Worrying Trend In The Show Ring

[aussielover]

Marvellous that the pet owners here know more about specific breeds than some of the most learned judges in the country. ie, labradors, and Westminster. Of course the judge wouldn't know a good labrador. He has probably never seen one.

Read up on the labrador - see what his job was .... and still is in a lot of cases. It was not to canter a couple of meters and drag home a sparrow or two. He needs a great spring of rib, excellent layback of shoulder and hindquarter to do the job he was meant for. He does not need long legs like a greyhound.

I don't think the Westminster dog is particularly fat .... I think if you saw him and had your hands on him, he would prove to have an excellent spring of rib, and good conformation. and a "dense" coat, as required by the standard.

Quotes from the AKC standard of the breed.

The Labrador Retriever is a strongly built, medium-sized, short-coupled, dog possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions

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.

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.

If you get your rulers out, I think the dog pictured would prove to be properly proportioned.

I suppose if you own a weedy labrador, lacking in bone, and in bad condition, you may think this particular Labrador is too fat and too low. Reading the standard shows that he is correct.

There is no way that labrador is anywhere near working condition. There's nothing athletic about it. Do you really think it could work for long hours? No working dog looks like that.

You only need look at the labrador profiles on dol to see the trend in showing larger dogs but if you don't think the first dog posted is overweight you probably won't see the issue.

Thank you for implying my dog is weedy and in poor condition. She is of a finer build than some but if anything she could do with a kg or two off (like me).

Dogs with less than ideal conformation greatly benefit from being kept lean.

[Dogsfevr]

Thank you for implying my dog is weedy and in poor condition. She is of a finer build than some but if anything she could do with a kg or two off (like me).

Dogs with less than ideal conformation greatly benefit from being kept lean.

More weight off From that photo alone it is already so tucked in at the loin it would be so under weight ,lean & to thin is a whole defiant picture

[Jed]

You are welcome to your opinion. I didn't suggest anything. I let the standard do the talking. It suprises me that you know more than the Westminster judge, and the breed experts who put together the standard - but then again - maybe not.

I am sure there are some very good dogs on DOL - as there are very good dogs elsewhere, but you need a balanced outlook, and that includes seeing champion dogs from overseas.

Life is very difficult for people who know so much already they will not admit any other view.

aussielover

Thank you for implying my dog is weedy and in poor condition. She is of a finer build than some but if anything she could do with a kg or two off (like me).

Dogs with less than ideal conformation greatly benefit from being kept lean.

Not at all. Someone needs to tell you. You apparently can't see it yourself. Who told you dogs with less than ideal conformation greatly benefit from being kept lean? Did they tell you why? I thought you were holding up your dog as a great example of the labrador breed? What is the breeding, incidentally?

And this dog does work, does it? How does it go in the field?

[Rebanne]

To answer Brandi, yes dogs look different at different ages. The black lab, to me looks like a mature dog, the yellow lab bitch looks like a young girl not fully mature.

To others who have never been to a dog show, sorry but you are not exactly qualified to comment on how one dog fits the standard just by seeing one photo taken off the internet. No one can really tell what a dog can or cannot do unless they see and feel them in the flesh. Some can make a very good educated guess but that's not me where Law's are concerned

Edited June 10, 2014 by Rebanne

[melzawelza]

You are welcome to your opinion. I didn't suggest anything. I let the standard do the talking. It suprises me that you know more than the Westminster judge, and the breed experts who put together the standard - but then again - maybe not.

I am sure there are some very good dogs on DOL - as there are very good dogs elsewhere, but you need a balanced outlook, and that includes seeing champion dogs from overseas.

Life is very difficult for people who know so much already they will not admit any other view.

I'm not quite sure if this was aimed at me but I was the only other person that replied to you so I think it must be.

I'm not saying I know more than anyone - I'm posing questions. If the Labrador in the OP of this thread is the best possible type of Labrador for it's job, why don't the dogs actually doing the job look like that? Why do only the show dogs look like that? There is such disparity between the two - if the fat dog in the OP is correct why wouldn't people use dogs like him to do the job?

[Rebanne]

Is he fat or does he just look it, to you? You can't tell without laying hands on him.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Rebanne

[megan_]

I'm a bit surprised at your response to the IP HW as you've always posted a pic of a lab in working condition and it was lean (and beautiful). It was a yellow lab and I think it was holding a bird. It wasn't a thin or fine boned dog - broad but lean.

I'm not a breeder but that doesn't mean I know nothing about dogs . Sometimes we can't see the faults of our own dogs due to rose coloured glasses.

