What has happened to length of leg? I have noticed lately that a lot of BISS winners length of leg is lucky to be maybe 1/3 of height instead of 1/2. I will agree that if they had proper length of leg they would be beautiful dogs/bitches. Our standard calls for length of leg to be 1/2 the height. It should be equal distance from elbow to ground as from withers to elbow. When did breeders decide it was ok for the legs to be so short?

I've noticed that too but what really bothers me is the breeder judges who reward that look. It is not correct and breeders won't change if they see it being rewarded in the ring.

I believe it is less about the length of leg and more about the depth of body. Also those with longer coat give the impression of more depth.

I am not talking out of turn here or being bitter. I happen to have one of those BISS winners. I love everything about him but wish he had a touch less depth of body. He actually has a very correct coat so with him, it is completely his depth of body.

No animal is perfect...it is important to keep it all in perspective. I breed for the whole dog...not pieces and parts. I have several generations behind him that I have worked with...dog breeding is not a one generation and you are done type of venture. So that just means I will tackle the next trait I wish to improve on in the future. Please stop painting the breed in a broad brush of generalities. Sure there are extremes...that is with anything and that has always been the way.

Maybe get to know some of these breeders who have been in longer than a minute (ie 10 years) and actually understand what they are working toward and on. They know the devils that they have had to overcome to succeed. I am not sure it is fair to draw conclusions when you are only seeing a small piece of the puzzle.

I agree. It is depth of body that has gone off. More than once I have heard people say, "he/she had lovely depth of body." Unfortunately, they are admiring something that is incorrect. That sadly points out that people are getting used to the chest that is well below the elbow. Like everything else, pretty soon people will realize what has happened. Then they will be trying to breed out something they previously admired and brought into their lines.

Whether it is length of leg OR depth of body, overall the dog loses its balance, which to me is very important because it is the essence of the dog and important for good function. Coats should be short and tight, so ones that give the dog a different appearance are not correct for this breed, nor are they functional.

It goes without saying that all dogs have faults and that the dog as a whole should be judged, but the proportions of this breed appear to be shifting and I don't think people really have an eye for what is correct anymore because it is not often seen, and that is NOT a good thing. When correctly balanced dogs are called leggy or shallow chested, there is something wrong.

Totally agree. Simply go look at the spotlight dogs this month - they are all lovely and while I appreciate the look, when you really sit back and think about proportions, they have totally lost it and now we have dogs that are much too deep at the elbow. How about the Judge's Education Seminar at Potomac addressing this issue (among others) with current and upcoming judges???

Aw, come on. All the spotlight dogs are not too deep. Take another look.

As "Observer" pointed out it is more about depth of body than short legs in most cases, now when it gets to be extreme that is not a pretty picture at all, however show labs should not have shallow chests nor lots of leg under them, that would be a field type lab which for me is not my cup of tea at all. This is not a square breed, they are longer in body than they are tall, I also think weight on a lot of dogs contribute to making them look shorter legged too so people take that excess weight off your dogs and you may just portray a different picture. You say these judges are rewarding these supposed short legged dogs, consider this, the judge has to look at all the dogs in the ring and if the one with shorter legs is the best "put together dog" while the others may have more leg that is the one the judge will give the win to.... so it could be the other dogs in the ring are just not up to snuff

I have been breeding for 18 years so not a newbie. I have bred GCH's and done well at specialties. I know there is no perfect dogs. But in the last 5 years legs are shorter and I will agree depth of chest is also becoming a problem. But in some dogs the legs are too short.

You stated that in breeding you breed for the whole dog and you have several generations. So my question is when did your dogs change to an unbalanced dog. And why are judges rewarding it. I have been to many specialties where there were correct and balanced dogs/bitches and the dog short on leg wins.

When I breed I am looking to fix any faults in my dogs. Because I know my dogs are not perfect. So I pick a stud that will help better my line. So in essence I sort of do need parts but when picking my puppies I pick the most correct to standard and balanced. Sometimes I may not get that balanced puppy but might fix what was wrong with my bitch. If this happens I would not expect that bitch to win BISS, but I would hope that when I bred her that I could keep what I fixed and then maybe get that near perfect balanced puppy.

