I don't want to be flamed or start a bickering fest - I would like honest answers so I can be better informed.

Can someone *nicely* explain to me why breeders think that Labradors need to be shown obese to be competitive in the show ring?

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

My comment is that these morbidly obese dogs in the show ring couldn't go sit in a blind and actually retrieve all day. How is that benefiting the breed? I don't consider a 100 lb Labrador in the show ring a "medium-sized" breed.

Again - not trying to cause a fight - I just want to be informed.

Just because a dog weighs 100lbs doesn't mean he's morbidly obese... it's all relevant to structure and balance. Sure, we've all seen dogs that are overweight in the ring and it looks funny and sure, we've all seen dogs that would look better with a little more weight too. What matters is not some specific number or pounds but rather correct proportion and balance all over. Someone who tells you that by putting weight on your dog it will do better at shows is revealing their lack of experience.

The standard clearly states height and corresponding weight ranges, but apparently the weight ranges are wrong. Sure don't see many 65-80# dogs doing well in the ring do we...

Doesn't the weight recommendation date back to the issues between the field and conformation people in the national club? My understanding was that the field people forced the weight recommendations through and thus created a battle about weight forever more.

Even the labs of 20 years ago that were successful in the show ring weighed more than 80 lbs. As another has said, it's about proportion. Don't fight the weight battle, you can't win (well mabye in the ring....lol).

Those dogs didn't weigh 95-100 20 yrs ago... I do think many weighed in the 80-85# range or less if shorter.

But the OP is not seeing things, there are many obese dogs being shown and I believe it's fueling some of the problems in the pet world especially with obese dogs. Those owners see it on TV and think it's correct. My own vet commented that many dogs being shown at a specialty recently were 20# overweight. And she put her hands on the dogs.

I have a 100 lab who is anything but fat. He has nice bone substance and balance which is what makes a nice lab. There is a big difference between a big balanced dog and a fat dog. There are fat dogs but say that the 100 lb dog is to big you are very misinformed. By the way, my 100 lb lab could go out and retrieve birds all day without any trouble. No many field labs can say that with all the jumping and barking and carrying on they do just for one bird.

I have a dog that is running in Masters and has earned points in the show ring. If I put the amount of weight on him that he needs to look like the other dogs in the show ring, there is no way he could do the amount of running he has to do. Even at the Master level, the dogs do not work as hard as a dog does in a hunting situation, since they typically are run on two or three set-ups a day and spend the rest of the time in a crate. Most of the dogs in the ring are carrying more weight than required for the working condition described by the standard. Occasionally I have found a judge who rewards hard working condition, and have put points on a dog that is simultaneously doing field work, but it is rare.

For the OP, most Lab breeders do not work their dogs and have no idea of the fitness required. Labs love to eat, and it is not easy to keep the weight off a sedentary Lab- I know this from my own retirees! The path of least resistance is to allow the weight to creep up, and if everyone does it, you can get away with it and still win. In fact, if everyone does it, you HAVE to do it to win. If your dog is the only one in which the ribs are showing (and in a really fit dog they do show), it is different from the others and doesn't look as good to the judges. It appears to lack substance. The only solution would be for judges to put more emphasis on fitness, but these days few breed judges work their dogs, so the chubby guys look great to them.

While many of these responses have been helpful (thanks Peggy) - and helped me understand a little more about these show weight dogs. Some have not been helpful and anyways...

An extra 20lbs on my girl would look awful - she has nice bone, spring of rib and is fit. I guess this will be her downfall if or when I show her.

I don't want my dogs to be too fat but I want them not to be skinny when I'm showing them. I would rather want them to carry a bit more weight than less in the show ring... but that's just me but like I said I don't want them to be obese! It's always the 'golden average way' not too much and not too little...

Not everyone knows what they are talking about with regard to showing labradors. Consider the source, use your own judgment. If you listen to what every single person/breeder tells you to do with your dog you will be running around doing 100 things and your head will be spinning. Look at your girl, at what weight does she look her best? Some look better with a little more weight and some don't, but 20 pounds does seem over the top. It also depends on the size of your girl. If she is smaller with substance she does not need extra weight. If she is taller with less substance she might look better with a few extra pounds. Like several others said it is all about the proportion of the individual dog.

