What is your take on a bitch with a little length. Have any of you noticed if they just move great from the start or do they take a little longer to get it all together. I have two girls both with a little length on them, one moves like the breeze and the other moves like she is a puppy, just not quite together yet. Any ideas. Thank you
They are still puppys about 8 months old.

I would think that if the sloppy one was going to clean up, she'd have done so by now. The longer cast, well made dogs always seem to have great movement. Maybe your sloppy one doesn't have the angles.

I always go with the puppies with the longer length of body.

Thank you for your insight.
The sloppy one has maybe too much angle.
I was hoping that maybe she would just take a little longer to grow up, but you think by now she should have good movement?

i would not worry, no one can judge the dog without seeing the dog.
best wishes.
ritva

You might want to read the standard again on the topic. It defines the breed as short-coupled and square.

If you're reading the standard I believe it says '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' what's you take on slightly longer, there's no mention of square. That would be rectangular to me :)

Above all, I'd look for balance.

Since you asked

What is your take on EQUAL TO - which IS square? The option is SLIGHTLY longer. So... by definition, the breed is SQUARE (length equal to height) or SLIGHTLY off square (slightly longer). Neither of those can be thought of as truly "rectangular" - which would be noticably longer than tall. If you can say that the dog is "long", then it is likely rectangular - not anywhere close to square - and typically NOT short-coupled.

This is not just my thinking, it is clearly written in the standard in non-ambiguous terms. The problem is that people try to interpret the simple words to support personal taste instead of using the words as a GUIDELINE to develop their taste. Equal is the first description - and is NOT to be ignored or minimalized. SLIGHTLY longer is an option. Obviously rectangular is not.

Would someone define "point of the rump" for me? thanks

Also, is "point of the shoulder" the forward point of the actual shoulder, or the point of the shoulder blade which I think is the wither?

Depending on how much length you are talking about, my take would be that she is not a good example of the breed and may be suited for a pet home. Regardless of how she moves, she is likely to produce puppies that are also out of correct proportion. One of the PRIMARY definitions of TYPE for our breed is a unique proportion that was selected for the work of the times. Even though we no longer use them the same way, if we are to preserve the breed we MUST consider the proportion defined in the standard as a high prority.

As to the movement, it is dependent on SOOOOOOO many aspects of bones, joints, ligaments, etc. that body proportion alone is really a minor factor.

For clarification: Point of shoulder and point of rump refer to the < and > when looking at the side view of a dog.

It's where the shoulder blade and upper arm join in the front of the dog, and where the bone coming down and back from the hip meets the upper leg's bones in the rear.

Basic terms, but do you understand what I mean?

The front measuring point is the place where the scapula and humerus meet. The rear point is calles the "ishial tuberosity" - that boney point just under the anus. Here is a link to a photo of a bitch on which I marked the measuring points. She is about 10% longer than tall - SLIGHTLY off square. Also, half of her height is in leg to the elbow and half from elbow to withers. To my perception and the best definition I find helpful, any Lab more than 10% longer than tall is out of proportion to the standard. The bitch in the photo is one I kept on the short term, but never showed or bred myself. The photo is at 8 months.
http://nimloth.com/gabbyside3.jpg

Here is one that is more nearly square. He is VERY slightly longer than tall and his brother is absolutely square. I do not have a photo of the brother taken from the side as an example
http://nimloth.com/Bruiser-proportion.jpg

I've seen this dog move and know why I prefer a dog with a little more length - it's not pretty coming and going.

Gee......Doesn't anyone have a copy of "Dog Steps"by Rachel Page Elliott???

His movement is not a product of length... and if you think it is you really don't know a thing about movement. Your preference for length will only get you more length, not correct movement. His brother that is square moves better for the various reasons that affect movement, not body proportion.

And your point is????? Type is MOST defined by bone proportion - and every standard gives clear clues to that proportion for each breed. The MOVEMENT is a product of both that proportion and the underlying structure. Movement that is correct BY PROPORTION for a Labrador is not the same movement that is correct BY PROPORTION for a Setter or any other breed. If you expect open-extended movement from a short-coupled, square breed, then you need to reformat your expectations. The movement is defined as parallel, balanced and EFFORTLESS.

