Forgive me for starting a new thread, but believe it or not, I was reading with GREAT interest on the thread of the AKC Standard, with the photos being compared.

The reason I even noticed it is because the discussion was about the avatar picture being critiqued. as i moved thru the posts, i saw the difference.

SO- my personal beliefs are as follows :
It was a great thread, i learned some things out of it. That is the idea yes??
my other beliefs would be that it was in fact a test! I have no personal feelings towards or against Maureen...no personal dealings with Maureen either. But why on earth would she reference her picture - everyone critiquing it, and then swap it out with a modified picture thinking she'd fool everyone?? GOSH GUYS!!!!

This exact thing was done on another forum. photoshopping a dog to show how it can appear so differently. I read that one with interest too.

I don't have much to add on the actual discussion prior to the altered photo appearing...but i grabbed what i could out of each post.
My favourite thing is critiquing and learning by it.
I've done stacked pictures from 5 weeks to 8 weeks on all my puppies to watch the changes as they grow. I spent hours on end with my mentor doing it! I use those pictures later too when the dogs (those i've kept) have matured to compare and to see what was there at the start, and what left and then came back (and well, what left and never came back).

Personally, I don't care too much if anyone believes it or not, what i believe is what is important to me.
Maureen, thank you for the thread pictures, Dianne: thank you as well. You both opened up my eyes in the debate and taught me other stuff in there as a result.

I only noticed because the picture became part of the content in those posts. When it changed, I had to re-read what i read before - and that is where i saw the changes!

GOOD thread everyone!!!

Thanks, Tina. I'm glad someone got more out of my efforts than just another opportunity to be unpleasant. That makes my time worthwhile. You may not agree with what I wrote, but it at least got you THINKING about how important bone structure is - not just the outer trimmings.

Why is it that you automatically assume that no one but you knows about the importance of bone structure?

And always so quick to call others "unpleasant" when being the ultimate in "unpleasant" to everyone who has a difference of opinion?
I have an idea...if having someone voice a different opinion bothers you so much, why don't you have your discussions on your own personal email list, message board or other such vehicle and not subject yourself to having others exercise their right to disagree????
Just a thought...

I was involved in that thread as well. I think that what Maureen intended to do by starting the thread and later by posting the photos was terrific. After having been treated quite rudely by Maureen and intending to stop participating in the thread, that doctored picture, and the great debate ON BONE STRUCTURE that I was sure was to follow, sucked me back in.

I believe the reason the thread degraded so much is because so many people are like vultures; waiting to pounce on any perceived mistake on Maureen's part. I think I know why this is (see above) but I do think it is too bad that such a potentially terrific thread turned into what it did.

I wish everyone would think about this. I hope Maureen thinks about this. For my part, I am thinking about my part in this.

I certainly was not intentionally rude... I am sorry that it appeared that way. I said in print what I would have said in person to you - no more and no less. If we had been having a discussion in person, I think you would not have been offended enough to walk away - I know that I would not have been. Sometimes the tenor of these forums grows a life of its own that is unfortunate.

Please accept my sincere assurance that I bear you no ill will for our differences in approach and conviction. Please harbor none for me either. We both clearly love this breed - we just "see" it differently.

Maureen
Try as you might the vultures will always be vultures
When you put something in print (I hate email) you do not get the personal touch with a smile or body language.... it is printed unfortunately and unless you are a flowerly person there will always be someone who reads something wrong into what you are writing... That just the way it is!
Don't worry ... Be Happy!

Maureen, In the doctored photo, did you make the dog shorter in height? By eye and without measuring, the doctored dog appears to me to be slightly longer than square, and the original dog appears square. The doctored dog appears to have less length of leg.

The intention of my question is that maybe a truly square dog who has a lot of thigh and forechest (even if it is fat) appears longer than it really is (and therefore is actually square).

Nope. I only added bone (made the legs WIDER) and meat(put a layer of padding on the chest thigh, etc.


That was the point of the exercise - to realize that MEAT (substance) can fool the eye. You have to measure the bones. They are exactly the same as in the original photo (despite what some may think). I KNOW what I changed, and the length, height, angulation were not touched. The top half of the dog was not changed - except to add a tiny bit of neck width at the base to match the added meat on the brisket.


