Yesterday I was looking at my 2013 Potomac Catalogue and I was really surprised to realize how placing in Sweepstakes was completely different than the one in Regular Classes. Example.. in the first puppy 6-9 black boys none of the 4 placements in sweeps were placed in regular.. and it was quite the same in other puppy classes in males but also in females.... I am used to see that phenomenon with all-breed judges but not with Breeder/Judges.... What do you think?

Maybe sweeps judges are judging towards more of what they like instead of following the breed standard?

I've seen something similar in previous years also. When the Sweeps judges are from the U.S. the placements are not similar as the ones from Regular classes where the judges are European.

J-L I think there is becoming a huge divide in what the American Breeder/Judges like and what the foreign Breeder/Judges are putting up. The dogs that are trending now are so big and heavy, that they resemble more of a short coated Newfoundland than a Labrador. The are so long bodied and short on leg that the foreign judges don't even know what to do with them. I saw a head shot of a dog posted on FB the other day and the backskull, eye set and shape, as well as depth of muzzle and over abundance of flew could have easily passed for a Newfoundland head. With Labradors over 100 pounds now, we've really gotten away from the written standard. Labradors are a medium sized breed and should be moderate in substance. I suppose to win the coveted specialty shows, they need to out do the next dog in the ring. A dog could have good bone, substance, coat and proper proportions (square/shortly coupled), weight about 80 pounds, in working condition, but put it next to a 110 pounder, that has more bone, mastiff/newfie looking head, and for whatever so many Breeder/Judges put that over the more standard dog.

I do tend to enjoy watching the foreign judges judge Potomac. They know what they're looking for and go for the more moderate as that is what is not only correct in their country (UK is the home of the Labrador) and should be the example set worldwide. Back in the day we imported many dogs from the UK to improve ours. Today we rarely see imports and they don't hold up to the big winners of the day. It's really disheartening to see this trend. But I guess winning is more important to some than actually keeping the Labrador true to its history in respects to size and proportion.

Bigger is not always better And I've done my share of winning at specialties and all-breeds, so don't pull the, "oh you're just sour grapes" routine. I know what's correct and am sadden to see what has happened to our breed.

I think this happens more than you would think. I few years ago I won my Potomac regular class with my young girl, beating the best in sweeps winner, but I didn't even make the cut in my sweeps class.

I can think of a couple of reasons. The big one is intimidation. For a lot of sweeps judges, a specialty assignment (OMG, especially the Potomac)puts tremendous pressure on a new judge. There are so many beautiful dogs, so many big breeders and handlers, so many friends and so little time.

Also, I have noticed at smaller specialties and supported entries that many sweeps judges are still breeding "inherited" breeding stock. They have not gone through the painful process of making their own decisions for their own kennels. "Getting an eye" takes years. Without the eye, there will be no consistency in judging.

Consider too that many of these classes are very deep...these are not small classes of 8-10 in most cases. There generally are many dogs that are very nice representatives of the breed and it comes down to the details for the top four to be chosen. I see this commented on in the notes more often than not.

We also need to remember that generally the pups are shown on two different days...maybe they were not showing as well in one class as the other...maybe a different handler is on them because of a class conflict. Many things can weigh in on how a dog is placed. A dog can look completely different when it is wagging it's tail than when it is just standing attentively with it's tail down....it changes the look of the outline.

I too have noticed the same as J.L. It takes years to develop an eye for breed type and proper conformation according to the AKC standard.
What I have also noticed is that lately some of the sweeps judges have been around less than 10 years. Most have bought their winning dogs that brought them into fame. They may have 1 or 2 generations under their belt. How are these people getting assignments? Part of the AKC requirements to judge is to have 15 years in the breed.
No sour grapes here.... Just seeing allot of favors being paid out.
Clubs when you are picking your sweeps judges, there are plenty of "15+ year, well seasoned" breeders out there that want and need assignments. Don't pick the underdeveloped eye/flavor of the day newbies that can't even apply for their judgeships for 5+ years.
One needs to be seasoned enough to have the backbone to stand in the middle of the ring and pick the right dogs and not be swayed by who is holding the lead.