That was very well put, Maureen

Thanks for all of the info. I have seen both shorter and longer dogs move good to me. And there are so many dogs that are not the "standard", but nice dogs in there own right. I am a horse person and movement is huge to me.......... I know that a little lenth will make a beautiful mover on the flat and a comfortable ride, and a shorter backed is a little choppy. Of course all of these things are taken in consideration with the rear angles. I guess horses and dogs are very similar. These pups are pets to people who love them, and of course I always watch over them when I can, so again thank you for all of your insight.

Which is exactly why you'll find the vast majority of beautifully-moving dogs NOT square! A square dog can not move without his backline moving up and down, usually due to lack of angulation as well. I was taught by LONG-time breeders that you want to be able to set a cup of tea on the dog's back as they move around the ring and not spill it! Hard to do with choppy movement!

You have to remember that EVERYONE has an opinion that is as valid as the next person, no matter if that next person doesn't think so

It depends on what you define as beautiful movement. I think many of the sight hounds move beautifully. They are not built properly for a Labrador. I love the movement of my Setters from the past, but it is not correct for a Labrador.



This is simply not true. There are many short-coupled, square dogs that move without bounce or sway of back. They have proper angulation and balance. Poor angulation and lack of balance can result in choppy movement - again, read the standard and it is well described. I saw quite a few dogs in my recent trip that moved with solid toplines and THEY were not long! Perhaps you are basing your opinion only on YOUR dogs or those of similar breeding. I can tell you that many lines have both correct proportions and correct movement - which is the true measure of beauty regardless of the breed.



Well, on this we will have to totally disagree. Everyone has an opinion, but many of them are uninformed and some are totally invalid - no matter what the next person thinks

Okay - well then, I think your opinion is totally invalid. Doesn't feel very good to have someone tell you that, huh? But then again, you don't care because you are always right!

Judges are selected by clubs when they think people want that judge's opinion on their dogs. Maybe the number of judging assignments has something to do with how many people feel about a particular judge?

Actually, most exhibitors only want judges that agree with their own opinion - whether their opinion is informed or not I don't think that popularity has anything to do with judging to the standard - nor should it. In this country, judges all agree to judge to the standard, not their own taste. Unfortunately, many do not take that pledge very seriously.

I would not go so far as to say your opinions on length and movement are totally invalid. I just think they are poorly informed and based on limited information and/or experience. Perhaps you can use this dialogue to further expand your knowledge of the breed and reform your opinion to include those dogs of correct type and movement that win all around the rest of the world

So what if a Specialty show brings in a judge from, say, the UK...is their opinion of the breed as valid as one from the US? Is it different, what is the reason the big clubs do this? very curious?

since we all seem to be correcting others, it is ilium, ISCHIUM, and pubis that form the pelvic girdle on mammals.

I don't know why you have to get personal when someone challenges your thinking. I have not given an "interpretation" of the standard at all... I have quoted it precisely. There is nothing about the proportions given in the standard that is ambiguous or open to "interpretation".... that is the whole point. The standard absolutely calls for a dog that is square or slightly off-square. It calls for parallel movement that is effortless. I fail to understand how any logical person could ever interpret that to mean "rectangular" in shape or sweeping in movement.

There is nothing personal in my comments (unlike yours)... I am just pointing out the OBVIOUS. Read the standard. If you like dogs that are long in proportion and have sweeping movement, get another breed that has those features instead of mucking around in a breed that is defined differently.

PS... I am judging 3 specialties in the next year. I have been contacted about a 4th, but have not received an offer as yet. How about you?? How many are YOU judging in the near future?

Oops.. I mistyped "ischial" tuberosity. Thanks for the correction.

Oh, please do tell us where? I don't see your name listed anywhere on Jill's specialty listing.

