Labrador Retriever Forum

Return to Website  > Index
Recent Posts
 
General Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
y
Yes!
Dec 2, 2012 - 11:42AM
Re: Standard vs new look

ON Facebook, I see people posting pictures of their dogs who don't look anything like Labradors (although there are often some very good qualities within each dog) and see all the people gushing how beautiful the dogs are. Do these people not know what they are looking at or are they just kissing each other's butts?

Yes!
Huh

The standard is set - this is NOT a developing breed. Improvement and change are NOT the same thing.


This is a great quote! I wish people understood this.

m
me
Nov 30, 2012 - 11:02AM
Re: Standard vs new look

Curious
anonbreeder
First of all, this doesn't make sense- "noticing a trend in dogs at the national televised shows: they don't quite fit the standard shown by the AKC and LRC". There is one LRC standard (even if you don't agree with it) and the AKC judges are supposed to follow that standard. The biggest national televised show is Westminster. Did you watch it? Winner this year was a very typey bitch that is not overdone, is a American and English champion, has won breed at numerous specialties and has a JH.


I missed the Westminster show. Who was the bitch that won? I'd love to get on their website and see her. Thanks.


If you can post here, you are computer literate enough to google Westminster 2012 and find the answer yourself and then google the breeder. Easy Peasy.

I do agree that if we were to show more moderate dogs, the large overdone ones would be the ones starting to look out of place. I have a nice boy with a correct coat, but it's not "dripping" and we look out of place with the "wooly lambs" in the ring.

I saw a very famous Black stud at a specialty recently, and so many folks have bred to this dog and love this dog and covet this dog, and I just kept looking at him and couldn't figure it out. Sure he was nice, it's not that...but none of my traditional looking dogs look like this one...yet the breeders are FAMOUS and this dog's name is KNOWN...

c
Curious and confused
Nov 30, 2012 - 1:31PM
Re: Standard vs new look

[I missed the Westminster show. Who was the bitch that won? I'd love to get on their website and see her. Thanks.

"If you can post here, you are computer literate enough to google Westminster 2012 and find the answer yourself and then google the breeder. Easy Peasy."

"Winner this year was a very typey bitch that is not overdone, is a American and English champion, has won breed at numerous specialties and has a JH."

Sorry to be confused but when I look up the winner and at the website and online, I don't see the JH. Being a newbie, I'm confused but I guess here is not where to find help :( I'd still just like to see her and see what wins both a JH and Westminster. It's difficult to learn as a newbie, I recently sat at a specialty and asked someone next to me if they could tell why the judge chose the WB over the others, "look at the standard" was the reply. Old timers say "go to the shows" but I've gone since 2008 and have yet to find more than 1 or 2 nice older breeders willing to share knowledge. Why are so many Labrador breeders unlike their dogs in temperament?

Oh well, this thread has interesting learning material.

x
xibitor
Nov 30, 2012 - 1:59PM
Re: Standard vs new look

The JH was earned after Westminster.
Here's the video, gee that was hard...
http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/videos/#/Breed%20Judging/2012/Sporting/vid:17897723

Curious and confused
[I missed the Westminster show. Who was the bitch that won? I'd love to get on their website and see her. Thanks.

"If you can post here, you are computer literate enough to google Westminster 2012 and find the answer yourself and then google the breeder. Easy Peasy."

"Winner this year was a very typey bitch that is not overdone, is a American and English champion, has won breed at numerous specialties and has a JH."

Sorry to be confused but when I look up the winner and at the website and online, I don't see the JH. Being a newbie, I'm confused but I guess here is not where to find help :( I'd still just like to see her and see what wins both a JH and Westminster. It's difficult to learn as a newbie, I recently sat at a specialty and asked someone next to me if they could tell why the judge chose the WB over the others, "look at the standard" was the reply. Old timers say "go to the shows" but I've gone since 2008 and have yet to find more than 1 or 2 nice older breeders willing to share knowledge. Why are so many Labrador breeders unlike their dogs in temperament?

Oh well, this thread has interesting learning material.

w
Why
Nov 30, 2012 - 8:17PM
Re: Standard vs new look

Why do people have to get snarky with their answers?
Thank God our Labs are nicer than we are.

b
Breeder
Nov 30, 2012 - 8:51PM
Re: Standard vs new look

http://www.clearcreeklabradors.com/windy.html - just look at her website! Gorgeous girl!

p
Peggy Stevens
Dec 1, 2012 - 12:33AM
Re: Standard vs new look

Not only does the lovely winner of this year's Westminster have a JH, but the 2011 winner does, too.

Email   Website
Dec 1st, 2012 - 12:33 AM
p
Please
Dec 1, 2012 - 6:24AM
Re: Standard vs new look

Standard
I haven't been to a show in years and have been noticing a trend in dogs at the national televised shows.......
'

Fascinating topic from the OP. First of all, she clearly admits she has not been to a show in YEARS. But watching on televison makes her an instant authority to judge and criticize other dogs.

So many things wrong here it is not funny:

1) Why is she making a comment like this if she does not go to shows? Why is she a self=appointed expert in the standard?