Thank you thank you Thank you, for saying what needed to be said, I could not agree with you more, I will add though I am not sure it is all about needing to win that is part of it but I think more so these days it is about money and what can a dog be sold for or his get etc. The Labrador has in some country's just become a short legged fluffy Newffie and where has the movement gone where is the reach and drive an oh some of the heads , look like pigs with piggy little eyes. I think also some judges are held in high esteem when actually if people visited their Kennels they would never be asked to judge again, mass litters 9 litters in 5 months is one I can think of, a piece of hard plastic pipe by the kennels to "sort out" any trouble makers, dogs rehomed them returned because they are so kennel institutionalized and this was just one breeder judge, ( yes I have been there and seen these things) I know that is off topic, I do think though the European breeders still have it right, I would not import from Canada or the USA unless I saw the dog in person and could go over it.

Today I ran into a friend from my old club. He was sadly saying he loved conformation but his breed, the GSD, had changed so much over the years, he no longer was comfortable with them. He also said German breeders wish that the GSD's in the states would be called the American Shepherd, as they have gone so far afield they have essentially become a different breed.

A lot has been said in recent years about the direction the labs in the states have gone. Many people are not happy about it. Let's hope this trend is corrected before it is too late.

Or vice versa...

Thank you all for your point of view. It is very interesting. Personnaly I think that a good labrador is a good labrador and should be recognized by any good breeder/judge independtly of his country of origin.

And how do you know that 'favors are being paid out'? That's a bit presumptuous don't you think??

Also, just because someone has been in the breed 15+ years doesn't necessarily mean they have a 'better eye' or better understanding of the standard. I know of a few longer-term breeder judges whose dogs are way overdone and too short.

Someone once said there are 3 types of Labradors out there now - field type, all-breed/show type and the 'specialty' type. And it makes sense. The 'all-breed show type' is a more moderate dog, whereas the 'specialty' type is more overdone - like a mini-newfie as someone mentioned.

I for one certainly appreciate that the foreign judges seem to prefer the more moderate type vs. the overdone ones.

Them again, our standard is written such that it is sooooo wide to interpretation and we all interpret things differently.

Just the rambling thoughts of someone who has been 'in the breed' for over 20 years....

The American Standard is the most lengthy of all Labrador standards around the world. Have a look at the Swedish, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Dutch etc or any Labrador Standard you care to look at., BUT in none of them does it say short legs, rottie head and open profuse coat. Which is what seems to be appearing in the ring.

Curious as to why you would think the sweeps judges were incorrect in their preferences and the foreign judges were correct?
Funny, I see a LOT of my breeder judge friends being asked to judge in foreign counties lately. So maybe our US breeders opinion does have some value?

From where I sit, there is a huge divide here in the USA. Many breeders see the standard as being a minimum. In fact the taller dogs are being rewarded far more than the shorter ones. For instance, the midpoint of the height standard is the optimum, so one inch above should be equally dinged as much as one inch below.

The difference in the judging at the specialty show can be explained by looking at the way breeders interpret a standard.

I see most of our breeder/judges judging in Mexico and South America, not in the UK. These countries are fairly new territory for Labrador breeders, many whom have gotten their stock from the same US breeders they are now inviting down to judge their shows. It is no wonder as some of these kennels have the same overdone, over-stuffed, caricatures of Labrador.

England is still considered by most as the homeland, country of the development for the Labrador. We are rarely importing from there as we once were because their dogs are now consider "moderate" as compared to many that win in this country. And before you bring up Windy, who went to the UK and became a show champion, she is an exquisite bitch who is not overdone in anyway. She also won in all-breed shows (Westminster) and other shows, but very few of our huge BISS dogs even bother at all-breeds because they are no longer an athletic dog.

As for TOM's comment, I agree that the dogs here are getting taller. There are some out there that hit the top of the standard and then some. I'm not sure that what is meant by "shorter", is just in terms of legs as so many of these big dogs are really short on leg and long on body.

