I have started a new thread about the standard. On a breeder's list, this is really the sort of thing that many of us could be constructively discussing.

Shortbacked wrote

While measurements for every body part may not be included, measurements and/or proportions for SOME body parts are clearly stated in many breed standards. Those elements of the standard are not subjective and open to interpretation. They are so worded to provide a guideline that is NOT subjective or open to ambiguous interpretation. Those that use modifiers which allow some interpretation are subject to common usage or just plain common sense!

Here are some examples from the Labrador Retriever standard:
"The height at the withers for a dog is 22-1/2 to 24-1/2 inches; for a bitch is 21-1/2 to 23-1/2 inches. Any variance greater than 1/2 inch above or below these heights is a disqualification"
OK, we may not like it, but there it is... a specific measurement that is enforced by disqualification. This means that even if you PREFER your Lab shorter or taller, it does not belong in the show ring. It lacks correct breed TYPE according to the standard. Arguing that size doesn't matter or most judges won't enforce it or even that many judges will not notice is just so much self-deception. Either change the standard or change to another breed, because the specific measurement is part of the standard - it is not open to interpretation.

"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"
This is not an arbitrary reference - it is a specific proportion that is measured from specific points. The only word that is even open to subjective interpretation is "slightly" - and common sense must exclude any interpretation that gives a distinctly rectangular proportion. This means that dogs which are obviously out of square in those measurements are not of correct TYPE by the standard. Dogs that are tall and leggy compared to their length are not of correct TYPE - and I doubt if anyone here will deny that. Why, then, do so many defend the idea that long and low dogs can even be considered as correct? Why do some teach that a longer body is preferable for ANY reason, since it is clearly not correct TYPE?

In addition, the coupling (length of loin) is to be short. This is typically the area in which longer specimens gain their length. In order for the neck and rib cage to have good length and the loin to be short, there has to be a dramatic change in the vertebrae proportion at the lumbar junction. THIS trait is breed specific and one of the important features of breed type. If the loin is long, then the dog lacks the unique BREED SPECIFIC proportion that makes it a Labrador. The correct overall and coupling proportion is part of the standard - it is not open to wide interpretation.

"Distance from the elbow to the ground should be equal to one half of the height at the withers. "
Here, again, is a specific measurement. If the dog is high on leg or low on leg, it is lacking in breed type by the standard to the degree of the deviation. Again, it is part of the standard and not open to wide interpretation.

"The skull and foreface should be on parallel planes and of approximately equal length "
These references are also not arbitrary or open to serious deviation. Parallel has a specific meaning and is the criterion that must be evaluated. "Approximately" equal does NOT mean noticeably different. If one has reason to question whether a muzzle is short (or long) then it is probably not of approximately equal length. This does not require a tape measure or calipers - the eye can readily notice if two things are approximately of the same length. It just requires actually paying attention and taking a look. These proportions are part of the standard and not open to wide interpretation.

"Ideally, the length of the shoulder blade should equal the length of the upper arm. "
Again, the proportion is not arbitrary. We frequently see short upper arms or even short scapulae. It is not good TYPE and is to be avoided. Just saying it is a "common" fault is lip service. Selecting to actually breed toward the ideal expressed in the standard is hard work and requires diligence. Like it or not, the ideal proportion is part of the standard and not open to interpretation.

There are many, many other descriptions in the standard that are given in terms that can be interpreted individually. We may not all have the same concept of short, well-developed, strong, thick, wide or even balanced. In the art of breeding, our strokes may be broad or detailed based on our interpretation and skill. However, the definitive measurements and proportions in the standard should provide ALL of us with the same palate to ply our art. I appreciate that others have differing opinions - but they are precisely that... opinions. What I have given here is not opinion. They are the exact words of the standard that defines the breed we all profess to cherish. Perhaps it is time to put aside those differences of opinion and genuinely embrace the blueprint of our breed. Let the standard be the final arbiter of what is good TYPE, not the popularity of people or dogs that demonstrate clear disdain for it.

aside from the wicket, which is seldom used, measurement is not done to determine how closely the appearance of a dog matches the words used in the standard

we would laugh if every judge came equipped with a tape measure and a caliper to measure dogs

a map to a destination is not the destination itself

proportions as well as beauty lie in the eye of the
beholder

not everything measures the same way it appears to the human eye

creating and recognizing a beautiful dog is more artistry than mathematics and facts

I breed as close to standard as I can. If I have a small beautiful girl I will show her. I love small and compact. Alot of us do. I believe that looks more truer to the Labrador breed than some of these tall fellows. Think most want to see a nice balanced Lab that looks like a Lab. The heck with a 1/2 in. I have never seen a wicket brought out. We are down South.

...and there you have a perfect example of what I mentioned in my initial post.

The only aspects of the stadard that aren't subjective have numerical values (height), everything else can be argued about.

FWIW, a square by definition IS a rectangle.

If you haven't seen the wicket come out, you must not have shown under the OP.

Here we go again, Maureen - it was peace and quiet for the most part while you were gone. Now we have a standard fight brewing all because someone can't live without stirring the pot.

Can't you give it a rest?

Ahhh... but a rectangle is not necessarily a square A rectangle with two equal sides IS a square - like the body proportion defined in the standard. Nit pick all you care to, but when the standard says EQUAL or HALF or PARALLEL, those are specific relational measurements. They are not subjective or open to vague interpretation by those who "like" something else. Everyone may have a different eye, but that eye should be attached to a brain that learned in grammar school what EQUAL, HALF and PARALLEL mean. Why would anyone propose or defend an interpretation that is completely different from what we all learned then and still teach to children???

I have seen the wicked wicket come out in the DEEP South, then witnessed the dismissal of a tiny bitch,.

How tiny is a tiny bitch? Like 18"?

Are you going to tell us was the meaning of "is" is now?

Seriously - these lectures are getting very tiresome and boring from you - it's the same old, same old.

Tell ya what - when we want your opinion, we'll bring our dogs to all those specialties you said you're judging!

Maureen,

If I were to sit down and have a drink and discuss the standard with you, I think we would agree on much and have some interesting disagreements. I am sure I would learn a good deal. However, there are people who are responding to you who have no respect for even the concept of a standard. They will breed for whatever they want without understanding what they are doing, including harming the breed. But there are also very knowledgeable people who have well informed positions of disrespect for our standard. Many of the latter group dutifully breed to the International or British Standard(s) and take their chances in the American ring. We have to remember that this is an internet forum and in order to have an intelligent dialogue we have to make the distinction between those to be ignored and those to respond to.

I would enjoy that conversation - make mine tea
I have recently had the opportunity to observe quite a few dogs that were bred to the International standard. They come closer to the proportions more specifically outlined in the AKC standard than the average dog I see in the US ring. Perhaps it is because the breeders/owners embrace SOME standard, even if it is not as explicit in its details.

good morning from finland.
reading your opinions, but please explain to me what...

FWIW?
shown under the OP?
mean?

nothing comes to my mind...buzy preparing/helping my daughter-in-law`s judging trip to japan, planning for her dogs and mine.
best
ritva

FWIW is "for what it's worth"

OP is "original poster"

Hope this helps.

hi greg and thanks, yes i´m (being 120 years young) wiser again...couldn´t just figure it out, its my "sudoku".
best
ritva

No, she can't. I am sick reading threads dumping on American dogs!

Here! Here! American breeders, Potomac was breathtaking, congrats on all your hard work!!

Have you been following Obama around and apologizing for our so called short long dogs.

