Proportion is the next section of the AKC standard. We have already started touching on this subject in another thread. I have reposted part of that information here. It is hard to discuss the breed without mentioning proportion, because it is one of the MOST significant elements of breed type. The general appearance section gives us an outline for what the breed should be, and outline is the concept to embrace. The silhouette of the dog is the first impression that gives a mental picture of the breed. Proportion gives us a basic shape on which to construct our standard Labrador.

Most of the standards are VERY clear about the measuring points and proportions. 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 (the forward point of where the scapula and humerus meet) to the point of rump (ishial tuberosity), the AKC standard calls for equal and also 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 really 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 or "squished together" most of the time.

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.

I measured my two girls today.
1: 20 inches at withers. 10 3/4 inches from ground to point of elbow. 23 inches from point of shoulder to point of rump. (2.5 years old).

Here's what I don't understand, she looks very short legged, yet according to the measurements she is actually long on leg. Perhaps her deep chest throws off what her leg/height ratio appears to be. She also looks very long for her height, I would have thought her longer than she measured. She also has a freakishly long looking neck, but a tail that does not reach her hock. How does a dog end up with these proportions? I would expect her to have a long tail, to go with the rest of her.

2: 21 inches at withers, 11 1/2 inches from ground to point of elbow. 22 inches from point of shoulder to point of rump. (only 8 months old).

She looks leggy, and is by the measurements. In order to meet the standard she would now need to grow to 23 inches, all of it above the elbow. That does not seem likely, she will probably only be 22 or less. This puppy looks longer than she actually is too, she is almost square.

So it seems like the actual measurements may not correlate with strictly visual estimates of proportions. Did the drafters intend for us to take a yardstick to the dog, or eyeball it?

I have measured literally thousands of dogs and I suspect your ground to elbow measurement is a bit off on both dogs. A yard stick is the best instrument instead of a tape measure. It stays straight Stand the dog normally and put the yard stick just behind the front leg. Measure to the WIDEST point near the top of the leg - where the POINT of the elbow sticks out. If you measure to the TOP of the whole joint (where the humerus connects), then you will get a larger number.

Dear Maureen, while some newbies may appreciate your standard lessons, let's stop putting your own take on the standard. Those of us who have been in the breed for years and years know YOU want a square dog. That is your preference under the AKC standard. However as you cleverly disguise your preference in the above statement, as the AKC calling for equal (thus making a square dog), but also adding that it "also allows" is misleading and leads one to believe that equal is preferred over slightly longer. As *I* read it neither is preferred and both are called for. I would say if the standard preferred one over the other, that it would state that just as it states about a small white spot being allowed but not preferred.

As for me I prefer a dog that is slightly longer as it allows for better movement. It also presents a more pleasing outline to me. Now I'm just curious as to where you come up with the 10% being the norm for "slightly"?

I did measure to the very point of the elbow, at the back of the leg, but was using a metal tape measure rather than yardstick.

With an extra long ruler, because the yardstick walked off long ago, the older girl is 10 1/2 to the point of her elbow, still seems like her legs should be shorter than half her height, the way she looks. The younger is 11 to the point of elbow with the ruler, the main problem with measuring her is she wiggles, so I don't know which measurement is really more accurate, she certainly looks all leg.

Yeah Maureen thinks a dog who slopes downward (too short in the front legs) and has a poor temperament is worthy of breeding too.

"Equal or slightly longer" means just what it says. If the preference were for longer than tall, it would have said "slightly longer or equal to height". I like the current version, you prefer the alternate. It isn't "my" take - it is the precise wording of the standard. The CKC standard DOES say slightly longer. The UKC standard says (by changing the measuring point) considerably SHORTER than tall. Pick a standard and it is bound to suit someone.

I gave my reasoning for the 10%. Without going into textbooks on cognitive psychology, visual perception, etc., it is the best distillation of science and observation I could provide that I thought would be useful as a guideline.



Without measuring and only using your eye's perception, does this black box appear to be square?

How about this one? Is this more square than the black one?

How about the yellow one? Is is square? Again, no cheating, just go with your FIRST impression.

Huh? I have no idea to what you are referring. My 2.5 year old girl is not a breeding prospect and I have no idea if the 8 month old is at this stage in her life, since I plan on actually waiting for her to mature and accomplish something before making that sort of decision.

Instead of rude, stupid posts, try saying something constructive, or shut up.

OK, it is time for YOU to provide some specific answers.

HOW MUCH longer is "slightly" to you? One inch? Two inches? Five inches? More? How do YOU measure "slightly" on your dogs? Give actual measurements for us to discuss and see if your "slightly" agrees with the opinions of others.

I consider anything more than 10% to be greater than slightly because at that point the human eye generally notices the difference. Again, this is based on documented experiments in perception done repeatedly in psychological testing. Some people are blessed (cursed) with excellent perception and can easily detect even a 1% difference, but most of us do not fall into that category

Really? Are comments like this necessary? I think we can disagree with people's perspectives without being petty. Regardless of what others do, lead by example.

