Labrador Retriever Forum
I am seeing alot of nice stud dogs out there but alot with longer backs. I usually look for a nice short back, but good reach, don't want stuffy. My females are right in the middle, not long or short, just hard to take a chance with longer bodys. Afraid. What are others seeing and thinking ? More homework.
I tend to see better movement with a longer back.
Better lab movement or covering more ground?
To the OP, As I see it, the breed is having a problem with proper proportions. Partly due to a misconception as to what correct movement is. I am sure this explains the over-angulated rears too.
To the OP, As I see it, the breed is having a problem with proper proportions. Partly due to a misconception as to what correct movement is. I am sure this explains the over-angulated rears too.
To me the standard in our country states "A short Coupled dog" we are now seeing dogs that have too much lenght, they look quite unbalenced. And actually can't move with the drive they are meant to have. Mind you I was told by a breeder /judge that a Labrador doesn't need to move as it is a water dog. Must say, when I heard that and looked at her recent placments at shows, she was puting up dogs with some of the worst movement I have seen. As for over angulation, I have to agree with you, some are starting to look a little like the modern day G/S dog in the hind end, sloping topline and all !
I believe coupling refers to the length of loin, ie the coupling between the rib cage and hind quarters. You don't want to much length there, but you do need some length of back. These days the short back dogs often (not always) have less angulation, and the sum of which does our breed a disservice.
That is correct, however what we are seeing here are dogs that are just far too long, which makes them look unbalenced, like they need more lenght of leg, where infact their lenght of leg is just fine, it is the lenght of their back that is not correct.
Yes, agree with JoJo. Some with stud dogs and there are more and more, with longer backs will say better movement but to me that is just an excuse. A balanced dog has great movement. A long back is not balanced to me I want front and rear angle to go with it. Not overdone but balanced.
I also agree with JoJo.
The way I think about it is there is a neck, back, loin, and croup. The vertebrae of the neck should be longest, medium length back, short-coupled loin, and then the croup where the vertebrae are fused. Many people do not distinguish between the back and loin. Don't get me started on croups.
You can tell the difference between a dog who has proper length proportions but is short on leg, from a dog with proper leg height but is long somewhere along the length, usually in the back or loin. I hear people say "short on leg" all the time when the dog is at the proper height, it is just too long.
It is hard to breed a dog with the proper proportions. It is easier to get a long neck with a long back, or a short loin but also a short neck.
The length from the shoulder to the point of the rump should be equal to or slightly longer (no more than 10%)than the height from the wither to the ground. Start by practicing with pictures (use a ruler and calculator) because with an untrained eye, it is really difficult to do with a live dog. Please note the words "start" and "practicing".
A square dog has to be correct all around to move well. Length will cover up inefficiencies in movement although a person who really knows their movement can still see them. A longer dog with more angulation can cover more ground (watch German Shepherds). Please consider the type of movement a Labrador needs and don't confuse proper movement for another breed with proper movement for a lab no matter how impressive it looks. Labs need to move effortlessly and that is not the same as the flying trot.
A properly balanced dog is not only balanced in terms of front and back angulation, but also for length to height. I think for a time we were all breeding for too short backs and lost necks and movement. Now I see people breeding for the longer necks and more exaggerated angles and movement and ending up with long backs and loins. I am fascinated by the different perspectives of those who have only been in the breed for a dozen ish years compared to the more experienced old-timers. Please be forgiving of each other, both as individuals and generationally, because we are all humans who make mistakes.
That is correct, however what we are seeing here are dogs that are just far too long, which makes them look unbalenced, like they need more lenght of leg, where infact their lenght of leg is just fine, it is the lenght of their back that is not correct.
I feel that we are losing that beautiful and functional (to reach down and pick up a large bird) reach of neck in our Labradors. When I look through my old Lab mags from the 80's and 90's (and challenge my memory bank!), it is very obvious.
Short-coupled is good, but most often the entire spine is affected, and you get the short neck and short back along with the short loin. And I have seen many "short coupled" dogs who crab or pace. It becomes too difficult for them to get their front legs out of the way of the back legs, so their movement (and therefore functionality) is compensated. There is wasted movement, and that is tiring for the dog. Ditto for over-angulated rears. Anything that is out of balance in the skeletal system affects movement and the whole picture. In my opinion, balance is the most important thing to look for in a breeding program, as you cannot have proper type, structure or functionality without balance.