Thank you Maureen, You stated my point more eloquently then I did. I understand the issues relating to the U.S. Standard and therefore accept that many people may breed to another, perhaps more valid, standard. But to not breed to any standard at all other than one's own taste is in opposition to what this sport/hobby/avocation is about.

And when having this dialogue, please try to differentiate (difficult to do with quick internet posts) between these two types of breeders.

Now having said that, do you believe that being square is more desirable to being slightly longer than square? And we can use your definitions of slightly and square.

Okay, ritva, what is "sudoku". I sometimes enjoy trying to figure out what some are saying. Other times wish we were back to just using words. JMHO/just my honest opinion

If you were looking for a short answer, you don't know me very well

I believe that the developers of this "special purpose" breed had a particular task in mind. They chose to include those dogs that were good at the task in their breeding. Dogs that were not as good didn't get to procreate. The gamekeepers of that time were excellent at sorting out which dogs were best at the task - and in mating the best ones.

What developed was a unique blend of physical traits that supported the job. Certainly the dog known as the Labrador Retriever was crossed with other developing retrievers of the time to gain certain traits, but the dog that finally came from all this effort was an "odd duck" structurally. From the first, the standard called for a dog with good length of neck and rib, but a short wide loin and pelvis. This "shortening" and "thickening" of the vertebrae carried on through the tail, giving the breed one of its most distinctive features - the otter tail.

This tail is both a product of the coat AND the short, thick vertebrae. A good tail is very heavy at the base and never "whip like" in appearance. We all appreciate a great tail, but few stop to really consider HOW that tail is formed. A good otter tail starts with short, thick bones that are a continuation of the short, thick vertebrae in the lumbar section of the spine. There are a miriad of other breed-specific traits that are related to this unusual spinal structure that I won't go into here. Much of what makes our breed separate from the "generic" gun dog is based on that unique spinal structure.

So.... (finally gets to the answer) Yes... I do believe that square is more desirable for a LOT of reasons. It may not be as attractive to the untrained eye as the more rectangular dog of "generic" proportion. The eye/brain expect a longer rectangle on a dog because that is what many breeds display. The squarer, shorter-coupled Labrador is an anomaly that was selectively bred for a special task. In order to appreciate the profile, one must develop an appreciation for the history and UNIQUE underlying anatomy of the breed. The EYE must be trained by the BRAIN.

We can all appreciate the sleek lines of a great race car, but it takes an understanding of special function to really love the look of a Jeep

sorry, I was interrupted in typing. Perhaps I should have said she was dismissed by a tiny bit. She probably was 19 inches, maybe 19.5 on her tip toes and with her hair in a bouffant.

....unless it is a RHOMBUS!!!!!
What ARE you talking about?
A rectangle HAS 2 equal sides. A square has 4 equal sides and 4 equal right angles.

Stop talking down to everyone. Pedantic know-it-alls are tiresome!

Well it just goes to show just how smart Maureen is. I found out yesterday that my partner has a Bachelor's degree in Statistics (math). I ran her statement by him (a rectangle can be a square, but a square can never be a rectangle). He totally agreed. So there you go, even a guy with a Bachelor's in math agrees with Maureen! LOL

Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
Los Angeles, CA

Sorry, I've got a Master's degree in a math-related field (gone WAY beyond calculus), but even my kids can tell you that your statement isn't true - a square is ALWAYS a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square.

Wow thanks for the history lesson Maureen! I may not always agree with you but you are a wealth of knowledge and I do enjoy reading your posts. I always learn something from them which shows I am never to old to keep learning. Once you know it all, you need to give it up, right? lol

I can understand the bone structure and what breeders should be breeding for. I know I've felt a lot of tails both in and out of coat, and there definitely is a difference in the thickness at the base when feeling the vertebrae alone. I guess you can liken it to the vertebrae in the neck of a Giraffe. They do not have more vertebrae in their necks, just longer/thicker ones that other animals. Last I checked, they were never selectively bred by gamekeepers for that trait, only bred by nature to serve a certain function.

It's sad that people jump on Maureen for her thoughtful and informative posts. I doubt she's picking on anyone personally (as most people are anonymous so how can it be personal?), she just has a strong view point and opinion and if you don't like it, you don't have to read it. lol

Thanks Maureen

Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
Los Angeles, CA

PS I can appreciate both the square and the rectangluar lines, probably why I drive a sports car and have Labs! lol

"A square is ALWAYS a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square."

Thanks for agreeing with me... that is PRECISELY what I said in my post. I did misspeak when I said a square has two equal sides... it obviously has four. It does, however, have equal height and width, as is called for in the standard.

On your diagram of Gabby, are the two green lines the ones you have used to measure length?

One of the green lines is used to measure height (obviously). The other demonstrates the two points used to measure length. However, since this is not on a "straight" line to the dog (it is clearly sloping), I have shown the box formed by the two measuring points at the shoulder and buttock. The length is measured on a line parallel to the ground and PERPENDICULAR to the height. Either the top or bottom purple line gives that value.

To measure this on a living model, if you held up a yard stick and placed one end at the point of the shoulder, held it parallel to the ground and marked the spot where it would intersect a line dropped from the rear point, you would get the measurement I am using

So on a dog with a sloping topline (which I understand is VERY wrong) you are not actually measuring the length of back, but a plane which is parallel to the ground? Doesn't this contradict the principle of a dog's length being roughly equal to his height?
I've seen many overly square dogs with sloping toplines appear to climb up and out of their own way in front to avoid having their rear feet step on their front heels....either that or crab along on three tracks.

Slope of topline is another matter entirely. The measurement for general length and height is considered on a "flat" plane using perpendicular references. A dog with a severely sloping topline would still be measured the same... but it wouldn't be in keeping with other descriptions in the standard. A dog with a reverse topline would also measure somewhat shorter, but would not be correct. In other words, the relative length is evaluated in relationship to the other measurable factors in the standard.

I have used the word "square" a lot because that is the overall impression I see when viewing the proportion from the side. I have amended the photo of Gabby to show what I mean. She is a bit off-square, but gives the impression of what I mentally see when looking for proportion. The legs are perpendicular to the ground, while the topline is relatively parallel to it. This is what gives the "squareness" to the outline.

Ooops my bad, I misread the statement and misquoted in this thread. lol But it is true and makes sense when measuring Labrador proportions.

Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
Los Angeles,CA

I have developed a presentation that I have not yet given publicly about just this topic. All dogs have the same number and names of bones. What makes each breed separate is the relative size and proportion of these bones to each other. Each breed is UNIQUE to the bone. Once we can grasp that idea, it is easier to look in any standard for the clues to those unique proportions.

Regarding:
"While measurements for every body part may not be included, measurements and/or proportions for SOME body parts are clearly stated in many breed standards. Those elements of the standard are not subjective and open to interpretation. They are so worded to provide a guideline that is NOT subjective or open to ambiguous interpretation. "

In order to have the opinion of not subject to interpretation, one must really think about who wrote the AKC standard. Who decided on the exact measurements and descriptions we are to abide by? Why is it so different from the standard used by the majority of countries around the world? The Labrador Retriever is a breed that is popular world wide. The standard should be the same every where in the world. Although some might like the more specific and detailed nature of the AKC standard as developed by the LRC, is it appropriate for each country to have its own standard about breeds that exist outside their own political boundries? Shouldn't there be one standard used world wide? My answer to that is yes. Standards adopted by AKC should come from the country considered to have developed the breed. One breed... one standard.

