


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

Well pudgy describes it pretty well.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> C'mon Kevin... we all know some show dogs are overweight just as some field dogs look like whippets.


Sure! No disputing that!

But would you put either on the cover of a book about the breed?  :razz:


----------



## GoodDog (Oct 15, 2007)

You know, I am a guy who believes in a lab with great conformation. My dogs are from Champion/Master Hunter parents, and the dog on the cover looks like he might be able to retrieve a donut from the box and that is about it.


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

GoodDog said:


> You know, I am a guy who believes in a lab with great conformation. My dogs are from Champion/Master Hunter parents, and the dog on the cover looks like he might be able to retrieve a donut from the box and that is about it.
> 
> http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn64/wesf73/skip_ribbons_web.jpg



So does he bring the donut to the handler or eat it? That could be a useful skill to teach.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> Sure! No disputing that!
> 
> But would you put either on the cover of a book about the breed?  :razz:


Who cares? What does the writer of the book promote? Obviously a more "hefty" example of the breed. Is that wrong? No,, it's just her/their opinion..

Like any other fancy. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can find the same examples of any breed. Whooop dee dooooo.......

Angie


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

After a search of the authors, it would seem both own/co-own show dogs. So that cover is probably just what they like personally.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Who cares?


I think it is FUN-NY! "The Dog That Does It All." :grin:


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

That lab is obviously from "Black Angus" lines. If the plane goes down we'll eat him first.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

That dog ain't fat....... It's got substance.

   :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Looks like it's overheating just standing there regards,


----------



## Gary Wayne Abbott I (Dec 21, 2003)

I think that bad boy on the cover is only "big boned".


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

I am familiar with the dog on the cover and with many of his get...believe me when I tell you they are fantastic dogs and the author has contributed so much to the breed. I was pleased to see a few people come to the defense of the "type"....I own "show dogs" and they do not look like the field trial lines; but I have come to love and appreciate the beauty in the field lines. I can look at a field dog now and easily call it beautiful, its character and desire show through to me. I wish that more of you could appreciate the conformation dogs. I agree completely that many conformation breeders mistake fat for bone; but not all. While my dogs will never compete at the level that yours do, they do have drive and intelligence. I play a different game with them...we stick to hunt test and the show ring; but again, it does not keep me from genuinely appreciating the beauty and drive of your field trial lines.
________
Toyota e engine


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

ReedCreek said:


> I am familiar with the dog on the cover and with many of his get...believe me when I tell you they are fantastic dogs and the author has contributed so much to the breed. I was pleased to see a few people come to the defense of the "type"....I own "show dogs" and they do not look like the field trial lines; but I have come to love and appreciate the beauty in the field lines. I can look at a field dog now and easily call it beautiful, its character and desire show through to me. I wish that more of you could appreciate the conformation dogs. I agree completely that many conformation breeders mistake fat for bone; but not all. While my dogs will never compete at the level that yours do, they do have drive and intelligence. I play a different game with them...we stick to hunt test and the show ring; but again, it does not keep me from genuinely appreciating the beauty and drive of your field trial lines.



Good for you, drive, intelligence......good marking and genetic health. O, and a lovelybreed to cuddle and LOVE.


----------



## theeaterofshades (May 19, 2008)

I know I am not the only one who wasn't thinking that the sub title should be The Dog that Eats it All instead of the Dog that Does it All...


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

i would just like to hear WHY being overweight contributes anything positive to "the look".

when you read the breed standard, they reference height, weight, the fact that the dog needs enough neck to pick up game without stooping, etc.

the only show dogs i've seen that were successfully campaigned in the ring were way over the weight standard, to the point that their head looked like it just emerged from the shoulder/chest, and their legs looked like they had atrophied relative to the height at the shoulder.

more than once i have heard their owners speak of the need to remove weight before campaigning in HT's. 

they are a working breed. they should be able to compete in the show ring at a proper weight that allows them to also do their job in the field.

that's the problem i have with breeders whose primary purpose is to produce bench winners. 

if you look at what was winning in the ring 50 years ago, there is a world of difference.

if you look at the "type" of field dog that was winning from the same era, there is much more in common with the dogs that are winning today, than there are differences.-paul


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

This is probably a dumb question, but do they weigh "show dogs" before conformation trials to see if they conform to the breed standard? If not, isn't the whole "conformation" thing a farce?


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

Not all show-bred dogs look like that. Here is a comparison:










My show-bred Lab, Scotty:









Scotty has never stepped a foot in the show ring and I keep him lean due to his elbow displasia. He's around 75 lbs. He's a working dog: getting ready for his Utility debut this fall (a lot of jumping involved), training for tracking, and one leg away from his JH, which we'll hopefully move on to SH next year.

That sad, I've seen too many show-bred dogs that are overdone and overweight. I don't like that direction at all. I'm super happy with my Lean Mac puppy though.



> This is probably a dumb question, but do they weigh "show dogs" before conformation trials to see if they conform to the breed standard? If not, isn't the whole "conformation" thing a farce?


They don't weigh them as far as I know. If you read the standard, the weight range is an approximation. I think some take the word "approximately" way too liberally. In my opinion, 95 lbs is not "approximately" 80 lbs, but one can argue otherwise.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I really would like to hear a reply to Paul YOung's question "why?" the over weight is desirable. I would hope to hear it from a show competitor/breeder. As referenced elsewhere, the winning dogs in the ring do not comply with the standard as written. Who gets to "decide" what the right look is if not the standard? Not picking, I have really wanted to know this for a long time.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

2tall said:


> I really would like to hear a reply to Paul YOung's question "why?" the over weight is desirable.


My guess is because they don't want any tuck-up. And the best way to hide one is to keep the dog fat.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Tatyana said:


> They don't weigh them as far as I know. If you read the standard, the weight range is an approximation. I think some take the word "approximately" way too liberally.


A handful of years ago they introduced a wicket to the Lab ring to measure height -- making sure dogs were not too tall.

I have long argued they should also introduce a scale to measure weight.


----------



## Furball (Feb 23, 2006)

2tall said:


> I really would like to hear a reply to Paul YOung's question "why?" the over weight is desirable. I would hope to hear it from a show competitor/breeder. As referenced elsewhere, the winning dogs in the ring do not comply with the standard as written. Who gets to "decide" what the right look is if not the standard? Not picking, I have really wanted to know this for a long time.


I've always wanted to know this as well. The labrador is the only breed in all of AKC that it is common practice to take them into the ring OVERweight. Well, maybe a bulldog  but of the breeds with a working background (herding, hounds, sporting, working, terrier) they are the only ones. 
My only guess is that since they are supposed to be a heavily muscled, substantial breed, but short coats, the exhibitors think they can enhance that look with weight instead of coat. 
At least in goldens, they are just fluffy! Most show goldens are on the lean side, definitely not overweight like the show labs.
It's a strange phenomenon. The show labrador population needs a revolution.
--Anney


----------



## MBH (Jul 28, 2005)

Why are they fat...well many judges reward big and overdone, so if one wants to win, one creates dogs that look that way...

My favorite excuse for being fat comes from a big name in show dogs...they need the extra weight to be "brush-breaking" retrievers and to cut through icy water. 

I have a show-bred dog who is very muscular and not fat--she weighs 58 pounds. She is complimented on her looks all the time, but she'd get no place in the show ring. I don't care though because she can work all day the way she is.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

This is my hunting/field bred Chesapeake who is also a bench champion. I only ever had one judge tell me I needed to put weight on her and that judge was a Lab breeder.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> isn't the whole "conformation" thing a farce?


For labs it sure is.


----------



## yellow machine (Dec 7, 2005)

Who cares old hat, dead horse!


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

I think that conformation is critically important in a working dog and we ignore it at our peril. That said, the word "conformation" doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a dog can get placements in a bench show. Too many folks breeding dogs for the show ring as well as for the field know little and care less about functional conformation. One man's opinion.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Hookset said:


> Too many folks breeding dogs for the show ring as well as for the field know little and care less about functional conformation. One man's opinion.


DEAD-ON-CORRECT!!!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Julie R. said:


> This is my hunting/field bred Chesapeake who is also a bench champion. I only ever had one judge tell me I needed to put weight on her and that judge was a Lab breeder.


Now THAT is a classic animal...can work and hold up the breed standard doing it.

Mitch and Linda Patterson (seems like there's another handler/owner but I can't recall the name offhand) had the BEST examples of truly dual purpose retrievers I ever saw....and they were Chesapeakes. Chessies are the ONLY breed I know of where there are dogs running with a CH title competitively in field trials.

Why is that? Why is the physically capable field Chessie also able to compete in conformation with the same physique, while the exact OPPOSITE is the case with Labrador Retrievers?