And yes, they are water dogs, but still need to be functional in the field or on a hike with you without tiring. This is a sporting breed, their function is to be active.
It's extremely difficult to breed for one part of the spine to be long and the rest to be short. It takes a lot of knowledge of skeletal anatomy, genotype and phenotype and many, many generations of careful breeding, not for the casual breeder to take on successfully.
So I'll take a little length of back as long as there is balance in the dog (it beats the alternative!)
To the OP: be careful not to breed for "parts", breed for the whole dog, who is strong for several generations in the trait you are desiring to set in your line. This takes years of experience or mentorship if you are new to the breed (under 7 years).
Someone brought up 'short-coupled', but a Lab is also suposed to be a square dog or only 'slightly' longer than tall (distance from the wither to the ground).
Proportion--Short-coupled; 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. The brisket should extend to the elbows, but not perceptibly deeper. The body must be of sufficient length to permit a straight, free and efficient stride; but the dog should never appear low and long or tall and leggy in outline. Substance--Substance and bone proportionate to the overall dog. Light, "weedy" individuals are definitely incorrect; equally objectionable are cloddy lumbering specimens. Labrador Retrievers shall be shown in working condition well-muscled and without excess fat.
The point of a short coupled dog is so that there is not a break in the top line. This is why you are seeing longer back dogs top lines "break" when they are on the move. When there is a balance between length of leg and length of back, the top line stays level as they drive off their rear.
1) The only parts of the spine which are short are the loin and croup. Back is transitional from the longer neck vertebrae and is neither long or short.
2) It is very difficult to do it properly and that is why it took so long to develop the breed. We can completely undo all that effort if we are not careful. There are still kennels out there with properly proportioned dogs.
3) A little length is fine but I think many of us are trying to say we are seeing more, much more, than a little length out there.
4) If a dog is overangulated for its length, then that is a problem. Highly angulated breeds require different proportions than labs.
5) Labs do have to work on land but most working is not done at a trot. But the trot is still very important for analyzing structure. But not a very fast trot.
Short-coupled is good, but most often the entire spine is affected, and you get the short neck and short back along with the short loin. And I have seen many "short coupled" dogs who crab or pace. It becomes too difficult for them to get their front legs out of the way of the back legs, so their movement (and therefore functionality) is compensated. There is wasted movement, and that is tiring for the dog. Ditto for over-angulated rears. Anything that is out of balance in the skeletal system affects movement and the whole picture. In my opinion, balance is the most important thing to look for in a breeding program, as you cannot have proper type, structure or functionality without balance.
And yes, they are water dogs, but still need to be functional in the field or on a hike with you without tiring. This is a sporting breed, their function is to be active.
It's extremely difficult to breed for one part of the spine to be long and the rest to be short. It takes a lot of knowledge of skeletal anatomy, genotype and phenotype and many, many generations of careful breeding, not for the casual breeder to take on successfully.
So I'll take a little length of back as long as there is balance in the dog (it beats the alternative!)
To the OP: be careful not to breed for "parts", breed for the whole dog, who is strong for several generations in the trait you are desiring to set in your line. This takes years of experience or mentorship if you are new to the breed (under 7 years).
Well said, "Correct Length". The break in the back when the dog is on the move is something I'm seeing more and more frequently. I want a dog who can hold a solid topline while moving.
It is interesting because I am seeing more under-angulated dogs than I am seeing over-angulated. Lots of short stuffy necks with poor shoulder lay, which is non-functional for a retriever. Little turn of stifle with the dog standing under itself in the rear. The tip of the toes should be directly below the point of buttocks. Front assembly too far forward so the dog's legs are under the neck rather than the withers. There are a lot of dogs that have more rear angle than front, which often results in a weak topline. One of the shortest backed dogs I have seen also has one of the worst toplines - he can barely hold it standing, let alone on the move.
I agree about the bad fronts. Not so much the shoulder layback but the upper arm. But I do see too much rear angulation. I agree that when the back feet are right below the point of the buttock, the hock should be perpendicular to the ground. I see them stretched way back and the hock is still perpendicular. So relative lengths of leg bones is being changed too.