You have no disagreement here. As I mentioned in another post, most of the countries I have visited and/or seen photos of consistent winners in "seem" to adhere more closely to BOTH the FCI and AKC standard than many of the dogs exhibited here. The AKC standard is wordy and tries to give specificity to concepts only briefly mentioned in other standards. Maybe the writers felt us innovative Yanks needed stronger guidelines to keep our individual interpretations in check. I don't think it worked

In any event, the AKC standard is the one I have to use to judge in THIS country and so it is the one I thought would be worth discussing here. Also, the whole rest of the world does not use the UK standard - some countries have their own just like the US. I embrace and applaud ALL of the standards - they each give a slightly different insight into the breed, but ALL of them define the same TYPE dog.

There are still some subjective areas in the standard. When the words "ideally" and "should be" are used it implies that is what one strives for. It doesn't say must be as in the disqualifictions.

If a dog had to be perfect to compete, the breed ring would be a very lonely place. Much as we would like to think our dogs are close, none of us has yet to breed the perfect dog.

The standard is a blueprint of what the LRC deems we strive for. There are some areas that should be revisited. Weight being one of those areas. Winners bitch at Potomac is in the middle of the height standard for a bitch. I don't think anyone would think that she is at all overweight. Anyone care to take a guess what she weighs? (By the way, this has nothing to do with whether you like her or not, just a discussion point on weight).

I agree with Jennifer. I don't understand why we are different than the rest of the world on this. We can only hope that in years to come the LRC will revisit some of these points.

Other than height and a few other things, nothing in the standard is a DQ... including length x height proportion. They are all "ideals" to be used as a guideline for both breeding and judging. That does not make some of them "subjective" - many are specific and give us a pattern for evaluation. TYPE is evaluated in how closely each dog comes to that pattern, even though none will likely ever achieve it.

I do agree with you about the weight guidelines in general on current dogs. It is interesting to note that the height and weight recommendations have not changed at all since the first AKC standard. We now breed a more substantial dog with more "heft" in both bone and body than was common in the 1940s. It is not just an American pattern - it appears to be world wide. Perhaps better nutrition or factors other than simple preference have influenced this. I don't know if that is good, bad or indifferent... it just is.

Remember, the "rest" of the world has several other standards that differ from ours as well as each other. We would have to address all of these in order to have "one world" uniformity in the guidelines.

But this is NOT what the standard 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."

According to the standard, you should be using the diagonal line. It does NOT say to use the projection of the measurement onto a horizontal surface as the measurement, which is what you're doing. It says to take the actual length between the 2 points as the measurement for comparison sake.

I think this is a great topic. All of us who breed should study the standard(s)as much as Maureen obviously has. The Labradors of today don't much resemble the labs that were initially bred up to those first standards (we probably don't resemble the people of those times much either), I'm sure, but the fact remains that there have been many gifted and visionary breeders that have been able to take that standard and continue creating the Lab we know and love today.

There is no perfect dog. Instead of worrying the mathematics of perfect proportion I think that we as breeders need to master the mechanics of balance. I can think of many talented breeders, breeders who have my utmost respect, who prove this theory over and over again. Breeding is an informed art that is perfected with observation and practice. Threads like these are important for anybody who loves Labradors and is brave enough to attempt to breed the perfect dog.

Or just the STANDARD dog

Here's my two cents:

I have to agree that the standard needs to be upheld. It's there for a reason. It's not a guidline, it's a standard. Parts are open to some level of intrepretation, others are clearly laid out in specific detail.

I personaly believe there are too many dogs winning that in reality are not of correct type. Dispite the fact that every dog has a flaw or fault, dogs with dissqualifing heights, weights, etc, should NOT win a blue ribbon let alone "earn" a CH title. The wicket should be used, and I also believe scales should as well, even measuring tape. I'm not against it.

That said, I don't also don't believe that just because a dog isn't CH quality, or just because it has a dissqualification to the written standard, doesn't mean it should automatically be removed from a breeding program. A good breeder will always look at the bigger picture and breed a pair to compliment eachother and improve a fault or dissqualigication to a dog with a strength in that area. The standard may be somewhat black and white, but a breeding program doesn't have to be. Some breeders believe in only breeding CH's. That's ideal of course, but not realistic. (That goal is also pointless when their chamtpions don't actually meet the standard.) My ideal is even greater, if I lived in a perfect world, I would only breed a dog with titles at both ends, conformation / field, and while I believe it's a great goal to strive for, it's also not realistic.

We can't change other people, only oursleves. We are not responsible for others beliefs or actions, only our own. The only power we have over others is in influence, which is best done by setting an expample. There will always be hippocracy and polictics in this sport, as in every other aspect of life. At that same time we must also not give up and give in. I find this post informative and nessacary. Conversation and open disscussion is a great tool that creates awareness of issues, if nothing else.

OK.. if you like, use the diagonal line. On average, it makes only 1-1.5% difference from using the method I suggested. It is easier for most of us to measure a photo or an actual dog by using a "flat" plane measure. One can use a yard stick or other tool that is easy to handle and mark the end points with your hand. EVERY puppy born here is measured at 8 weeks using a ruler. It is pretty easy using my fingers to align the measuring points with the ruler. Just as an aside, I don't keep any that measure more than 10% longer than tall

In reality, the diagonal line is not "that" diagonal on most dogs. I calculated the length of the "green" line on Gabby as compared to the "purple" line. Her length x height proportion is 104.2% using my measure and 105.7% using the diagonal. Both are slightly off-square - which means that her length is SLIGHTLY longer than the height at shoulder - just as the standard allows.

Maureen, I loved your response to my question from before (copied below). Please address the following:

1) The ideal dog has long vertebrae in its neck, medium length vertebrae in its back, and short vertebrae in its loin. The shortening should obviously be gradual. Having said this, is it difficult to breed for a short back without losing length of vertebrae in the neck? Short necks are a problem in the U.S.

2) The standard states that both square, and slightly longer than square, are acceptable. Which is better/worse....a) slightly shorter than square OR b)slightly longer than slightly longer than square? (I know that may sound dumb but it is very clear to me.) Let's assume any extra length is coming from the back and not the loin.

3) How much does "proper" shoulder angulation, including correct upper arm and scapula lengths, add to length?......and same question for apparent/perception of length?



Quote:
Originally Posted by bottom line
Now having said that, do you believe that being square is more desirable to being slightly longer than square? And we can use your definitions of slightly and square.

Just remember - even if it has 4 equal sides it still might not be a square or a rectangle!

LOL! Gotta love a rhombus!!!

Wow, this is turning into a chapter from my in-process book!

Yes... it is difficult to breed different proportions of vertebrae in the spine - especially on such a young breed. The "generic" balance is always trying to regain control. We tend to get short necks on shorter-coupled dogs with shorter bodies. We tend to get long necks on long-coupled dogs with long bodies. The challenge of retaining Labrador type is in getting and preserving the UNIQUE prortion of vertebrae that is defined in the breed description and standards over time. All have called for a short-coupled dog with a good reach of neck. It is the HARDEST element of type to get and keep consistently. The "drag" of the breed is toward "generic" balance.



The standard says equal first and then modifies it to allow slightly longer. Some will consider both of those as equal. As a writer, I would give preference to the first listed option - because I would list the most preferable FIRST if I wrote it. That is a personal interpretation, but that is what you asked for. It does not include slightly SHORTER than square. That would give an unnatural look for the breed - a true type deviation. Longer than "slightly" longer is also a type fault and needs to be considered to the degree it affects the desired proportion. In reality, the extra length is USUALLY in the loin, not the ribs.



