Remember some years back Major League Baseball was forced into drug testing by Congress. The Players union along with the owners decided to do a random non binding survey/ drug test to see if indeed there was an issue and testing would kick in the next season if it rose over a % level. Well it did and we now have drug testing in MLB.

Because this is an anonymous forum and can stay private please feel free to be open/candid about your answers. I really do have an issue with the size of Labradors getting to the point of the breaking because of the height restrictions. It makes for a non sporting dog look. That the dog is as wide as he is tall. Our dogs may not be fat, but to the uneducated he looks fat and that is a fact. It's the reason for all the sausage comments the winners at major events get.

My typical boys are over 100 lbs and and my girls are around 80 pounds. They come from the best of the best lines in the breed. They are over sized Labradors from what the standard says. Not by the height restrictions but their substance. I am not saying this is right or wrong, but can it continue? At some point it has to become fashionable that smaller Labs get bred. Just to bring back the athletic look.

What weight are your Labs, and do you think we as a group need to start rewarding athleticism vs substance to get the Labrador back to being a medium size.

Size, Proportion and Substance

Size - The height at the withers for a dog is 22-1/2 to 24-1/2 inches; for a bitch is 21-1/2 to 23-1/2 inches. Any variance greater than 1/2 inch above or below these heights is a disqualification. Approximate weight of dogs and bitches in working condition: dogs 65 to 80 pounds; bitches 55 to 70 pounds. The minimum height ranges set forth in the paragraph above shall not apply to dogs or bitches under twelve months of age.

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.

I am seeing so many girls today with what looks to be short legs actually be about the part of the Labs description as the length from the ground to the elbow being equal to 1/2 of the total height to the withers. This is the proportion that is making our Labs look unfit. Too much substance.

Some of us breeders have it all wrong about how we are suppose to show our Labs. Many in the other thread say a nice slow trot. This is so untrue. You should move your Labs as fast as you can showing his or her ease to cover large amounts of ground. The reason we are moving so slow is because we have too much substance.


Anyone else want to chime in on the actual weight we keep our boys and girls at? Do we need a scale at Potomac to get an idea? I am willing if you are.

Who the hec are you? Jose Conseco. Put a lid on it.

Last thing I want is for anyone to find out my prise boy is 120 lbs.

I agree, go use your energy to play with your very trained dogs. Don't keep this going by talking to yourself under another name.

Very well said!
And I'd be happy to weigh in at Potomac....lol...it'll never happen, your are right...too funny.

Substance and coat are different than fat and I wish so many people wouldn't get them confused. I know people that say - my dogs aren't fat enough for the specialties - really? How about my dog is weedy and doesn't carry coat? Big difference. I have two girls - same age. One looks 'plump' and the other doesn't. I feed them the same, the get the same exercise (off leash walks/runs through the woods, retrieving, swimming). One has more spring of rib, more coat and a bit more bone. They weigh exactly the same!! To be honest, I was shocked when I weighed them at the vet.

And don't forget why the standard is what it is today...because the LRC field folks changed it without the agreement of the entire Labrador population.

The changes in the standard were made by a small subset of conformation people more than by the field people, who merely went along with the changes that the people they considered the experts proposed. And yes- I had a dog wicketed. The judge measured several dogs he thought were too tall. They were all within the standard. I don't show one of my girls because she is about1/4 inch too short. Under the old standard I would not have hesitated to show her, so yes, the addition of disqualifications was a significant change in the standard for me.

In another thread I commented on the standard describing the lack of a tuck-up. That was not in the old standard- I just checked. And it is being used to justify the condition of conformation dogs. The British standard doesn't have such a description, either. So this was an addition to the new standard that may be contributing to the changes we have seen in the last. 15 years.

I have a very nice male who is just under the standard - and yes, a judge disqualified him. He happened to be in a large 12-18 month class behind the tallest dog in the class. The judge measured both of them. So yes, dogs are measured out from time to time.

The issue with the standard is that it tries to tell you what the dog is not, vs what is should be. Don't have much faith in the LRC board to do anything to make the right changes. They nominate themselves to replace themselves or people that will do what they want. Most are not active labrador breeders.

Weight is not an ideal way to determine condition, but it does measure bone. Weighing would be a start at making breeders be aware of the standard.

I've actually been to web sites where weights are mentioned in the advertising of Stud dogs. I've seen one as high as 120 lbs. I guess the breeder is saying if you need substance my boy has it.

If one wants to breed non sporting dogs their are plenty of breeds to switch to. First and foremost the Labrador should be bred as an upland hunter who also excels in the ocean retrieving ducks. That is why he is in the sporting dog class.

I run into many hunters with their Labs today that prefer girls because of their smaller size. The boys are just too big for long hours of upland hunting. The girls now are the size the boys once were. Spay them and you got yourself a nice hunting partner.