My email address is on EVERY one of my posts (unlike some people), so if you have any PERSONAL questions about my schedule, you know where to send them Otherwise, you will just have to wait until the shows are published - like everyone else.

She's quite pretty Maureen, why didn't you keep her?

Just curious, then, what you think of Ch. Beechcroft Study's Top Secret, who went BOB at Potomac and quite a number of other specialties, and also at Westminster, where he got a group placement under an all-breed judge. By my "measuring" of his pictures - he is appx. 12-15% longer (from point of shoulder, not the chest, to the point of the rear) than he is tall at the withers. Gorgeous-moving dog.

IMHO - the standard never "says" square - and it also doesn't define "slightly longer".

I agree with you and the OP. 8 mo. is still a puppy and far from full grown, it can be a gangly age.

Since you're back from your trip you have a worse case of the nasties to anyone that doesn't agree with you. Come back down to earth and treat people as you would like to be treated.

What a nasty thing to say! I have not been nasty to anyone - I have stated facts with a great deal of restraint under the circumstances. The FACT is that I do post my email so that if anyone wants to take personal issue with me, they can do so directly. The FACT is that judging assignments are posted publicly for everyone to see a certain amount of time before the shows. How can either of my comments be construed to be nasty?

Your put down, however, is quite another matter. Refer to my previous statement and send your PERSONAL remarks to my personal email address where personal issues should be discussed. This is a breeder list, not a personal insult forum. I would have told you that "personally", but you didn't provide an email address where those you snipe at can reply.

What word would would you use to describe something that is the same height as length? The standard does not use the word "square" - but DEFINES it in the measurements. Slightly longer is not the same as noticeably longer. It certainly is not rectangular. Stop nit picking, ignoring or trying to misconstrue the simple words. The standard is very explicit... the Lab is defined as the SAME length as height or SLIGHTLY longer. Obviously, 15% is not "slightly" in any definition - engineering, mathematical or canine.

I know what YOU think you WANT it to say.... but read the actual words and just consider that the founders of the breed had something specific in mind. Put aside what YOU like and really read the definition of the breed with new eyes. I think you will realize that we are not consistently breeding to the standard in this country. Thank goodness, many in the rest of the world have not abandoned the breed as it is defined.

I will have to take a look at the photos of James and measure them. I haven't had any interest in doing so, but will make the effort SINCE YOU ASKED. I do know that Ch. Blackwing Superfine (who received a JAM) is approximately square in proportion. I used him as a teaching example for that very reason. He is also a lovely mover due to his correct and balanced angulation that fits his short coupling. He is proof that dogs do not have to be long in proportion to move well --- or to win

Since it has nothing to do with this thread, I'd be glad to answer that if you email me privately. Thanks for the nice comment about her.

Actually, I've bred to Big and have a number of pictures of him from the Hamiltons - measuring every one (nice, stright on side-shots) - I measure more like 12%-14% longer than tall. Where are you measuring the height? I thought it was supposed to be above the the shoulder blades at their highest point? So if you're measuring higher on his neck, you'd get a taller dog.

Don't feel too bad Maureen, the bullies never do post their names.
I stopped using mine here since it always attracted the nasties too!
The difference is I don't use my anon status to hide behind insults I don't have the guts to say directly to someones face.

The only photo of James that I located is impossible to measure accurately as he is standing in deep grass. I approximated where his feet are located and he is well within the completely arbitrary 10% that I use to measure "slightly" longer. So is Big. They both are short coupled, have adequate leg and move well. Perhaps that is why they win so much

I measured the only photo I found online. He measured 8% longer than tall. So did James with my "guess" at where the feet were located. I could be off a bit on him due to the nature of the photo. In any event, both were "slightly" longer than tall and neither is obviously "rectangular" in appearance... although the "footless" photos are

I don't believe anyone ever said they preferred a rectangular dog - those were your words. Just that square isn't really a practical thing, nor do I really think you find it in a nice-moving dog.