I may alter "perception", but the front point of the shoulder in most dogs is at a specific area of the body and shoulder girdle. the rear point of the ischial tuberosity is in the same basic place also. How the shoulder connects to the body may be greatly different. I have seen dogs with shoulder blades buried into the neck muscles. It does not make them shorter-coupled or squarer.

The real test of proportion is for the dog to maintain its square proportion standing and in motion with free, easy movement. Dogs that can be "stacked" to hide their lack of balance generally reveal it when moving. Try really watching this at the next show you attend. You will be amazed at how the outline of many dogs changes completely when trotting.

Thanks for having enough interest to even engage in this dialogue.

I will first admit my attempt to make my point in a Socratic way. My intention is to be as non-confrontational as possible.

I totally agree that shorter than square is un-natural and to be avoided. And because of this, I am not sure I can agree with the interpretation of the Standard that square is preferred over slightly longer than square (although I don't necessarily disagree with that either as I have also wondered if listing square first does mean something).

But, if I aim for square, it seems to me I may get some pups with shorter backs than acceptable to me, and some pups with slightly longer backs which is still great. If I aim for slightly longer than square backs, I may get some pups who are square which is still great, and others that are slightly longer than slightly longer than square. It seems to me that slightly longer than slightly longer than square is preferable to shorter than square, so I have tended to aim for slightly longer than square to avoid the too short back which I see as a problem in the breed. (that was a mouthful)

Furthermore, since short necks are a problem also, and it is difficult (although definitely desirable) to get a long neck with a short back, this seems to further justify aiming for a back slightly longer than square and not being overly concerned with a back that is slightly longer than slightly longer than square. Lesser of all the evils I guess....... And this is the key. I am not saying that I like slightly longer than slightly longer than square. I am saying that in the big scheme of things, it is much preferred over shorter than square and/or a short neck.

Also, a dog than can cover a lot of ground at a trot is not a necessary trait in this breed but certainly can not be considered a fault or even a flaw in itself. And it seems to be that dogs who are slightly longer than square do tend to move "better", if for no other reason than the length compensates for other imperfections.

Having said all that, I real long loin is totally ugly and not functional. Also, when my eye was less experienced, I was naturally attracted to the shorter the back the better. (Even then, I would notice shoulder blades way up in the neck though.) Being comfortable with a slightly longer dog has been an acquired taste for me.

Soooooooo, totally respecting your goals and having completely enjoyed reading them, that is my logic anyway. I am glad to hear and learn from your critique.

thanks

I have to admit that reading that made me a bit light headed, I am sure it will read better in the morn!
Good night.

I really don't think this has to be "avoided" - I have never seen in 40 years a purebred Lab that was shorter than square. Remember, the "drag" of proportion is to be longer, so it would take a really odd anomaly to get shorter than square. Even if you were to turn up one, it would not breed true due to the genetic pre-programming. It would be like trying to breed a short-necked Giraffe.



Again, not only not likely, but so out of keeping with the breed that I have never personally seen one in 40 years. If that is your only rationale for selecting longer than square stock, then experience says it is not a concern. Truly square specimens are rare enough - even when you carefully select for them




I don't follow this logic at all. Since it is desirable to have a long neck with a short back, then one should ALWAYS select for a long neck with a SHORT back. A long neck with a long back is common - but is not correct TYPE for a Labrador.




The lesser of the evils is to select for SHORT loins and LONG necks. Intentionally selecting for anything else is only reinforcing the generic traits that subvert type. THAT is the real key to this whole discussion.



If it does not move like a short-loined, moderately angulated Labrador, then it IS a fault or flaw of type. Labradors, like the Jeep I mentioned, are built to cover uneven ground for short distances with excellent stability. They are also built to handle choppy water with the same stability. Covering a lot of ground in an open trot is NOT on their performance evaluation chart - nor should it be. Remember, they were developed to be a "special purpose" water retriever for the uneven terrain in Scotland. The more we try to make them into an all-purpose land retriever, the more we reinforce the "generic" traits that erode both the FORM and FUNCTION for which they were selected.




You may have heard, but it does not appear you have learned much. It sounds as if your mind was already made up to breed for longer dogs from the outset and are just looking for a way to justify it. I am glad you respect my goals. I, unfortunately do not respect yours as stated. Every person who intentionally CHOOSES to breed for long dogs with full knowledge that it is not the type defined for the breed moves the gene pool proportion further toward the generic. That makes breeding correct dogs even harder for those of us who DO try to breed to the standard.

All things being balanced-neck flowing into laid back shoulder with a back of similar length as neck and hip to base of tail length as well, point of hip to stifle to hock and shoulder to upper arm-add length of leg and depth of body. These equal angles make the square of a balanced body allowing the dog to cover the ground effortlessly and with out undo upward motion. A dog built like this will appear slightly longer than tall, but the overall balance differentiates it from a dog that is truly short and therefore really rectangular.

I think if we try to breed a longer neck than back we are asking for disproportion, a serious problem in this breed (short coupled would be the term I would use over short back). Any animal that is expected to perform physical tasks needs to have body balance. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. Thats why we breed phenotype to phenotype and always work to achieve that ideal balance that makes the dog a good physical representation of the breed-without losing sight of the breed type set forth by the standard.

It sounds simple, but we all know it's not.

sudoku, a number puzzle in which the numbers 1 through 9 must be placed into a grid of cells so that each row or column contains only one of each number.

something i don´t manage either, but its interesting.
best
ritva

Could you tell I wrote that before I went to bed last night!!!!!!! I am not sure it will read better this morning but here goes.......

Maureen, The point of this discussion and forum is to learn. I entered this thread supporting the idea that breeders must breed to a valid standard, even if it is Britain's. I tried to politely communicate my understanding of the US Standard (without being argumentative) and was sincerely interested in your critique of that. Why be so nasty to me?

Holy Smokes, Maureen - this is precisely why you are not well-liked by the vast majority of us one here - you just admitted you don't have any respect for people with a different opinion!

Guess you'll have to keep breeding within your own lines as none of us breed correct dogs, according to you! Truly an ego of massive proportions (probably a square one at that!)!

You read into my comment precisely what YOU wanted to read. I did not say what you inferred. I said I have no respect for the GOAL of breeding long Labradors. I have no specific feelings toward the PERSON that has those goals. One of my best friends and I disagreed tooth and toenail about a particular ideal in English Setters for 25 years. We both understood that we were much more as human beings than just our intellectual ideas or specific goals. I have missed her and our occasional "debates" frequently since she passed away from cancer. Bearing ill will toward someone due to their concept of DOG type is really very petty. I would hope that we are all above that on this forum.

I don't respect the goal of intentionally breeding away from a clearly stated standard. Many breed long dogs out of ignorance of the standard. It isn't a conscious goal for them, just what happens when you don't know the issues. Some do it as a result of putting personal taste ahead of the written guideline - even when they do understand that guideline. This is what I do not respect. It is putting personal ego ahead of the breed - no matter how one tries to justify it with convoluted logic.

My commitment to the breed has remained the same for 40 years.... first, do no harm. It is why health issues have a high priority in my plans. It is why good working dogs have a high priority in my plans. It is why I try to PRESERVE the breed that was passed down to us by measuring every breeding against the written guideline. It is why I make every effort not to "water down" the breeding pool by adding more "generic" dogs to it. Every person who breeds to personal taste WHEN IT IS IN CLEAR OPPOSITION TO THE WRITTEN STANDARD makes breeding standard dogs more difficult. They make reaching MY goals harder - how can I respect that?

Maureen, give it a rest "YOU" are making me dizzy!

