Yes, I would love to see this happen as well - if the people who influenced the standard truly believe that what is in the standard is necessary for a working dog, then they should be breeding dogs to that end (i.e., the standard). If a CH must have a WC, then a FC should have a CC. These are equally minimal requirements. If the working requirement gets stiffer, then I could see a dog having to compete in the ring to the same extent. As it is, a WC (at least in our breed - other breeds have stiff requirements for their WC) is not really a standard as much of a basic instinct test. A CC is a basic evaluation of breed type. I see these two as being similar evaluations.

Breeders of dogs that go into performance homes SHOULD pay very close attention to structure because good structure is what keeps the dog sound and able to participate without breaking down or unnecessarily injuring itself. A lot of dogs work IN SPITE of their structure when in reality a dog's structure should enable efficient work. So often breeders put their pet quality (i.e., dogs without balance or issues that would be detrimental in a working home) dogs in to performance homes and that should not happen.

They should also pay attention to coats and their functionality. I am always amazed that my dogs with correct coats can work all winter whereas no one with single coated dogs wants to put their dogs into the water until April because they cannot take the temps (I am not talking freezing water). This is a similar issue with open coats. This breed was bred to retrieve primarily in WATER.

We should all strive to breed a functional dog that has type. One without the other is not a Labrador Retriever.

Another things about straight rears. The opposite of sickle hocks. Those side view movement photos look like they are fully extended. But essentially the leg doesn't look any different when they are standing still.

Porportions - you are correct. Since no dog is perfect, judging is a series of steps. And these steps are dictated by what is in the ring.

First, comes type - head, coat and tail. Then soundness. Now the judge can get picking with what is left.

Length of leg to body, balance, amount of bones, condition, temperament, length of body, etc., etc. These are the finer points of the breed and are shared with many other breeds. But they all come together to make a labrador a distinct breed.

As for the massive labs, I do not know what to tell you. I could not get them back into a boat.

Sorry to be rather ignorant concerning sickle hocks, but might this be another name for bowlegged? I have a friend that had her Lab's hips x-rayed for OFA and the vet made the comment about the dog being bowlegged. I have been around Labs for quite some time but never heard the comment concerning bowlegged. TIA for any comments on this subject.

No.
Sickle hocks usually are seen in dogs displaying excess in angulation ; the more extreme, the more energy the dog must produce both to hold up the levers of its rear in stance & gait . As the angle between upper vs lower thighs becomes more acute , then the tibia/fibula conformation is inclined to push the hock backwards iow closer to the ground which increases the angle between the tibia/fibula vs metatarsus .

If the vet was referring to the hind legs, bowed legs (to me) usually indicate an unstable or incorrect structure of the hock in which the joint flexes laterally upon weight bearing. A definite structural fault which can dramatically limit the dog's soundness.

I have noticed several dogs with sickle hocks as of late. I even had one from a very well known breeder/judge, and I have to say she was incredibly sound til the day she died. I'm wondering if others are noticing that in some of these sickle hock dogs, there seems to be an additional lack of soundness, and I'm not sure where it's coming from. I recently watched Labrador judging and noticed one of the dogs in the WD ring could not bear full weight on one of his hocks. At one point the judge tried to reposition the other hind leg, the one bearing the dog's weight, and she couldn't move it. When she did, the dog responded by sitting. Later, that same dog tried to jump but couldn't and you could see him give up. I can see that dog breaking down over time. Is it the sickle hocks? an injury? an injury because he has sickle hocks? or just a different ligament issue/some other source of lacking soundness? I have know idea, but this is becoming a more prominent in our breed. Structural soundness should be considered an integral part of type, just as movement should be part of our type. we have a sporting breed.

I posted this image in a Facebook group recently to help visualize what sickle hocks look like, hope this picture shows up, you may have to copy and past the link.

http://www.millenniumbc.co.za/images/std-hindlegsf03.jpg

and another one
http://www.saboxer.co.za/sabox_img/sickle_hq.jpg

Shelley's link

Do all over angulated dogs have sickle hocks?

Another way to recognize sickle hocks by watching a dog's side movement - the dog's rear legs tend to pump up and down, like pistons, rather than extending out behind the dog from the hock joint.

Thanks. The hock area does illustrate the crouching, lack of extension of the sickle hock in that Bulldog well. We just need to remind ourselves that the Labrador normal is not the Bulldog normal. The normal Lab has, one hopes, more length of leg and more rear angulation, with the straight line going to the toes, not the rear of the foot. Labs are not Bulldogs, not horses, but moderately angulated, except when they are sickle hocked--or bow legged with possibly bad knees. It is hard finding a drawing of over angulation in a Lab. The generic side-gai, all-breed show dog of many breeds and groups is something flying with a straighter front and an overangulated rear, but lots of pumping movement in the rear: if it is long enough it doesn't have to crab and folks marvel at that flash and dash, missing the wasted effort. We need to avoid that, too, so I agree with Abby!