That is entirely possible. It is why I really study the BONE proportion in both photos and live dogs. It is why I don't breed in general from photos. I want to FEEL the structure under all the meat to better evaluate the proportion. A very square dog can "appear" to be long, short, low or tall depending on its weight AND how it is stacked. The 'eye' is easily fooled - the brain has to interpret the reality.

Here are links to two photos of my own young boys taken at about a year of age. Both photos are unretouched scans of photographer photos from shows. Which one appears "longer" in proportion to you??
http://nimloth.com/Bruiser-wkc-crop50.jpg

http://nimloth.com/Yank-GCKC-crop-s.jpg

Yank is at an angle so it is harder to evaluate but Bruiser seems longer to me with a quick look. I am assuming you wanted me to look quickly (like a judge has to) and not actually measure.

Again, with a quick look only, Bruiser catches my eye and seems better proportioned to me.

Good eye. Bruiser has always been longer than square. Yankee is EXACTLY square by measure. Bruiser is larger and "meatier" than his brother, but I will take Yank over him every time due to the underlying structure. It is harder to tell in the angled photo and I have had several people say they thought Yank was long. He is not.

BTW, both the sire and dam of that litter are measured square. I only got one pup in 6 that is also square - Yank. The others are all slightly longer than equal. This goes back to your premise that one shouldn't aim for square so that you won't get shorter than square. It just doesn't happen in the flesh. The drag of the genes is toward slightly longer (or a lot longer if you aren't careful). If I select EVERY breeding from only square parents, I will be lucky to get one in most litters that measures that way. That is why one can't intentionally select for longer than slightly longer (clearly rectangular)breeding stock and expect to EVER get the proportions stated in the standard. It really is hard to maintain the proportion that dictates ideal Labrador type. But then... who said breeding dogs to the standard should be easy??? If it were, everyone would do it

Would you describe Bruiser as being slightly longer than square or slightly longer than slightly longer than square? Do you agree that his extra length is in his loin?

See now, I think that I wasn't the only one that got a bit out of that thread.

And to be honest, in my opinion, i don't think the thread turned ugly overall. there were a few nasty comments here and there, but alot of the posts were still good debated posts.

If i got a bit out of it all , then it was worth my time in reading it!

As far as illusion...someone replied here that they found the dog looked more square in the original picture.
My perception was the opposite.
In looking at the two pictures, original looked longer in body (i haven't quite grasped the difference of longer in back or longer in loin yet btw) - than the altered picture.
I see more "bone" on the body made the dog appear shorter body and shorter in height too...but it was not necessarily the thickening of the leg.
Making the dog "meatier" appeared to give the dog less height, with less uptuck too.

Can i ask how old the dog was in the photo??? I think you covered it in the original thread, but dial up here, it'll take me forever to find it again.

Just as an aside Maureen, ignore the negative comments. If most were to meet you in person - i'm sure they would see you talk with that smile on your face. After I met you for the first time at Potomac this year, you were not as I had imagined you at all! Not that I imagined anything bad.....

He is slightly longer than square. Still within my "keeper" status. He actually measures 23" tall and 23.75" long. that really is SLIGHTLY in that is is less than an inch AND less than 5%.

Yes.. his extra length is in the loin. That is where it usually occurs. He also may "appear" somewhat longer than his measurements because he is a bit upright in upper arm - making the distance between his front and rear feet longer. He "stands over too much ground" for his size. If he had more rear angle (in other words, very unbalanced) he would look even longer - while his spine would still be the same length and proportion. There are SOOOOOOOO many factors in appraising proportion. Let's not even start on BALANCE!!!!

I didn't take the photo, so I don't know exactly. She was about 18 months when the original buyer put the photo on her website, so I am guessing that is when the photo was taken. She is meatier and more mature now, but still slight of bone and smaller than I like.

Which dog moves better and define what you mean by better?

Do you have a better angled picture of Yank?

Perhaps we should take this discussion private so we won't "bore" the rest of the forum readers. "Bottom line" - if you don't mine revealing your identity, just post to me privately. Tina, we can CC you on the private posts. No sense in taking up space when we are the only three interested

I think of the spine as having 5 parts, listed in order from front to back. For the most part, the vertebrae should be longer in front and get progressively shorter. The vertebrae are fused in the croup.

1) neck
2) back
3) loin
4) croup
5) tail

Is this correct?

Thanks...and oops, i just went back to the original discussions...and the newer posts i read.

yeah, some not so nice, but the last one said her approximate age.

