I haven't been to a show in years and have been noticing a trend in dogs at the national televised shows: they don't quite fit the standard shown by the AKC and LRC. They tend to be thicker (in the loin, maybe it's just fat?), bigger boned, more than moderate stop, shorter, and fluffy. Don't know what I expected at a local show, but saw much of the same. I saw no lab that looked liked the dogs drawn and described in the standard. What I'm wondering is, if a dog that fit the standard was entered, even though that is not what is currently popular, would it win? I know it should, but really wonder if it would since it would look so different from the rest of the dogs in the ring.

I totally agree. I think we are getting away from the standad for what Labs were bred for.
I have 2 youngsters her from English imported Ch sired frozen, from 20 years ago, that took me a while for me to like, but now , when I look at them I'm saying WHAT HAPPENED to the Lab that could jump out of a boat , retrieve and get back in the boat. They are pretty cool, but won't be able to compete with today's Labs in the ring. JMHO

I would not say the dogs are short - many of the boys out there are taller (23-24") than the ideal heights suggested in the FCI standard, ~ 22-22.5" for males.

The length of leg in comparison to depth of body has changed - they are supposed to be equal, whereas many dogs today either have bodies that are too deep or legs that are too short.

Many of the Labs in the rings today do not meet the standard but they are what is winning. When someone brings in a Lab that really is correct, it looks odd. What needs to happen is to have larger numbers of true well-constructed dogs brought into the rings. If the entries become more classic looking then the pigadors will look out of place. Now if you really just want to win, simply breed into the lines of major breeder judges that have overdone dogs with short legs and collect your points. Unfortunately, most of these winners out of the few that even participate in hunt tests have a hard time doing the job. Please don’t anyone take anything personal here; I am just stating the facts. I would like to see the true classic looking (true to standard) working lab get its much deserved recognition in the breed ring.

I encourage you to show your dog. Fashion changes.

I have a moderate dog who was shown in hard working condition who finished very quickly, but the dog also has very nice structure, a correct coat, sound movement and breed type. Just because a dog is moderate or has some leg under it does not make it deserving of a win. The same is true of a dog with a lot of bone or coat. Since no dog is without fault, judges must determine which dogs, as a whole, best represent the standard. Given the variety of styles in the ring these days, that is often no easy feat.

First of all, this doesn't make sense- "noticing a trend in dogs at the national televised shows: they don't quite fit the standard shown by the AKC and LRC". There is one LRC standard (even if you don't agree with it) and the AKC judges are supposed to follow that standard. The biggest national televised show is Westminster. Did you watch it? Winner this year was a very typey bitch that is not overdone, is a American and English champion, has won breed at numerous specialties and has a JH.

First I would say get out and go to some shows. You see nothing on TV. I think there are alot of beautiful dogs out now. I love the look. Don't want long legs, long nose, sorry. My boy, not moderate, and not short or too stocky finished quickly, but well balanced and very good mover. Moderate does do not win at alot of shows these days. There are dogs with the tons of bone, tons of coat I just do not care for. Also not a big tall dog either. Like what is in our area these days. Beautiful Labradors.

What people like or want is irrelevant. For example, one may not like a long nose, but a short muzzle is just as incorrect. Length of leg that is longer than depth of body is not correct, but neither are legs too short for the body. If one doesn't like the dog described in the standard, they should find a breed they do like rather than change and reward this one to fit personal preference.

[I missed the Westminster show. Who was the bitch that won? I'd love to get on their website and see her. Thanks.

"If you can post here, you are computer literate enough to google Westminster 2012 and find the answer yourself and then google the breeder. Easy Peasy."

"Winner this year was a very typey bitch that is not overdone, is a American and English champion, has won breed at numerous specialties and has a JH."

Sorry to be confused but when I look up the winner and at the website and online, I don't see the JH. Being a newbie, I'm confused but I guess here is not where to find help :( I'd still just like to see her and see what wins both a JH and Westminster. It's difficult to learn as a newbie, I recently sat at a specialty and asked someone next to me if they could tell why the judge chose the WB over the others, "look at the standard" was the reply. Old timers say "go to the shows" but I've gone since 2008 and have yet to find more than 1 or 2 nice older breeders willing to share knowledge. Why are so many Labrador breeders unlike their dogs in temperament?