[espinay2]

Please if folks haven't already, listen to the Mary R Williams Tapes. An interesting point that she mentions in them and also goes into more depth in her book 'reaching for the stars: formerly advanced labrador breeding' is the effect of field trials on the working labrador. The way trials are run required a different dog to a working labrador. And that changed the breed. They needed a faster, leaner, running dog for trialling. So they introduced breeds such as the greyhound etc to create a leaner, leggier, faster dog. This is as much not a typical Labrador as some of the heavier type. Both extremes are not how a Labrador should be. A Labrador must work in all weathers and be prepared to sit still in icy water for hours if necessary, waiting to be sent out into the water to get a bird. Here is another article which has some pictures of some of her very nice dual purpose Labradors: http://www.notonlybl...-the-manserghs/

Edited June 10, 2014 by espinay2

[Salukifan]

I'm a bit surprised at your response to the IP HW as you've always posted a pic of a lab in working condition and it was lean (and beautiful). It was a yellow lab and I think it was holding a bird. It wasn't a thin or fine boned dog - broad but lean.

I'm not a breeder but that doesn't mean I know nothing about dogs . Sometimes we can't see the faults of our own dogs due to rose coloured glasses.

Why?

What part of "I think some dogs in the show ring are too fat" surprised you?

[Jed]

It actually wasn't aimed at you, Melzawelza.

According to the AKC standard and the Westminster judge, he was the dog most able. And I know SFA about labradors but I can understand a standard of excellence, and after reading the standard, that dog fits it very well. I don't think he is particularly fat, I think he is mature, and a dog with a big spring of rib, and good post sternum - and excellent bone.

If dogs you see working do not look like that, maybe they are working well in spite of their conformation, and maybe this dog could do the job a lot better? He certainly has great conformation.

Maybe the dogs doing the job would do it better if they looked like that? The standards were written by people with huge knowledge of the breeds, and they had seen the dogs working. Form follows function.

Who knows, I have never seen the dog .... but he did beat a lot of other dogs to get to that position, and I presume that the judge is very experienced and knowledgable. But - if I bred Labradors, and I owned this dog, I might try him in the field to ensure that he had the heart - but I wouldn't risk him being injured in the field, I would breed with him and hope some of his progeny were taken up for work.

Originally the St Johns dog was required to jump into icy water to pull in fishing nets, so "strong" is a given. They then developed to retrieve over all types of country and in water.

Edited to say - it is easier to buy (and to breed) a dog with a few faults, rather than an excellent one. It occurs to me that the dogs used in the field may not have excellent conformation. Worth considering.

Further edited to say - one of my 2012 litter went to work as a retriever/flushing dog. It was not the pick of the litter, which I kept to breed on with.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Jed

[melzawelza]

It actually wasn't aimed at you, Melzawelza.

According to the AKC standard and the Westminster judge, he was the dog most able. And I know SFA about labradors but I can understand a standard of excellence, and after reading the standard, that dog fits it very well. I don't think he is particularly fat, I think he is mature, and a dog with a big spring of rib, and good post sternum - and excellent bone.

If dogs you see working do not look like that, maybe they are working well in spite of their conformation, and maybe this dog could do the job a lot better? He certainly has great conformation.

Maybe the dogs doing the job would do it better if they looked like that? The standards were written by people with huge knowledge of the breeds, and they had seen the dogs working. Form follows function.

Who knows, I have never seen the dog .... but he did beat a lot of other dogs to get to that position, and I presume that the judge is very experienced and knowledgable. But - if I bred Labradors, and I owned this dog, I might try him in the field to ensure that he had the heart - but I wouldn't risk him being injured in the field, I would breed with him and hope some of his progeny were taken up for work.

Originally the St Johns dog was required to jump into icy water to pull in fishing nets, so "strong" is a given. They then developed to retrieve over all types of country and in water.

Edited to say - it is easier to buy (and to breed) a dog with a few faults, rather than an excellent one. It occurs to me that the dogs used in the field may not have excellent conformation. Worth considering.

Further edited to say - one of my 2012 litter went to work as a retriever/flushing dog. It was not the pick of the litter, which I kept to breed on with.

Thanks for your reply and I respect your point of view. I guess this comes down to the 'form follows function' or 'function follows form' argument. The idea that a dog that has won a conformation show but hasn't actually worked is an ideal specimen over a dog actually doing the work is very foreign to me, so we will probably never see eye to eye in that regard.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, as it always is.

[Jed]

Is he fat or does he just look it, to you? You can't tell without laying hands on him.

I agree with you. I think he is probably in good condition, but you would need to see him up close and personal. I had a Cav bitch once, with a great spring of rib, and a body a litte long, but a very level topline. A lovely strong bitch. "Everyone" was always telling me she was too fat. I didn't think so. Then she needed a caesarian, and the specialist vet came out to specially tell me that she was the best conditioned bitch he had ever operated on ... on the inside, she was perfect.