I wasn't being nasty. I don't understand how people take such clearly worded statements as personal insults. I said I do not respect your GOAL to breed longer dogs intentionally, since the standard clearly calls for a squarer model. I don't have any feelings toward you one way or another... I don't even know who you ARE!

If you truly support the idea of breeding to a standard, then how can you hold a goal of breeding FOR the most common type flaw in our country today? My critique is that your attempt at justifying this practice is not logical OR you don't really understand breed TYPE. If you genuinely support breeding to any standard, then refine your eye - and goal - to breed TOWARD the type those standards describe.

Hmmm... are you sure that was not a pre-existing condition

Disclaimer: Please take that as a joke, not an insult

http://www.websudoku.com/

I thought that this was supposed to be an educational forum…. It’s more like a feeding frenzy … a pack of hungry hyenas’ circling the prey…. As I read your threads… there are some good responses and there are the personal hits towards Maureen…. Frankly, I do not personally know Maureen….however, it’s just a crying shame that there are those who love to read things that are not there into Maureen’s threads…. We all have an opinion… if you don’t like her opinion you don’t have to read her thread… move on the next thread…. “But” to say, no pun intended LOL:

“this is precisely why you are not well-liked by the vast majority of us one here”

Sorry “But” does not speak for me!
I do enjoy Maureen’s posts however good, bad or indifferent that I may feel they are…
If I do not like them I will personally email Maureen and not wear a “But” mask!

What are you truly trying to achieve with this thread? You don't have to respond but I would encourage you to think about it.

If you want everyone to agree with you then you must find a better way to communicate your thoughts. It doesn't matter how you interpret your writing its how other readers do. There is no way you can represent what others feel about what you write. You can defend yourself all you want but at the end of the day others will interpret it how they want.

You can convince yourself and support your own ideas of what is and is not a good Labrador based on the standard but it will always be your own idea. Sorry but that is the way it is and will always be. I am not so sure that is a bad thing either. The Labradors around the world are nothing like the ones 50 years ago despite the best written standards. What about 100 years ago? Is that wrong? I don't think so. Shamrock Acres Light Brigade was a great dog in his time but I wouldn't want him today. I wonder how may of us would?

We will always need a standard. I would prefer a shorter one that does more to describe what a great one should be instead of what it shouldn't be.

I have inserted a new avatar during this discussion. Although I certainly do not advocate that the bitch pictured is my ideal, she is an example of the PROPORTIONS in the standard. She is exactly the same length as height. Half of her height is in her legs. Her neck is long and strong. Her ribs are of good length and depth with plenty of lung space. Her loin is short. Her angulation is as described in the standard. She is living proof that it IS possible to breed long necks, moderate backs and short loins with good angulation. Watching her work in the field brings a lump to my throat because she is SO athletic and effortless.

For those who choose to critique the photo, she really does have a tail (it is wagging) and it is a true otter tail with wrapped coat. She does have a head (it is turned slightly away) with equal length of muzzle and topskull, moderate stop, etc. Would I take her to Potomac? Not likely - but I will gladly take her in the whelping box bred to a male of correct proportions with the size and substance she needs.

My point here is to show PROPORTION that fits the standard.... not necessarily a DOG that fits the complete standard.

VERY VERY WELL SAID, THANK YOU!

It was wonderfully pleasant for a while. It just didn't last long enough.

We will always HAVE a standard (until the AR folks outlaw all breeding) - but I would argue that there is no evidence we really NEED one based on current trends. When people can argue that words such as EQUAL, HALF, or PARALLEL are open to individual interpretation, then a standard is not a useful tool. Or is it more correct to say that it is not being USED as a tool. As you pointed out, it seems that people will interpret ANY written communication how they want - regardless of the accuracy of the writing.

Maureen - Most of the time I enjoy reading your stuff..provided it is not too long. I seldom agree with it but I still like to read it. I also enjoy reading the responses and how excited/agitated/annoyed you seem to get people. I just worry sometimes that you may take this a little too seriously like others on this forum. Nothing wrong with being passionate but I hope that everyone who is excited/agitated/annoyed about this doesn't let it consume your entire way of life.

I think our differences make our breed stronger in the end. I generally think the quality is better overall now than it was when I started 20 years ago. Some individual qualities are worse some are better but overall I think there are more positives than negatives.

That was a very valid point brought up by a previous poster. Was Shamrock Acres Light Brigade ideal for the standard or was he as close as was currently possible to achieve toward that for his time? If we wanted to we could selectively breed individuals that idealized Shamrock Acres Light Brigade and within several generations we may achieve that goal. Would Labradors be better for that?

Breeding is an art and no matter how precise the written standard, open to individual interpretation. As breeders who love this breed and all it represents it is our duty to make sure the individuals are form to function and possess undeniable breed type as dictated by the accepted standards. After that it is the subjective opinion of others along with the dogs ability to do what it was intended to do that validates our efforts.

You ask what I hoped to achieve with this thread. I HOPED to engender a little introspection by those who are familiar with the standard and encourage them to reexamine it in light of the comments. I HOPED that those who were not as familiar with the standard would make the effort to read it - carefully - with an open mind. I HOPED to recruit a few of the fence-sitters into the ranks of those who breed to the standard. I HOPED that those who intentionally choose to breed away from the standard would come to some recognition of the eventual outcome of their actions for ALL of us.

I guess my HOPES were a bit lofty, but how could I abandon those hopes for the breed that I love? Mine is just one voice - and people will take the words as THEY choose, not necessarily as meant. But at least I offer a voice for my breed, its standard, its history and what I hope will be its future. My only motivation is dedication to the goals expressed over the decades by those who left us a pattern to guide us.

She is not my type for sure. Might be proportioned for you. My eye does not catch the look I like in a Lab. Thats why we all breed toward the standard but still the look and type we personally like. Would like her chest to be deeper. A little more leg than I like. Again, we all like something different and you can not sell us on what you like and believe to be the final word. I do enjoy comments from you on alot of matters. Maybe like some one else said more condensed would be even better.

It is interesting. I think this thread is incredibly important. I agree with most of what Maureen is writing. But for some reason, I don't feel like continuing. Go figure....

TYPE is not a preference... it has a definition. There can be many styles within type, but not many types. You gave the real crux of the problem - we all like something different. Ideally, we would all like the standard!!

This dog is not my ideal(I said that earlier), but she is the PROPORTION required by the standard. If she has a little too much leg to suit your personal taste, then your taste deviates from the standard - which says half the height is in the leg. I would like more substance on her, but her chest is the depth called for in the standard. Perhaps if she had more substance of body, you wouldn't feel the chest is shallow. If the legs had more girth (better substance) maybe they wouldn't appear as long. As I said, I would like more substance, but the actual BONE lengths/relationships are as defined in the standard.

Even though your EYE does not like the proportions, they are the ones given in the standard. Does that mean the standard is in error... or your eye? As I said in a prior post, the EYE can be trained by the brain with a little introspection.

Yep... it is easy to give up. I have on many occasions, but keep coming back

Nothing to add but Maureen, I am very sorry for the loss of your best friend.

to play along with Gail's question- I would say 68 lbs.

"This dog is not my ideal(I said that earlier), but she is the PROPORTION required by the standard. "

WHAT? According to your opinion how can a dog meet the standard yet not be your ideal? Haven't you said over and over and over (and over) again how only dogs that meet the standard should be bred, shown, etc and there should be NO room for subjective interpretations? Then a dog that meets the standard is a dog that meets the standard and that should be your ideal. This bitch meets the standard according to you so she should be perfect and your type and ideal. You also say there are "styles" - how is this different from subjective opinions of the standard according to type?

