Since each standard defines proportion differently - or not at all - here is a little exercise on how that may translate into what a dog looks like. The Labrador in the photo is a top-winning bitch from another country. Only her proportions have been altered.






Which of these photos represent the AKC standard?
Which of these photos represent the CKC standard?
Which of these photos represent the UKC standard?
Which of these photos represent the FCI standard?

Several photos may represent a standard and any photo may represent several standards. How does your eye translate the standards?

AKC: 1
CKC: 2
UKC: 4
FCI: 3

1=UKC
2=AKC
3=FCI
4=CKC

Actually since the AKC states the proportion should be equal or slighly longer than, #2 and #3 can be interchangeable.

I understand the standard in the US so number 2 is acceptable. As a judge I would go with number 1 in the ring based entirely on that picture.

Not trying to be a jerk but i don't really care what the other standards say.

#2 for sure!

#2 for sure!

And for privacy and copyright sake, I hope that this is the OPs dog or the breeder/owner knows this picture is posted

This is not one of my dogs (wish it were) and the owner did give permission.

WARNING: Do not let one person's interpretation of the relative length/height influence your considerations. Depending on the computer, screen resolution, measuring points selected and methods, what appears to be longer or shorter to one person may not be to another. Make your OWN decisions based on your OWN eye and the standards.

to me, 1 and 2 are just fine w/ #1 hands down my winner... Lovely bitch!

Number 2 looks correct to me. Number 1 is very short backed looks square and I wonder how this dog would actually move??
Number 3 and 4 just look progressively longer in the loin.
jmho

#1 is too short and will be crabbing all over herself, number two looks oddly out of balance but I suspect it is the photoshopping, not the dog, and 3 and 4 are too long.

I don't know the other standards, so I can only go by the AKC standard. The second bitch looks correct to me.

she isn't higher in the rump, I think that is just either the angle of the picture or a slight slope where she is standing.

I think 1 is too square, 2 is preferred. So, if people are drawn to symmetry and square, are we letting our preferences dictate over what the standard calls for. I think we need to go back to basics - maybe the standard needs to be changed to more clearly illustrate the correct proportions. If you are playing the AKC game, then you should be breeding to the akc standard.

The standard I breed for is not specific and I do not know about the others. However, if I were to write a standard that was specific about proportions, that section would describe bitch #1.

I would say the proportions in picture 2 as being what my eye likes... So I would say 2 is the CKC/AKC standard... since those are what I am familiar with. I am from Canada.
Beautiful, gorgeous bitch!!! Thankyou to her owner for graciously allowing us to look at her. Wish she were mine!
Will re-read the other standards and see if I can figure those out, as I know I am not really answering your question. I love these discussions! Thanks

#1 has been compressed too much. #2 looks good. 3 and 4 just keep getting longer. Never mind which standard.

which does the OP prefer? I agree with the posters who also liked and preferred #1

So few people actually answered the questions that I'd like to give it another 24 hours. This isn't just about personal preference, it is to analyze the differences between the various standards.

The standards are all different regarding proportion. It is clear written language describing different dogs.

While individuals may interpret that written language independently, there is still value in analysing the differences and forming a visual image to match YOUR interpretation of each standard.

This leads me to wonder why you don't want to participate. If you are correct about standards being open to personal interpretation, there is no one "right" answer to the questions.

Or maybe it has nothing to do with the topic and is just another opportunity to sling useless nasty comments.

I think 2 number 1 and the number one dog is fine with me also. You don't have to wait 24hrs. we don't need a long lesson today. Great pictures, pretty dog, easy to see what you are showing us. Think we try to breed as close to the standard as we can and we pick the best we have to show in this SPORT, and enjoy. Don't take it so serious.

All other things being equally good, I would show and bred any version of this lovely bitch.

For those who didn't find the proportion sections of the various standards in a previous thread:

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.

UK & FCI: No proportion section. The body is described as "Loins wide, short-coupled and strong" to give an idea of what is desired.

Have fun matching the words with the photos

My computer may be skewing these but from the AKC/CKC perspective, #3 look to meet the standard for proportion, although #4 is getting long in loin, #1 would meet UKC and possibly #2. All of these would meet the FCI standard with the exception of #4 who seems long in loin, although I suspect this bitch is not long in loin and it is not easy to make her look as if she is. #2 might meet the AKC/CKC standards if my computer is skewing – measurements still have her taller than long. #1 does not appear functional from a body perspective and it is rare to see a back that short with that angulation – can’t believe she would move well.