Seeking to learn regards,

kg


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

K G said:


> Why is that? Why is the physically capable field Chessie also able to compete in conformation with the same physique, while the exact OPPOSITE is the case with Labrador Retrievers?


Chessies haven't become as popular. Popularity tends to ruin breeds.

We don't see very many working Poodles, Irish Setters, or Cocker Spaniels anymore. They are out there, but not as many as before their popularity.

The argument can be made that the split in the Lab between show and field has saved it in the field.


----------



## caglatz (Aug 21, 2006)

Maybe we analyze this from a different angle. Has anyone ever done a study regarding the life expectancy of the show lab versus the field lab? I would think the more "fit" dogs would have a tendency to live longer, and the larger,overweight labs would have more ailments and a shorter life span (just like us people). We might also be surprised as many of our field labs live a "harder" life than some show labs. Trust me I'm not passing judgement as I'm constantly in a weight battle with myself.

Maybe from a "health" perspective we can then determine what traits and standards are desirable in the breed standard.

IMO, I much prefer the look of a healthy, fit Field Labrador Retriever.


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

I love threads like these,
Its so much better than watching TV.


Well---------------got to go train.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Amiable Labs, I still go back to my question. Who decided that Labs should look "this way" or "that way" without regard to the standard? Who was it that constructed the standard, and how did the show fanciers modify the interpretation?

I agree that an understanding of functional conformation is very important, (sorry Yellow Machine, I care). What I don't get is why "functional" should be subjective.

The comments about Chessies are right on. My new pup has many show titles and field titles on both sides. The Chessie I saw on tv at Westminster last year, looked like he could have walked out of the arena and run an AA stake. I agree popularity is bad for a breed, (mills breed too many in hopes of $$$) but if the show world weren't leading the band on this subject, the pup buying public would not be influenced by a "type".

Anybody know the answer, why?


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Show Lab= "The other white meat"


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

If a dog can hold up for 10 years or so, with all the wear and tear that happens with field dogs, isn't that functional, despite the fact that said dog may not conform to the standard?


----------



## Southern Rebel (Feb 18, 2005)

Tatyana said:


> Not all show-bred dogs look like that. Here is a comparison:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is a very big difference between a "show-bred" lab and a "show quality" lab. I have a lab with show and hunt lines and she is not a show quality lab. There are some show labs that are meaty (not fat, but muscle) and can also hunt. 

I have a Chessie that has his CH and his JH, working towards his SH/MH and I can appreciate both sides of the fence. I also believe both are responsible for the breed split... breeding too much for their own purpose rather than the dog's purpose. Just look at the numbers in both areas: # of labs competing in the show ring in the last 20 years and # of labs running FT's, when there is more and more competition, the game is bound to change. Just my .02!


----------



## Southern Rebel (Feb 18, 2005)

Here is a picture of Gator when he got his JH title, "stacked out" in his show habit.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> I think it is FUN-NY! "The Dog That Does It All." :grin:


 
He can. He breaks ice just by stepping on it. Breaks cover just be rolling through it. See, he looks just like mine:



















What is your problem Kev?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

I look at it this way.... Do you wanna drive a Monster truck or a Maserati??? Whatever you choose is fine... And if you want to drive a Escolade or a Navigator,,, for us middle of the road folks... That's fine too!

The monster truck can zip down the road for a short piece... The Maserati could slide through the mud for 60 yds or so, maybe. And the Escolade or Navigator will ride the tide and chug along doing just fine sitting in the middle of the road doing a little bit of everything with style...

Same with the labrador breed.... That's the way it is... So what? Pick your poison....

Pointing fingers at the split and differences in the breed is a waste of time. IMHO... Because really no one cares... Everyone is happy with what their doing with what they have and love. Isn't that what dogs are for????

Don't try to tell me that we need to improve the breed. Only 10% of the breeders know how to do that. That's it. The rest of us are lucky enough to just maintain the model we choose drive...

Again in my honest opinion....

Angie


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

K G said:


> Now THAT is a classic animal...can work and hold up the breed standard doing it.
> 
> Why is that? Why is the physically capable field Chessie also able to compete in conformation with the same physique, while the exact OPPOSITE is the case with Labrador Retrievers?
> 
> ...


IMO it's a very simple case of breed numbers, and how they figure in the making of a conformation champion. In popular breeds (Lab, Golden, Sheltie...?) you have to beat a whole lot of dogs to get a "major" win, and two majors plus some more points are needed for a Championship.

In Chesapeakes, depending on the part of the country (how far you are from Maryland?), you only have to beat a handful of dogs. In the Southeast I think you can get a major in bitches by defeating four others.

So the competition in shows is far, far less. That is why when we get a field dog with a good bite, we can campaign him with a good chance of winning. I will say, I've been discouraged by some of what I've seen winning. FAT dogs, yes, and overlong coats (the standard says over 1 1/2" is a *disqualification*), and 'way too heavy boned, and loose-jointed (Chesapeake movement is supposed to reflect their exceptional muscle tone; for those of you who don't know, they can walk and climb at birth).

Anyway, IMO it's purely a matter of competition. You all know how hard it is to win field trials. You can't select very hard for conformation, color, or anything else and still get strong prospects. Ditto in the Labrador show world. There's not much slack to select for anything but winning conformation.

With Chesapeakes, someone like me can drop in to the show ring and have a shot.

For Julie: here's my boy Lucky -- 7 pts including both majors


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

caglatz said:


> Maybe we analyze this from a different angle. Has anyone ever done a study regarding the life expectancy of the show lab versus the field lab? I would think the more "fit" dogs would have a tendency to live longer, and the larger,overweight labs would have more ailments and a shorter life span (just like us people). We might also be surprised as many of our field labs live a "harder" life than some show labs. Trust me I'm not passing judgement as I'm constantly in a weight battle with myself.
> 
> Maybe from a "health" perspective we can then determine what traits and standards are desirable in the breed standard.
> 
> IMO, I much prefer the look of a healthy, fit Field Labrador Retriever.


Purina did a paired littermate/ nutrition study years ago, comparing free fed Lab pups to those eating ~1/3 less if I remember right (you can probably still find it online by Google). The leaner pups lived an average of 2 yrs longer and had half the HD as the fatter group. That sure worked for me. I'd be willing to bet that cancer goes up in the chunkier dogs, and sadly, Dog Fancy has had our breed listed w/ a lifespan of only 10-12 yrs for several years now. I'd like to believe it should really be 12-14 yrs.

2Tall... here's my 2cents on why weight wins in the show ring. I personally think that to get that "dripping" (heavy) coat that is part of the winning ticket, you have to have a surplus of nutrition there. I've seen it with my crew anyhow-- right after breeding and whelping litters, I tend to beef them up a bit, and they come back w/ the most beautiful coats. Otherwise, if kept in working condition, coats are fine from a functional standpoint, but would look "slick" / skimpy compared to the dogs in the ring. And no, you don't want to show a dog w/ tuck up in the ring but tuck up can be structural issue too if the dog has a longer loin or shorter ribcage (or worse, has herring gut). Ideally, we want a nice long rib cage for protection in the field and whatever may linger under the surface for those dogs w/ nice water entries. 

Anyhow, right now in AKC, "more" seems to be preferred in the Lab ring. More coat, more bulk, more bone (different than bulk), more head.. just MORE. Okay, so less muzzle seems to be in style, sadly. I think I'll have to stick to Intl shows personally as I saw how "petite" my youngest choc looked next to her competition in the show ring a few months ago. I really like what she looks like... but she's not competitive in that ring in the current form. And for those who have or will see her at hunt tests, for 59#, she has quite the "stocky" look to her compared to most. It's really frustrating to me as I look at the illustrated standard and see a moderate, athletic dog but yet that style is rarely winning in the ring. You really need to hunt out the right judges to show under w/ a moderate lab anymore, and even at that, if placed in a lineup w/ much beefier looking stock, your's is going to "look" out of place more than it really is.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

AmiableLabs said:


> I think it is FUN-NY! "The Dog That Does It All." :grin:


That got a chuckle from me as well. Those who brought the "standard" to what is today should be blind folded, hands tie behind the back, tied to a post and summarily executed. Guilty of the crime of terminal stupidity. Now "Super Chief" was a good looking dog.


----------



## Karen McCullah (Feb 28, 2007)

1. What's a "tuck"?! 

2. I feed Evo, have lean labs and I get compliments on their coats all the time! 
So I'm thinking it's not *how much* to feed, it's the *quality* of the food that they are getting that will affect the coat.

3. My dogs are too lean to be in the show ring but my vet told me my older yellow boy is the PERFECT size/weight for a lab! 