I think for 18 months old, she looked about where she should look in the original photo.
My one girl at 18 months and today- what a difference. and some of the 'meatier' is not just substance...I admit, she eats well! :-)

and to "bottom line" - you expressed how i wanted to express - though couldn't find the words at the time - yes...it was absolutely fascinating to see the differences in the photos and open discussion about it.
I agree!!!!

I think there was alot of education to be pulled out of the discussion that arose. To see how we can all see such a difference and perception is good!

Excellent idea...
I wouldn't mind discussing more on long in back vs long in loin a bit more. I've attached my email addy to this one!

i'll wait for the CC

This thread has more than 330 views already. I think a lot of people are interested.

First, thank you Maureen for the time you spent making an excellent point, it was worthwhile.

Second, how do you evaluate for heavier bone in a puppy? My latest puppy appeared to have a lot of bone as a young puppy but after 6 months, not so much.

I wished I lived closer to you so you could evaluate my next litter.

I measured....not what you said.
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.

Please don't take this off line . . ~Maria

Depth of body has NOTHING to do with the length of the leg. THAT is one of the points I wanted to illustrate. The leg, from elbow to ground, is precisely the same in both photos. How do I know this for certain?? BECAUSE I DIDN'T ALTER THE LENGTH OF THE LEG!!! I copied the rear half of the leg, then moved it back a bit to make the leg wider. The dog APPEARS to not have as much leg due to the added padding on the chest and abdomen. You can see this in the ring a lot - dogs can look short-legged because they are too fat ....er.... heavy (being fat myself, I hate to use that word).

See, this is the real problem with reading and using ANY standard. You have to truly read what is there, analyze what it says accurately and then understand how to find that on the dog. The standard states: Distance from the elbow to the ground should be equal to one half of the height at the withers. I did not change the height at the withers or the height of the elbow (although it is moved back a bit). So... either you don't understand what to measure or you don't measure very well

To keep this short:
Yank moves better - that is, more like the movement defined in the standard. I don't have a "better" photo of Yank. I frankly like that one a lot myself

I did find another photo of Yank that is more from the side. I don't like a lot of other things about the photo - he is overstretched, the neck is gathered up in the lead to make him look like he has a double chin (and a shorter neck!), etc. It does illustrate the square build, however. This was taken at about 10 months. The other at just under a year. Another reason I used the other photo of Yank is to demonstrate that the ANGLE of the photo can make a dog APPEAR longer or shorter.

For those who want to get out their calipers, the chest/body IS below the elbow, so measure to the ELBOW (hint:that's the darker spot) like the standard says. It should be easier to locate accurately than on the photo of the black.

Maureen, you said..."either you don't understand what to measure or you don't measure very well."

How patronizing and offensive is that statement? Miss Congeniality your are certainly NOT. I have not said anything offensive to you, merely given my own opinions and observations, yet you insist on being derisive toward me. In my opinion that rudeness is uncalled for. I have also resisted shouting, which you seem to be fond of doing when anyone has a different opinion than you.

Even if the photos were of slightly different sizes, it would not matter. The measurements I made were accurate on each photo: from top of withers to bottom of brisket just behind the elbow; and from point of elbow to the ground. The proportions are NOT the same...easy to see from the actual measurements, even though you are questioning my ability to measure or say that I cannot be correct. The ruler does not lie.
Look at the following ratios and tell me that the proportions have not changed!!!

photo # 1
depth of body = 3.2cm
length of leg = 3 cm

doctored photo:
depth of body = 3.5 cm
length of leg = 2.5 cm

Is that what MRW calls a "Raked Back" or sloping topline? It sure does not look level.

Yes it is bottom line!

You said something different on your other long thread about her did'nt you? Im very confused, Maurreen. Are you speaking of Miss Jade that you altered the original photograph of adding substance to her all over?

Now, please do not snap at me. I thought you said she was one of your better dogs. Is she smaller then you like or is that another b**ch?

Maria---My guess is if the other 1 with 1889 looks & 142 responses didn't disappear, this won't too. We have a super woman running this list.

It is neither. It is simply the truth. You keep insisting on measuring from the withers to the DEPTH (not shouting, just capitalized for emphasis) of the brisket. This is not the measuring point specified in the standard. Measure the points that the STANDARD (emphasis) states, not whatever YOU (emphasis) decide you want to measure. The whole point of the exercise will remain a mystery to you if you don't bother to actually read, think and observe.

