I hear a lot of breeders say that their lines take longer to mature and their dogs do not look good at all until they are 3-4 years old.
I wonder if lines that mature earlier are just plain better (with better bone structure)than the ones that need longer time to mature.
I'm talking about dogs that look good by the time the are 9-10 month old and they just keep getting better and better with age and they might be finished by the time they are 2 years old.
I know some puppies develop fast and then fall apart, so I'm not taking about those(early winners)ones.

I have slower to mature dogs and I prefer them - they look fine when they are younger but do not look as mature as some of the other dogs in the ring. They have had their share of wins as youngsters but are not going to be at their prime until they are 4-5 years old. But they still look great as veterans whereas many of the dogs who are very heavily boned/bodied at a young age do not - I have noticed several lines that do not age well at all. I prefer youngsters that look age appropriate and do not consider those that do not "typical". I also prefer a dog that has good longevity and will remain active for its lifetime. I do not breed much and spend a lot of time working (and showing) my dogs, so I am in no rush to "finish" anything by two years of age.

I think what is "better" is often a matter of opinion based on one's priorities.

Does anyone notice that the slow maturing dogs tend to live longer?

Not in my lines. Most live well from 12-16 years regardless of how early they matured. My males tend to mature earlier than the girls.

just look towards you veteran classes. dogs that remain sound till old age , stand the test of time, and ill take that over any top winning youngster, and then falls off the face of the earth and you dont hear about him anymore.

I've noticed the lines that tend to mature slowly seem to have better orthopedics going back generation after generation.

There are quite a few of these lines I've noticed while doing pedigree research, especially when digging around OFA.

I have a friend with a boy that is a little over 2 and took his time growing, he still has some to do. His OFA ratings that recently came back were Excellent hips and Normal Elbows. He comes from a long line of nice, clean orthopedics on the bitch and stud sides of his pedigree. I can't wait to use this boy in a few more months.

Overall, I would rather have a Lab that doesn't grow too fast. I think it's healthier.

Good things sometimes come to those that wait.

I have had the opposite experience. I had a nice male that was OFA normal (back then they didn't give grades) at age 2. His offspring were turning up crippled, so I redid him at age 4. He was quite dysplastic. At age two, he was still immature. He filled out a lot in the next year - but he also did some growing that made the hips turn out bad.

I have also had a bitch that was elbow clear at 20 months, but she was quite immature. At 28 months, she had one grade 1 elbow. At 36 months - when she looked like a nice finished out adult - she was grade 2 in that elbow and grade one in the other.

So....the warning I would give is that 24 months is not some magic number. Your "final" opinions should be when the dog is essentially mature. If you have a late maturing line, your hips/elbows may need to wait until age 3 (or later) to provide good information about your dogs.

Think some are thinking of particular dogs. But just in general I would say I mostly have the dogs you can show from the 6/9 class to Veterans. Pups are fun to show and nice to have them to show. And nice to walk in the ring with a male at 9 mos. bad time, teenager look, and win a nice ribbon. Showing all the dogs life is fun to me. I don't want to wait until 3 years. Yes, they get better and better. And you are right with the fact alot of nice pups seem to fall off the face of the earth, been doing so for many, many years.

As in everything in this game, you cant generalize. Every dog is different.

A good dog is a good dog no matter when that dog looks his/her best. Thinking a late or early to mature dog is somehow better than the opposite is ignorant thinking. Longevity is not correlated with maturity however yes dogs that mature quickly tend to look old quickly as well and those that are slow to mature often look their very best at an even later age. That said since I keep two large breeds, I prefer lines that mature more slowly because when a dog finishes early (less than 12 months say) then everyone jumps on the band wagon and breeds to him but nothing is really known about him or his puppies and so many issues can and do arise and you learn about health issues after a lot of puppies are on the ground. Not good.

Be smart. Breed smart.

My concern is the opposite of the OP. I don't even like to see young dogs being awarded championship points (unless we had a junior championship) because I worry that those dogs who look mature at 18 mos will be totally overdone by the time they are 3. I am not talking about bone structure. I am concerned with overall size and substance.

Exactly, I agree. You echo almost exactly what I was thinking.

A dog is judged on how he looks on the day.No one can say a mature young dog will be overdone with age or that a moderate young dog will come on enough and be great with age.

The way they grow can not be controlled.Heredity controls the way they grow.

THAT is an open-minded discussion for another day. Many (many, many) things affect the physical expression of the genes as a pup (or any other young animal) grows. The topic is worth its own thread.

Why not start one?

Exactly...the dog that looks the best on the day should win. But, if a fundamental purpose of a dog show is to showcase breeding stock, then the winner should be what the judge believes the breed needs. How can you tell what the dog has genetically until it is mature?