The standard is our blueprint, our guideline. The size, weight and height, and proportions are very straight forward, the rest is left for personal interpretation. The FCI standard is very limited on the size and our standard does allow for more height, but at the same time the weight is being disregarded. How is a 25", 120 pound Lab considered athletic, medium sized? And who in their right mind would want to try to drag that in a boat?

Absolutely not. The AKC standard does not have an "optimum" as you say. The low height is just as correct as the upper height.
Bitches 21.5" to 23.5"
Dogs 22.5" to 24.5"
A dog who measures 23.5" is not considered "optimum", and this height should not be judged as superior to a lower or taller height.

You're absolutely correct ALL are consider to be acceptable. Not to mention 1/2" above or below is ok too, but less or more than that is a DQ. So a 21" bitch is also acceptable as is a 24" bitch or a 22" dog and a 25" dog. There is not an "ideal" size specified. 3" is a lot of leeway.

The FCI standard is a bit more limiting: "Size: Ideal height at withers; dogs 56-57 cms (22-22 1/2ins); bitches 54-56 cms (21 1/2ins)." It seems a smaller dog is the ideal or preferred size. I think at the time the standard was re-written, we were seeing many smaller UK imports that were barely in standard. I remember breeder/judges making a statement by DQing dogs that were under standard. Today, however, we've gone the other way and so many dogs are at the top end of the standard. And though they may be taller, they have too much substance and are no where near the weight specified in the standard for any height. The higher end of the height was meant to cover the field dogs, who fit that taller range, and yet met the weight requirement.

Breeders breed what wins. Bigger is better and if your exhibit stands out in the ring, you're the winner. They interpret the standard as they see fit and what fits what's in their kennel. It's no longer about breeding to the standard but breeding to win.

I'd really like to know where you're seeing these dogs that max out the standard? In 25 yrs of being involved in this sport, I might have seen TWO males that would wicket out of the standard- old & new. If anything, I'm seeing dogs with shorter legs & longer backs which are totally out of balance.

I agree. Our Labradors are under standard height ..... if it matters. Balance is more important and we are sorely losing ground in that department. Short legged and longer backs as mentioned already.

I agree and to mention the majority of incorrect fronts. Those wrong upper arms cause alot of balance problems. It's a shame some breeders can't tell the difference because it takes many generations to fix opposed to a head, tail set or other conformation smaller problems. Then there are those that don't care because their dogs are put up for whatever the reasons are. So why would they bother trying to fix it in upcoming generations?

I was just as guilty of not knowing a correct or incorrect front, upper arm until a seasoned, talented breeder taught me what to look for with patience. I still study fronts slow, much slower then he does before I'm absolutely sure. Some breeders have a better eye and hands for overall conformation.

" another breeder

Dec 23, 2013 - 3:16AM

It's no longer about breeding to the standard but breeding to win. "

I think it was always like that, it hasn't changed unless it's someone only breeding for money for their household or to pay to show their dogs. Even over the pond in England where some health problems were ignored for many years, you don't think certain kennels only bred to win culling those that didn't make the grade?

This is not something new,it's a different look. Coat and fat hides some conformation defects too.

Dogs that are out of balance is a different issue than being too short or tall per the standard. A dog can be 24" and still have short legs relative to his overall proportions. More often than not, the legs appear even shorter due to chests that fall below the elbow, which is typically accepted even though incorrect. It is getting very difficult to find dogs that are balanced with proper depth of chest. The ones that are can look out of place in the ring because there are so few of them.

Fronts are often an issue. The dog should stand under its withers, not under its neck, to have adequate support. If you draw an imaginary line up the middle of the dog's front leg when in a stacked position, the entire head and neck should be in front of this line. If the line goes in to the dogs neck or head/ears, the dog has a straight upper arm, a short upper arm, or both. This will vary by degrees. A good front will have a prosternum that aligns with the center of the ribcage. If the pro sternum is low on the body, the dog has a short upper arm. If it is high, the dog has too long an upper arm or too short a scapula. Shoulders should be well laid. If the dog has a stuffy neck, it more than likely has an upright shoulder. If you draw a straight line across the dog's back, the entire head (including the jaw, etc) should sit well above the line. A dog with a short neck will rest his jaw on the imaginary line or the line will go through the lower head.