As I have said three times now, the DEPTH (emphasis) of the body was changed to reflect additional substance, meat. That does NOT (emphasis) change the distance from ground to elbow and from elbow to withers!!!!!!! (more emphasis - hoping that you actually read the words this time).


But I do??? For someone who gets all haughty when I point out that you don't understand what or how to measure, you certainly have no reluctance to call ME a liar. You have actually done so three times now. I have tried not to take it too personally, because I know that you are wrong in your assumptions about both the photo and the measuring points. For the last time, I did not change the length of the leg. Please stop calling me a liar or I will begin to think your insistance on mis-measuring the photo is simply so that you can keep insulting me.

I don't necessarily question your ability to measure as much as I question your ability to read and understand instructions. You prove my point when you openly demonstrate measuring the wrong things - repeatedly.

I said she was one of my "good" dogs proportionally. She measures correct by proportion. I would like MORE of all of those proportions. In other words, I would like "more" bitch with the same relative proportions. I would love to have the Jade in the altered photo in a slightly bigger size

I would never show Jade - she is too small and slight overall to be what I think is an excellent example of the breed. I did show her sister to a championship. The sister does not have the angulation of Jade, but is bigger, more substantial, meatier and - for lack of a better word - prettier.

What does that have to do with the length to height proportion???? There always has to be one person who missed the point and takes the opportunity to criticize. This is why I wanted to take the conversation private - and I now will. This is the end of the thread for me.

So even after breeding years & years you're admitting it isn't easy to get what you want also? A good point Maurreen, we all go through it. There is no perfection in Labs, any of ours.

Personally, I like more angulation and substance then your Jade's original photo. To each their own.

Thanks for not snapping at me. From what I saw, that is where the problem began. We all need to treat each other as equals always.

....you better be prepared to take it. You are THE most critical person I've ever seen in action!

And by the by - where is the previously faithful Olivia, always jumping to Maureen's defense? Strangely silent since meeting at Potomac to get her dogs??

Re: Maureen/Dianne/photoshopped picture
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyes open
“How patronizing and offensive is that statement?
It is neither. It is simply the truth. You keep insisting on measuring from the withers to the DEPTH (not shouting, just capitalized for emphasis) of the brisket. This is not the measuring point specified in the standard. Measure the points that the STANDARD (emphasis) states, not whatever YOU (emphasis) decide you want to measure. The whole point of the exercise will remain a mystery to you if you don't bother to actually read, think and observe.”

Maureen, I shall refrain from shouting, or as you insist on calling it, “adding emphasis”, but first of all, I can find nowhere in the standard where it stipulates any measuring points. Perhaps, as you insist, I am too stupid to know how to measure correctly according to the standard…but if I were to following your reasoning, I am also too stupid to read the standard. I did not decide to measure both your original photo and subsequently “doctored” photo at some arbitrary points. I measured both photos from the withers to what I described as the bottom of the brisket, which just so happened, to fall at exactly the elbow! So, if you took the time to read and understand what I was describing, I was indeed measuring from the withers to the point of the elbow on both photos. I am not going to include your childish and derogatory shots of emphasis in which you repeatedly attempted to point out my blatant refusal to read, think or observe….despite the fact that my measuring points remained accurate, constant and at the exact points which you insisted they should be!

Please be a dear and show us all in the standard where it explains these measuring reference points of which you are so fond of emphasizing.


“As I have said three times now, the DEPTH (emphasis) of the body was changed to reflect additional substance, meat. That does NOT (emphasis) change the distance from ground to elbow and from elbow to withers!!!!!!! (more emphasis - hoping that you actually read the words this time).”

Despite all your numerous “emphasis added” exhortations to me to read the words…. if you would just look at your own photos and measure them, you will see that your statement above is incorrect. The distance from withers to elbow and from elbow to ground is certainly different in the “doctored” photo than what is represented in the original.

"Quote:
you are questioning my ability to measure or say that I cannot be correct. The ruler does not lie.

But I do??? For someone who gets all haughty when I point out that you don't understand what or how to measure, you certainly have no reluctance to call ME a liar. You have actually done so three times now. I have tried not to take it too personally, because I know that you are wrong in your assumptions about both the photo and the measuring points. For the last time, I did not change the length of the leg. Please stop calling me a liar or I will begin to think your insistance on mis-measuring the photo is simply so that you can keep insulting me.”