Personally I'm tired of some people ONLY looking at 'hard working' condition and thinking their dog should win because it is in that type of condition. How about the other things in the standard that makes up a labrador? You know, correct head, correct coat, otter tail, etc. I can have my dog lose weight - although she doesn't need to - but I sure can't add 'type' to some of these dogs that are in 'working condition' either. I don't like an obese dog either but there should be some substance to the dog and no, ribs should not be seen in a labrador. I've had vets tell my pet people that their dog is in perfect weight - yeah, right...their ribs are showing and their spine is showing and they lost all the bone they had as puppies!

It's unfortunate that you only think your dog would do well with an addt'l 20lbs, which is an incredible amount of weight for a Labrador, or any dog for that matter. Usually if they're on the lean side, 3-5lbs is more than enough to get them where they need to be which will NOT make them cripple or unable to perform in the field. Sound dogs are sound dogs- dogs can be un-fit at any weight.

How shortsighted of you to discard all of your boy's wonderful attributes because of one failing- there is no perfect dog and he really might have something wonderful to offer a bitch that may need size, etc.

EXACTLY and how about temperament????????????

A few years ago I attended a judges seminar given by the LRC - asked a question about weight in the standard. Was basically told that was only a guideline and the overall balance and proportion of the dog should be looked at. So that tells me that even the LRC board members realize a 25 inch dog that weighs 75 pounds would be ridiculous.

I'm the person who made a comment about hard working condition. Believe me, that's not the only thing I consider when breeding and showing my dogs. I'm also a nut on coat texture (NOT length- well, yes, I am a nut on length, and longer is not necessarily better!), tail and tail set (and many of the tails I see these days are NOT wrapped), heads, all the things that people quote being important for Labrador type. In a quick reading of the standard I could not find a mention of bone per se. The closest to that is the following quote:

"Light, "weedy" individuals are definitely incorrect; equally objectionable are cloddy lumbering specimens. Labrador Retrievers shall be shown in working condition well-muscled and without excess fat."

To me, this describes an animal with moderate bone, not legs like tree trunks. And by the ribs showing I mean exactly what another poster describes, the last couple ribs can be seen, not every one, and certainly the spine should not stick out.

Coat and substance do make a difference. I remember a fellow competitor at a hunt test asking to put her hands on my Receiver son, who had a lot of substance and a thick coat (but very soft texture. When he got wet, he was wet for hours). She exclaimed in surprise "He's not fat!" So coat can hide those ribs to a great extent. I also remember having that same dog entered in a show while he was running in hunt tests in good working condition and looking around the ring at the other dogs and thinking "We don't belong here" because he looked so thin compared to them. Well, sometimes you do get rewarded for being fit - he went winners that day for a 4 point major to finish his championship under a respected breeder of Golden retrievers.

I wanted to add that this happened 20 + years ago, so the situation is certainly not new.

As long as so many of the current breeders competing in conformation think so little of the parent club (understatement!), the LRC, those breeders will continue to go their own way and breed what they like, standard be damned. And they'll continue to win. Hard to argue with success...

What about all of us who claim to breed an "English Labrador" in the US? Anyone remember the dogs at recent Crufts after the Fit for Life campaign went into place? To me, those dogs looked good, not lacking in substance or type, overall. I like to see a Labrador's true topline, two ribs not quite visible under a thick coat, more of an 1980s or so show weight, although angulation has by and large improved these days. Fit for Function, Fit for Life as they say in the Kennel Club. I dearly love the dogs of a noted breeder-judge and author who once wrote that her dogs gained bone after they reached full height. She attached photos of her famous dogs. I roared--I too gained broader wrists, ankles, and a broader watch band when my waistline expanded. I seriously doubt that I gained bone in my late 20s! That being said, a Lab can do with a little roundness in the show ring, but not the 20 lbs or more some handlers find they need to gain to win! Let's stop that madness. It is harder on the dogs, although one might get a more placid dog if it is too heavy to move. Then again, one might just get a tank even harder to stop on the end of a thin lead! I am pleased to see that some gorgeous recent winners from breeder-judges in the NE US are fit looking and had a waist. That includes the author I mentioned, with her very fit specialty winners who can trot and trot and show and show. Bravo!