I guess hunting is not on the minds of too many show breeders today. That is sad because the temperament is so much nicer then the field dogs today. When one can go to the supermarket and pick your meat packaged in clear wrap the idea of providing food with the help of your dog is just part of history. That does not matter to the younger group of breeders as you are rewriting what a Labrador should be.

I also think many breeders feed a high carb diet, and just like Atkins, higher protein and fat make for a leaner specimen canine. That won't change bone, but muscle looks better then fat on a Labrador.

A ton of coat, or a ton of substance, is just as wrong as fat. The Labrador is supposed to be a moderate dog, not overdone. Not fat, not a ton of bone, and not a ton of coat either.

Agreed!

Sadly this is nothing new. Here is a great article that was published in the LQ in 2002 addressing the same concerns we still see today. http://www.woodhavenlabs.com/breed-split.html

...."The minimum height ranges set forth in the paragraph above shall not apply to dogs or bitches under twelve months of age."

Hope you let the AKC rep know about the wicket-happy provisional judge. He or she should have at least read the standard in preparation for judging.

My dog all hit a growth spurt at around -- 11-14 months of age. All growing a least an inch in that short time. Had the girls not had that spurt after 12 months, they would not have measured within the standard. Measuring them in these classes is just wrong, in my opinion. If I had shown any of my girls in the 9-12 class and they pulled out the wicket they all would have been out. Yet they all matured at 21.5.
Since we are also talking weight, all of them were also under sixty-five pounds, with the smallest being around fifty-five.

I have found the various discussions around weight and substance in this breed interesting. I do believe that the overall substance and weight in this breed are becoming extreme. The standard was originally comparing this breed to a Flat Coat (not a Mastiff) in some its descriptions. So while the breed should certainly have heavier bone than a Flat Coat, when weights are starting to match the Newfoundland Standard (100 – 150 pounds), it is getting out of hand given that is a giant breed and their height standard is much taller (26 – 28 inches).

Every Labrador Standard calls for an “active” looking dog in the General Appearance section. If a coat is so heavy as to make a dog appear anything less than active, then the coat is incorrect. There is no standard calling for a massive coat, and the dog should appear to be a Sporting Dog, coat or not.

I do realize one needs to put hands on a dog in order to judge them, and there are judges who have put hands on our (US) dogs that do think they are too heavy. Below is the critique by longtime UK judge Carole Coode (published in the Labrador Quarterly) for the dogs entered at the LRCGB Specialty 6/13-6/14 2013. Compare that to the critique of dogs entered at the IPLRC (British Columbia, Canada) Specialty in October, 2013 (link below). To pretend that many our dogs are not heavy but merely heavily boned/coated is not fooling anyone but ourselves. I think some of it also explains the question as to why so many youngsters are winning the big awards. And this is from someone who did put their hands on the dogs, every one of them (whether people agree or not, they did pay for her opinion and therefore should accept it for what it is):

Labrador Retriever Club of Greater Boston, 6/13/13 – 6/13/14

First I must thank you for the invitation to judge your dogs at the above show over two days. I greatly enjoyed myself, and the weather after the first day did us proud. The hospitality and kindness shown me was greatly appreciated. I found dogs that fit the standard for me in nearly all of my placements and was pleased with my lineup for Winners Dog and Winners Bitch over the two days, as well as my placings in Best of Breed.
I have some days pondering on what I want to say, and how to say it. I have always been an “up front” kind of person so let’s go off the deep end. I don’t suppose I will be asked back to judge in the USA again but I feel so strongly about movement and conformation (I teach these subjects to new judges in the UK for the Kennel Club) that I had to set down my thoughts.
I was told that many of the heavier dogs did not show under me! I still found many far too heavy, anything up to 5 to 10lbs overweight. Up until 12 months of age the dogs were as I would expect them to be – after that the weight seemed to pile on. I have literally judged all over the world, from Australia and New Zealand, through the Philippines, India, Pakistan, Africa, Russia, all of Europe, Canada, USA and South America. I have had the privilege of judging our Breed at Crufts and about all of the Labrador Clubs in the UK. I have not seen such heavy dogs as this before. I have been studying your standard and the British one for the last few days, they do not differ too much at all, perhaps it is something to re-read and take on board.
After 45 years I still re-read my Standards before every judging appointment. In the Labrador we are looking for as much body depth as we have leg length, we are looking for a strong dog, but not so heavy that he cannot do the job he was designed for. As my husband trains and works all our show dogs to the gun, I was trying to visualize some of the dogs I had under me going over a fence – it wasn’t happening in my mind!!
I found many heads too short and blocky, giving them an entirely incorrect expression. In the UK we have more length in the muzzle and back skull, a much cleaner and refined head than some I had under me.
Like Labradors everywhere in the world, people do not seem to know what a good front is. The upper arm should have as much angulation and length as the shoulder blade. I found many straight and short upper arms (although like elsewhere in the world you had decent necks and lay of shoulder), and this gives incorrect front movement. The dog also has a shorter stride so takes more steps to cover the same ground as one with good angulation. The whole idea of a Labrador is that it is an efficient energy user; putting in the extra steps means a dog will tire more easily.
There is also the problem of flat feet. I certainly saw a number of dogs with flat feet and thin pads. Again, a working dog is only as good as its feet. If they start to hurt because of the thin pads it is inefficient and incorrect. Does anyone road walk their dogs? – ours have at least 2-3 miles a week road-walking to help the pasterns and the pads. I realize that not everyone can work their dog to a gun, but if you choose a Labrador, you should try not to change the standard of the breed. You liked what you saw, that’s why you decided to own one – so don’t change it!
I envy you your tails. The USA has always managed to have decent otter tails. You have massive coats, but I did not find many with the correct hard texture. I put this down to bathing before a show – was I right or not? If not, that is also a problem to be faced, as many were rather open and long and not carrying the undercoat I was expecting.