I have never called you a liar, despite your attempts to insist that I have. I said that the photos and ruler do not lie. The measurements were, and continue to be different than what you insist that they are. As for your accusation that I have insulted you? Nothing could be further from the truth. You seem to be the one who persists in hurling insult after insult. Perhaps you need to reflect upon your own language and attitude.

“I don't necessarily question your ability to measure as much as I question your ability to read and understand instructions. You prove my point when you openly demonstrate measuring the wrong things - repeatedly.”

See paragraph 2 above. Also please stop and again consider who is making all the insulting comments.

The other photo you posted later of Yank does make it easier for me to see bone structure.

But I am really interested in your view on how the standard describes proper movement. Besides describing a lot of generic faults, all the standard really says is free and easy. What is it about a dog who is slightly longer than square that would prevent him from moving as freely and easily as a square dog?

I posted this twice as I wanted it at the end of the thread as well as after the post I was responding too. BTW, I did not abandon the thread, 2 Little League games and a Specialty today.......long day for the family.

Maureen,

The other photo you posted later of Yank does make it easier for me to see bone structure.

But I am really interested in your view on how the standard describes proper movement. Besides describing a lot of generic faults, all the standard really says is free and easy. What is it about a dog who is slightly longer than square that would prevent him from moving as freely and easily as a square dog?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Maureen Gamble
To keep this short:
Yank moves better - that is, more like the movement defined in the standard. I don't have a "better" photo of Yank. I frankly like that one a lot myself

I bailed a long time, while Maureen has a lot of knowledge, the threads all turn into the Maureen dog and pony show. I personally do not like how she insist she's always right when myself and anyone else who has been in dogs for any number of years and/or has a differing opinion is wrong. It gets boring and I have better things to do than to have her continuing to jam her "authority" down others throat and though she may not mean to, she comes off extremely condescending to those who do not agree with her.

Photos only tell part of the story, you can measure them all you want, but as a photographer, I know camera angles can change measurements. If you take a photo looking down on a dog you can make it look shorter in leg, a dog shorter in leg can be made to look taller by getting down low, etc. I highly doubt that any of us are going to take out a measuring tape and actually have our dog stand still long to get the measurements!

So arguing over and over again, is a complete waste of time. The best way to learn is to go to shows and put your hands on the dogs. Talk to those breeder's whose dogs you admire and of course do well at the shows-that will help you more than anything else.

Not afraid to sign my real name,

Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
Los Angeles, CA

Hi Diane, thanks

Hi, you're quite welcome!

Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
los Angeles, CA

Eyes open: I measured both pictures and the height is the same so shut up already.

vencedor.

We have learned at the alter of Maureen, that we must all breed exactly to the Standard. There IS no wiggle room. Maureen, the Goddess of Labradors, will tell you so. She knows the exact proportions and measurements for all things Labrador.

Maureen, the standard calls for these things. In all your wisdom, give us an EXACT measurement so we are sure to get it right. We need an actual measure of these features:

Coat:
-short

head:
-broad back skull
-moderate stop
-powerful jaws
-brow slightly pronounced
-muzzle neither long and narrow nor short and stubby
-"kind," friendly eyes, expressing character, intelligence and good temperament.
-eye size: medium

neck:
neck should be of proper length

Chest:
-Chest breadth that is either too wide or too narrow

Forechest:
-not exaggerated

Hocks:
-strong short

Stifle:
-moderate angulation

Remember, there is no wiggle room, we need actual measurements so we do not slip into the areas of PERSONAL PREFERENCE, and THAT WHICH PLEASES THE EYE. Of course we know that being "beefy" can mimic some of these things, so we want to be 100% accurate and never let the things that please our eye get in the way of that which is true. Only measurements will help us accomplish the goal of meeting THE standard. HELP! Only you can save us! Only you can save our dogs. Please, all powerful and knowledgeable Maureen, grant us this wish, this need, this hunger for knowledge. Take us away from the clutches of the evil-doers,and give us actual measurements so we can save the breed and please you!

I don't get how some people nit pick Maureen's posts and then comment about how she comes across when she gets sidelined defending her point. Let the woman speak, take it for what it's worth or leave it, she knows more than any one of you that pick her apart. "Dog and pony show"? You made it into that Dianne with *your* post. Who cares what you think about Maureen, I don't, unless you have greater accomplishments, knowledge, experience or credentials than she does.

Bull Hockey!

Grow up!