#1: I think this would meet the UK/FCI standard as they do not give any specifics on proportion – she is short coupled which this standard does require. She is taller than she is long (from point of shoulder to point of rump), so deviates from the AKC standard and the CKC standard. When measured from prosternum to point of buttocks, she appears to meet the UKC standard. Because she has good angulation, I cannot see a dog with these proportions moving well because it seems the feet would interfere with each other – the clean moving short-backed dogs I have seen are all very upright in structure.

#2 This bitch still seems taller than she is long from point of shoulder to point of rump. Length of leg seems ok in proportion to height at withers. She would meet the UKC standard depending on one’s definition of “slightly”

#3 I stopped here because I think my computer is skewing - #3 and #4 seem square from shoulders to rump but long from rump to prosternum.

Do any of these dogs meet the UKC standard? I didn't realize they measured from prosternum.

#2 meets CKC

#1 and 2 meet AKC

All meet UK/FCI.

I have considered not posting again on this thread. If I offer my responses to the questions I asked, I will be accused of being an arrogant know-it-all. If I point out that everyone sees and interprets the standard differently, even when the words are specific, I will be accused of being condescending. If I post the proportions used for the photos, people will argue with the math, the measurements or the methods. I am sort of in a lose-lose situation. However, a few people really did get the spirit of the topic and I will try to explain my objective.

The four photos are all the same except for length of loin. I tried to carefully shorten or lengthen only this area of the dog and "glue" the dog together so it fit. I appreciate that different resolutions and monitor settings will affect how they display for some. The intention was to change the length from point of shoulder to point of buttock in relation to the measure from withers to ground - the AKC measuring points. The horizontal points are sort of a guess without actually having hands on the dog and may vary from person to person. The dog is standing in grass, so the bottom of the foot is also a bit of a guess.

Photo 1 is supposed to represent "square" or length equal to height.
Photo 2 is intended to be 5% longer than tall.
Photo 3 is intended to be 7-8% longer than tall. It is hard to get precisely 7.5%
Photo 4 is intended to be 10% longer than tall.

While many respondents posted which photo they liked or preferred, the real value was intended to be in figuring out what "slightly longer" means to your eye. Most agreed that photo 4 was too long in loin. At 10% longer than tall, the extra length IS noticed by most people. That 2.5% difference between 3 and 4 makes a BIG difference in the overall appearance.

Photo 1 appeared to be too tall to some and may have displayed that way on their system. Many of the posters did like this version of the bitch best and felt she was "square".

Photo 2 at 5% longer was easily considered "slightly" longer than tall by nearly everyone who gave an opinion. A few liked photo 3 better.

So..... everyone's idea of which photos fit which standard is open for interpretation. I hope these photos helped some to get an "eye" for how the written word looks in the flesh. It was fun (and a lot of work!) for me to put together. I hope it was fun for those who actually tried to figure out the questions.

My opinion (remember it is just an opinion) is that Photo 1 represents both AKC (which allows equal length & height) and UKC (which allows slightly longer than tall from different measuring points).

Photo 2 represents AKC and CKC - slightly longer than tall.

Photo 3 would also be acceptable for those two standards to MY eye, even though the loin is a little longer than my absolute preference.

Photo 4 is more than "slightly" longer than tall to my eye and would not fit any of the North American standards in my opinion.

The FCI (UK) standard is less specific. I'm sure that 1, 2 & 3 would easily fit within it. However, I would be reluctant to call bitch 4 "short-coupled", which is the primary guideline given.

Again, these are MY OPINIONS. You are entitled to yours. Whether you agree or disagree, I hope your eye and thinking enjoyed the workout.

BTW, which photo do you think is the unedited REAL top international winner?

The 'real' dog - #2 (at least I hope so - lovely!)

Don't forget that even though a dog or bitch's length may be within appropriate range as compared to height, the loin may be not within the appropriate range as compared to overall length. I think that was what Oldtimer was referring too??? At 10% longer than tall, the overall length of #4 isn't too bad, but the loin is.

I think the real bitch is bitch #2.