Oh well, this thread has interesting learning material.

The JH was earned after Westminster.
Here's the video, gee that was hard...
http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/videos/#/Breed%20Judging/2012/Sporting/vid:17897723

Why do people have to get snarky with their answers?
Thank God our Labs are nicer than we are.

http://www.clearcreeklabradors.com/windy.html - just look at her website! Gorgeous girl!

Not only does the lovely winner of this year's Westminster have a JH, but the 2011 winner does, too.

The dogs today are meeting the standard. I am not seeing the fat overdone dogs you are referring to. Now maybe you are in a different part of the country but in the East and Southeast the dogs are great.

Posts like these also look like sour grapes to me. Just because your dogs may not be winning doesn't mean all the other dogs are incorrect.

Look at, read and study the standard. Then decide if you want the dog exhibited in the show ring in the duck blind or boat beside you or chasing down that pheasant hen.

Because the dog in the show ring can't do that. No matter what you say. Name me one specialty winning or GCh that can spend a season (I said season, not a day or a week) doing what it was supposedly bred to do.

My clients that show extensively, in other breeds, shake their head at the destruction of the show Labrador. These are experienced judges as well as exhibitors.

I applaud those breeders that are desperately trying to keep the working ability in their show lines. Because they certainly don't get rewarded too often. Either in the breed ring or in the performance arena.

Flame away...

The reality is that many sporting and working dog breeds exhibit a dichotomy between the bench bred and working stock. Think about setters, spaniels, GSDs,other retrievers. I'm sure there are others. And it's not just limited to dogs. Quarter horses come to mind. Back when my daughter was showing, the difference between the halter ( conformation) horses and the actual working horses was astounding.
Standard or no standard, beauty is in the mind of the beholder, and breeders tend to accentuate those parts of the whole that most appeal to them. It's human nature, and I don't know that there's any way to fix that.
As for naming one specialty winner that can work all season long, BISS GCH Major Yeager at Asquam MH come to mind. His owner doesn't hunt, but she and Yeager train, compete, and do tower shoots year-round. No doubt in my mind that he has the ability, desire, and stamina to work for an entire hunting season and do that well. I'm sure there are others as well.

I totally agree with much of this post. It is hard to find a lab I actually like anymore for so many reasons. That said, The Standard is not the solution unfortunately. We have to look at specific characteristics of the dogs and explain why they are bad. Just because The Standard says something is right or wrong does not matter to most people. That is unfortunate and there are many reasons for that. So, we have to look beyond The American Standard. I personally like the FCI Standard. But even then, you have to go beyond it and understand WHY.

ON Facebook, I see people posting pictures of their dogs who don't look anything like Labradors (although there are often some very good qualities within each dog) and see all the people gushing how beautiful the dogs are. Do these people not know what they are looking at or are they just kissing each other's butts?

It is alot of smooching, there are so many times I just can't see anything I like about a dog, and wonder why someone would think it is correct.

Everyone on this thread must really be frustrated and depressed. What a bummer to see all these Labradors who don't meet the standard win these shows. To make it worse, the ones most undeserving win the biggest specialties also. Oh....and these dogs cant work in the field. My...oh...my what is the world coming to?

I would love to see what a picture of a Labrador from a group of great artist would look like with nothing but the standard to go by. I am not bashing the standard and I am not suggesting I don't follow it. But, I have been doing this long enough to not think the way most of you are.

And, yes, there are some delusions here. The breed is never going back to the dogs of old like Light Brigade or Super Charger. Awesome dogs in their day but we have moved on.

I believe a truly nice dog will always stand a chance. I have a more moderate dog with an old fashioned coat (short and hard) that finished easily but I would not show to certain breeder judges that like massive (a word that should never be used to describe this breed) dogs - there is no point. There are breeder and all around judges that do appreciate a correct dog.

Some dogs of the past who were nice in their day would not be competitive today because structurally we have improved the breed since then and they would not be competitive. However, there are several dogs from the past who would certainly be competitive today and probably more so because they have not lost head or coat type.

As a "new" person to the breed, let me just ask, aren't breeders perpetuating the path away from the STANDARD by breeding to the "flavor of the month" stud dogs? Picking a stud dog should be about improving what your bitch can produce not because he's the #1 dog at the moment.