Island and Pacific Labrador Retriever Club 10/24/13
http://www.iplrc.com/iplrc-specialty

IMHO, I feel that extreme is the issue we have with a lack of balance to even things out. It’s not that these things by themselves are bad; they have just become exaggerated to some extent.

When I look at a dog, the phrasing of substance in the standard come to mind.

To quote:
Substance - Substance and bone proportionate to the overall dog. Light, “weedy" individuals are definitely incorrect; equally objectionable are cloddy lumbering specimens.

This says to me if the dog “wears” its bone and substance well, doesn’t seem exaggerated or weedy, it’s fine.
I think balance is also another key and sometimes missing element. Balance isn’t just front to rear, top to bottom, it’s encompasses the whole dog. A dogs bone and substance need to be in balance with its height. If a dog has too much bone for its height, it will look out of balance. There was a well used stud I saw in person that was too short in leg and too much bone for his height. I thought he was a Lab/Bassett cross the family owned and had tagged along with all the other dogs to the show, as often happens, not that he was a contender. He lacked balance and was out of proportion.
I think the standard does allow for flexibility as far as substance and bone are concerned. I just think people don’t pay as much attention to balance as maybe they should.

As far as coat, I like them just as the standards describe. Dogs “dripping” in coat are incorrect. As are coats that are soft. A Lab with a correct coat can perform its job as intended. I had a yellow that was very soft, and while she was great to pet, she was like a cotton ball when wet and absorbed water and took FOREVER to dry. Just a side note on yellow coats: we show folks often comment on the lack of good coats on field bred dogs and last year I came across a young field bred yellow that had a great harsh double coat! I was impressed! He didn’t realize how fortunate he was, but I told him so!

"Weight," thank you for cross posting the critiques of Carole Coode. It certainly gives one pause and much to deliberate in making breeding choices, as well as those of husbandry.

????

(Some of us breeders have it all wrong about how we are suppose to show our Labs. Many in the other thread say a nice slow trot. This is so untrue. You should move your Labs as fast as you can showing his or her ease to cover large amounts of ground. The reason we are moving so slow is because we have too much substance.)

Your comment is meant as a joke right? as fast as you can? Do you understand the original hunting intent of the labrador, not the St. John's dog that was used to haul in fishing nets. In England Labradors were bred by the wealthy landowners and titled gentry as a gentlemen's hunting partner, to sit quietly until given the command to go out and bring the bird back or to quarter the field in an efficient manner, and that does not mean running around full blazes looking for the game. Labradors were NOT meant to fly around the ring like the pointers or setters. Labrador should have a free and easy stride, an efficient manner of movement, and if made correctly, you can see their front extension and rear push in a regular working trot, not flying around the ring. Same is true with horses.

When I see Labradors moved in the ring in the manner that you say is correct, flying around the ring, the first thing I think of is the handler is actually trying to cover up a movement flaw like cow hocks or sickle hocks that won't extend properly at a working trot so to cover up this movement fault they are shown "flying around the ring" as it won't be as noticeable. I truly hope that no one takes your comments to heart and believes such movement nonsense.

So true re movement! Appreciate judges (usually old timers) who tell you to move 'nice and easy' around the ring.

As a vet I am sick to death of clients telling me that their labs are not fat. I used to show another sporting breed so I do understand the dog show world. Let's face it, your labradors are fat, and fat can hide a lot of sins when it comes to structure. As vets we go by a body condition score on a scale of 1-9. Ideal is 5, with 4.5 being the absolute best for the health of your dog, as based on the study done by Purina. (A study done on Labradors, no less). the average lab in the show ring is 7-8/9. So, you don't necessarily have to go on weight, but at least, for the sake of the health of your dogs, be honest. Go by the feel of the ribs, and the slight narrowing at the waist. If you have a truly structurally balanced dog, this will show through even more at a more ideal weight.

Fantastic quote

If 5 is ideal and 4.5 is better than ideal, then why isn't ideal 4.5? I looked up the definition of ideal and it said, perfect.