There is so much a judge can help us breeders. They see the dog, and point to the best dog that day. You can't ask the judge to know the lines or guess what the dog is going to look 5 years from now.
I see most people has posted that the later they mature, the longer will take them to grow old. It makes sense and just by itself, it is enough reason to breed for that. But, then you have to wait until your bitch is 5-6 years old to breed her and I don't like that. 2-3 years is my prefer timing for a first litter.
I might be completely off here, but shouldn't be the pick of the dogs conformation the time when they become adults around 2 - 3 years old?

Champions should represent the dogs that best represent the standard. If a dog no longer represents the standard at age 3 or 4 because it has become exaggerated and overdone, does it really deserve to be considered a champion? I have no problems with youngsters winning as long as they look age appropriate - a 6 to 9 month puppy that is up to size with the adults is not typical. If it is rewarded, then people start breeding for more and more bone/substance at earlier ages, regardless of what is correct, and that will change the look of the breed (and has to some extent). This is a working breed and should be functional throughout their lifetime without breaking down by 5 or 6. I always cringe when people refer to their 6 year olds as "oldsters". They should not be - they should be in their prime.

I agree the best dog on the day should win, but the best dog should be what is typical per the standard. A truly deserving dog will look good as a youngster and improve and hold up over time.

That is the negative to this concept. I may not be the best person to give examples of other countries.... but isn't it typical of other countries with "junior champions" is that if they gain their championship points before a certain age, they just need one more major after that age to receive a full championship??? This is very different from earning all the points necessary for a full championship after that certain age, which clearly is a problem for bitches. Maybe bitches need at least one major after a certain age but dogs need two???

My girls have had litters and then gone back into the show ring to finish their championships. There is hardly a judge out there that has not bred litters. They look at structure, and that does not change. The under carriage may droop a little, but that does not hold them back.

So I'm really curious about this statement. If a dog gets to be 3 or 4 and is finished and appearance has changed, or if the standard changes (as it has) would you strip dogs of their titles? Really?

Strip their titles??? I don't think anyone has suggested that. I agree that would not be a good idea.

However, I would like to see people discuss the idea of requiring a dog or bitch earn at least one major after a certain age in order to have the junior champion title lifted and be awarded a full championship. For the sake of discussion, I threw out the idea of a bitch needing to earn 1 major after age 2, and a male needing to earn 2 majors after age 2. If current championship requirements are met prior to age 2, then a junior championship would be awarded until a full championship is earned. This would give 3 levels of champion: 1) junior champion, 2) champion, and 3) grand champion. Just an idea for discussion....

It is hard enough to get one championship let alone 3! Majors are hard to come by in our breed. Smaller breeds need 6-7 dog to make a major we need 28!
If the AKC got ahold of your idea, I am sure their light bulbs would go off! MONEY MONEY MONEY!!!!!

No, that is not what I said - I asked whether it was truly deserving and never said anything about stripping titles. I think it is good food for thought about what is being rewarded and how that impacts breeding practices. It is probably not practical to require dogs to be a certain age in order to finish, but judges should consider what it is they are putting up - if a 6-9 month old puppy is as mature as a 2-3 year old in body and bone, is that really typical of the breed and is that really deserving of a win over mature dogs that have held up over time? Is this a good message to send to breeders, many of whom breed exclusively for show? It is not like there is no depth of quality at specialties, and it is typically breeder judges who reward the exaggerated and overdone. I have seen some very heavily boned puppies in the classes lately, and people ooh and ahh over them even though they move more like a draft animal than a sporting dog. I have no problem with rewarding a quality puppy who is age appropriate and am happy to see the adults and veterans who retain their quality rewarded.

I think an issue is that people are not really breeding to a particular standard and are going off in their own directions based on what appeals to them personally and what finds success in the ring. All of the standards for Labradors that I am aware of call for an active, moderate dog, yet I read on this forum time and time again the preference for a large bodied, heavily boned dog. Moderate seems to equate to "weedy" in the minds of many and that is not the case. Weedy is weedy - we don't also need the opposite extreme. The state of many Labrador coats is a testament to people's personal preference for longer, wavier open coats - nothing in the standard (any standard) calls for that, nor is it functional. A desire for a very short back is resulting in a lack of reach of neck, shoulder layback and proper turn of stifle. This is also not ideal for a retriever.

I often hear arguments that extremes are necessary in breeding. It may be true that a dog with exaggerated or overdone features can improve a bitch that lacks those particular features, but that does not mean that atypical specimens should be rewarded in the show ring. We should be rewarding typical breed type, which will then influence people to breed for that, rather than passing fads.