So, who knows?

I think some breeds look too fat, and some look too thin, but that's the breed, not the dog.

[Salukifan]

Please if folks haven't already, listen to the Mary R Williams Tapes. An interesting point that she mentions in them and also goes into more depth in her book 'reaching for the stars: formerly advanced labrador breeding' is the effect of field trials on the working labrador. The way trials are run required a different dog to a working labrador. And that changed the breed. They needed a faster, leaner, running dog for trialling. So they introduced breeds such as the greyhound etc to create a leaner, leggier, faster dog. This is as much not a typical Labrador as some of the heavier type. Both extremes are not how a Labrador should be. A Labrador must work in all weathers and be prepared to sit still in icy water for hours if necessary, waiting to be sent out into the water to get a bird. Here is another article which has some pictures of some of her very nice dual purpose Labradors: http://www.notonlybl...-the-manserghs/

As the activities a breed undertakes evolve, so too does the ideal dog to undertake them.

The breeds bred to do a job had a standard written to reflect that job, not do agility or obedience. And the type of dog that undertakes these activities is changing too.

Once upon a time, the gundog reined supreme in the obedience ring. The sport was developed, after all, as a basic test of the obedience of a gundog. They were taught to heel on the left for a reason. Now the sport has evolved beyond them. Do we change the breed to suit the sport? A lighter, more lithe dog would certainly be able to do wrap style heeling better.

And, as Espinay points out, gundog trials are not what a Labrador was bred to do. So they've shaped the dog to fit the sport and what wins. So now we judge what is "correct" by what wins dog sports events?

None of this excuses overweight dogs in the show ring. But be careful that what you put forward as the breed ideal does actually fit the breed standard as the dog was developed to be.

Case in point - the Iditerod. They had to stop people crossbreeding sledding breeds with greyhounds because the event became all about speed. Traditional working sled dogs didn't have a hope of winning it. But which dog would you expect to survive sledding for a living in all weather?

Edited June 10, 2014 by Haredown Whippets

[Jed]

It actually wasn't aimed at you, Melzawelza.

According to the AKC standard and the Westminster judge, he was the dog most able. And I know SFA about labradors but I can understand a standard of excellence, and after reading the standard, that dog fits it very well. I don't think he is particularly fat, I think he is mature, and a dog with a big spring of rib, and good post sternum - and excellent bone.

If dogs you see working do not look like that, maybe they are working well in spite of their conformation, and maybe this dog could do the job a lot better? He certainly has great conformation.

Maybe the dogs doing the job would do it better if they looked like that? The standards were written by people with huge knowledge of the breeds, and they had seen the dogs working. Form follows function.

Who knows, I have never seen the dog .... but he did beat a lot of other dogs to get to that position, and I presume that the judge is very experienced and knowledgable. But - if I bred Labradors, and I owned this dog, I might try him in the field to ensure that he had the heart - but I wouldn't risk him being injured in the field, I would breed with him and hope some of his progeny were taken up for work.

Originally the St Johns dog was required to jump into icy water to pull in fishing nets, so "strong" is a given. They then developed to retrieve over all types of country and in water.

Edited to say - it is easier to buy (and to breed) a dog with a few faults, rather than an excellent one. It occurs to me that the dogs used in the field may not have excellent conformation. Worth considering.

Further edited to say - one of my 2012 litter went to work as a retriever/flushing dog. It was not the pick of the litter, which I kept to breed on with.

Thanks for your reply and I respect your point of view. I guess this comes down to the 'form follows function' or 'function follows form' argument. The idea that a dog that has won a conformation show but hasn't actually worked is an ideal specimen over a dog actually doing the work is very foreign to me, so we will probably never see eye to eye in that regard.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, as it always is.

I actually would expect that dog to work. If you took him into the field (not a field trial - the great outdoors and game), he would be able to do the work. If he couldn't, I would be VERY disappointed.

Whatever, I am happy to read your opinion. If we all agreed the one dog we all liked would be well out of our price range!!

[mita]

I thought Rebanne's question about assessing what is 'fat' was a good one. As was Jed's point about form following function. It seems swimming or plunging into cold water was part of the labrador breed's original purpose...& a protective layer of fat would have been perhaps necessary???

Found a quote on a PetHealth site:

Labrador Retriever Obesity

Obesity is controlled with diet and exercise. The natural fat layer that protects Labrador Retrievers from hypothermia when swimming should not be allowed to become a thick layer of padding.

So Rebanne's other point also makes sense to me.... that someone with knowledge and experience with the breed needs to make a hands-on assessment. Same, too, for other breeds???

Disclaimer: I don't have that kind of knowledge & experience with any breed.

Edited June 10, 2014 by mita

[Florise]

This is my lab

She wouldn't make a show dog but she is happy and healthy.