I'd love to see how you are measuring James and Big - I just can't get the height/length ratio to measure what you seem to measure unless you are measuring something totally different. How about taking the photo of Big here and telling us how you are measuring him http://www.eatonlanelabradors.com/big.jpg

First of all, I think it is absolutely despicable the way you treat Maureen Gamble, hiding behind an alias name. What cowardly behavior!!!!!!!!!! If you have an ax to grind with her, PLEASE go private and maybe work the problem out. I'm sure she would be more than willing to stop this nonsense.

I have been in the dog breeding business for over 45 years, and I wish I had the knowledge Maureen has. She is an assett to this forum, and most of us realize that.

Just because she is straight forward with her answers, doesn't mean she is being nasty. She has a great command of the English language and incredible knowledge about not only Labradors, but also many other breeds.

Get the chip off your shoulder and read and absorb what she says.

People like Maureen Gamble don't come along that often, so enjoy the moment.

Thank you and have a nice evening.

Actually, someone said exactly that rectangular was correct and/or preferable in one of the earlier posts. Read the whole thread. Why would you think that square is not practical? Labs are not the only breed that are defined as equal in length and height. It may not be something YOU find in a dog that moves like you think is "nice", but it is a trait I have found for decades (and decades) in Labs and some other square breeds that move as their breed standard describes. I'd say that is "nice" movement for them because it is breed appropriate.

I have been reading the various standards for over 40 years and have not found ANY of them to disagree on either proportion or movement. What nearly everyone else in this discussion describes as "preferable" is NOT what is defined in any of the standards. I hope this thread encourages a few to actually READ the standards again and consider that the dog described therein is one that has a place in this country - while we still can.

If you will look at either of the photos of MY dogs that I provided (in other words, photos I can mark up without permission of the owner) you can see the measuring points. Thank you for the larger photo of Big - I used the same pose but it was so small that I could not measure very well.

On the photo you linked, he is 180 pixels tall (on a line from top of the shoulder, through the elbow, to the bottom of the feet) and 190 pixels long (horizontal line from point of shoulder to point of ischium). That is about 5.5% longer than tall... certainly that would be considered SLIGHTLY. His body proportion is really excellent, but his legs are slightly less than half his height. If they were exactly the same length as the measurement from elbow to withers, he would be dead on square!

If your measurement is way off from that, then you are not calculating where his feet are in the photo the same way I have. They are buried in the grass, so you have to use a straight line to calculate where they end.

So you are measuring from the shoulder above the leg? What happens if his shoulders are behind that and lower(which I'm quite sure they are)? The way you measure, every dog has the same layback? Gee, in that case I'll change my definition of height/length as I was measuring from the actual height of the dog above his shoulderblades, not simply above his leg.

Yes. You measure to the highest point of the scapula. On a dog that isn't ewe necked or built awkwardly, that is directly above the leg. If the dog lacks angulation, it is STILL above the leg, just further forward. If the dog is well angulated, it is further back.



I am not sure what you mean. If the scapula does not come to the top of the back (is lower), then you still measure to the top of the back where the neck joins it. I have seen a number of dogs with scapulae buried into the neck - you still use the junction of neck and back as a measuring point.



Look at my two photos again. Those dogs do not have the same layback. However, the line for measuring is STILL through the elbow and to the top of the scapula.



I think you are mistaken about where the shoulder blades (scapulae) are on the dog. Unless you are measuring to the BOTTOM of the scapula, instead of the top. You measure to the top of the back at the HIGHEST point of the scapula, not the rearmost point. Since the bone is broad at the top, that can be quite a difference. the HIGHEST point of the scapula is generally right above the elbow. This gives the dog static balance and alignment.

If you have been measuring to the rear-most point of the shoulder (or where it might appear to be), then you are not getting the dog's full height. If you wicket a dog, you always find the highest point of the scapulae and place the wicket straight up and down at that point. One visual clue is that the junction of the neck and back is at that spot.