Proud mama regards!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Wiredlabz said:


> 1. What's a "tuck"?!
> 
> 2. I feed Evo, have lean labs and I get compliments on their coats all the time!
> So I'm thinking it's not *how much* to feed, it's the *quality* of the food that they are getting that will affect the coat.
> ...


Coat that WINS is like the dog that the OP posted. Long, wavy, thick..... not typical of most field labs!

Tuck is that waistline that many in the field (and agility) seem to LIKE to see. Really the underline should be straight, though a sloping line is fine... it's undesirable to have the underline curved up to the waistline (that is TUCK). Herring gut is a severe tuck and is not anyone's friend in the field as it indicates a short rib cage which means less protection for the major organs.

If you get the opportunity, the LRC illustrated standard is a handy reference. Also see if there is a conformation certificate offered near you. Usually they are held in conjunction w/ hunt tests. Anne


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

The dog in the original picture looks like Dickendall Arnold, or one of his get, to me. In my opinion, he seemed to be the "turning point" for chunkier lab conformation. Before him, winning conformation labs appeared more athletic, after him, more chunky. 

Don't get me wrong, I love the conformation labs. Just not the morbidly obese ones. 

What are your thoughts?


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I dont know about the "coat" reason. My 100% field dog, has a coat that is long and wavy, I used to worry about it! He has a full ruff on his neck, and feathers on his tail. No way would he fit any other part of the conformation look. Somewhere, sometime, somebody decided that these chunksters were the right way to be. Who decided and who went along with it?


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

2tall said:


> I dont know about the "coat" reason. My 100% field dog, has a coat that is long and wavy, I used to worry about it! He has a full ruff on his neck, and feathers on his tail. No way would he fit any other part of the conformation look. Somewhere, sometime, somebody decided that these chunksters were the right way to be. Who decided and who went along with it?


Hate to tell you but the feathers (and excessive wave) aren't supposed to be there.  Interesting that they've got a genetic test now for the "fluffy gene" (long coat) but yet that *is* considered stylish in the ring. I honestly think the breeder/judges set the trends, not the LRC. I was just chatting w/ a show golden friend who is every bit as fed up w her ring and the trends. I saw the most interesting coat on a show bred lab a couple weeks ago, btw. I knew the male had thrown some long coats, but this was long and wirey textured like a doodle maybe. Odd to say the least.

Has anyone noticed the COATS on show goldens lately? Have you had to run your young impatient lab behind one on water? It's the kiss of death to run behind one that is fighting to stay afloat, let alone get to the bird.  Fat labs at least float (bob like a cork)! ;-)


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

There is a breed standard in writing that should be followed, and neither extreme in show or field fits. Sadly, a balanced dog isn't too likely to draw a judge's attention. Problem is, the majority of show judges go for extremes rather than following the standard....and it's not just in Labs. If the show Labs had to walk across a scale on the way into the ring, most classes would be empty, and if they were measure for stuff like height vs. length and also length of ear and muzzle, a bunch wouldn't qualify.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> There is a breed standard in writing that should be followed, and neither extreme in show or field fits. Sadly, a balanced dog isn't too likely to draw a judge's attention. Problem is, the majority of show judges go for extremes rather than following the standard....and it's not just in Labs. If the show Labs had to walk across a scale on the way into the ring, most classes would be empty, and if they were measure for stuff like height vs. length and also length of ear and muzzle, a bunch wouldn't qualify.


Amen Sister.


----------



## Ironman (Jan 1, 2008)

The reason the show Labs are kept fat is to try and hide shortcomings in thier breeding. Lack of proper structure, coat, etc. IMO the best looking lab is a show quality Lab that is in working shape...a dog like Tatyana's "Scotty" pictured earlier, just beautiful!


----------



## Illinois Bob (Feb 3, 2007)

AmiableLabs said:


> A handful of years ago they introduced a wicket to the Lab ring to measure height -- making sure dogs were not too tall.
> 
> I have long argued they should also introduce a scale to measure weight.


They should take them all on a hunt after the show too to see what they can do.


----------



## MBH (Jul 28, 2005)

My guess is that the dog on the cover might be Lobuff's Bare Necesseties--Baloo--since he was bred by Lisa Weiss. Anybody with more experience want to chime in? I was wondering who the dog was too.


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

> My guess is that the dog on the cover might be Lobuff's Bare Necesseties--Baloo--since he was bred by Lisa Weiss. Anybody with more experience want to chime in? I was wondering who the dog was too.


You are correct, it is Ch. Lobuffr's Bare Necessities "Baloo" CD, JH. (his sire was a CH/SH). He's clearly an older dog in that photo and he was not run in that weight. Below are links to pictures of the same dog when he was being shown and run:

http://www.winddreamer.net/images-lr/lobuffs_bare_necessities-baloo2.jpg
http://www.joebattsarm.com/lobuffsbarenecessities3.jpg

Lisa Weiss has shown dogs at the garden for 30 years and was BOB owner/handled this past year. She wrote the book and chose a picture of her most beloved dog to go on the cover... !!! Any of you can put a picture of your own beloved dog on the cover when you are qualified in your sport to write a book!!!

Also, what changes were made to the standard that you have a problem with? I ask this because the changes were actually in favor of a more moderate dog. 

Patti
________
RANCHERO RIO GRANDE


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Way To Go Patti!!!! 

Angie


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

And were made by the field trial component of the LRC.........

Look. What wins in the Labrador specialty ring is not my cup of tea - I think that the big, honking, overdone dogs are not correct. My dogs do go from the show ring to the field. The "breeder" judges tend to put up dogs with more what they call "type" - I choose not to feed that kind of dog, so I do not exhibit under those judges. I've given up losing sleep and gnashing my teeth over that fact - let them breed what they want and I don't have to buy their puppies or show to them. 

I've shown to Lisa Weiss on several occasions, and my dogs are "not enough" for her so we didn't do anything under her. Fair enough. She is respected and is a very nice person, consistently putting up a similar type. She even told me later that my dog needed "more substance" for her (fair enough - he's not enough for most Lab breeder judge types). Fair enough. Look at someone's Winner's Class - if all the dogs are consistent, then I respect their opinion - it might not be what I brought them that day, but if they know what they like, more power to them. 

The problem was that the FIELD TRIAL people made the height a DQ for the show dogs - if a dog is DQ'd 3 times, that means it can't play anymore. The show people got mad because the field trial people can play their game with dogs that obviously DO NOT meet the standard (coat, otter tail, over the height standard) and still play their game. That was the essence of the deal - the conformation folks felt that if the standard were going to be enforced, that EVERYONE who exhibited (field trial folks too - don't know if that extended to hunt tests, obedience, agility, etc. - doubt it) should be held to the same standard, so the field trial dogs 25" and over and the little 50 pound bitches ought to be DQ'd along with the lumbering show dogs. 

All this rancor is why I got an American Water Spaniel.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Is the LRC run by FT people? Aren't most breed clubs controlled by the confirmation people? Excuse my ignorance.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Merrymaker said:


> All this rancor is why I got an American Water Spaniel.


So you can fight with the Boykin people over which is the "REAL" version of the breed, the one with the tail or without. 

Sorry....had to !!
JK


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

So, after some quick internet research, I discovered that "Baloo" and Dickendall Arnold are both by Dickendall Ruffy, which explains why they looked similar to me.

http://www.dickendall.com/arnold.html

http://www.winddreamer.net/labfiles/lobuffs_bare_necessities.html

http://www.dickendall.com/ruffy.html


----------



## nwlabs (Jul 4, 2003)

MBH said:


> Why are they fat...well many judges reward big and overdone, so if one wants to win, one creates dogs that look that way...


Regarding *some* judges, yes they do put up big and overdone. Do ALL judges reward that? Absolutely NOT. Does everyone follow the leader and do as the others do as far as breeding goes? No they do not. I know I don't! My dogs do well at Specialties and at All Breed shows and they perform in other venues. My dogs are within the standard....I compete in Conformation/Field/Obedience. My dogs are shown at an appropriate weight and in shape. It has never once hurt me in the breed ring. I won't add/take off weight on my dogs in order to compete in one venue or another. It is not healthy.

Here is my Am/Can CH bitch. She was 21 months in this pic. She finished her Am breed CH at 26 months (Can CH at 13 months) which is very young in our breed and in Division One where our point schedules are the highest in the nation. She *will* have working titles. You can clearly see a waist and a tuck up oh and muscles!! This candid was taken at the LRC of Greater Boston's Specialty last year where she went Reserve Winner's Bitch. She is not fat and yet she was rewarded at a Specialty....interesting how that happens.  Constructive comments welcome... 