Long time breeder, so you are telling me that at a large specialty that the only good dog is the one short on leg. I do not think so. And Labs at supposed to be equal or slightly longer then tall. And it plainly states that length of leg from elbow to ground is the same distances as withers to elbow.
I have seen these dogs in person and they are short on leg.

Per the standard, "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." If a dog meeting this description appears leggy or shallow-chested to some, then they need to re-read their standard and train their eye to what is correct. I am sure some field labs do meet these proportions (and if these proportions are not your cup of tea, perhaps it is time to find a new breed, like a Clumber), although many of them lean the other way and have more leg than body, which is also not correct.

I would hope at a Specialty there would be enough quality exhibits that it would not come down to choosing between poorly proportioned and/or heavy specimens and a lesser quality dog. If this cannot be accomplished at a show with the number of dogs that show up at the Potomac or some of the larger shows, there is something wrong. I think it is possible, but people have to put the standard over their personal cups of tea.

Two dogs I often picture when I read the standard are: http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/labrador_retriever/dog.html?id=1482305-guidelines-copyright

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/labrador_retriever/dog.html?id=1382628-balrion-king-frost

This is what I would love to get back to!

Funny thing is, Long Time Breeder, while the breeders in the UK follow the KC standard, their dogs are still balanced with more leg - so I guess the interpretation in the UK is somewhat different than those here in the US that use the same standard that is highly subjective. Just making an observation to those who adamantly follow the FCI standard in the US but interpret it differently than the majority of the countries that actually are judged by that standard.

long time breeder one of the most serious faults is unbalance in a dog. A dog with legs that are not equal in length to the depth of body from withers to elbow is an incorrect dog no matter how pretty it is otherwise. I have been watching this become more and more common in recent years. The depth of chest can be deceiving and coat length can cause your eye to stray from the true point to measure the elbow. There are some very lovely dogs out there that are short on leg. Those dogs should not be rewarded though because it is a serious fault. Until you are the one in the ring judging it is hard to know what issues the judge is finding during an exam or gaiting. You must place priority on faults and failings and balance is number two behind type for me.

Short legged, long in body and poor upper arms seem to have thrown the outline off by a lot. Hopefully, it's cyclical and eventually the outline will right itself.

It is all about proportion. The standard states "the brisket should extend to the elbows, but not perceptibly deeper." The dogs listed above may have chests that fall below the elbow, but if one looks at the dog as a whole, the chests are not perceptibly deeper as those dogs still look balanced with legs that appear to be close to 50% of their height at the withers. The overall look is still one of a balanced dog, which is why I believe that the standard allows for this - the deeper chests are not significant enough to throw off the dogs' balance. When dogs have chests so deep the legs are perceived as short, the chests are too deep and the balance is lost.

I think we all love this breed, and this forum is for discussion and hearing differing opinions. I think many people are concerned about leg length in this breed, even if it is not high on the priority list of some. When the proportions of the breed are changing overall (when you see more deep chests/short legs than you do not), it seems that no one is really doing much about it in their breeding programs and may in fact be breeding for the look.

I personally have other things that are higher on my priority list, but if I had a litter full of dogs that lacked balance, I think I would just try again rather than run on the best of that litter, because my dogs all work and many go into performance homes, and balance is a must in a working dog to avoid injury and overwork. I would not keep anything with a straight front or a short neck either, especially if the rear is well angulated because that dog also lacks balance. I would keep something with a good but not necessarily outstanding front if the dog had overall balance and other nice characteristics.

Isn't it all about BALANCE. Taking in the entire image of the dog. Yes Legs look short today because some breeders are going for more substance/ bulk. Hence today we see the core of the dog looking too large for the Leg Length .