A dog can meet ONE of the criteria in the standard without meeting ALL of them. Haven't you ever seen a dog with a beautiful head and a poor topline? A lovely body and a light eye? Get real!



Nope. You clearly don't bother to really read my posts.



If you have to ask that question, then you either haven't read what I actually wrote or don't understand the answer. I can't help with either of those problems - it is up to you.

The problem is she doesn't seem to realize she becomes nasty to many. Don't take it personal *bottom line*.

Do you know people take offense to your wording Maureen or you honestly don't know?

Thanks for the kind thought. I miss her every time I hear a really funny joke that I would have shared with her, see a stunning dog that I know she would have appreciated, or have a thorny dog problem I need to reason out - alone. Those who carry long-term grudges over disagreements about dogs that will only live a decade (and are shown for only a few years) are missing the best part of the sport of dogs. Ego and money so often get in the way of the most meaningful of enterprises - and relationships.

How true indeed!!!

Maureen, you must have stock in soap boxes, since you seem to have an unlimited supply.

The value of the opinions and knowledge licensed breeder-judge have is clearly shown in the number of people who show under that person, and the number of specialties they are invited to judge. There are breeder-judges who have opinions that are highly valued, and those opinions are sought frequently by clubs by invitation. Those who can, do. Those who can't preach.

To "Enjoyed"...The peace and quiet was sweet...now we have the preaching noise again!

Maureen,

Is this a "spot the difference" avatar???

She's been altered in the later posts. First thing i've noticed is her chest has grown! more thigh, more substance, completely photoshopped actually.

You testing us??

That is hysterical (I think). When I read Maureen's later posts I consciously thought that my first impressions of that bitch were half wrong. It never dawned on my that it was a different picture. ha ha ha ha ha

Go with it........no rulers allowed (yet).... Eyes only like a judge......

Is the bitch longer?

Is the bitch taller?

Do the proportions of her bone structure change?

Take rulers out later (like a breeder).

Wow Tina you're good. When clicking on the properties, you will notice the first avatar as ending in Jade.jpg. The altered Jade ends with Jadealt.jpg.

I thought the later pictures looked a bit more "typey" to me. Although the standard states its preference of "proportions", it does NOT define type IMO. I know Maureen will disagree with me. It states the structure, the balance, etc, but breed type is VERY hard to describe and of course there are many "styles" of type out there. If you look from one kennel or line to the next, you can see a distinct "style". These dogs may or may not have the proper proportions/structure as describe in the standard, but they are VERY recognizable as Labradors! Breed type, is what makes a Lab a Lab. Yes they must have proper structure to go with it and that is what the standard attempts to describe.

The standard is but a blueprint for a breed. It describes many attributes, proportions, faults, preferences and disqualifications. It does NOT, IMO, define type. Type is what is learned from going to the shows, learning from your mentors, etc. For example, a dog with a broad head. Many standards state their breed should have a broad head. How broad is broad, what are the measurements of a broad head? We know they should have equal and parallel planes-but so do Shetland Sheepdogs!

Sorry to get caught up here, I just thought I'd throw out a few more thoughts and agree I do see the difference in Maureen's dog. Good photoshop!

Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
Los Angeles, CA

Maybe it is just people using words differently but when I use the word type, I clearly include functional structure in the meaning. Proper type is determined by function.

I'm not sure I understand your definition of type. Are you saying that because a dog can function well, then it is typey? Or are you saying that the "type" of function they do, ie the way they hunt, retriever, etc makes them typey?

I've seen many field dogs, who do not even begin to adhere to the standard, work well DESPITE their form. Is that the "type" you are describing? In many cases, field dogs have been bred for their DRIVE that they seem to perform despite their form. This is what I call "Function DESPITE Form".

Our standard was written to describe how that form should allow our dogs to work easier and more efficiently. With proper structure, balance and proportions. It describes what colors the breed comes, eye color, pigmentation color. But again, it's only a blueprint. The experienced breeders are the ones who know true "type".

Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
Los Angeles, CA

I spotted the difference between the dogs pictured immediately. The dog went from a no-boned, no upper-arm, no depth of body,upright layback to a truly decent looking dog. Which dog is real? The second one, certainly looks more like my standard.

Wouldn't be the first time a doctored photo has been aired, especially in advertisements. Happens more than you'd like to think.

http://www.nimloth.com/jade.htm

I love how the dog previously had no upper arm, but now that it has a huge forechest, it suddenly does? LOL

Type in my book does describe working ability too. That's just the kind of type I like.

What pictures are we referring to?

Oh, I found the switch!!! Yes, clearly photoshopped.

Unless you really did this a some sort of test and on purpose, antics like altering that image just ruin the credibility you fight so hard to earn with your long and well thought out posts.

I think that this thread needs to go away....
way to personal on all levels

I would use type to mean that which differentiates a breed from another breed, in other words, commonality within a breed. I would use style to mean that which differentiates within the same type/breed.

There are similarities in type between breeds obviously so I find many people use type just to mean those elements that are unique to a particular breed.

Others would say that there are many different types within the same breed.

People are just using the words differently which in itself is not a problem. The problem is when people try to communicate without acknowledging this difference in use.

I personally try to avoid thinking less of a person because they use words differently than me. Having said that, I also try to be aware and adjust to how the mainstream, or a particular subgroup, may be using terms.

OMG - just too darn funny!

I downloaded both pictures and opened in Preview - you can go back and forth between both pictures - the legs are thickened, the forechest is fattened now, plus more neck width (we like forechest, not fore-fat!), deeper body, increased substance in the rear thigh.

Why'd you do it, Maureen? - you have now lost any little bit of credibility you ever had!

"Even though your EYE does not like the proportions, they are the ones given in the standard. Does that mean the standard is in error... or your eye? As I said in a prior post, the EYE can be trained by the brain with a little introspection."

Perhaps Maureen is just trying to "train our EYE"

Maureen will come on and swear up and down that it is just a different pose...not a doctored picture....of course, we will all belive that!!! As if!

SOMEBODY NOTICED!!!!!

You get the "Apple of my eye" award for having a sharp eye, Tina. I did this to make a point about proportions.

The "altered" photo is of the same dog with ONLY substance added. The bone was thickened, more meat on those bones, etc. The BONE LENGTH was not altered! The dog is exactly the same proportion of bone lengths/relationships as in the other photo (which was taken when she was about 18 months old). The bitch herself is meatier today (at age 6) than in the original photo and looks a bit more like the second version, but still does not have enough size and bone density.

The point of this is that the CORRECT bone/length proportions can look different based on the overall substance of the dog. You have to get past the "meat" to evaluate the "bones". For the person who thought she was too long in leg, I don't think your "eye" would tell you that now with more body added. That means your "eye" needs more training to see the REAL bone proportions. Training one's eye is not quick or easy for most of us. It DOES take study and introspection. It is worth the effort, however, and allows breeders to determine the REAL underlying balance issues to consider in breeding instead of just the surface appearance.

The bone proportion defined in the standard is hard to get and hard to keep. It is worth the effort to train the eye and hands to recognize the structure UNDER the surface appearance that can so easily fool the "eye".

You are so full of it, Maureen! Nice try,... no cigar. No way you can talkandtalkandtalkandtalkandtalk your way out of this one!

Go look again. The bone proportion is PRECISELY the same in both photos. The length and angle of upper arm has not changed. The layback of scapula has not changed. Your EYE was fooled because it was looking for MEAT instead of bones. Send your eye back to school for some more training

Again, the upper arm (humerus) has not changed in length or angle... you are evaluating the MEAT on the brisket instead of the actual BONES. Rethink this. Look carefully at the two photos again and you will see that the ONLY difference is the meat hung on the bones. Appearance based on meat can be deceptive. Why do you think so many people show their dogs hog fat???????