As far as field work goes, I am a junior hunter kind of gal as I can only do so much with my time, but my husband goes waterfowling and upland hunting with our dogs, so they get to do what they are bred to do. I respect those who do advanced field work with their dogs. I love to watch Senior/Master tests. I marshalled at tests long before I ran my first dog.

However, I am amazed at how rude some of you are on this thread and others. I would never think to pick on anyone's dogs. Someone loves that dog! Its hard to defend "field only" people in a field/show discussion with "show only" people, when *some* of you do nothing but act like so horribly. Think about it!

As far as longevity goes. This gal's great grandmother was a few months shy of 14 YO when we lost her. She was sound her entire life. She died of hemangiosarcoma...and died 3 months after diagnosis. Who knows how long we would have had her living a top quality of life, but she was never lame and never sick prior to her diagnosis. That gal's mom lived to over 16 YO. My current "old lady" is 12 1/2 YO and she was out breaking ice late last hunting season getting birds. So much for short lived "fat" show dogs.

I am not a "show" person...or a "field" person. I am a *Labrador* person! Its very hard to be "middle of the road" (wanting to succeed in conformation and in the field) in a breed with such extremes on both ends of things. Neither extreme is "correct" I might add. I see the good in both field and show stock and it bothers me to hear either camp being so disrespectful. 

Just my two cents...


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

ReedCreek said:


> Any of you can put a picture of your own beloved dog on the cover when you are qualified in your sport to write a book!!!


I don't see anyone having a problem with the sentiment of the choice. The problem is with the logic of the choice of that picture of that dog juxtaposed with the phrase "the dog that does it all."

And here is the sad thing -- The Labrador breed TRULY is "the dog that does it all." That individual animal is NOT. 



> Also, what changes were made to the standard that you have a problem with? I ask this because the changes were actually in favor of a more moderate dog.


I have no problem with them introducing the wicket. Do you have a problem with them introducing a weight scale?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Merrymaker said:


> The problem was that the FIELD TRIAL people made the height a DQ for the show dogs. . . .The show people got mad because the field trial people can play their game with dogs that obviously DO NOT meet the standard. . . .That was the essence of the deal - the conformation folks felt that if the standard were going to be enforced, that EVERYONE who exhibited. . . .should be held to the same standard, so the field trial dogs 25" and over and the little 50 pound bitches ought to be DQ'd along with the lumbering show dogs.


You are making unfair sweeping generalizations about show people and FT people that makes your whole argument invalid.

The truth is that there was a a split in the conformation fanciers over the changes to the standard, and one side (which I understand was a minority of conformation people) was able to influence the FT people within the LRC to go along with them. It is easier and therefore common for those on the losing side to blame the FT people instead of other conformation people. The FT people had no vested interest one way or the other. Their game does not involve the standard.


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

I did oversimplify the argument and it didn't come out the way I meant it to - the danger of message boards! Here's the version I've heard from the show people side of the argument for what it's worth: The predominant "show" breeders were NOT on the board at the time and felt alienated. AKC asked the LRC to change the FORMAT of the standard so that all the breed standards would read the same. That's all. The board at the time decided to make changes to the standard and put in the DQ's in for a game that most of them didn't play and asked for a nominal affirmation from the membership. The show people felt alienated because they were being told how to play that game by people who weren't participating and felt that they should hold themselves to a similar standard. A few I knew tried to get on the board to represent their side and were basically told not to bother. I am on the side of the minority conformation people who feel like show dogs are too big, but the situation was handled badly. Imagine that - people in a dog club bickering! 

(Insert obligatory pictures of Dark Star of Franklin, Briggs, etc. here and we can beat that dead horse again).

I don't go to many breed specialty shows because I do not like what goes up in general and because I lack the type of dog and the political connections to do well at those shows. I do like going to the National Specialty, because there I do see people who do try to maintain the breed standard while keeping an eye on performance and running hunt tests. That's what I like to do too. I realize too that in my area I will probably most likely not finish a CH because the majority of dogs in this area are the more "typey" sort. I can deal with that, I guess. I don't find majors easily because most of the conformation people won't enter under all around judges who won't put their dogs up, and I won't enter under breeder judges who won't put my dog up. They outnumber me, so there.

Re the conformation thing. I'm on the side of most of the people here - I don't like the overdone pigadores. I go to hunt tests and am told I have pigadores. I laugh - you folks ain't seen nothin' yet if you think MY dogs are big. My 80 pound Ruffy son and my 80 pound Arnold grandson are positively miniature compared to some of the dogs out there! 

Guys - I'm on your side! 

Re: the AWS vs Boykin thing. The REAL dog has a tail.............. (haha)  I am in the area Boykin club since there aren't many other AWS nearby, although I have a few folks within a few hours and we try to congregate at hunt tests when we can - Boykin folks let me play at training days and pretend not to notice the appendage that sets him apart. Someday I'll wind up with a Boykin, I'm sure. Little brown dogs are great!


----------



## labpoor (Jun 19, 2008)

caglatz said:


> Maybe we analyze this from a different angle. Has anyone ever done a study regarding the life expectancy of the show lab versus the field lab? I would think the more "fit" dogs would have a tendency to live longer, and the larger,overweight labs would have more ailments and a shorter life span (just like us people).


My "Show Labs" are known for their longevity. I've had them live to be 16+, but the average is 13.5 years.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> There is a breed standard in writing that should be followed, and neither extreme in show or field fits.


 Yup, because both sides breed for ribbons as opposed to breeding what is best for the breed. They want to IMPROVE the breed and not maintain the breed's integrity.

As much as it hurts my eyes to look a the big overdone Labs, it hurts just as much to look at most Field types as well. Also, where as what is winning on the bench can not do an honest days work afield, I'll share this recent conversation;

Talking with a very well known FT Pro who has had huge success in the game, I asked him, "How many dogs on your truck can you say are truly healthy". " Their answer; 2.

Bad skelital issues run deep in Field Labs!


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

> I own "show dogs" and they do not look like the field trial lines; but I have come to love and appreciate the beauty in the field lines. I can look at a field dog now and easily call it beautiful, its character and desire show through to me. I wish that more of you could appreciate the conformation dogs.


Please....don't interject reality and common sense! Everyone is too busy and having too much fun expressing contrary opinions!!!!!:snipersmile:

A dear friend of mine, Martha Lee Voshell, used to raise show Labradors. They were some of the most beautiful dogs I've ever seen. The puppies, especially, were absolutely gorgeous and adorable.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

labpoor said:


> My "Show Labs" are known for their longevity. I've had them live to be 16+, but the average is 13.5 years.


I also know of (and have) several show dogs in my peds that had great soundness and longevity, but then that's in part, what I am breeding strongly for too. They tend/ed to be more moderate dogs though: Joe (Am Can Intl CH Rocheby Josephs Coat CD JH TD) lived to 16. Shooter (Am Can CH Cedarwood's Gunner O Fawnhaven CD SH) lived to 15. Bandit (GMHR Am Mex IntlFCI CH Cook's Midnight Bandit MH) just turned 15 and was still siring litters up until about a year ago (my youngest 2 are both sired by him). 

I bet we could find a range in longevity no matter where we look. I know of some field dogs that are very "old" acting at 10, but then they could have had injuries or due to size alone, didn't age as well. I do know that excess weight does no one (humans included) any favors-- and that is my major complaint about judges who reward that excess in the ring. One wonders why the Lab has such a reputation amongst vets as being a fat dog but if that is what people see in the media (Westminster, etc), it stands to reason that they'll keep their pets fat too. As a breeder, I have fits over how heavy some of my pups in pet homes are kept (despite my pleas). I just had a pup here visiting for 3 wks, and the first thing I did was put her on a diet because her owner had at least 5-7# extra on her to make her look bigger boned than she is (didn't work, she looked fat to me.. she's a littermate to the 3 in my avatar and they are on the small end of standard). 

I love watching the well conditioned GSPs, Weims, and Dobes gate around the ring.... and wish our labs were more consistently shown in that condition.
And NWlabs--- I think your girl is a very nice rep of the breed-- would you share her height/weight? She looks to be on the smaller end, but then photos are tough to tell from.


