Anyone who has looked around at canine events or in their neighbors' yards can tell you that there is a great amount of diversity in US Labradors today. Is that a bad thing?

Earlier I wrote:

The diversity itself is neither good nor bad. Labs have the trainability to do many different tasks well - but not all with the same structure. The standard for the breed defines the "original" Labrador Retriever (don't forget that important word) and the ideal that has been established over time. The structure and function in the standards describe a narrow range of Labs - not the broad spectrum of varied purpose dogs we see today.

So, how do we make the standard relevant in such a diverse glut of type and style? I suggest that the standard be used primarily for conformation as it was intended. This will not happen until breeders, fanciers and judges agree that the BREED reflected in the standards is more important than egos, personalities, politics or money. Yes, there's the M word. The future of the breed is influenced by show results. If we can agree that show results should only be influenced by the standard, we can move a lot closer to preserving the breed many of us learned to love long ago.

I have always thought that the standard (any standard for that matter) wasn't written for a novice. One needs to first understand dogs anatomy. His mental and characteristics in the how and where he was developed. And the why of his body parts depicted.

The standard is a blueprint but one still needs the knowledge
required to make it work and truly understandable.

That said, our standard depiction was never intended for our dogs to be built like speed demons nor hard headed temperaments. We are oh so biddable and sensible..That is true labrador temperament. As an added note on temperament. Nothing saddens me more than anything to do w/ a labrador than for him to not have a great sound temperament. This goes for intact males as well.

Quarter horse vs thorough bred is a good analogy. But because of field trials evolving to the point they have today, they have been bred over time to meet that venue.

Our breed is asked to perform so many different functions in our country. So because of that, the diversity is here and it's here to stay, IMO.

A question....assuming "field bred Labs" are a bit of an evolution, did a more slight, speedy Lab who didn't meet standard just happen to clean everyone's clock at a field event causing everyone to say hmmmmm??? Or did we initially assume that taller, slighter dogs would do better at these events?

Were Labs who met the standard really NOT doing well at events causing us to change them or did we notice that dogs NOT bred to standard were doing better?

Just wondering, thanks.

It isn't necessarily bad that we see so much diversity within the breed around the country. What is bad is that we see so much diversity within the conformation ring. And what is worse, the dogs that win are not that which the standard describes. So I would ask, is the standard wrong, or are the judges and exhibitors wrong? I am assuming it is some combination of both.

probably evolved by breeding for talent and throwing the rest out to window. If the dog could hunt then it did not really matter if it was a bit taller, thinner, etc. than the standard.

This is an example of breeding for one trait, be it color, size, build, or test clearances. Your bound to loose some of the good stuff while trying to obtain the best of one.

It is a combination of both. The standard added unnecessary DQs and is too wordy, and many judges/exhibitors ignore the standard because it doesn't fit their idea of what they want in their dogs. It's probably a battle of the egos. Someone at LRC, Inc got a bee in their bonnet and decided to take it out on the fancy with their ill-advised standard, and the group of well-known/popular breeders said, "We'll show you LRC, Inc. We're going to finish Champions despite your %^@#!> standard!" And so they have...

I agree that it is a combination of both. I don't know of any conformation people who voted for the standard. It is the field people who outvoted us. Does it make sense for the field people to set the standard for conformation. Taking that into consideration and all the hullabaloo over it at the time most longtime Lab breeders could care less about the standard. So, breeders unless new to the breed, are not breeding to fit the standard and judges are choosing from among those entered who look the most alike even if they are not correctly structured. The LRC thought that Labs were getting too short so put in the height disqualification, and now we have Labs that are too big,lol.

If you want to vote on a new standard (assuming there would ever be one) you must be a member of the parent club. Your voice is not heard if you don't vote.

Well based upon who you talk to, many will say it was the show bred Labs that have changed. They point to Ch Shamrock Acres Light Brigade (12 time BIS winner, one of the winningest Labradors of all time, as an example. In looking at his pictures it is hard to argue the point.

I know Mark was an English Lab but I just wanted to compare his "style/type" to Light Brigade. I am not sure that it is even relevant other than to wonder if there has always been some level of diversity.

http://www.tealwoodkennel.com/LightBrigade1.html

http://labradornet.com/famesandylandsmark.html

The other thing to think about is what the average American lab looked like when Ruffy and Arnold hit the scene.