I can take 2 slices of bread and make a bologna sandwich outa that explanation Maureen.

Ok so if I am reading this right, until someone breeds the perfect dog, we can only come as close to possible to breeding to as many criterias as possible in the standard. It seems to me that your biggest criteria is proportion, is that because it is the one thing that CAN'T be subjective? If others breed as close as possible to the standard, yet their dogs fails to meet the proportion criteria, then they should not be breed according you (referring to the original post/thread that sparked this debate)? It's all about the entire picture. We try to breed the best we can and maintain type, temperament/working ability, soundness and health. If we only bred for one criteria, we lose sight of the entire dog. Proportion is great but we also need good fronts, solid toplines, good turn of stifle and bend to the hock among other things. Before the doctored photo came out as well as several other photos used in these debates, the dogs represented to me here are very generic and lack type. They may be in proper proportion, but to me, IMHO, they are not what I like to see in a Labrador!

Just my opinion,

Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
Los Angeles, CA

I agree with Maureen. It is important to learn to recognize the underlying bone structure of our dogs. It is easy to be fooled by fat, muscle and hair in to thinking our dogs are something they are not. Exposing our own dogs flaws and failings to our own eyes is the first step we can take to breeding better individuals.

However, the more instructional way to have approached this would have been to admit to the photoshopping in first place in order to squelch everyones unquenchable desire to mud sling. I would love to read and participate in such discussions as this without all the terrible back biting!

What you did was shameful and no one is buying your 'teaching moment'.

I hope all the newbies out there have learned from this. People in Labradors are what the DO - not what they SAY.

Labrador type also includes temperament, and it should not only LOOK like a working dog but ACT like one too. Regardless of how many specialty wins a dog has, a physically beautiful Labrador that has no interest in birds and no work ethic has no breed type. Neither does the highly driven working dog that lacks the physical characteristics that enable it to properly function. When we breed for one extreme or the other, we lose the essence of the breed as it was originally intended and create two different caricatures of the breed, neither of which is very functional (either due to structure or lack of a true biddable work ethic) in the end.

I beg to differ. What gives a dog a nice forechest? Having proper shoulder layback, and having good length of upper arm with proper angle as well. It's not just adding meat to make forechest. A dog with a good front will have a nice forechest. The original picture was of a bitch THAT LACKED FORECHEST! By adding it, you now create a picture of a bitch with a better angulated front even it the underlying dog is the same, you've now changed the dog. To achieve that front your eye will draw a different picture of where the point of the shoulder is and hmmm perhaps even change her perfect "proportion".

Just my opinion,

Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
Los Angeles, CA

Completely agree with FWIW/JMO!
It's just too bad!

Well as I mention, a nice forechest is the result of proper angulation.

Now that Jade has a good front by adding the forechest (not meat), we can see where her angles would be if this was indeed her real forechest.




Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
Los Angeles, CA

Well, there you go. I spent several hours altering a photo to use here just so that I could "illustrate" a point that OBVIOUSLY needed discussion. The untrained EYE can be easily fooled. When you are evaluating the structure of proportion, you have to get past the meat. To borrow from an old saw, Beauty is only skin deep, but STRUCTURE goes clear to the bone. The BONE STRUCTURE proportion called for in the standard is evident in BOTH versions of the photo - if you can look past the MEAT.

I called someone yesterday and ran the two photos past her before posting them. She said that it was probably a great teaching example.... but there would be a lot of people on THIS list that had no interest in learning. She was concerned that they would just use this photo that I tediously slaved over to help others train their eye as a tool to (once again) make personal insults.

Frankly, I wasn't sure anyone would even notice - that was the real test. Applause to Tina and a few others (who also signed their names) for catching the example and getting the point! I hope that some of you will be inspired to look TWICE at the next dog you evaluate - once with your aesthetic eye and once with your "brain-trained" eye. To conclude the metaphor, "there are none so blind as those that will not see" - or can not see past their own hatefulness.

"Go look again. The bone proportion is PRECISELY the same in both photos. The length and angle of upper arm has not changed. The layback of scapula has not changed. Your EYE was fooled because it was looking for MEAT instead of bones. Send your eye back to school for some more training"

Nice try Maureen. My eye has been in TRAINING for probably as long as yours has. When you altered the photo and CREATED a forechest, you corrected the angle and CREATED what only appears to be a correct layback and a longer upper arm. Still just smoke and mirrors. Thank you Dianne for showing it as it is!

Sorry, Diane. I did not change where the point of the chest is. I merely added meat to cover it. Again, we are so used to seeing hefty dogs that the eye is fooled. The POINT of the shoulder is precisely where it was before. The POINT of sternum is precisely where it was before. The angulation (which was already according to the standard) stayed the same. I only added meat to the bones. Do you see how easily the eye is fooled??? That is one reason why judges lay hands on the dogs - to find the bones under the meat. This is especially important on the meatier dogs. MEAT and FAT can hide the underlying structure - for better or worse!

Photos do NOT tell the whole story! Just because you add "meat" to a dog, doesn't mean that you haven't also added better angles. If that bitch really had a nice forechest, then she would have good bone structure. But there is more to a Labrador than just its bone structure.

The true test is being able to put your hands on a dog and FEEL the underlying bone structure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that why judges actually FEEL the dog??

You have your ideas and opinions about how much substance a dog should have, and others obviously feel differently. It's why we have so many "styles" of Labs. To each their own (within standard of course)!

Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
Los Angeles, CA

This is lame and completely untrue. Without the underlying skeleton, the doctored bitch could not walk properly with that much 'meat' on her forechest. Even with extreme obesity the forechest would not produce the keel you've drawn unless her upper arm was brought forward. What a fraud.

You are plainly sucking wind. If you wanted to illustrate the difference you would have/should have stated so when you first posted the doctored photo. We are not as stupid as you think...we are also not hateful as you are accusing. This was all your doing...no one else doctored your photo.

I think we need to agree to disagree on this one. It's a photo, since we really can't feel where the point of the shoulder is, it's a moot point. However, I will say again, forechest is just not meat, it comes from proper shoulder angulation! If I could feel the dog in the altered photo, my hands would confirm where the point of shoulder NOW is. You may not think you changed the point of shoulder, but you did when you created forechest. On the real dog, nothing's changed, but if she had proper front angulation, then she would also have proper forechest and you would not need to have added anything.

This has nothing to do with fooling of the eye.

Just my opinion,

Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
Los Angeles, CA

I am disturbed that an AKC judge would misrepresent a dog this way...and then, when caught red-handed, try to do damage control by accusing others and making other ridculous statements along the lines of demonstrating a "teaching tool" after the fraud was revealed.

I can guess who that "someone" is, as most of us won't answer your calls any more! I know I won't - and if the phone says "unknown" - it goes to the answering machine!

But to say that Tina got your point isn't exactly correct if you READ what she posted, as you like to always say - she simply said that she saw that you had clearly altered the dog, not that your point (whatever that was!) was understood.

None of us understand your point, other than your clear desire to pontificate!

ps - WHY oh why do you think we want our eyes to be trained by YOU??? Give it a REST!

Just what we all needed!!
A little controversy before the weekend starts!

The thread had been pretty thin and now is a little more meaty!
No pun intended of course!!!!!!! [

You say the bone length was not altered? Bull!