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

Here goes, I am really opening myself up to fire on this - but here is a link to some photos of my two show bred/hunt test dogs. My little one, Ransom's Alegria at Reed Creek ("Allie), JH is now 18 mo. old and got her JH at 13mo. She is training hard for her SH title. My boy, Ch. LegaSea's Icing on the Cake ("Bonus"), JH got his CH at 22 mo. and then began his HT training. He is training seriously for his SH title. Bonus currently weighs in at 79lbs and Allie is 61 lbs. - field trial candidates - no, for sure, but hunt test abilities...yes! Different strokes for different folks, but I think basically what we all love is the same; dogs who like to bring back birds....so...let's all go train dogs and agree to disagree!


http://picasaweb.google.com/ReedCreekLabradors/BonusAndAllie?authkey=Fy_i5JApxlw
________
No2 vaporizer reviews


----------



## labpoor (Jun 19, 2008)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Please....don't interject reality and common sense! Everyone is too busy and having too much fun expressing contrary opinions!!!!!:snipersmile:
> 
> A dear friend of mine, Martha Lee Voshell, used to raise show Labradors. They were some of the most beautiful dogs I've ever seen. The puppies, especially, were absolutely gorgeous and adorable.


Loved Martha Lee. Love Buddy too.  Martha Lee had dogs related to Arnold in her pedigrees. So obviously the statements that Arnold ruined the show Labrador are erroneous and very far from the truth.




> As much as it hurts my eyes to look a the big overdone Labs, it hurts just as much to look at most Field types as well.


As someone else said, EXTREMES on either side is not correct. Show people have type debates (arguments, fights) also. Recently there was a debate (argument) on a show based board about whether the show type in England was inferior to the show type in North America. It got pretty heated pretty quickly.


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

ReedCreek said:


> Here goes, I am really opening myself up to fire on this - but here is a link to some photos of my two show bred/hunt test dogs. My little one, Ransom's Alegria at Reed Creek ("Allie), JH is now 18 mo. old and got her JH at 13mo. She is training hard for her SH title. My boy, Ch. LegaSea's Icing on the Cake ("Bonus"), JH got his CH at 22 mo. and then began his HT training. He is training seriously for his SH title. Bonus currently weighs in at 79lbs and Allie is 61 lbs. - field trial candidates - no, for sure, but hunt test abilities...yes! Different strokes for different folks, but I think basically what we all love is the same; dogs who like to bring back birds....so...let's all go train dogs and agree to disagree!
> 
> 
> http://picasaweb.google.com/ReedCreekLabradors/BonusAndAllie?authkey=Fy_i5JApxlw



Nice pics I love the one with the superman pose!!!


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

I never said that Arnold "ruined the show labrador". I just said that it appears to me, in my very limited experience, that he stamps his get with his distinctive "chunkier" appearance, and that since his time the show dogs appear to have become much heavier. I was just wondering whether any of the show people concurred that this was a trend that he may or may not have influenced.

Again, I love the show bred labs. I have one - show bred, not exactly show quality, or I would have her in the breed ring. She has a lovely head, but the rest of her was kind of put together by committee. I also have a Lean Mac puppy, so I kind of go both ways.

No harm, no foul . . .I was just kind of wondering how much influence Arnold has had on the show dog of today, kind of like how much influence Lean Mac has had on the FT dog of today?


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Speaking of Martha Lee and Buddy .....does anyone know who the dog is that Buddy owns with Jeff Telander is? Broad Reach The Devil Made Me Do It , Dog #41 at the NARC and still in it!!!! Did Buddy breed this dog ? Parents??
That is who I am rooting for , I know Martha Lee is proud as heck upstairs,that they are in the 7th!! 
Martha Lee was an inspiration to me , show , field, OB. Had CH/ MH's OTCH/MH really expected a dog to be able to "DO IT ALL"
Bridget


----------



## Susan (Jun 10, 2003)

Looked up Broad Reach Devil Made Me Do It at OFA site. Sire is Running with the Devil (by Cosmo) and dam is Coppertop's Sunday Annie. Annie is by Lean Mac x Hattie Mc Bunn. Annie is full sibling to Gates, Tiger McBunn, Whitie IV, etc. No wonder!

--Susan


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Mr Booty said:


> Yup, because both sides breed for ribbons as opposed to breeding what is best for the breed. They want to IMPROVE the breed and not maintain the breed's integrity.
> 
> As much as it hurts my eyes to look a the big overdone Labs, it hurts just as much to look at most Field types as well. Also, where as what is winning on the bench can not do an honest days work afield, I'll share this recent conversation;
> 
> ...


Upcoming article in Retriever Journal on just that very thing....I'm finishing it up as we speak and it will be in the Aug/Sept issue. ;-)


----------



## nwlabs (Jul 4, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> And NWlabs--- I think your girl is a very nice rep of the breed-- would you share her height/weight? She looks to be on the smaller end, but then photos are tough to tell from.


Thank you. She is roughly 21 3/4" and is 74 lbs currently...which is what she prob weighed at the time of that pic. 

Bridget, I agree with you on Martha Lee. What a great person she was.

Peggy


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

Mr. Booty hit the nail on the head. BOTH sides ran to the extremes to get ribbons. The true answer is somewhere in the middle - and it ain't gonna win either game big. I'll feed those dogs, strive for a CH MH, and enjoy my dogs,


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

As for longevity, I believe Ruffy was 15 when he died, and Arnold was up there too. My Ruffy son will be 13 in December and is going strong except for a little arthritis in his rear - he doesn't retrieve anymore but he's healthy and happy and trots around the backyard carrying smallish logs from the woodpile and ruling the roost. Another Ruffy son I knew who was on the large side died at 15 1/2. 

I don't know from field dogs - I'll have to ask around. 

And Martha Lee was wonderful - truly an inspiration to me too!


----------



## threelabs (Nov 21, 2007)

The conformation topic is sporadically a hot issue in old Europe too! 

The breed got divided in the UK after WW II and the rest of Europe followed the trend later on in the fifties. 

In the UK a (show)labrador has to gain a so called SGWC (show gundog working cert.) to become a full champion (CH) and the same applies to some other Europian countries too.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

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










-- She 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.

But there was another dog competing in BoB when we were showing, ironically he was also linebred on Brian, but looked nothing like him. He didn't look anything like any of the other Labs. He was grossly overdone in all respects compared to the average show Lab, in particular in "substance." To us he looked like a Rottweiler. His name was Gus (Ch. Campbellcroft's Angus). Almost three decades later, Gus would fit in perfectly in the show ring _today_! But I want you to understand the mindset back then of the average Lab fancier. Gus was an anomaly, he didn't look like the other Labs. In particular, he lacked athleticism. But he won, and he won a lot. What was the average show person going to do if they too wanted to win? The course was set.

And I am by no means blaming the split on Gus. But multiply what we witnessed on the west coast as happening across the country. And then it makes sense.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Notice one more thing from the picture above -- back then the customary way to show a dog was holding its tail up, as is generally done with sporting breeds.

Now the custom is to show the dog with the tail down, as is customary with working breeds.

Ask yourself why? 

Handlers are not stupid -- they know the best way to show off the conformation of the breed. Generally speaking, working breeds are supposed to be strong, blocky, with lots of substance. Working breeds are built to pull carts or to fight in close. Sporting breeds are supposed to be athletic. Sporting breeds are built to run and to swim.

Which category does the Lab pictured on the cover of the book belong in? 

Why do they show the modern show Lab with the tail down? To show how square the dog is, how short his back it, how much substance he has; How much like a working breed he is. Not that he is athletic.


----------



## Paula H (Aug 2, 2004)

Most Labs are shown "free stacked" - meaning the dog sets itself up. Pointers, setters, and other sporting breeds are set up and held there, but most train the Lab to stack itself out. The Brits do this and it became a trend here among the breeder types. When you show to a British judge, they don't want you to put a hand on the dog at all. When you hard stack a dog, you can emphasize strengths and camouflage weaknesses. There are tricks to hide bad toplines, etc. Showing is a lot more complicated than it looks - if you make a mistake, you're out generally! 

That being said, I do have a dog that I hard stack, especially when I show to all breed judges - see the above paragraph on how to hide flaws......... I have another one that will free stack like a son of a gun. Tail down? Not on this guy - it's wagging so hard that at times I'm afraid it will propel his rear end off the ground! 

What's funny is to watch folks at a show who don't know what they're doing just get out and stand there with their dogs doing nothing - they and their dogs look goofy.


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

Merrymaker said:


> Mr. Booty hit the nail on the head. BOTH sides ran to the extremes to get ribbons. The true answer is somewhere in the middle - and it ain't gonna win either game big. I'll feed those dogs, strive for a CH MH, and enjoy my dogs,


Me too! And someday when both sides realize they have gone too far in opposite directions they are going to have to look at those breeders in the middle to get back to the athletic dog with balance and breed type.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

When we were showing, all dogs were trained to free stack, and a special (actively campaigned BoB competitor) could not survive without the ability, whether it be Pointer, Setter, Poodle, Peke, whatever. The dog needed to free-stack after the down-and-back.