That's just it, it does not need a precise definition as that is one thing that can be left open to interpretation. It does not define type. Head, coat, and tail define the breed type. There is some leeway there as to how much is consider slightly. You are becoming overly analytical here and saying it needs to be defined. In your own words and by your own conclusions, that is 10%. The definition of slightly is: "not very much, only a little". It doesn't say only 10% of normal. Everyone's perception of slightly may vary. I don't believe it can or needs to be defined by a percentage or number. If a dog looks long, then perhaps it's more than "slightly longer".

Why don't we define what a "broad head" is or "good bone"?



That may be all good and well if you were an architect and you need to have precise measurements, but these are dogs and there will never be perfection here.

As for your squares, maybe I have that eye you talk about so things are just easier for me to see. The black square is IMO slightly longer than tall, the brown square is IMO slightly taller than long and the yellow one IMO is square.

Breeding dogs is NOT an exact science. The standard left some things open to interpretation to allow for personal preferences. You like a square dog. You have always pushed for a square dog. I prefer a slightly longer than square dog, but certainly do not like a long freight train dog.

I was merely pointing out to your learning audience (if you have much of one on here) what style of dog you are pushing for and I am stating that there is no preference in the term "equal" or "slightly longer". You stated that the AKC standard calls for "equal" but "also allows" for slightly longer. That shows your bias as NEITHER word is said to give preference. As for you trying to say that it does by rearranging the words and saying if it didn't give preference then we could have it say the dog should be slightly taller than long. I think it's pretty plain what the standard calls for in terms of proportion and neither are preferred over the other.

Geez Maureen - give it a break. We all know it's you behind "Oldtimer" as we've heard your arguments again and again. We don't care!

Then YOU don't have to waste your time reading it or waste OUR time reading your posts. Either contribute to the discussion or leave it to those who have something to offer.

Take this else where - do you guys really think this is a learning thread? Do you guys really think we are pulling out our rulers and calculators when we look at our dogs? REALLY!!!! Don't think you are impressing us with your calculations and verbage - it's rediculous.

This is one of the most commonly held misconceptions about the breed. Head, coat and tail are not the primary defining elements of type. If they were, then the standards from the beginning would have said so in the General Appearance section. Instead it gives the body proportion and how the breed differs from a Flat Coat.

I tried to explain in my initial post about the importance of proportion. The General Appearance section should give an "outline" of the breed. The words "short-coupled" have been there since the first standard in 1916. This defines a dog that one would NEVER describe as "long" or very "off square" in general. Some breeds may call it "cobby" or use other terms to denote the short loin, but the Lab standard uses "short coupled" and ALWAYS has. A dog that is truly short coupled and much longer than tall would have to get that way by being SHORT on leg. I see these dogs in the ring regularly, unfortunately. The AKC standard is very clear about half the height being in the leg. So where would a "short coupled" dog with half of the height in the leg, but is much longer than tall get the extra length between the shoulder and the rump? The real answer is that nature doesn't put functional gun dogs together that way ;-)

The truth is that MOST dogs that are more than 10% longer than tall are either long in loin or short in leg. As I said before I have measured thousands of dogs for research purposes. I did it to train MY eye and to understand how skeletal proportion changes function. There are lots of books with good information on the topic as well. The proportion of thoracic to lumbar vertebrae makes a difference in what the dog CAN do with its running gear. The proportion of leg length to body makes a difference in how the dog covers ground - or water. I'm not just voicing my "opinion" here, I am trying to analyze the standard to better represent what the builders of this breed thought was important to the job the dogs did. Since the dogs do not do their job standing still, the proportion of their build is perhaps the MOST important element of breed type because form follows function.

The reason the Labrador Retriever standard was first developed was to clearly differentiate TYPE from that of the Flat Coated Retriever. Both standards were written in 1916. Both gave some "comparisons" as well as carefully chosen words to clarify the differences in type. The Labrador was defined as "strongly built, short coupled, very active"... "wider" than the Flat in head, chest, ribs, loin and hindquarters. The Flat Coat was described as "showing power without lumber, and raciness without weediness." While neither of the dogs was intended to be LONG in loin, the Labrador standard specifically pointed out the short coupling to further differentiate the Lab from the Flat. The modern Flat standard reinforces this difference by stating To argue that the Labrador should present the same proportional outline as the Flat would make the originators of BOTH standards roll over in their collective graves!

I wouldn't expect you to use a ruler any more than you do a dictionary. If you don't like the topic, don't read it.

Geez Maureen give it a rest, NO ONE cares. YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO BE RIGHT AND HAVE THE LAST WORD. No wonder no one else will debate with you. Your long winded posts and rehashes just add to your snobbery and self appointed expertness. I give up. I don't like your style of Labrador and will continue to breed the style I like under our standard. I'm done with this subject.

This is the very definition of a dichotomy.

Personally I have enjoyed the threads!

And to "Breeding to the standard?" I assume then if you are breeding to the standard that means the height/weight as called for in our standard, your Labs stay in working condition, and have a short, straight and very dense coat. Your Labs must look very much like Sam of Blaircourt which our current standard basically discribes.