I can trump that!

does anyone remember creating an oil painting on a color coded canvas?

any child could paint a "masterpiece"

Since Maureen has such valuable knowledge, why not let her share it through specialty club educational seminars? Ringside judging mentor programs? Specialty judging assignments?
And...I also measured those two photos..."Eyes" is correct.

My posts? Ummm I only have but a few post among many. You single me out because I am the only other person who signs my real name and happens to disagree with some of the stuff Maureen says and how she says it. I disagree with you too, but I am not launching all out attacks and putting other people down in the process. I am merely making a personal observation about the way Maureen comes off in her posts. I do not know her personally.

This is too funny, I did not even bother to comment on this thread until yesterday, you can see who really turns these into the Dog and Pony shows. Don't make me the guilty party! I agreed to disagree with Maureen. She's the one who continues to insist she's right about everything. I have my opinions like everyone else. They are based on over 25 years in dogs, multiple *owner/handled* champions (including a co-bred BIS winning Chinese Crested),as well as including a bred-by with 4 specialty JAMS, multiple Best Veteran in Specialty, multiple Best Veteran in Sweepstakes. My current crew, IN VERY LIMITED SHOWING, have won Multiple BEST PUPPIES (2 specialties, 2 all-breed where she also took group 1), and the last specialty show I attended my 6 month, 4 day old puppy went RWD and BEST PUPPY. Both these puppies I picked from their litters based on my eye (and giving credit to their breeders as well). The next day a yellow boy I co-own went BEST IN SPECIALTY from the classes over multiple BISS winning champions. OK but enough about my experience, knowledge and creditials. I think I have a few and really don't care to continue to have to defend myself. I know what I like. I don't have to take out a ruler to know what my eye sees. No my dogs aren't perfect either and I know exactly their strengths and weaknesses. But I certainly don't need to continue to debate what someone else's eye thinks they see. As I've stated before, if you really want to learn about structure and type, go to seminars, listen to LOTS of different people and form your own opinion after putting hands on!

We can debate this until the cows come, but frankly I have better things to do, like get to work on time.

This cow has come home!

Hope you all are having a great weekend,

Dianne Mullikin, EMT-B
Los Angeles, CA

I was visiting an historical site where a barrel maker explained to me the difference between an artist and a craftsperson. Obviously the terms are not mutually exclusive but an artist can certainly make a great barrel. Ask the artist to reproduce that same barrel and they may not be able to. The artist may be only able to make another great barrel of different dimensions. The craftsman is able to reproduce barrels of precise dimensions which is necessary in shipping. The craftsman can explain how it was done and teach someone else to reproduce that same barrel. The craftsman may not have been able to create the original great barrel on his/her own to begin with though.

The best barrel makers are both artists and craftspeople.

fact 1....Maureen may be obnoxious sometimes but I generally do not read her as being a liar.

fact 2....different people seem to be coming up with different measurements for the same picture. When I measure them, there is no difference in height.

fact 3....I am not a very good web designer but I have noticed that when I publish a picture on my site, that on different browsers the picture may not have the same dimensions. Things I publish get distorted/moved on different browsers. (I've also noticed that this does not happen to the pros, go figure.)

Dianne, You seem to share many qualities with Maureen. Some good, some not so good. However, most of us take the bad with the good and appreciate most of your posts. Thank you for posting.

Anybody want to discuss bone structure or the Standard in general?

......this is priceless!

One of the best ways to understand why a dog is expected to conform to a standard is to watch dogs do the job for which they were bred. Not only do you see what kind of structure is necessary (physical fitness that allows a dog to work a full day, muzzle long enough to carry a goose, neck long enough to easily pick up game, front strong enough to support the head while carrying game and moving effortlessly, coat tight enough to repel water, etc. etc.) but also what kind of temperament (quiet enough not to disturb game or other working dogs, no tendency to "munch" retrieved game, strong enough desire to do what is asked by its handler, etc.).

Having an eye for what will win in the show ring is not always the same as having an eye for what is correct according to the standard. This breed was bred to work, and understanding what is required of the working Labrador is far more educational than knowing what is required to win in the show ring. Unfortuntately, fewer and fewer breeders are interested in the working function of this breed so it is not as easy to see a correctly-built Labrador in the field, but at least one can see why certain characteristics are specified in the standard. Things like eye color become quite trivial when it comes down to true function.

What post are you refering about??
Thanks,

http://pub12.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=976632990&frmid=4&msgid=794369&cmd=show