That doesn't answer how come the Lab's strength and substance is now emphasized instead of athleticism. It is because in the Lab ring, they have now become a greater priority. And that is wrong.


----------



## nwlabs (Jul 4, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> Why do they show the modern show Lab with the tail down? To show how square the dog is, how short his back it, how much substance he has; How much like a working breed he is. Not that he is athletic.


I am sorry, but I don't know anyone who shows their Lab with their tail *down* on purpose and certainly not for the reasons you state above. When mine free stack the tail is right off the back happily wagging and I still hold the tail up in win photos. 

Peggy


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

So I don't think this is realistic, or even a good idea really, but I've always wondered if there's any precedent or if it's been considered ever...

Two different names... for argument's sake, "The Labrador Companion Dog" and "The American Field Retriever"--put them in two groups, let's say working and sporting. Use the same written standard--maybe add a weight or proportion requirement, or use wording that emphasizes athleticism in the sporting dog--and allow the two groups to breed freely between them. The same dog. Could be shown in both groups, even. But, to receive a championship in the sporting group, the dog must have (pick it--WCX, JH, SH...) minimum (the British thing, sort of). 

Would it be "legal"? What would happen to the dogs' conformation? Would it be splitting the breed permanently, or splitting it without really splitting it, or lead to TWO breeds that both end up being what no one thinks is right?

I'm not advocating this--it's just pure speculation.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

I understand Kevin's arguement and, in _some_ cases, feel it's very valid. However, I'm with Peggy on the tail...

When I showed my girl a few weeks ago, it was our first show and we were both fairly nervous. She would not put her tail her up for anything- not even if I would've tacked it to my hand. She kept it down or tucked just about the entire time- with the exception of when we were gaiting.

I'll admit to being bias (who isn't to some extent when it comes to their own dog/s?), but I don't think she looked half bad in her win pics. She might have been the only girl in her class (and I had really expected awards to be withheld since she is a field girl and I was just showing for my own experience anyway) but all three judges that weekend gave her the "blue" (1st place)- might have been out of charity, but I didn't care. Of course, my girl did stick out like a sore thumb in the Winners class (and I knew we wouldn't be under any serious contention there) but we had fun. 

I think more folks should learn more about Conformation and try it- win or lose, it can be a lot of fun. And remember the judges can only put up what they are presented with...









(Sorry the pic's a little dark- the black pants were the only nice pants I had. I'm usually a t-shirt and jeans gal, LOL)


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

You seem to be confusing not holding the tail up with keeping it down. They are not the same thing.

I am saying that handlers no longer hold up the tail, which emphasizes athleticism. I am not saying they keep the tail down.

You will note that working breeds wag their tails too!

(BTW, I am willing to be proved totally wrong! I welcome a conformation handler to try lifting the tail like we did back in the day!)


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

LabLady101 said:


> I think more folks should learn more about Conformation and try it- win or lose, it can be a lot of fun. And remember the judges can only put up what they are presented with...


That is the same thing as me saying you should try a field trial, "win or lose it can be a lot of fun."

I am intelligent enough to know that none of my dogs have a prayer in conformation, even the non-regular "hunting retriever" class at a Specialty. 

I suspect your dogs would be just as successful at field trials.

At this point of time, the split is bedrock.


----------



## prophet (Mar 2, 2005)

Here is one of my boys. I think he is moderate but with type. Approx. 80 lbs
Needs a major to finish Will he ever be able to compete in a field trial NO. Can he hunt all day YES {or at least as long as I can} He has also gone from the show ring to pheasant hunting on the same day It is a shame that both camps are so far apart He may not be your cup of tea, but to me he is an all around dog that can do it all










________
Dodge charger (lx) specifications


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

AmiableLabs said:


> That is the same thing as me saying you should try a field trial, "win or lose it can be a lot of fun."
> 
> I am intelligent enough to know that none of my dogs have a prayer in conformation, even the non-regular "hunting retriever" class at a Specialty.
> 
> ...


Field trials and hunt tests, win or lose, *are* a lot of fun (are you saying folks shouldn't try them?)...I think you missed the part about my girl being field bred (she's a Ryder daughter). I did the Conformation show for fun, not that I expected anything out of it other than the experience. Would my girl ever earn a CH? Probably not as I'm intelligent enough to know she's definately not AKC's cup of tea. I may venture to show her at the Int'l shows, but that will be for fun as well.

Just because my girls are field bred, it doesn't stop me from learning and having fun in other venues...

prophet: FWIW, I think you've got a nice boy there! There's only one thing wrong with him...He's not brown, LOL!


----------



## prophet (Mar 2, 2005)

LabLady101 said:


> Field trials and hunt tests, win or lose, *are*
> prophet: FWIW, I think you've got a nice boy there! There's only one thing wrong with him...He's not brown, LOL!


Is this better









________
Box vaporizer


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

prophet said:


> Is this better


LOL! Yes, that's better!


----------



## nwlabs (Jul 4, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> (BTW, I am willing to be proved totally wrong! I welcome a conformation handler to try lifting the tail like we did back in the day!)


Well...here I am...It looks like I am holding their tails up. They are half sibs (same dam). This was last May. I show in Division 1...it is NOT easy to finish a breed CH on a Lab here.

This is my pup winning from the 9-12 mos puppy class. He needs his second major to finish. 










This is the same bitch from my previous post. She is 20 months old in this pic..and finished her CH a few months later.


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

Peggy, I think they both look very nice! 

It's not easy to finish a Lab around here either (not that I'd even earn a point on my girl anyway)...It takes 19 bitches to get even a 3-point major and we're VERY lucky if we even get 19 ENTRIES total (dogs and bitches)- of course, the number of dogs actually competing almost always ends up being even less than that...

I say your boy's coming along very nicely if he's already got 1 major! Good luck with him!


----------



## labpoor (Jun 19, 2008)

luvalab said:


> But, to receive a championship in the sporting group, the dog must have (pick it--WCX, JH, SH...) minimum (the British thing, sort of).


What about the FTC? Should they be required to have a major in the show ring? As of now, the LRC asks members not to advertise their Champions without the dog having a WC. Unfortunately they can't stop members from doing it in this country.

You will find more show breeders doing field stuff with their dogs than field breeders doing show stuff. If you're going to require something for a show dog, then you must require something of the field dog too to show it looks like a Lab.


----------



## labpoor (Jun 19, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


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


All of my dogs go back to Brian. I love the Briary type. Recently my dogs were called "God awful" by someone who thought my Briary stuff was weedy and ugly.

Some of us still like an old fashioned looking dog regardless of what the trend is elsewhere.


----------



## labpoor (Jun 19, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> You seem to be confusing not holding the tail up with keeping it down. They are not the same thing.
> 
> I am saying that handlers no longer hold up the tail, which emphasizes athleticism. I am not saying they keep the tail down.
> 
> ...


No, it's called getting older and not being able to stoop over the dog to hold the tail up like we did when we were 20. LOL










It's just easier to hold the head up and keep your back straight.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

this last weekend I got to watch a handsome 'show' type lab earn his NAHRA intermediate title...He was very stylish and a pleasure to watch work - definitely very nicely put together (I believe one of his parents has a CH)...Probably the best mannered dog I saw in the intermediate group...

here are a couple of pix I took of him....


----------



## Reziac (Jun 26, 2008)

*"... a great responsibility .. to keep faith with 5,000 years of true breeding...they must shun man's natural tendency to 'improve' which so often in dog breeding terms means to alter out of all recognition"*

_Quote originally adopted by the Pharaoh Hound Club - United Kingdom - July 1971_​
They are absolutely right. It is our job to _preserve_ the breeds as they were developed, not to "improve" them. Breeds are by definition correct _as they come to us_ from their founders. Modern deviation from that historical foundation is neither correct nor "improved".

I stopped doing AKC shows in the 1980s, and quit FTs a few years later. I have classic-type, old-bloodline Labs (my mentor, and breeder of my foundation bitch, started in Labs ca.1925) and I was not willing to alter them to a "modern" type to win in _either_ venue. 

A couple years ago I started showing again, this time at UKC events... with moderate success 










This is *GRCH Longplain Tessera* at 8 months of age... 
She is currently the # 3 UKC Labrador (at 12 months old).
_"Dice"_ is the 12th generation of my own line through _both_ parents. 
Not so bad for 100% fieldbred, eh? 

And she works as good as she looks.