2) Televised shows? Not positive, but i suspect television adds the same ten pounds to a dog as it does humans. Especially today with wide-screens.

3) How many televised shows are there? I can think of two per year. And they normally only show the BOB. Is this how she makes her opinion?

4) How can one possibly interpret a bad standard? It is poorly written and as such is open to variance. Thank goodness, we have the self-appointed experts who, without going to any shows, is a first rate qualified critic.

Perhap she needs to invest a couple of years at some shows before her opinion really matters.

r
Really?
Dec 1, 2012 - 5:49PM
Re: Standard vs new look

The dogs today are meeting the standard. I am not seeing the fat overdone dogs you are referring to. Now maybe you are in a different part of the country but in the East and Southeast the dogs are great.

Posts like these also look like sour grapes to me. Just because your dogs may not be winning doesn't mean all the other dogs are incorrect.

l
LIKE
Dec 2, 2012 - 2:25PM
Re: Standard vs new look

It is alot of smooching, there are so many times I just can't see anything I like about a dog, and wonder why someone would think it is correct.

b
breederXXI
Dec 2, 2012 - 2:50PM
Re: Standard vs new look

Really?
?
What people like or want is irrelevant. For example, one may not like a long nose, but a short muzzle is just as incorrect. Length of leg that is longer than depth of body is not correct, but neither are legs too short for the body. If one doesn't like the dog described in the standard, they should find a breed they do like rather than change and reward this one to fit personal preference.


You are seriously delusional. That is how we got the breeds in the first place. The way the breed looks today compared to 50 years ago or even 75 years ago is completely different. I would say for the better. It will keep changing also. But so does everything.
How could you call someone with their own opinion delusional? Shame on you! I guess you know it all and no one else does. You wouldn't have the nerve to call those names to another breeder face to face. What's happening to the sport and dogs we love ever so much? People like YOU!

-
---- kissers
Dec 2, 2012 - 3:20PM
Re: Standard vs new look

Yes!
ON Facebook, I see people posting pictures of their dogs who don't look anything like Labradors (although there are often some very good qualities within each dog) and see all the people gushing how beautiful the dogs are. Do these people not know what they are looking at or are they just kissing each other's butts?

Yes!
Huh

The standard is set - this is NOT a developing breed. Improvement and change are NOT the same thing.


This is a great quote! I wish people understood this.
The latter, they're kissing the butts of the breeders they think they should.

r
Really?
Dec 2, 2012 - 7:00PM
Re: Standard vs new look

Everyone on this thread must really be frustrated and depressed. What a bummer to see all these Labradors who don't meet the standard win these shows. To make it worse, the ones most undeserving win the biggest specialties also. Oh....and these dogs cant work in the field. My...oh...my what is the world coming to?

I would love to see what a picture of a Labrador from a group of great artist would look like with nothing but the standard to go by. I am not bashing the standard and I am not suggesting I don't follow it. But, I have been doing this long enough to not think the way most of you are.

And, yes, there are some delusions here. The breed is never going back to the dogs of old like Light Brigade or Super Charger. Awesome dogs in their day but we have moved on.

s
Standard
Dec 3, 2012 - 8:40AM
Re: Standard vs new look

Really?


And, yes, there are some delusions here. The breed is never going back to the dogs of old like Light Brigade or Super Charger. Awesome dogs in their day but we have moved on.


I don't know and would be afraid to waste my money to find out. I was curious what others thought. My intention was not to bring another discussion about why dogs have changed so much and continue to change, although I'd like to understand all aspects of this as well. But simply, does what most consider to be an "old fashioned" dog stand a chance in the ring today?

d
Dogs of the past
Dec 3, 2012 - 9:56AM
Re: Standard vs new look

I believe a truly nice dog will always stand a chance. I have a more moderate dog with an old fashioned coat (short and hard) that finished easily but I would not show to certain breeder judges that like massive (a word that should never be used to describe this breed) dogs - there is no point. There are breeder and all around judges that do appreciate a correct dog.

Some dogs of the past who were nice in their day would not be competitive today because structurally we have improved the breed since then and they would not be competitive. However, there are several dogs from the past who would certainly be competitive today and probably more so because they have not lost head or coat type.

n
NuB2
Dec 3, 2012 - 12:41PM
Re: Standard vs new look

As a "new" person to the breed, let me just ask, aren't breeders perpetuating the path away from the STANDARD by breeding to the "flavor of the month" stud dogs? Picking a stud dog should be about improving what your bitch can produce not because he's the #1 dog at the moment.

s
Standard?
Dec 5, 2012 - 3:04PM
Re: Standard vs new look

NuB2
As a "new" person to the breed, let me just ask, aren't breeders perpetuating the path away from the STANDARD by breeding to the "flavor of the month" stud dogs? Picking a stud dog should be about improving what your bitch can produce not because he's the #1 dog at the moment.


That's why we are looking at dogs so overdone and downright fat in the ring, that's what's winning. It's one thing to vary from the Labradors of the past, but it's another to not have a mind of your own and just jump on the "flavor of the month" bandwagon. Leave it to humans to mess things up. I stopped showing when I saw this happening, waste of time and money.

Return to Website  > Index