If you email me, I will send you the photo of Big with the measure lines shown in color.

whenever you start a sentence with "you" or "your"
and complete it with a negative opinion, "you" are
making nasty statements about another person or the
person's position/opinion

none of these "you" statements are necessary to
state your own opinion or facts

Maureen makes her share of "you" statements

Hey I didn't want to start world war III here, only a question about a pup that was a little sloppy in the rear. I personally believe e-mail and all on -line chatting can be taken the wrong way by anyone of us.
Although you can tell someone to go to $#@! and they will either love you for it or not, it's all in the tone.So I guess if we are looking for different ideas or ways to look at things we better be able to just listen and go from there. Take the advice or not, the standard is the standard, you may look at it differently then I do, no matter what it says, that's human nature. I really don't think you can be upset with anyone who perfers one dog over another, remember we can all say that we have had a hand in swaying the standard one way or another. WE ARE NOT ALL PERFECT.

YOu know what, Maureen, don't stoop to even enter into discussion with someone like that. Especially on a public forum.

As someone who is going to be possibly judging 4 specalties that I may be entered in, I also don't like seeing you as a judge entering into the "fray" of nasty threads like this. Best to keep a professional distance once you see the person start attacking you.

I thank you, Maureen, for all of your knowledge and insight, I ALWAYS learn from you.

The dogs discussed are lovely specimens of the breed and are short backed but they are not "squares" in my opinion. The term is thrown around "very square" to indicate a dog that is short coupled but they do not measure as a square so that "opinion" in my opinion is incorrect.

Dogs that are short backed can and do move well.

What I find utterly disrespectful to all of us who read the posts to learn something is when someone says that they are not always right and everyone can have an opinion BUT (but meaning disregard what came before the but)everyone's opinion that disagrees with them is incorrect and uneducated. When discussing type and preference stating that your opinion is the only one based on "facts" is an oxymoron.

Climb down off that high horse.

Looks like the only specialty you are judging is for English Setters...where are the lab ones?

"When discussing type and preference stating that your opinion is the only one based on "facts" is an oxymoron. "

I am reluctant to restate the obvious again. When you quote the standard - the final arbiter of TYPE - then it is not an "opinion" .... it is FACT. If another "opinion" disagrees with the FACT, then it is not an informed opinion. It really is pretty simple. People may have their preferences, but there is just one type - and it is defined in the standard. On the topic of proportion, the standard is very clear - regardless of anyone's "preference."

I don't even ride horses... I am allergic to them. I DO read, however, and for 40 years I have read and embraced the overall definition of the breed from the official writings that are supposed to be a blueprint for ALL of us. I have no issue with people who disagree with ME... just those that clearly disagree with the standard. Those who want to argue that they are entitled to their "opinion" need to reconcile how that opinion reflects the official, written standards. If it does not, then it is not an "educated" opinion and needs some introspection.

Opinions are based on what we know. If we only know what we "like" and not what is defined by official sources, then we need to study the definition. That seems so common sense to me that I keep wondering how anyone can fail to understand.

As I have said in the past, all personal questions should be sent to my personal email. This forum is not a place to discuss personal schedules.

A good laugh in the morning really starts my day!

Actually by *you* bringing it up here..you made it "un" personal.

Besides--judging assignments are not a "secret". It all comes out at some point. How can that possibly be personal?

A standard is a written blueprint and measurements for every body part are not included. The actual living animal is thus an interpretation of that standard. All standards are subjective.

Say for example the use of the word "short coupled" - a French Bulldog is going to be far more short coupled than a Labrador yet both breeds use the term.

YOUR interpretation of the type the standard depicts is different from someone else's yet both dogs can "fit" the standard - it doesn't make one more correct than the other. Yes a curved tail is incorrect, a dog with too much rear angulation, exaggerated head, etc yet two dogs can have all the parts in the right place and in the right proportion yet look a little different.

So why do different judges put up different dogs? They are supposed to be experts on the breed and judging the dogs according to the standard? Because it's their OPINION and that is subjective.

You should receive some sort of award - I have never known anyone who really does know everything and is always right!

sniping begets sniping, not learning to recognizing
another person's point of view as valid

Not when it is jammed down your throat and you are spoken down to.

yes, sniping begets sniping