She looks very thin to me.

[benshiva]

Is he fat or does he just look it, to you? You can't tell without laying hands on him.

I like this post! Photos can be deceiving and I wouldn't be commenting on a dog's weight unless I could put my hands on them and tell for myself.

I have a beautiful young bitch at home who when in full coat looks overweight. She is kept hard and lean yet I've had people ask me if she is fat when they've seen a photo of her.

[trifecta]

Is he fat or does he just look it, to you? You can't tell without laying hands on him.

I like this post! Photos can be deceiving and I wouldn't be commenting on a dog's weight unless I could put my hands on them and tell for myself.

I have a beautiful young bitch at home who when in full coat looks overweight. She is kept hard and lean yet I've had people ask me if she is fat when they've seen a photo of her.

Agree strongly with this!

Once upon a time, the gundog reined supreme in the obedience ring. The sport was developed, after all, as a basic test of the obedience of a gundog. They were taught to heel on the left for a reason. Now the sport has evolved beyond them. Do we change the breed to suit the sport? A lighter, more lithe dog would certainly be able to do wrap style heeling better.

HW, don't get me started on this, I have never owned a gundog, always working breeds for me, but I yearn for the days when dogs actually heeled in parallel with their handlers :laugh:

[teekay]

This has been a very interesting thread for me. My first dog was a Labrador, Holly. I got her from a registered breeder in the UK. I still have the copy of her pedigree :) Her pedigree name was Sweetdream Mystery. She lived up to her name, she was an absolute dream. :D Sadly we lost her 5 years ago and I don't have many pictures because our hard drive went on the computer and we lost many many photos. Here are a couple that remain.

You can't really see her structure too well but she would definitely not be as stocky as the show dogs I have seen. The question I have though is, Is she unsound in structure? Should her 'type' of Labrador not be bred? Personally I love the look of the slighter Labradors.

Holly came from working lines and her parents were actual working dogs. She was very much like her Mum, except in colour :)

Interestingly my sister has just been a puppy carer for the guide dogs assoc and from the guide dogs I met, they tend to be slighter in build as well. I have just watched a couple of Crufts videos because I was interested in what the Uk was doing. Yes, the Labrador best in breeds were definitely more stocky. Then there was a guide dog demonstration and, again, the Labradors were slighter.

I am not criticising the size and shape of the show bred Labradors at all. Judging from the answers on here, the breed standard very much calls for the stockier shape but I ask myself if that makes the slighter build 'wrong'.

If ever I was to consider a Labrador again, I would prefer a slighter build but I certainly would not want to go to BYB. Are any ethical registered breeders breeding for a slighter frame even though the more heavy set dog is the breed standard?

This also got me thinking if there are other breeds where there seems to be a large difference between 'show' lines and other lines. Rottweiller maybe? I've seen some very heavy set Rotties and some leaner ones too, no idea which is closer to the breed standard though. Staffordshire bull terriers come to mind too.

[WreckitWhippet]

This has been a very interesting thread for me. My first dog was a Labrador, Holly. I got her from a registered breeder in the UK. I still have the copy of her pedigree :) Her pedigree name was Sweetdream Mystery. She lived up to her name, she was an absolute dream. :D Sadly we lost her 5 years ago and I don't have many pictures because our hard drive went on the computer and we lost many many photos. Here are a couple that remain.

You can't really see her structure too well but she would definitely not be as stocky as the show dogs I have seen. The question I have though is, Is she unsound in structure? Should her 'type' of Labrador not be bred? Personally I love the look of the slighter Labradors.

Holly came from working lines and her parents were actual working dogs. She was very much like her Mum, except in colour :)

Interestingly my sister has just been a puppy carer for the guide dogs assoc and from the guide dogs I met, they tend to be slighter in build as well. I have just watched a couple of Crufts videos because I was interested in what the Uk was doing. Yes, the Labrador best in breeds were definitely more stocky. Then there was a guide dog demonstration and, again, the Labradors were slighter.

I am not criticising the size and shape of the show bred Labradors at all. Judging from the answers on here, the breed standard very much calls for the stockier shape but I ask myself if that makes the slighter build 'wrong'.

If ever I was to consider a Labrador again, I would prefer a slighter build but I certainly would not want to go to BYB. Are any ethical registered breeders breeding for a slighter frame even though the more heavy set dog is the breed standard?

This also got me thinking if there are other breeds where there seems to be a large difference between 'show' lines and other lines. Rottweiller maybe? I've seen some very heavy set Rotties and some leaner ones too, no idea which is closer to the breed standard though. Staffordshire bull terriers come to mind too.

What comes to mind with the SBT's ?

Edited June 10, 2014 by WreckitWhippet