I'm really curious, I'm looking for actual perspectives here. Just what IS a 'generic' Labrador? 'Honestly' mentioned it in the Romeo thread as have others in the past.

Is a 'Generic' Labrador one who doesn't look like a BISS winner? I'm NOT making cracks on specialty vs all breed vs field Labs.

I'd say if you wanted to post pics of non generic dogs, use those that are deceased (since they are influencers), but 'I' suspect the non generic dogs are still alive and being used heavily. Those we can't discuss or we'll offend someone.

Just curious. I always thought of a generic dog as the back yard bred variety. Incorrect structure, big ears, pigment and eye color wrong, curled tail...

Sue Puff

Sue,

A generic Labrador is actually one that doesn't really have anything glaringly wrong with. It has all its teeth, scissor bite, double coat, basic structure, etc; but, there isn't anything exceptional about it.

They are usually put up as a result of "fault" judging. Judges without an intimate knowledge of a breed tend to fault judge; sometimes eliminating a better dog, because of a certain fault.

Is a missing molar on a great dog, worse than an average dog with all his teeth? Yet, I have had judges tell me they didn't put up a better overall dog, because of a missing tooth.

I have heard, and try to follow this saying; "say five good things about a dog, before you say anything bad about it." It gets you to start looking for what is right about a dog, rather instead of what's wrong with it. It's easy to pick out what is wrong on a dog, but a good judge of dogs first looks and sees what is right.

Mike

I can point you to many. They are overdone, beasts. They can't even go back and forth for the judge without being winded from carrying their 120 lbs, which is 40 lbs over the suggested weight for male Labradors.

They have "Dripping coats" that are not to standard. Basically they are cattle fattened up for the slaughter.

Some think they are beautiful. It is a handful of breeder judges that have ruined the breed. These breeders are so in tight together that they would criticize an International Champion like Loch Mor Romeo for being bred to the standard.

They knock Romeo because he is a Labrador in every way. Some will use the word Type. It is the type they do not like. Well I do not like fatted cows.

Make me a judge at one of these Specialty Shows like the Potomac and I'd DQ every Lab entered that is too heavy.

From another post regarding "Romeo Lover" and his other aliases etc...
"Pete (romeolover, frommlover and numerous other names on here and other boards) is an older gentleman from New Hampshire who owns ONE PET labrador. He's gone through phases of loving his dog (who is nicely show bred but overdone), to belittling his dog and going on and on about a field bred dog (Grady) believing he was perfect, to now worshiping a European dog. Pete has never stepped foot on a show grounds, let alone IN a ring, nor has he ever bred a litter.

Don't play with him ;)"

Well Pete, since weight is not a DQ in the lab ring, good luck with that when you judge. Go back into your hole.

Pete is a very likable person not like you (your writing is unmistakable).
Not cool.

I've always been told generic is what MikeM basically described above. I would guess that many of the dogs who won in the 80's and 90's (that I liked) would be considered "generic" today.

Not at all overdone, quite the contrary!

There are some of us still breeding those dogs that were in the 80s and 90s I for one have stuck to the old lines and will breed them that way till the day I die

I have always thought of the Generic Labrador as one who has traits than lean away from hallmark breed traits, the traits that are imperative (and selectively bred for) for them to function as an efficient hunting retriever. These traits lean towards the generic dog in general. Some of the traits I think of as being "generic" are:
* Single or sparse coats, open coats, long coats
* Tails that curl or are not properly wrapped in coat, lack of otter shape
* Straight shoulders, straight upper arms, straight rears (straight angulation in general, which does not give the dog adequate reach of neck for retrieving game, nor the reach or drive for efficient movement). Over angulation is no more desirable, although in this breed the drag tends towards the upright, and I think people live with this because it is so common and it is easier to get square proportions in an upright dog. Personally, this is what I see winning most at all breed shows - balanced but upright (usually yellow if an indoor show) dogs. I personally would rather see ribbons withheld than see this dog in the ribbons.
* Short muzzles, narrow muzzles
* Longer cast bodies
* Lack of second thigh, long hocks
* Plain or hard expressions in the head, squinty eyes, light eyes

I think there are traits that people are breeding for that are incorrect, but I would not say they lean towards the generic dog. There are far too many imbalanced dogs out there, and these I see winning at Specialty shows far more than I ever see them winning at all breed shows. These are the dogs that have far more body than leg. Yes, they have the head coat and tail, but they have traits that lose the overall balance and outline of this breed. A Labrador head, coat and tail on a corgi body or a Newfie body is not a typey LABRADOR. The amount of bone being bred for is also selective (not generic), but again, many of these dogs look to be another breed entirely substance wise. They are not generic and are often eye-catching, but they also lack type. Again, I would rather see ribbons withheld to make a point than to reward something because it has some outstanding characteristics but overall it is still WRONG for this breed. Sometimes a standout is a standout for traits that people LIKE but are not correct. For me, lack of balance is not a minor fault, it is a serious fault. Yet people see this rewarded (more often than not) by breeder judges so much that their eye becomes trained to accept/make allowances for overly deep chests and/or legs that are closer to 1/3 of the height of the dog rather than the 50% that gives them balance and efficiency of movement.