----------



## traklover (Mar 10, 2008)

Reziac that is one nice looking Lab. She looks very pleasing to my eye. Most Labs I see now, I wouldn`t have in my house (hang out too much on the show circuit). I would definately take her, nicely put together and I suspect she moves very nice too, and she looks like she can hunt too.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Reziac said:


> *"... a great responsibility .. to keep faith with 5,000 years of true breeding...they must shun man's natural tendency to 'improve' which so often in dog breeding terms means to alter out of all recognition"*​
> 
> _Quote originally adopted by the Pharaoh Hound Club - United Kingdom - July 1971_​They are absolutely right. It is our job to _preserve_ the breeds as they were developed, not to "improve" them. Breeds are by definition correct _as they come to us_ from their founders. Modern deviation from that historical foundation is neither correct nor "improved".
> 
> ...


A lot of wisdom in that top paragraph! All those breeders that want to IMPROVE the breed have done much in creating the health problems we now face as well as altering (for the worst) the look of many of today's Labs.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Reziac said:


> *"... a great responsibility .. to keep faith with 5,000 years of true breeding...they must shun man's natural tendency to 'improve' which so often in dog breeding terms means to alter out of all recognition"*
> 
> _Quote originally adopted by the Pharaoh Hound Club - United Kingdom - July 1971_​They are absolutely right. It is our job to _preserve_ the breeds as they were developed, not to "improve" them. Breeds are by definition correct _as they come to us_ from their founders. Modern deviation from that historical foundation is neither correct nor "improved".
> 
> ...



Now THAT is a good looking Lab pup!! Excellent structure to work, and looks fit and healthy.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

Who is the owner/handler?


sky_view said:


> this last weekend I got to watch a handsome 'show' type lab earn his NAHRA intermediate title...He was very stylish and a pleasure to watch work - definitely very nicely put together (I believe one of his parents has a CH)...Probably the best mannered dog I saw in the intermediate group...
> 
> here are a couple of pix I took of him....


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

AmiableLabs said:


> Notice one more thing from the picture above -- back then the customary way to show a dog was holding its tail up, as is generally done with sporting breeds.
> 
> Now the custom is to show the dog with the tail down, as is customary with working breeds.
> 
> ...


I don't know any conformation person who intentionally would show their lab with the tail down. The ideal is to have the tail out straight, but to have the dog naturally carry it that way from their topline as described in the standard. Many handlers and newbie exhibitors out there still hold the tail up (and it drives me bonkers), many breeders and old time exhibitors let the dog do it themselves. The correct carriage is when the dog carries it, not the handler. 



> _Tail_--The tail is a distinguishing feature of the breed. It should be very thick at the base, gradually tapering toward the tip, of medium length, and extending no longer than to the hock. The tail should be free from feathering and clothed thickly all around with the Labrador's short, dense coat, thus having that peculiar rounded appearance that has been described as the "otter" tail. *The tail should follow the topline in repose or when in motion.* It may be carried gaily, but should not curl over the back. Extremely short tails or long thin tails are serious faults. The tail completes the balance of the Labrador by giving it a flowing line from the top of the head to the tip of the tail. Docking or otherwise altering the length or natural carriage of the tail is a disqualification.


I have two show CHs and they aren't fat. If you felt them you'd know they are muscled and have a coat. 

This is Leo at almost 7 years old. These pictures weren't taken the same day, but close. 










Here is the same dog from above. He is on the right and clearly not fat. 










***Disclaimer - I'm not posting these to imply my dogs are perfect. There are things I would change about all of them. These are just to show the difference a little coat can make. 
Here is my second. He may look like a huge ape to you but he's not even 85 lbs. (I know this because we looked into flying him recently)









Here is the same dog out of coat. 









His brother in coat. 








I don't have a good one of him in profile out of coat, but here he is from the front. 









Why can't everyone just enjoy their dogs and quit picking on others for their tastes? As I said before, I know my dogs aren't perfect, but there are perfect things about them. Maybe after 20 years or so I will be able to breed my perfect dog. A dog who can hunt, show, and do a whole lot more. 

I have the book and I believe it is a good one. It discusses many of the things Labs do including hunt/field trials, therapy work, assistance animals, conformation, etc. Labs really do it all with a great deal of success because they are such great dogs.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

It never ceases to amaze me when show people think that field people can't determine when a dog is in or out of condition. :roll:


----------



## Reziac (Jun 26, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> It never ceases to amaze me when show people think that field people can't determine when a dog is in or out of condition. :roll:


Even more amazing are the, uh, highly variable definitions of "fit" 

BTW, here's another o' them ugly 100% fieldbred Labs, out of 10 generations of homebred nothin' much... 








This is *GRCH Longplain Sirius* winning *UKC Reserve Best In Show* (at 26 months) ... and how was YOUR weekend? 

Sirius has an odd trait I'd never seen before: In lunging water, rather than, uh, lunging, he _power-walks._ It's so much easier for the dog that he can do it literally all day long. Will be interesting to see if it inherits to his pups.


----------



## sandyriver (Feb 24, 2008)

I really like the look of the older 80's style labs and remember labs looking a lot different than they do now. I fell in love with labs in the 80's and then in my late thirties was finally able to get a lab of my own. I saw a few in the conformation ring here in the PNW and I had to walk away they looked horrid in my opinion...yes...there was the odd nice one deemed 'moderate' in appearance. I'd like to see a conformation dog with 'working' titles also like a MH or a UDX maybe even a OTCH. I'd love to see a good quality lab with UDX or OTCH in the pedigree with CH in front also ...maybe even a hunting title in there SH or MH. Guess I'd have to look at a Golden if I want an OTCH pedigree dog.... Where are the OTCH lab bred dogs...bet they look like field labs?


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Here is a CH/MH. Jaming at a Specialty and also going BOB that weekend.
I own nothing but show bred dogs. I also have one who had MH passes before finances dictated quiting. And I have one who, because finances just improved, we are just starting with. Fully expect to run her in Master. And this on lacks nothing in desire, go, and trainability.
I have also owned a CH who was a "cobbier" dog who didn't know the word quit in the field. Cancer got her at 10.5 yrs.

http://www.hoflin.com/online/labmuseum/Brandywine's Westdale Duggan 

The point with Duggan is, the stocky dog isn't always the winner.
He beat the # 1 and # 2 dogs for Best of Breed multiple times that year.

Here is the cobbier dog.
http://www.hoflin.com/online/labmuseum/Alpenglo's Jasmine O'Brooks


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Reziac said:


> Even more amazing are the, uh, highly variable definitions of "fit"
> 
> BTW, here's another o' them ugly 100% fieldbred Labs, out of 10 generations of homebred nothin' much...
> 
> ...


That is a nice looking dog...and a GRCH is a nice accomplishment....not the best photo, but it obvious to me she (right?) is in shape because you can see the muscles in the front of her and on her rear leg....nice.

Also when did she get her HRCH title - if she is 26 months old, must have some talent....

FOM


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

FOM said:


> That is a nice looking dog...and a GRCH is a nice accomplishment....not the best photo, but it obvious to me she (right?) is in shape because you can see the muscles in the front of her and on her rear leg....nice.
> 
> Also when did she get her HRCH title - if she is 26 months old, must have some talent....
> 
> FOM


I see an extra appendage underneath I believe.....


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> I see an extra appendage underneath I believe.....


Me too.......


----------



## Ross Byers (May 16, 2008)

www.thelabradorclub.com if you wish to make a comment on what people are thinking the standard should be. The labs I saw at Westminster were appauling. There are definately better examples out there than what were shown.

JMHO


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Show folk, me being one of them, I have to say that I agree with some of the field people. I have had this discussion with many a show friend. What many show people think is in shape or not fat, can be far from the truth. I too get sick when I see some of the so called "substance" that wins in the ring. And yes, when showing, I too play that game to some extent. On the other hand, field people can be guilty of going to far the other way. Too houndy looking. The opposite extreme.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Ross Byers said:


> www.thelabradorclub.com if you wish to make a comment on what people are thinking the standard should be. The labs I saw at Westminster were appauling. There are definately better examples out there than what were shown.
> 
> JMHO


Agreed. Too often who is winning is about politics, handlers, and money. And if you have that and win a bunch, you go to Westminster. If the best handler in the country is paid to show your fat dog and it is of decent structure it will probably win a bunch. And if the show community thinks "substance" is in shape, then that is what will get shown.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

I allowed Sonya to add 2-3# before the Intl shows, but that is coming off!  