Too many winning Labradors do not look Athletic because they are not Balanced. Blame the Judges of the breed for having poor eyes. You can't blame breeders for wanting to get ribbons. So they breed to judges likes VS. the Standard.

You can have a big nicely built Labrador like Loch Mor Romeo if you have the eye for it. One that moves so fluidly because he is not overdone in any one area.

We who love the breed can take some satisfaction that in Europe Balance is rewarded. If the Labrador is balanced his legs will not look short. Don't blame your Labradors coats making this an issue. Too much coat is as bad as too little.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS2dUCZhmcs

This again??? Same old, same old. Can we talk about something new on this forum?
Problem lies in what judges reward, period. Talk to your judges. Don't come on here and whine. Is it because your dogs has leg and does not win? Then find judges to show to that reward length of leg and movement!

If you mentor young/new breeders…EDUCATE. And go breed dogs with LEG!!!


I think this forum should be named the Wiscoy Whiners….lololol




Lighten up…and trust some of us judges to do our job to make sure stumpy dogs do not get rewarded

To "Long Time Breeder": I am a Novice Breeder. I bred my first litter 8½ years ago. I have read the many books recommended by other long-time breeders, listened to Mary Roslin Williams' CD, and attended many, many Specialties in the 12 years I have been involved in Labradors. I have attended countless Puppy Evaluations, I put my hands on as many dogs as I can when the opportunity presents itself, I have even judged a Match for a local LRC breed club. The fact that my best puppy and best adult both completed their Championships tells me that I have a decent understanding of "what a truely (sic) good Labrador is".

I study my LQ every month and look at the photos and, quite frankly, am sometimes surprised at the poor quality of the photo, and sometimes the poor quality of the dog's conformation in the ads. I have a dog right now that is lovely, but lacks front angulation. I look at the photos of the Champions in the LQ and Specialty Winners and see so many straight fronts and think, "Well, if that dog could finish a CH, perhaps there is hope for my dog."

Here's the challenge for me. When I attend these Specialties and I see the larger, heavy-boned, heavy-coated Labradors bred by the well-known, respected breeders being put up by well-known, respected breeder-judges, I question my opinion and think, "Gee, I must have it wrong because that dog, while it is pretty to look at, doesn't represent the breed standard (AKC or FCI)." How are we Novice Breeders, aka "Newbies", supposed to learn what a proper (i.e. representing the breed standard) Labrador looks like if we have so many poor examples winning?

The Labradors I have bred tend to be more moderate than overdone. I have had a male go Specialty RWD and a female go Specialty RWB (both are champion-pointed) and I appreciate and respect those judges who had the courage and confidence to go with an unknown, but I still speak on behalf of the other Novice/Newbies like myself who are looking for mentors who value and truly care about the future of the breed as it was intended.

So, to your point. Perhaps we don't know "what a truely good labrador is", but how are we supposed to learn if noone will take the time to teach us?

Quoting "Long Time Breeder": "if you ask me most on this board are novice breeders that still don't know what a truely good labrador is."

perhaps if you see "respected" breeder judges putting up dogs by "respected breeders" and the dog has glaring faults or is not AKC standard you can assume its POLITICS…plain and simple. I can't think of any other reason that makes sense, honestly.

and honestly, some judges, even having been able to achieve that status, don't have an "eye" , or maybe they feel political pressure to put up dogs, or get nervous and flustered when they finally have to settle on placements….who knows.

If we started keeping judges accountable for their placements and stop kissing up to them, maybe we'd see some change in the breed.

I was at a show not too long ago where someone who is "a new judge" was in the ring and did not even have the collar up on her dog properly for stacking or movement in the ring. The dog looked terrible because of it but still placed over others.

Hello...................

Politics people....... Get used to it.

so true, Tabatha is such a wonderful example. And the icing on the cake is to see her in the ring with her dogs and the repoire she has...truly lovely

I think everyone makes great points on the subject, but your all missing the point! Romeo is the best dog in the world with proper everything.... Including legs................................................ He's the only dog all others should be compared too............. LOL...............