While that is an excellent observation, I still feel that 10% longer than tall does not qualify as "slightly"

For example, you could shorten the legs on photo 1 so that the proportion becomes 10% longer than tall and she STILL would not appear to be only 'slightly' longer than tall. At least that is how my eye "sees" it.

The other thing to do is take picture #1 (or maybe 2) and shorten legs, and then compare those pictures.

Oldtimer

While that is an excellent observation, I still feel that 10% longer than tall does not qualify as "slightly"

For example, you could shorten the legs on photo 1 so that the proportion becomes 10% longer than tall and she STILL would not appear to be only 'slightly' longer than tall. At least that is how my eye "sees" it.

You need to change your name to "trying to pick a fight". I said UP TO 10%.... I didn't INCLUDE 10%. The eye seems to easily recognize the difference in proportion at that point. Photo 3 is about 8% longer than tall and it does not look out of range. In fact, I even pointed that out. If you actually READ what people write without trying to find some reason to pick a fight, we would ALL appreciate it. Or you could just be good to your word and not reply again as you promised earlier

I was sort of wondering the same thing. Except, I thought the context was that 10% is the MAXIMUM that a dog should be longer than tall. 10% is the point at which most people will notice the dog as becoming too long. So, I interpreted it as barely still acceptable to be 10% too long depending on taste, but that Oldtimer personally liked closer to square. Also, 10% longer due to being long in the loin is different than having a well proportioned topline which isn't balanced with leg length.

But even if she did contradict herself, I am not sure it deserved the dramatic "good grief".

I won't play

Oldtimer

While that is an excellent observation, I still feel that 10% longer than tall does not qualify as "slightly"

For example, you could shorten the legs on photo 1 so that the proportion becomes 10% longer than tall and she STILL would not appear to be only 'slightly' longer than tall. At least that is how my eye "sees" it.

Would you stop contradicting yourself? In your last post about proportion you wrote: "SLIGHTLY longer can be up to 10% longer and the average eye will not see very much difference."

And now you don't consider 10% slightly anymore? Good grief.

Didn't/doesn't short coupled mean short loined?

And yes... necks, backs, loins, and croups can all be so short (even if they are proportionally correct relative to each other) that you end up with a dog that is not agile. I second that motion.

Although I haven't contributed to this thread, I have been reading it with interest and thank Maureen for starting it and doing all the work to produce the photographs. For myself, I prefer number 2, with second choice to number 3. The #2 photograph looks to have the three to four-finger length of loin I prefer. Photo #1 looked short for the angulation, as I believe someone else mentioned. Number 4 is too long in the loin, more obviously so than in the body. I agree with other posters that the bitch is lovely and I would guess that the untouched photograph is #2.

One thing I took into consideration is the sex of the dog. I was told years ago that a little more length of body is desirable in a bitch than in a dog because it provides more room for carrying puppies. Does anyone else subscribe to different allowances for length in the two sexes?

This was a useful, educational thread. Why can't these threads remain civil?

I think this was successful even though it didn't go exactly as Oldtimer wanted. It is good that we discussed which picture(s) we preferred and why. But, it is interesting that many people did not comment directly on how each picture compared with each standard. I think this goes to the fact that in our breed, we are not in the habit of thinking about the standard, or any standard.

Is the sport of pure bred dog breeding more about breeding for what we like, or breeding for what the standard calls for? Obviously it is both! But which is the primary and which is secondary?

"But, it is interesting that many people did not comment directly on how each picture compared with each standard. I think this goes to the fact that in our breed, we are not in the habit of thinking about the standard, or any standard. "

Well,.that's true. I commented after the OP had explained which standards each dog was supposed to represent, so I didn't address that topic. The one thing that was altered was the coupling. All standards say the dog should be short coupled, so the question is what do you consider to be short-coupled? I use the three-four finger width as an indication of short coupling.

I'd like to hear what people think about allowing more length in a bitch.

I was brought up with the 4 finger rule myself.

I was also taught that judges are often "more forgiving" of bitches who are a bit too long because of the belief that it helps with carrying pups.

I like JP's comment above that what we call short-coupled now might be more short-coupled than what they meant by that back in the day.

Personally, I think square (per AKC measurement points) is too short, and 10% longer than square is too long if it is caused by a long loin.

I loved this thread.