The rears should be balanced with the fronts. An imaginary line drawn from the point of buttocks to the ground should land right in front of the toes of the hind feet. A dog that stands under itself in the rear (line goes through the toes or feet are in front of the line) is under angulated. Dogs who stand well behind the line are over angulated.

Overall balance is key, but a properly made balanced dog is preferable to one that is balanced but over or under angulated. I think a lot of people get hung up on the pieces of the dog rather than looking at it as a whole and therefore start to get exaggerations in areas (coat/bone/head) while overall balance gets lost, and the dog loses its ability to function without undue effort. With exaggeration also comes loss of type, regardless of how much one "likes the look".

Excellent description 'structure'! I do believe that many breeders haven't seen a really correct front and don't know what to look for. Many are so enamored of bone/substance, coat that they forget to look at what is underneath. Remember going to a breeders seminar at Potomac quite a few years ago. Two highly respected breeders were giving the presentation and were giving examples of head, coat, broody bitch, etc with actual labs that they had found that day. Someone asked about a really good front and if they could show that - answer was 'we couldn't find any'.

Good balance and good movement is a key for me.

I agree with the last 3 posters. Well stated. Consider type along with structure, balance and movement and you have a very nice Lab normally.

Don't forget temperament!

For many years now I think the sweeps judges at Potomac have done a far better job judging than the regular class judges. - in general sweeps judges do a better job than foreign judges. Most exhibitors come away from specialties disappointed with foreign judging and no it's NOT sour grapes, serious breeders don't mind loosing to a nice dog but under these foreign judges a lot of pet quality is being put up, or old time faces who are not really breeding the quality of labs that made them well known years. There is A LOT of politics under foreign judges

Are the American Breeder judges for sweeps just putting up the type of dog that normally wins in the U.S. and therefore are being rated highly because of that consistency? Does it make you a good judge because you are just putting up the same kind of dogs everyone else is? Are the foreign judges having a hard time finding "real Labradors" in the U.S.?

hmmmmm, not sour grapes, pet quality, politics under foreign judges?

The opposite is more likely true. A foreign judge is not going to be politically motivated, what self serving objectives can they have in a country that is not their own? Maybe that's what you don't like, they judge by the standard. In reality, a dog that is not as close to the standard compared to one that is, is the dog that is closer to pet quality. Foreign judges are a reality check.

I see a solid but more moderate dog being put up under foreign judges. Dogs with proper coat, but shorter and straighter than what a lot of people are producing in this country. Dogs whose chests do not fall far below the elbow and have decent reach of neck. I think people who are breeding the more massive style of Labrador with the overly deep chests and huge heads do not like this because their dogs are not as competitive under these judges. There are plenty of judges who will put up overdone, so why not have some judges who appreciate the moderate working dog this is supposed to be? There should be nothing wrong with admiring a moderate dog with proper length of leg and a short tight hard coat and classic head, and I think it is a breath of fresh air (and rare) that people will still put them up at specialties since under no standard is the Labrador a heavily built dog. It is also nice to see that people expect this breed to be fit (there really is no excuse to show these dogs fat or out of shape - while they may carry more weight for insulation while hunting in late fall or winter, most of these big specialties are in the Spring and Summer and there is no legitimate reason at all to keep a dog heavy for show). I see a lot of very young dogs and puppies being put up too, which might be an indication that these dogs more adequately meet the breed standard at their proportions than do their older counterparts that have become quite overdone.

Everyone wants what they have in their kennel to be what is winning, but the point of going to shows is to get an objective opinion from breed specialists, and if all you are looking for is confirmation that you are right and some bragging rights, this is probably not the right sport for you. There is room for more than one interpretation of the breed standard and an appreciation for more than one particular style - if everyone liked a huge hairy dog, they would all own Newfoundlands.

no foreign judges are definitely NOT a reality check. Breeders and Handlers go overseas all the time and socialize with these judges and when they come over to judge (and we know who went overseas to visit with them) it's fairly easy to predict who will be in the top ribbons. We predict this stuff all the time and are usually right. and you can continue to deny this but it happens all the time, you are just not paying enough attention or you just don't know who visited who overseas. and no, there's nothing IN it for the judge except to put up someone they know, like and had a nice visit with.