Actually Gregg, my current stud dog looks a lot like Sam. I was looking up some photos of him the other day and thought with a few improvements (tailset, more turn of stifle/bend to the hock) that my boy is very close to the same style. If I took my boy down to working condition (which we all know we can't if want to actually win in the ring) yes he would fit the height/weight standard. He does not look like a field dog. He looks like today's English Labs. He wins under English judges and even though he is well put together, has a broad head, good bone and a fairly straight but very dense coat, he is often overlooked by the American judges who put up dogs with far more fat, substance, head, bone and long, wavy open coats. However, it is not from jealously that I am of the opinion that our dogs have become too much. I appreciate a moderate dog who is typey and has good structure. This is, IMO, what the true type has always been.

Well believe it or not, I agree with you!

1) These threads have been GREAT. The fact that there is disagreement makes them better. If you are only exposed to the same perspective all the time, how do you learn anything?

2) Proportion is incredibly important and I think this is one of the things that is changing for the negative. There are lots of winning dogs out there whose loins are too long relative to the rest of their length. Also, there are lots of winning dogs whose legs are too short for their length, even if the different parts that make up length are in proportion to each other.

3) You must use a ruler. To be honest, I haven't done this on my dogs. But, I have started using a ruler on about a million different pictures. I have been jumping around to websites of top breeders and comparing proportions. You need to use a ruler because are eyes are so used to seeing a certain style. Don't kid yourself.

4) I am not sure how to objectively define "slightly". But I have heard 1 : 1.1 many times over the years and that is 10%. But I will admit, what I have thought was 10% by eye, is actually more (see #3).

5) STOP criticizing people and debate ideas.

Me too. For reference, Sam of Blaircourt was VERY slightly longer than tall - about 5%. Sorry... it is the academic in me that makes me want to be precise If this is the type of dog you breed, then it is to the standard - ours and the FCI.

Thanks for showing that SOMEONE cares. Those who get some new ideas or insights from these threads make up for the few who always try to make it personal. Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.

A book that analyzes/discusses proportion, type and function that I found interesting is "An Eye for a Dog" by Robert Cole.

Dog Locomotion and Gait Analysis by Curtis Brown also gives great detail on how proportion governs gait and function.

This is one of the best books I have ever read. Although I read it a long time ago, I remember enjoying it thoroughly and have been tempted to pull it out during these threads over the last week or so. But, does it get into specific structure for swimming? I don't think I remember that.

Off to Amazon I go....

You are right, of course. However, would it surprise anyone to know that the black box is 10% wider than tall and the brown box is only 2% taller than wide? We tend to view the world in widescreen. It is what looks "normal" to us. That is why photos are typically 4x3 proportion. While the black box is more than 5 times further off-square, most people will not catch it without something to compare. However, most eyes will note that the brown box is taller than wide right away.

I only point this out as an interesting facet of visual perception to consider. If a dog LOOKS long to you, it probably is at least 10% longer than tall. If it LOOKS square, it might actually be slightly longer

These discussions make my head hurt. Mostly I no longer see a need to participate. These discussions have begun to sound like something that scholars would have had in the Middle Ages--when scholars debated how many angels could stand on the head of a pin.

Human perception is a dangerous ground on which to have such discussions. Many studies indicate that you can fool human perception. For example, if a lot of people (or an expert) tell a human that one line is longer than another, humans will start to actually "see" (not just believe) that line as longer--even when it is not. Color also alters how we see things, with light colored objects seen as larger than dark colored objects. And then there are the ways that size affects evaluation; for example, tall people are seen as more influential than short people. On and on and on, we have studies indicating the fallibility of human perception.

Whether the current Standard leaves room for interpretation or not, breeders are interpreting it to suit their needs. The past will not return.

I am not trying to change anyone else because my main goal is the ongoing process if determining what I want to change about myself. Understanding the past is essential for a good plan for the future.

I think your middle paragraph is right on. That is why it is a good ideal to use a ruler and not just your eye.

Well, rulers are OK for mathematical precision, but the closest we can come to such approaches in the breed ring is the wicket. And we all know how popular that idea has been....

Breeders interpret the Standard when they keep a puppy and when they send a puppy to be judged or to perform. Judges interpret the Standard when they judge what is brought to them. Then breeders again interpret the Standard when they pick breeding stock.

People all use the very fallible instrument called the human eye. The human eye is biased by human brains and human emotions and human needs. Pretty darn fallible equation. I can see the appeal of the ruler. But on the good side, humans have a far greater ability to judge the whole dog than a ruler does and are the ones who have to live with the outcome of their choices.

OK...I love the idea of using rulers on pictures and real dogs to help develop our eyes.

BUT, did the originators of the breed use rulers as well as eyes? In other words, when they said that a dog should be square or slightly longer than square, did they actually measure that? If they didn't measure that, and if they had normal eyes and were depending on them solely, maybe what they were calling square was really slightly longer than square. So, what they meant to say was that a lab should be 10 - 20% longer than square???

I can't wait to get beat up for that question. The boring moderate getting hit from both sides....

Nobody is saying we should bring a ruler into the breed ring. Just a good tool for developing your own eye....