I am trying to breed dogs that can do the work the breed was created to do. The original standard was written by people who had that goal in mind, so it is my guide for the physical features of the breed. The new AKC standard is contaminated by input from people who had personal agendas, trying to turn back the clock so that the type of dog they liked would prevail. Therefore I do not put as much faith in it as I did in the original AKC standard or in the UK standard. Nevertheless, I am trying to breed to a standard and, since I do want to show my dogs in AKC events, I must take even the parts of the new standard I don't particularly like into account. I wish the judges would do the same and stop rewarding dogs with very short legs for their body size, long and wavy hair, too much bone, and much too much weight.

I understand your point and agree that the measure of a Labrador is its ability to do the work. I don't necessarily agree with the concept that the work we expect today from this breed is the same as the work they were selectively bred to do. Our objective to have a sound working retriever may be similar, but the means of measuring it is very different. That will make a difference in the form I prefer over the one you might select as well as in how I visualize the various standards.

Oldtimer, are you ever going to reveal which bitch fits into which standard? Or did I miss something?

Scroll up and see my post from Sep 10, 2011 - 4:41PM

I agree that American field trials are quite different from the work the breed was originally meant to do,with their emphasis on extreme distances and handling as opposed to independent work. Hunt tests are a little closer to the mark, as is actual hunting. I depend on the standard to guide me on a physical type and on hunt tests and hunting to guide me on trainability, desire to retrieve, and ability to mark and remember a fall. And there is style, which implies easy movement and ability to cover ground. That's why I don't want a dog with an extremely short coupling. I like a well angulated dog, and too short a body can present problems in movement.

If you are being "forgiving", there must be a fault or flaw to "forgive". No dog is perfect so therefore, dogs with flaws win all the time and that is fine. But how long does it take when seeing something over and over for a fault to become a flaw? And if you see a flaw enough, how long does it take before you begin considering it to be correct?

There must be an objective standard to compare to so that our "eye" does not change too much over time. It is always about balancing different things. Nothing written other than pure mathematics can be precise enough so there is no room for interpretation. But just because there is room for interpretation and therefore flexibility in personal style, this does not mean any reasonable interpretation is correct.

These discussions are all about analyzing different interpretations and I am glad that for the most part this and other related threads happened with intelligence, open-mindedness, and integrity. But whichever of the standards you think best describes a correct Labrador Retriever, please please please breed to one of them. And this includes doing your homework to make sure your interpretations are not only reasonable, but historically correct.

PS Oldtimer, can you tell us which one is the real bitch?

Oldtimer

I was also taught that judges are often "more forgiving" of bitches who are a bit too long because of the belief that it helps with carrying pups.

Some judges (and others) may think like that and some may think as I do --- long bitches beget long dogs. The real question is WHY you breed. Are you trying to please a judge? Trying to please yourself? Trying to build a dog more like the ideal? This is the puzzle that all breeders must face at some point. What is your primary motivation?

For me, it is trying to come closer to the ideal defined for the breed. If I don't like ALL of what the breed is defined to be, then there are over 200 other breeds for me to choose from. I don't need to alter the breed to fit my personal taste. I guess I chose to hone my personal taste to fit the breed description, history and purpose. I would be proud to own #2 and #3. I would be ecstatic to have bred #1.

The real, unretouched photo is #3. She is a wonderful bitch and a champion in several countries. She was also chosen BOB at the World show some years back. I personally think that under ANY standard, all of the first three versions of her would have done as well if they all moved and showed like the real one

She certainly is beautiful!
Thankyou. I found that discussion very interesting.

beautiful bitch...great series of threads...thank you

I appreciate the nice comments from those who liked this thread. It will be my last on the standard. My plan was to take each section in order, but I frankly am not up for the abuse. It has motivated me to continue work on a book I started a couple of years ago, however. I will put the material I would have posted here into it and maybe someday will actually get it finished Thanks to those who participated in the spirit of discovery and fostered an exchange of ideas.

I just love this thread and wanted to look at the pictures again. It took a couple of minutes of searching to find it. I love comparing those pictures.

Oldtimer

Since each standard defines proportion differently - or not at all - here is a little exercise on how that may translate into what a dog looks like. The Labrador in the photo is a top-winning bitch from another country. Only her proportions have been altered.






Which of these photos represent the AKC standard?
Which of these photos represent the CKC standard?
Which of these photos represent the UKC standard?
Which of these photos represent the FCI standard?

Several photos may represent a standard and any photo may represent several standards. How does your eye translate the standards?