Unaltered photo---The depth of body measures 3.3 cm. withers to brisket and from ground to elbow 3.0 cm.

Altered photo---The depth of body measures 3.5 cm.
withers to brisket and from ground to elbow 2.5 cm.

You added 2-nd thigh, you added bone, depth of body & forechest, shall I go on?

If you wanted to teach a lesson Maureen you would not have used an avatar to do so. It's too small and you know it. That was devious!

Your splainin' don't hold water.

Maureen...your nose has grown!

Here are the two photos again... with the EXACT same lines used to illustrate the SHOULDER.





I can see that the apparent length of humerus is different in the second photo. I didn't take into account that widening the leg (to add bone) would also move where the elbow appears. My error. It was not done to improve the angulation, just to widen the bone. The angulation of the scapula and humerus are not a product of the forechest or depth of brisket. They are BONES. I have seen many dogs with a lot of brisket and very upright shoulders. A good example is some of the popular "ewe necked" dogs currently in the ring. They certainly appear to have a lot of brisket and return of upper arm, but the scapula is upright and buried in the neck. Angulation is just that...based on ANGLES.

What I have added is MEAT on the bones that were already there. The point of sternum is still there - with only a bit more meat plus a brisket hanging from it. As I said, the attempt was to add SUBSTANCE, not change the bone structure. Sorry for a small inadvertent alteration to length of humerus caused by widening the leg.

As to those that want to make this personal instead of actually trying to learn something.... you are the real losers in this discussion. You can't get past your own animosity to actually consider that you may benefit from HOURS of my effort. I don't consider my work a waste of time, however, because the PRIVATE emails from those with inquiring minds more than compensate for my time. If a few leave this discussion with the DESIRE to see beyond the surface to find TYPE, then I have accomplished my goal.

Just a thought for all you that just want to be nasty. If I REALLY wanted to fool anyone, why wouldn't I have put the altered photo on my website??? Jade is still there - in her original, skinny 18-month glory. The difference is that when I look at that photo, I see the bone structure and the POTENTIAL for the altered photo. I hope to get that "altered Jade" in her future progeny. Now... the task is to find a dog with the same proportion of bone structure PLUS the size and substance to get it. Any PRIVATE suggestions????

Judge Gamble....Trust me.....it isn't "instruction" when you perpetrate a fraud.

I think this dead horse has been beaten up long enough. So, I’m gonna saddle up and ride off into the sunset, never to return to this post ever again. Anyone comin with me? Giddy-Up! Woo Hoo!

Cummon, Diane... get real here. Those lines are so far off on BOTH photos that there is no comparison. FIRST... the point of the withers for measurement is that STRUCTURAL point where the neck meets the back. On a dog with poor angulation, that is pretty far forward. On a dog with good layback, it is further back. It has not changed on the photo - I only altered the bottom section of the dog. You don't have the correct point shown on either of the photos. Try again.

You also don't have the correct front point of shoulder right on either photo. The front end of the humerus is further forward than you have marked. The line from point of shoulder to elbow IS changed by my adding width to the leg - this was not an intentional alteration of angulation, but I had to widen the leg somehow. Anyone can clearly see that you have chosen a point forward of the elbow on the original photo to make the angle shallower, but have taken the line to the elbow on the second. If you are going to do a comparison, compare the right things.

If you want to illustrate a point, be fair and dilligent in your efforts, Diane. Try again - or look at the illustration I made later in this thread.

Just so you know - this is the WRONG person to learn from. Forty years in dogs does not mean forty years being smart, or knowledgeable, or having a clue. She still does not understand the connection between credibility and likeability. You can actually learn a lot about what her peers think of her by how many specialties they have invited her to judge.

Yes... newbies beware. There are those who are ONLY interested in the politics of dogs and have no real knowledge of the breed, anatomy, history or the standard. The only thing you learn from showing under a judge is what dog they liked on the day, not necessarliy why. If it was YOUR dog, then that person must be a great judge If it was the dog belonging to someone you PERSONALLY dislike, then that person must be a rotten judge It takes more than being popular to understand the breed.

Do you really believe that the people who get so much delight out of tearing down others behind their backs (anonymously) wouldn't do the same thing to YOU when your back is turned. Think again. Those driven by politics, ego and a desire to hurt others will eventually catch you in their sights. Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

I was commenting that someone said now the dog had more upper arm, what the dog has now is more forechest, not upper arm, that is still the same. Fat chest does not equal better structure.

oh, grow up.

The forechest has nothing to do with shoulder or humerus angulation, it is an extension of the rib cage. That is why you can see a dog with a great forechest and mistake it for a good upper arm. Look for the leg to be set back under the whithers.

A breeder can spend the rest of his life to breed a dog with the exact measurements and angles in the standard and never succeed. The standard is an outline and refrence to help create the perfect dog, and it will never happen. With the angles and measurements there is alot more involved in breeding a good dog. If you get too caught up in rulers and measurements, all will be lost.

As for judging to the standard, the perfect standard is rarely standing in the ring so a judge must go with what he feels is the best as to the dogs he is given to sort out.

Breeding is an art, it is subjective,it isnt easy and we have to work with what we have.

We have to remember that judges do not have rulers or protractors. I am trying to learn the things that give the appearance of proper/improper proportions and make it difficult to evaluate the actual proportions. I keep coming back to movement. As much as these static pictures are very worthwhile to analyze, you really need to see a dog moving (as well as see them stacked and moving from all angles......not to mention getting your hands on them to actually feel where the points or interest are). But having said that, I think comparing the different pictures is fascinating.

Maureen, instead of building up a slight dog why didn't you just compare her to one of your good dogs so we could see the difference ? Not sure how old but she just looked like 7 month old in a growth spurt. Putting all that fat out front and giving her thighs was silly. You just ask for trouble. Some will never believe as you do. All of that, is only YOUR opinion. We are grown ups and have been around a while also. We don't mind learning something. But let us choose how we feel about it.

A. She IS one of my good dogs based on proportion. I will overlook the insult as being unintended.

B. Comparing her to a meatier dog without the exact same bone proportions would have been meaningless. I wanted to demonstrate that the APPARENT proportion and the REAL proportion can be confusing to the eye.

C. How people approach learning is something I can not control using written communication. In a classroom or discussion setting, we could use other examples or hands-on comparisons. I used what I had - a dog with correct BONE lengths - to illustrate how she could look different with more or less MEAT.

Jade was about 18 months in that photo. She has added some heft with age and does not look like that today. She is still smaller than the standard by a fraction and light in bone. Most of her children aren't. I will try to get some photos of the three boys that are in service-dog training to demonstrate what she is CAPABLE of producing with those nicely proportioned bones

Why do you just keep picking fights??? If you don't agree with her opinion ON BONE STRUCTURE, give yours (AND ACTUALLY BACK IT UP). If you don't like the thread, go away. If you don't like what Maureen writes, don't open the thread to begin with.

My last post was directed to Breeder Eyes Open.

Just b/c 1 person began a thread does not mean they own it. Many people participated in this conversation and may want to continue to or add something. It does not belong to any poster but the owner of this Labrador Board.

But why be so negative? Why keep picking fights? Why post without really adding anything constructive?

More like "breeders eyes (and mind) closed", you just don't get it and I doubt you ever will.

Thank you Maureen, I totally enjoyed your lesson.

If the bone length (among other claims) was not changed, how can you xplain that in the orginal photo the depth of body = 3.2 cm
length of leg = 3 cm

and on the doctored photo
the depth of body = 3.5 cm
length of leg = 2.5 cm

Proportions were changed.

Stop misleading.