I have a medium size bitch who weighs around 87lbs and just under 22 inches at the withers. she has very thick dense bone, yet you can feel her ribs. And yes she can, and does a days work and lasts. Weights are very subjective, and should only be used as a guideline. No two dogs and whats behind them are alike. JMHO

Let's face it, fashion rules. What's in right now is fat. Definitely not morbidly obese, sometimes obese, but more often just plain fat. Chances are the pendulum will take a swing in the opposite direction. Until then, bring on the kibble.

General Appearance
Strongly built, short-coupled, very active; broad in skull; broad and deep through chest and ribs; broad and strong over loins and hindquarters.

Characteristics
Good-tempered, very agile (which precludes excessive body weight or excessive substance). Excellent nose, soft mouth; keen love of water. Adaptable, devoted companion.

I should have also included the following:

Body
Chest of good width and depth, with well sprung barrel ribs - this effect not to be produced by carrying excessive weight. Level topline. Loins wide, short-coupled and strong.

Size
Ideal height at withers: dogs: 56-57 cms (22-221/2 ins); bitches: 55-56 cms (211/2-22 ins).

I've a bitch that is about 75 lbs and she's in perfect shape and body condition. She's in normal height, not small at all. She could have more bones and if she would have more bones she would probably be little heavier. I have another bitch that is around 66.1 lbs... she carries a bit more bones that the other bitch but she's a bit smaller and a bit too thin for my taste. She needs to gain about 6 or 7 pounds to be perfect for me.
I have a male that is about 99 lbs and he looks perfect...he's not too big... and not fat. He's just big boned, with big teddy bear like head and nice compact body. I would not want him to be thinner than he is! He could work all day retrieving... but he may not be as fast as the lighter dogs are.... but he gets the job done ;)

The word obese would be objective if it had a formally accepted definition...which I think it does. I believe for people the accepted standard for obesity is 20% above the high end of the ideal body weight range.

By this definition (and I am not sure that I am correct), a bitch who should weigh 70 lbs and who actually weighed 84 lbs would be considered obese.

If you use the AKC standard weights and heights, a 23.5 inch bitch who weights 84 lbs would be, by definition, obese. Also remember, that by the world's standards, a 23.5 inch bitch is very tall.

The other thing is that bone doesn't have nearly the density of fat, muscle or water. Therefore the excuse of being "big boned" is not valid.

I like the way the English standard makes the distinction between excessive weight and excessive substance. These are different things and both are incorrect.

An incorrect coat can also make a dog look heavy.

I agree that people do need to look at other breeds. Knowing what a fit dog looks like is one example but also there are so many aspects to evaluating structure that the individual standards do not get into. We should know a lot about dogs in general. Watch other breeds work. Horse people often have a great eye for dogs even if they have never been to a dog show.

There are many people who never see other dogs unless they are at a specialty, looking at pictures on the internet or in the Quarterly, or when visiting other breeder friends. If your eye is used to seeing fat dogs, they look normal to you. Go to a hunt test, an all-breed show, a dog sled race, a horse show.....

Like someone posted before, it is just fashionable right now to be fat. The pendulum will swing back eventually.

And please, people need to stop using the excuse that our standard stinks. Maybe it does, that is not my point. If you don't want to follow the AKC standard, then follow the English one. I don't care if you breed to the Lithuanian standard. Just stop assuming that fashionable is correct and respect the breed.

Well, I've been to plenty of hunt tests and most of those dogs (unless they are 'show' bred or partially 'show' bred) don't even look like labradors. Typical look is single coat, greyhound tail, pointed muzzle..did you ever listen to MRW CD (her speech from 1986 to a English KC)? She mentioned how greyhounds were introduced into the labrador line and we still see the effects of that - particularly the humpy back and the tail.

The weights and heights in the AKC Standard do not seem to be consistent. Is the problem with the weights or with the heights?

Maybe the weight ranges are where Labrador should be but the heights are way too tall. If this is true, you could have a 100 lb balanced dog, but not a 100 lb balanced Labrador.