Sandylands Midas was a littermate to Mark and he was a different style - more similar to Light Brigade:

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/labrador_retriever/dog.html?id=222140

Well, read back at the first of my previous post. I think that is why on some fronts we have such diversity in the conformation ring.... I don't want to get into the standard really except to say besides being 'wordy' and the added DQ's(which weren't necessary), the standard really didn't change much and the biggest bugaboo was the height DQ when truly size didn't change at all~ It gave you 1/2 inch more either way... Just that it's now a DQ if you don't meet it. Judges judge the whole dog(s) on the day and they don't fault judge...

As well as how you(general) interpret the standard. You can have quality in styles w/in the standard though it may not be exactly your style, it's still a quality dog and it's that breeder's and or judges style. Those that have an eye for quality can and do recognize that. There are no prefect dogs. They all have something that could be better. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, sort of. First, it is the privilege and responsibility of the parent club members to enact changes to the standard. It is that way in every parent club for every breed. The fact that a majority of LRC members at the time of the last revision did not compete in conformation meant that the standard was in the hands of people who were not in any way bound by it. That is also true of a few other sporting dog clubs. If it had just been a matter of who actually voted for it and who voted against, it would not have passed in my opinion.

The really raw point that led to so much animosity was that the BOARD decided on the standard. The board at the time had a number of members that showed and competed in field events. It was their private agenda to change the standard for conformation (show) so that it favored a dog that could also be competetive in field events. It clearly failed in this department. Once the board adopted the revision, it was sent to AKC as a "done deal" because the LRC by-laws did not REQUIRE that the membership get a vote.

AKC was not willing to be a party to this action. They required that the LRC allow members to vote on the proposed standard revision and that it must pass or AKC would not accept it. The Board, not to be outflanked by AKC, sent a ballot out to all members. The ballot stated that the Board of Directors had adopted a new standard, which they attached. Those who opposed the board had to mark the ballot NO and return it by a specific date. Those that affirmed the action of the board (I didn't say were in FAVOR of the standard change) did not have to return the ballot. So, many members who had no interest at all in the standard simply threw the ballot out. They would have done that even if a strict "Yes" "No" vote had been tallied. Many of them that I talked to personally saw it had to do with "show dogs" and never even read the ballot. They really didn't care what the board did as long as it didn't affect them or their field dogs!

This heavy-handed method of passing a standard that was disliked by so many in the conformation community was part of the reason the standard has not been respected.

SERIOUSLY???????? Take a closer look.
]

I applied to be a member of the LRC twice - both times with two letters of recommendation from members in good standing. This was shortly after the standard was revised. Both times I was told months later either my application wasn't received or the LRC membership chairman had been changed. I stopped trying....

Marti, try again. There was a terrible mess right after the standard change. Policies were questioned, by-laws were changed, etc. Things have had over a decade to settle in now, so apply again. Change can ONLY be accomplished by the members.

If it was shortly after the standard was revised, that was a LONG TIME AGO. Don't give up so easily and try again.

The same happened to me Marti except they would not even send me an application. However in 2000 I was able to get an application, sent it in along with my two recommendations and was accepted. Since that time I have made numerous recommendations for folks, not one has been turned down.

Who is the black across from Sam of Blaircourt? I can't read the print on that photo.

Ch Dark Star of Franklin. His breeder/owner was the main force behind our current standard. Sam was the "poster dog" for the standard by LRC and AKC for many years. I hope everyone can see the big difference in type (as well as style) between them. I see the same sort of differences between Light Brigade and Midas.

Thanks for the ID. Yes I certainly do see huge differences. Although, dogs in photos never look the same as in person to me, wonder how seeing them in person would have changed what I think of each of them.

hmm...interesting thread.

In Thoroughbred horses there is no 'blueprint' and you would think there would be little diversity in type as the main purpose is for the horses to be fast-but the exact opposite is true. There are small and big, ugly and pretty, balanced and unbalanced and correct and incorrect Thoroughbreds that are successful racehorse and producers.

The Arabian horse registry has a very precise standard and yet you cannot even compare an Al Khamsa Blue List (very narrow and rigorously maintained gene pool) Arabian to the majority of Arabians being shown today (there is even an event that is specifically for this type of Arabian and they have been sub classed into almost a different breed even though one would have to argue that they would have to be closest to the original horse of the desert-is this something that is logical to do with Labradors?????). This breed, like the Labrador, performs in a variety of area not defined by it's standard and subsequently, for the most part, there is wide array of 'types'.

No easy answers here. It is the nature of animal husbandry to attempt to always be improving on the original and it takes a very dedicated and visionary breeder to have the fortitude to attempt to preserve and replicate anything from the past. All the aspects of current use of any species being bred to any standard is going to be subject to 'perfecting' and that often times means change.