I think there are some really nice moderate (good bone and substance but still athletic) typey Labradors out there, what some old time breeders call "honest dogs", but they are not showy and are therefore overlooked. They are often called generic but in reality are the hallmark of this breed.

Well said, on this, mine are not showy, they are laid back easy to live with dogs, most of the "showy" ones I would not like to live with, they have too much energy. NOTE: I said most not all

What is exceptional to some may not be noticed as special by someone else, so if "generic" is a dog that does not stand out, then it is going to vary by individual and may have nothing to do with overall quality or breed type.

A dog that "stands out" can stand out for many reasons, not all of them good. A dog can get noticed because they have more bone than anything one has ever seen - does that make it better than a dog with good solid bone? To people who think more is better, yes, and they will rush out and breed to that dog to see how much more bone they can get. To others, they see it for what it is, an extreme that is outside the boundaries of ideal breed type.

A generic dog while not having glaring faults does not have outstanding breed characteristics. While it meets the standard is not exceptional in any way. There are tons of champions in the breed that are generic which is a shame. In my opinion a Labrador should not be a hyperactive dog that wags it's tail madly. A Labrador should be sensible and though happy still calm. They should have a melting expression in their eyes. The ones bouncing around do get your attention when judging but the quiet ones are not overlooked in my ring. Can you picture one of these showing machines sitting in the blind with you? Generic dogs have nothing to do with weight, they are all about being mediocre. JMO

A generic dog has no obvious faults but also does not have any particular strengths. That said, a lab is supposed to be a balanced and moderate breed. Sometimes in an attempt to reward the dog that stands out, we overlook more correct and therefore better quality dogs. Competition to stand-out has resulted in many extremes.

To an untrained eye, it is easier to see extreme qualities than more subtle structural correctness. You can hear people refer to dogs all the time as being "typey" when in fact those dogs do not have proper type (balance and moderation). Exaggerated type is not proper type.

It is very hard to find the balance sometimes.

I really like your answer.

A good judge is going to put up what they feel is the best in the ring that day or class. Sometimes, everyone has multiple faults, so they're going to go with the least of those faults, the dog with more type, balance and possibly excellent movement we can hope for.

But, I've seen many a dog look great stacked, they move out and they're lame. A certain breeder in particular has a few of them and I've seen them do well technically lame because of who that breeder-handler is.

Then I see an All Rounder put that lame dog up or a breeder judge does and can't understand it for the life of me. A lame dog should be disqualified technically. If not Dq'd then they sure don't belong in the ribbons.

How many of us have seen a lame dog or dog that for example has slipping hocks or is cow-hocked, win over a more sound dog who, moves well but has a little less substance, head and coat?

Sue, I feel a generic Lab to me has nothing great and nothing horrible. They are an average Labrador. No blaring faults, nothing all that special either. They usually wind up in pet homes as fairly pretty, pet puppies. Sometimes, the entire litter can be generic bc the stud-dog and bitch don't clik.

Nobody wants a fancy Labrador. We want the real deal. A gun dog you can hose off. We don't want a dog that needs grooming.

Stop trying to change the breed with the fluffy tails, and overdone head pieces.

But you all try to get the judges attention.

So here's the deal: go to the AKC site, download and read the Rules for Conformation Dog Show Judges. You will find that you do not have the authority to DQ a dog unless it is for a specific DQ identified in the breed standard. I would suggest you read the standard for Labs, in particular the very last section which lists the DQs for Labs. Weight is not one of them. You may not give them a ribbon, but you cannot DQ them or excuse them just because you happen to not prefer the look. If you did so the exhibitor would have every right to call the AKC rep ringside and have them read you the riot act.

Greg Lynch
AKC Judge #90140

Greg is absolutely right. You can't DQ a dog for weight. That said, I think the author was writing more metaphorically. I hope the person was not being literal anyway.

This is a good discussion and I would hate to see it side tracked. I agree with the sentiments that our dogs are not as healthy as they could be and that they are not being bred to do the job the breed was intended to do. Many conformation dogs are not only moderately overweight but are obese to the point of embarrassment about the state of our breed for those who realize it. It is amazing to me that these dogs win. They can't be DQ'd as noted above but judges who give them a ribbon, especially in big classes, are irresponsible.

Of course, I am not sure if I would have the guts to do what I am asking judges to consider doing. I hope I would though.

There is a total disregard for the Standard if you look at the Potomac results.

He who breeds the biggest, overdone, wavy long coated Labrador wins.

It is so sad to see these "Fat" dogs win. They could not do five minutes of hunting without going into cardiac arrest.

Shame on the judges, because by putting up dogs that no longer look like Labradors it just keeps getting worse.

Does 'Romeo Lover' have some financial gain in promoting this dog on the forum?