You could call favoritism on breeder judges, they socialize with breeders and handlers too. In the end I believe judges do what they are supposed to do, judge. If you believe otherwise why are you showing? This is just an excuse for why your dog didn't win.

I've been showing labs for about 20 years now. I realize that is a short time compared to many but in a lot of ways, things haven't changed much. There have always been breeders who prefer a more moderate dog and those who prefer more substance and coat. Some have to have good movement and some don't care about movement at all. We have a breed standard, or several, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I've been to specialties where judges who prefer different "types" were hired in order to draw more entries. I've seen politics with breeder judges and all breed judges and with foreign and American judges. I've seen breeder judges and all breed judges put up dogs that, in my opinion, were pets. I've seen breeder judges put up dogs that look nothing like their own dogs. It's subjective. I once asked a breeder judge about a dog I was considering using at stud. She told me, "He's absolutely correct but he's not my type". Kudos for being honest!

Articles by long time breeders (American and English)in the Labrador Quarterly address some of the changes in American labs. We used to have show dogs and field dogs. Now it seems we have specialty dogs, all breed dogs and field dogs. It's no wonder that the judges aren't consistent. How can we expect them to be if we, as lab breeders, can't agree on what we want? But don't most of us show our dogs to judges who like the type we have anyway?

I agree with Jean Louis, that a labrador should be a labrador world wide. I show at dog shows to have my dog "judged" as well as to have my dogs "seen". So no, I don't always pick the judge particularly at specialty shows. I pick them at All Breed shows.
It was a highlight for me to have my dogs place under both British and American judges at shows. It shows that type is type and face/handler does not matter to most specialty judges. It is also a highlight to have both foreign and domestic judges pick them from the bred by class.

If I truly believed that judges looked up the leash all of the time, I wouldn't waste my time, effort or dollars on this "sport".

d

One only needs to look at the publications of Mary Roslin-Williams to understand the evolution of the Labrador. The photos of Labs from the early 1900's look far different from the the dogs she bred. The "Show" Lab of today looks very different to the "Field" champ today.

Who is to blame ? or is there a need to blame, as both dogs serve a purpose and are loved. Mary Rolin-Williams promoted the "Duel Purpose Labrador" . How many breeders today are trying to produce a CH in the Ring and the Field? Do you blame the judges or the breeders for the split in the bred? Do you show to win ? Or do you show because you want to do the best you can at producing the best dog for field and structure? Do you enter your dogs in as many hunting trials as you do show events? Do you take your Labrador hunting during the season?

While it is possible to try to breed the perfect dog, no one has yet. Some have come close only to find they introduced a genetic defect passed on to thousands of their get. If you strive for excellence in a sporting breed you will fail more often then you succeed in making a Duel Champion.

Then you have evolution. Better nutrition and less space for hunting has passed on genetics that have changed bone structure. You tell me if you can ever go back in time and bring back Mary Roslin-Williams idea of what a Labrador should be.Is the Labrador you are producing capible of a days hunt and then being the perfect family dog? Do "Show" judges even look to see if the Lab they are putting up is in "Working" condition?

I was very surprised to see a recent Master Hunter title won by a "Show" Champion get little response in that thread, vs some threads for TVD issues. Only 62 Labradors have ever done it. Did you go and watch the video ? He's a beautiful Lab that can work fast and shows his athletic ability. It is possible to strive for excellence in the ring and field.

Labradors are great even if they are not perfect. I am sure most breeders do the best they can with the genetics available. Sadly some dogs that should have been bred never were or were sterile. Sadly some beautiful specimens passed on terrible genetic disorders. Breeding is not for the faint of heart.

Happy New Year Labrador Lovers from the Americas to the rest of the world. They are all perfect to those who love them.