Lots of resources out there on gate and movement. I for one think that everyone should see Rachel Page Elliott's Dog Steps VIDEO.

keeping in mind every dog has their own standard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sjYUzKnax0#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFPCYypAx-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPBmW7nB0Qg

I was at an all breed show recently and had time to watch the Labradors (It has been awhile since I was able to sit ringside and watch). There were some really nice dogs and bitches. And then there were some that just made me shake my head. D & B (more so the B) with no length of upper arm - a few looked liked sausages on sticks. Many dogs who could not move correctly - no reach, no drive. I was quite sad to see so many entries like this - dogs who look like they couldn't last an hour or 2 in the field, much less a whole day. There was 1 bitch (who looked a bit older than the others) that was completely cow hocked when standing outside of the ring.

I was happy to see that these dogs were not put up as Winners or BOB. The winners and BOB each day were lovely examples of our breed.

But I have to wonder - where are we going when breeding dogs who look like some of the ones I saw....very sad indeed

Excessive angulation is not the main point with sickle hocks. Most GSD's with all those angles do not have sickle hocks. The main point with sickle hocks is that the joint does not extend when the leg is extended backward during the trot. When the front leg is extended forward, you are looking for reach and how "open" the shoulder joint is. But likewise in the rear, as that rear leg goes back, that hock joint should be open/extended. In a sickle hock, the joint appears to be locked.

Dogs with more extreme angulation can have a great side gait (well, maybe not what a lab should look like) and cover a lot of ground. If the hock joint is angulated and "loose" it will look dirty going away but may side gait really well.

A problem I see is hocks that are both over-angulated and too long at the same time. I think this is what a lot of people are calling a sickle hock.

Don't forget that the hock is not the joint but the bones leading to that joint (which is analogous to the heel). The length of the hock should be short...less than 1/3 the height of the dog. I see many long hocks in labs.

NOT TRUE! Check your anatomy again. The hock IS the joint, corresponding to the ankle in humans.

Nope, there is a hock and a hock joint....but yes, the terms are commonly misused.

Well, I guess the University of Pennsylvania school of Veterinary Medicine must be wrong:

https://www.vet.upenn.edu/RyanHospital/K9FirstAid/KnowingYourDog/tabid/1372/Default.aspx

SMH. And you are presenting yourself as an expert. No wonder people are confused.

I like Laura Dedering's comprehensive Lab diagrams at the link below:
http://www.cygnet-labs.com/folklaur/LabDiagrams.htm
See the Lab diagrams, the ones from Great Britain in particular.

It's the rear pastern not the hock.... the hock is the joint..smh

According to the diagrams mentioned above, over angulation "may incline to cow or sickle hocks, produces poor hind action". Thank you Charlotte K. for posting this. I didn't know over angulation was the cause of cow hocks.

You are welcome. I do not think that overangulation always is the cause of cow hocks. It is often a LONG rear pastern or even just weak "couch potato" muscling that contributes to the the cow hocks. A dog with perfect angulation when crouching to spring for bait can also look cow hocked, temporarily. A cow hocked adolescent or bitch who has just weaned a litter can muscle up and have perfect angulation, even from the rear. True sickle hocks lack the working power of a springy cow hock in muscled haunches--the cow hocks can extend if not sickle hocks, too. Think how when you ride you can collect the horse with reins to put the weight on the rear of the horse to enhance the drive--kind of like a Cavalry horse maneuver. You can do it in a dog with a leash, to shift the weight back. It keeps the dog from pulling (young male dog!) and enhances the picture of the dog. I am not sure that my words are conveying what I'd like to say. No, I haven't bred a perfect rear--yet.

Although I am not an expert and don't pretend to be one, I do not think UPenn is using the terms as they have been traditionally used. But that happens with common words and is why the actual experts have official language. Although I have heard the terms used as you are using them, I have more often heard people say that the metatarsal bones are the hock, and the tarsal joint is the hock joint. In the front, there is the pastern, which are the bones, and also the pastern joint.

That said, I wouldn't get too hung up on how people use unofficial terms. To stick to the focus of this thread which is "sickle hocks", there are many dogs with long metatarsal bones and/or with a more extreme angle at the tarsal joint who do not have a joint that is stiff which does not open or provide good spring. That said, even GSD's who have more extreme angles, do want short metatarsal bones as well as a flexible joint.

I think Mark Twain was right.

http://tinyurl.com/bnjsm88