I agree up to a certain point. When something is a problem in a kennel or breed, then the tendency is to try to fix it by going all the way to the opposite side. I can tell I'm guilty as charged in some aspects of my own breeding program.
A word about the standard:
The standard doesn't call for short backs, it calls for short coupled. It is not the same and that is most people problem, they don't know how to read the standard.
AKC "The back is strong and the topline is level from the withers to the croup when standing or moving. However, the loin should show evidence of flexibility for athletic endeavor. Body--The Labrador should be short-coupled, with good spring of ribs tapering to a moderately wide chest. "
British "Back : Level topline. Loins: Wide, short-coupled and strong. Chest: Of good width and depth, with well sprung barrel ribs."

Our job is to judge the dog "on the day" not to consider what it will look like in a year or two. The best dog in the ring at that moment is the one who wins regardless of age, or what class it is in. I understand what you are saying but that is not the system we judge under in this country.

I would not consider an overdone puppy (or overdone anything - it implies there is too much of something and that is not typical for the breed) to be the "best" since it is not typical.

My guess is that most breeder judges have been in the breed a sufficient amount of time to have bred several generations of litters and know what a typical nice dog looks like at each stage of its life. When they see an anomaly, they know it. If they see the anomaly and reward it, I would not think that to be in the best interest of the breed let alone the best on the day, since an anomaly is not (by definition) a typical representation of the breed.

Personally, I like a dog that matures over time. First I think it’s healthier. I don’t pack the pounds on my young dogs so they look more mature, I let them be their gangly, odd selves and mature as they should. I can only imagine what all the extra weight I see on young dogs is doing to them structurally. All that being said, you can still have a dog kept at a good weight through maturity and still come back with orthopedic issues. Been there myself.

Like others, I have concerns about dogs looking great at 18 months, but then overdone at maturity. When I am looking at stud dogs, I prefer ones that are older (3+ years), so I can see what they truly look like as adults and hopefully be able to see what they are producing.

I also like to know what the parents of my dames & studs look like as they age. Are they still getting around and doing stuff at 10, 11, 12 years of age? I have been blessed with long lived Labs my whole life (the youngest dying at 12, oldest 15+) and being that most of what I will produce will live their lives as pets, I want those to love them to have them as long as possible and still be a viable part of their lives.

Dog shows are exactly that, to exhibit breeding stock and the judge should put up what they feel is the best dog of the day. Sometimes we concur, other times, we can’t understand it.

This sparks another tanget of discussion, quality. But I think that is for another post, don't want this to get to confusing.

I was one of the early posters who expressed that I am worried about the opposite of the O.P. For a long time, I have questioned the genetics of a dog or bitch who appear fully mature at 12 - 18 months old. In fact, when I analyze "type" at a show, if I were choosing the best dog at the moment, I would usually choose something from the 12 - 18 class. I often don't even like what I see in Bred By or Open because that is not my interpretation of what a Labrador should look like. Often, the same dog or bitch I love at 12 - 18, I don't like anymore a couple of years later when I see him or her again.

That said, I think the O.P. may have been referring to bone structure and not substance/bone/depth/breadth/prosternum/body fat/etc.

I do love to see a puppy who never really has bad stages. The best pups we have bred have often stayed with good bone structure and movement throughout the maturation process. I am not sure if that is just our lines, but it is definitely something we've noticed. The ones that turn out the best for us, look great at 12 - 18 but just don't have enough. A couple of years later, they fill out and are what we love. Not as much with girls, although this still holds true, but definitely with boys.

So, if I am correct in what the O.P. was asking, our best dogs and bitches often maintain good bone structure throughout their growth stages. If they go through unbalanced stages, it usually clears up before 12 months. But again, different lines are different. Does that make our lines better than those who go through much more different stages? I don't think so but maybe.

Yes, you are right. I was commenting more on structure than substance.
Examples:
A puppy's rear that looks plain and almost cow hocked and then at 3-4 the transformation happens and the dog comes out with amazing, strong, double thigh hind quarters. Dogs that are easty-westy until they are 3-4 years old. Those long inverted necks that then come back with great muscle and crest.
A dog that looks great and mature at 2 doesn't have to look overdone at 3 or 4 and I completely disagree with the fact that fast maturing comes at the cost of health.
So, what do you prefer? A puppy that looks great and age appropriate, keeps looking good until he/she is 15 years old and die of old age, or a dog that you have to wait until he/she is 4 years old to see the final product. All the posts make me think that those dogs that come together latter might be going to waste because people won't wait that long.

I've never had a dog whose bone structure was incorrect for years and then suddenly got better at 3 or 4. I have had dogs whose bone structure as been great and then at 3 or 4 filled out.

Dogs should live for 12 - 13+ years. They are in their prime from 3 - 5 (2 - 7???). But if you think about it, you don't know the final product on any dog until it dies. Seriously. I guess in one sense, you don't know the final product on any dog until its kids and grandkids have died.