According to my vet, back ~10 yrs ago when she showed Labs regularly, she was guilty of adding up to 10# to her males. Now we both are guessing the winning dogs are carrying up to 20# in some cases at specialties. It really doesn't LOOK good, I just don't understand it. These are sporting dogs, for crying out loud... Oh, my vet is the first to tell me if she thinks my girls are carrying ANY extra weight now! She is pretty much just doing agility and obed these days, so keeps (and prefers) a much slimmer dog.  Anne


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

While I agree that some show dogs are obviously carrying a ridiculous amount of extra weight, I have to wonder also if what some folks are seeing as "fat" is not just a nice spring of rib/barrel combined with more coat (at least on some show dogs) than some are used to seeing on field dogs. It's not my intention to start an arguement, fuel the fire, or make it seem like I'm bashing field dogs (I'm not, I do keep a wonderful appreciation for the field side of things), but I really do have to wonder sometimes if folks are seeing something a little different than what they are used to seeing and thinking it's "fat". I wonder if some folks would feel differently if they had the opportunity to run their hands down some of these dogs in person. My husband, who is a hard-core performance guy, definately had an enlightening experience when he put his hands on a few show bred dogs. I'm not saying this would be everyone's experience, but I do wonder how many minds would be at least opened to a level of appreciation if given such an opportunity...

For example, when we brought our new puppy (show bred) into our vet's office last week, he also thought and commented she looked "chunky". However, when he actually got his hands on her and felt her ribs were indeed right there, his perspective changed a bit. She simply has a larger barrel/spring of rib and more bone than what he's used to seeing (again, mainly field dogs).


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

brandywinelabs said:


> On the other hand, field people can be guilty of going to far the other way. Too houndy looking. The opposite extreme.


This is true, but the field dogs are not trying to be the best example of the standard, except in performance. If the performance aspect were to be done the same as the show ring, our dogs would be near sighted and we would be fitting them with glasses...

And yes, this is tongue in cheek.


----------



## Ross Byers (May 16, 2008)

brandywinelabs said:


> On the other hand, field people can be guilty of going to far the other way. Too houndy looking. The opposite extreme.



Agreed, I have a yellow female from conformation lines and my black male is from field lines. He's taller and leaner and doesn't have the blocky head like my yellow. I wanted a duck dog, hunt test dog and the yellow couldn't cut it. Oh she'll pick up my birds no problem, but has a mind of her own. My black, he's bred for what I want him to do....it's all in the training too...my fault with the yellow.










And yes, she's on the heavy side. We get snow up here you know....


----------



## Montview (Dec 20, 2007)

brandywinelabs said:


> Agreed. Too often who is winning is about politics, handlers, and money. And if you have that and win a bunch, you go to Westminster. If the best handler in the country is paid to show your fat dog and it is of decent structure it will probably win a bunch. And if the show community thinks "substance" is in shape, then that is what will get shown.


And then you get us "nobody" newbies into the ring at Westminster with our first show dogs (just for the fun and experience of going) and without professional handlers (mostly because this is *our* hobby and *we* like to be the ones doing it, but also because some of us can't afford the pros, LOL), and we make it down to the very final cut.  It isn't always about the politics... I've learned that much first-hand. 

Besides, having "titles on both ends" and with legs toward more titles (and enjoying every single moment of learning it all), many of us newbies still see the world through rose-colored glasses and feel that a well-rounded dog with a wonderful temperament is the most important thing with a versatile breed like ours.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Montview said:


> And then you get us "nobody" newbies into the ring at Westminster with our first show dogs (just for the fun and experience of going) and without professional handlers (mostly because this is *our* hobby and *we* like to be the ones doing it, but also because some of us can't afford the pros, LOL), and we make it down to the very final cut.  It isn't always about the politics... I've learned that much first-hand.
> end quote:
> 
> I know. You have done very well with a nice looking dog. Congrats.
> When I was showing Duggan, The year he beat the # 1 and 2 and jammed two specialties, he ended up #forty something and I showed him a bunch and a handler showed him some. What would he have done if I put him with someone pretty much full time?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Montview, I'd like to see more dogs like yours in the ring. Congrats again!


----------



## Reziac (Jun 26, 2008)

LabLady101 said:


> office last week, he also thought and commented she looked "chunky". However, when he actually got his hands on her and felt her ribs were indeed right there, his perspective changed a bit. She simply has a larger barrel/spring of rib and more bone than what he's used to seeing (again, mainly field dogs).


Something I've seen a lot in certain show lines is that while the ribs are "right there", the dog still has a pot belly because it has so much internal body fat. They're like that from the time they're little puppies. They have to downright ribby before they lose that "potty" look, and some don't even then.


----------



## Reziac (Jun 26, 2008)

FOM said:


> That is a nice looking dog...and a GRCH is a nice accomplishment....not the best photo, but it obvious to me she (right?) is in shape because you can see the muscles in the front of her and on her rear leg....nice.
> 
> Also when did she get her HRCH title - if she is 26 months old, must have some talent....


As someone else noted, it's got a dangle, which usually makes it a him despite the poor lighting 

He's just started to fill out, and is still a bit of a teenager (mine are a good four years old before they're fully mature). And yes, he's very fit and strong.

GRCH is a UKC Grand CH. He hasn't been run in field events (I used to run FTs back a couple decades, but have been out of that for years) but yes, he has some talent -- marks well and runs hard, and is real cooperative.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Reziac said:


> Something I've seen a lot in certain show lines is that while the ribs are "right there", the dog still has a pot belly because it has so much internal body fat. They're like that from the time they're little puppies. They have to downright ribby before they lose that "potty" look, and some don't even then.



Is the rib coverage (think armor) lacking at the same time? I've seen dogs w/ herring gut or otherwise just short rib cages that sort of bulge.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

It's becoming more and more evident that I need to spend more time hanging with the show folks. Way easier than that whole diet and exercise thing- just big boned and in full coat works for me.

Feeling slimmer already regards

Bubba


----------



## Reziac (Jun 26, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> Is the rib coverage (think armor) lacking at the same time? I've seen dogs w/ herring gut or otherwise just short rib cages that sort of bulge.


No, what I'm talking about is a lack of real muscling but the dog still has a LOT of body fat, tending to be concentrated in the abdomen.

Here's an example of more belly than dog right from the start:
http://www.huntclublabradors.net/photos/yellowpuppies.jpg

For contrast, this pup is probably about the same age:
http://www.doomgold.com/kennel/puppies/sirius-viper-f1b.jpg


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Ewwwww............................ Sorry but that first link was too much for me!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Bubba said:


> It's becoming more and more evident that I need to spend more time hanging with the show folks. Way easier than that whole diet and exercise thing- just big boned and in full coat works for me.
> 
> Feeling slimmer already regards
> 
> Bubba


Yup Bubba, 
You really need to start gettin around in different circles.... arent you the guy we've mistaken identities w/ DMA?????  
yer still cute, regards.....


----------



## JackCreek (Oct 12, 2008)

ReedCreek said:


> Here goes, I am really opening myself up to fire on this - but here is a link to some photos of my two show bred/hunt test dogs. My little one, Ransom's Alegria at Reed Creek ("Allie), JH is now 18 mo. old and got her JH at 13mo. She is training hard for her SH title. My boy, Ch. LegaSea's Icing on the Cake ("Bonus"), JH got his CH at 22 mo. and then began his HT training. He is training seriously for his SH title. Bonus currently weighs in at 79lbs and Allie is 61 lbs. - field trial candidates - no, for sure, but hunt test abilities...yes! Different strokes for different folks, but I think basically what we all love is the same; dogs who like to bring back birds....so...let's all go train dogs and agree to disagree!
> 
> 
> http://picasaweb.google.com/ReedCreekLabradors/BonusAndAllie?authkey=Fy_i5JApxlw


Patty, your Ransom dog comes from a line of dogs that are long-lived AND very capable in the HT arena. Some of the Ransom dogs have been the nicest looking working dogs. We had one that was bred to Jan Granneman's Christopher Robin and the resulting litter produced very good looking dogs that COULD and did do it all.

Your "Allie" is simply gorgeous! 

Agree - Agree! "Let's all go train dogs (have FUN) and agree to disagree".


----------



## Reziac (Jun 26, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> Ewwwww............................ Sorry but that first link was too much for me!


Sorry, I should have marked it NSFW 

The second link will soothe your injured eyeballs


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Who would do such a think to a puppy? Let alone 3? That is like watching a 100 lb, 7 yr old kid eating their burger at McDonald's....

Juli


----------



## Reziac (Jun 26, 2008)

sky_view said:


> Who would do such a think to a puppy? Let alone 3? That is like watching a 100 lb, 7 yr old kid eating their burger at McDonald's....


The scary thing is, they're probably not actually obese -- but they look that way because 1) the fat distribution itself is not normal, 2) they're so soft-muscled that they have bloopy bellies, and 3) they have WAY too much hide.

Puppies by a particular famous stud of a couple decades ago always had those traits, even when they were actually a bit too thin. Most show lines today are linebred on a grandson of that dog. 'Nuf said.


----------