By comparison to what is currently winning big in the breed ring, all 4 of those dogs appear to lack substance and coat and have much more leg - one can actually see daylight under all 4 of those dogs. I have always liked Sam, especially since he was a working Show Champion. I do not like the shoulders on any of the others but Midas' proportions are better than the other two.

To say Labradors have not changed is crazy.

Or...to put it another way, compared to dogs that exemplified the standard, the current winning dogs have excessive substance and coat and short legs.

Sam of Blaircourt was the illustration for the standard for 20 years. I don't think that you can argue that the big winning dogs in the US today exemplify the standard - not ours or any other.

Isn't this an objective thing to analyze? What is the proper proportion for height to length? I know labs should be square or "slightly" longer than square. Is that 1:1 or 1.1:1??? And what are the 2 points each is measured from?

I am sure height is wither to ground. But is length wither to base of tail???... or maybe shoulder to farthest point of rump??? I always mess that up. That is why I am glad I can post anonymously! :)

OK...I have my brain back on now. Wither to base of tail for length is just plain dumb. I confirmed that that length is objectively determined by point of shoulder to point of rump, and height is wither to ground. All I had to do was look in the standard. duh. I didn't think to look there at first.

I also then took a ruler and looked at the dogs in the above pictures and looked at some popular modern stud dogs. The eyes can be deceiving...

The standards are VERY clear about the measuring points. In fact, each standard that gives a specific proportion MUST say from where to where it is measured. Of course, they don't agree with each other

AKC: length from the point of the shoulder to the point of the rump is equal to or slightly longer than the distance from the withers to the ground. Distance from the elbow to the ground should be equal to one half of the height at the withers.

CKC: Distance from withers to elbow approximately equal to distance from elbow to ground; length from point of shoulder to point of rump very slightly longer than height at withers.

UKC: A properly proportioned Labrador Retriever is square or just slightly longer (measured from prosternum to point of buttocks) than tall (measured from the withers to the ground), and length of the front leg (measured from point of elbow to the ground) is approximately equal to one-half of the dog's height.

So... if you measure from point of shoulder (where the scapula and humerus meet) to the point of rump (ishial tuberosity), the AKC standard calls for equal and allows slightly longer. The CKC standard calls for slightly longer (not including equal as a choice). The UKC standard is really different in that it measures from the point of the prosternum - which in a proper Lab is well in front of the point of shoulder - to the point of rump AND calls for square. This is really a SHORT proportion when you figure that on most well-built Labs the prosternum is an inch or two in front of the point of shoulder.

Here is my take from measuring dogs (both live specimens and photos from the past) that appear to be short coupled, have leg and move well. I prefer square from point of shoulder to point of buttock. SLIGHTLY longer can be up to 10% longer and the average eye will not see very much difference. When the length gets to be over 10% longer, the average person will note that the dog is longer than tall. If a dog is 22 inches tall and 24 inches long (shoulder to buttock) with good coupling, most observers will not think the dog is "long". However, if the length is slightly LESS than height, the dog will appear to be tall most of the time. For example, in the photo of the four past winners, Midas is square. Sam is "slightly" longer. Both Briggs and Dark Star are taller than long AND their leg is over half the height.

The UK standard doesn't give any measure or proportion. It tells you what the dog should look like without getting specific. The culture of the UK encourages mentorship and guidance by experienced breeders, which may explain why the standard can be so short, but the dogs show more consistency of type.

Using just my eye, I would have said all 4 had too much leg. When I measured, I was surprised when both Sam and Midas did NOT have too much leg. It is interesting what happens to your "eye" over time. People really get used to what they are seeing all the time.

In looking at these 4 dogs.. I would say that all of them would be considered "Field Dogs " by many today and likely shunned in the LQ.

So if these dogs from the past more closely resemble the field dogs of today.. ?? who then has really done most of the changing of the breed?

Well speaking to the Field Trial folks who tend to pull out those same pictures, does the question need asking?

Don't forget what a little weight and coat will do. Imagine Midas with more coat (which isn't correct), add some weight (which isn't correct), and shorten his legs up a little bit (which would still be correct but remember his height is also correct as is). I think he would be considered a very nice moderate dog today. That is a nice dog.

Actually, the two English imports most closely resemble the STANDARD of today. I haven't seen many field dogs that even come close in body, substance, head, coat, tail or most of the other important traits. I don't think you would mistake either of these dogs for "field" dogs if you had ever seen them in person.

While the field dogs have changed to fit the sport of trialing American style, the dogs being shown have also changed to fit individual taste instead of ANY written standard.