When I look at a dog, I look first at silhouette and balance. It seems that a greater number of dogs in Europe have a much more pleasing outline than ours in the US. This isn't a 'our dogs are too heavy' thread, but it appears to me that our dogs in the US are becoming a bit coarse and we are losing type, especially in heads. There are some lovely, quality dogs here and our structure is as good, if not better than dogs overseas, but overall I think there is something that is still less pleasing about many of them...is it lack of type or just difference of type
Do we focus more on parts of the dog here whereas breeders overseas focus more on the overall balance and whole dog? Just wondering if anyone else sees the difference and why they think there is one

I would have to say that I think that the dogs in the U.S. have improved in the last 20 years and that we have not lost type. I think that not only have we improved, but the depth of improvement is tremendous.

I feel many of the foreign dogs have been loosing quality substance and proper structure. The flashy dog with a good topline , straight front, high head and never stop attitude seems to be the style of the moment.

The American dogs are better made, sounder and of the type you used to see in Europe before there moderate swing started.

The dogs here have changed markedly in the 40 years I have owned labs. Less change is seen in the English labs.

I think a dog from the U.S. is much more heavily boned these days than a dog from England. The standard says 'moderate dog,' but I look at dogs in the ring here today and wonder if they could really do what they were bred to do. Yes, I think type has fallen to the wayside in favor of the 'bigger must be better' idea. That's not always the case, though, is it?

I have to agree that our dogs are more like what I fell in love with that the English had 30 years ago. And I do think they look more moderate now over there. I think our Labs are very typey. Some have gotten them overdone somewhat. And I have seen some big Labs lately, not to my liking at all. Some have taken the field Labs down a path that have made them look like a different breed completely. But overall I think the most of us are right on target with each other. JMO

Couldn't agree more. As I educate myself and look at new pictures of European dogs, and historic pictures of historic dogs, I am drawn more and more to them. They look more pleasing, balanced and athletic than much of what I see these days - particularly in bitches.

I think too many people confuse "moderate" with "mediocre" and they are not synonymous. I think a balanced moderate dog with a dense coat and classic head is the epitome of type.

Depends on where you are looking... And no - I don't think that overall we are losing type. The winningest dogs in both all-breed and specialties are quite typey. And more dogs have wins in both all-breed AND specialty shows.

I have to agree that labs I have seen at specialties lately are too coarse for my taste and lack leg!!
I think we are losing type and I much prefer the cleaner outline of a european type dog.
I think it is important for those who breed NOT to follow fashion or what we think fits with what our fellow breeders are doing (or what will win at specialties) and instead breed what pleases us and we think correct type should be.
Have faith and stick to your ideals!

I think this is an excellent question. More and more I find breeders and exhibitors defining type by substance and has many of you have stated, type is or should be, more than just substance. I agree with whoever mentioned balance. i believe tha true balance, front to rear, head to toe, with good structure, head coat and tail is the secret to true type. I also don't believe that dogs across the pond have lost substance - instead I feel that we have gained too much substance (in some instances), but without the balance. At multiple recent specialties I have sat ringside watching closely and hearing the comments of other exhibitors complaining about a lack of consistency on the judges behalf because that judge would put up moderate dogs with heavier - coarse dogs. I can only think that this judge was being consistent on some aspect of outline or balance, and not bone and substance.

I have to say that I see fewer and fewer dogs that are truly balanced.

just food for thought...

I agree with you. Balance is key, along with sound movement, which you only get with sound structure.

I have to say that the dogs that are doing this are moderate and typey, not coarse and overdone. And the specialty judges that put them up are usually foreign.

Nancy wrote ... "And more dogs have wins in both all-breed AND specialty shows"

Concerned,

I agree wholeheartedly and think some of the generalizations here must be based on photographs alone. While there has been a general trend toward "more is more" in the US, we have some of the finest labradors in the world and even foreign judges will say this when they come to judge or just sit ringside at Potomac!

Type is what makes the labrador no other breed, but this flashy pointer-esque look of a straight front and more rear angle than front angle is not labrador like. The front should be shaped like a boat, able to break through ice. Movement does not tend to be important to many judges overseas and it has affected the breed tremendously, both in the US and abroad since many of these same judges are invited to judge specialties in the US!

A hands-on approach may be a thing of the past for many breeders, but I highly recommend that rather than relying on websites and photographs every breeder out there gets an opportunity to experience dogs in different parts of the country and in other countries if possible. It can be quite eye opening!

Reading the posts about the sad passing of Marjorie Satterthwaite prompted me to look again at Ch Lawnwoods Hot Chocolate, once the winningest chocolate lab before his record was surpassed by Dr Pepper.
Hard to imagine a dog like that winning a specialty on the East Coast today.
I hope we are going in the right direction.

"Super sized" "bigger is better"...seems to be the attitude toward everything over here. Balance is the key. Sometimes the bigger, heavier boned Labrador is the best one, the most balanced, etc., but the entire dog should be judged, not just one or two aspects of the dog. Ponderous is not correct.

No doubt about it. Some of these dogs with tons of bone and coat are good looking. Problem is, they are not the moderate dog labs are supposed to be. I just hope the pendulum swings back again and we do not loose our way.

I just love seeing dogs that have a neck. And it is amazing the correlation between neck and shoulder lay back. And I love moderation......

I think we are forgetting that if we were not using some of these wonderful full of type and body stud dogs, we would still be producing some very moderate, not much bone and head puppys. Think doing moderate to moderate might not get you anywhere. No we don't need all the Labs to be that full of bone and type but we sure need some to better what we have. Think even using these great stud dogs, we have a litter and only a couple are what we are really breeding for. Now, unless we are asking for great obedience and field pups. But for todays show ring doing moderate to moderate will not work. Years of watching this breed grow. JMO

But should we be breeding for what will win or should we breed to the standard and remain true to the breed's history and intended function? The two seem to be divergent points nowadays.

Breeding correct type to correct type is the best way to maintain correct type. If your dog has adequate bone, there is no need to breed to a massively boned dog to achieve correct bone-just breed to another dog with adequate bone. Breeding a large bodied dog to a slight dog is unlikely to produce a medium-bodied dog unless it exists in the genetics of the parents.

I'm confused - if the breed standard says "moderate" then what is wrong with breeding moderate to moderate?
You would get moderate like the standard calls for.

What am I missing here?

yeah, but correct is correct whether moderate or substantive. maybe I misunderstand your post but it sounds like your saying that sometimes more is better. I guess I would agree with those that seem to be saying that moderation is part of the type and should not be exclusive of type.

Guess, am not making my point clear. But breeding moderate to moderate will most likely get you less than what you have. Think if we were honest we do look for boys with bone, substance and heads. Along with the rest, movement, fronts, rears, work ability, etc. Well, thats what I look for.

When I bred my small girl to a big boy I did not get moderate. I got some big and some small. From now on I will breed to what I consider the best moderate boy.

Yes, we do but we don't want to duplicate those boys, we just hope we get more bone, better substance, better heads.
I think they make great studs, just frustrating that they are the ones that win in the ring because I am not sure they are the "ideal"

>>>Think if we were honest we do look for boys with bone, substance and heads.

I don't think that most dogs that win are the ones that we breed to. As you say breeders often are looking for a stud that may be exaggerated in the qualities they are looking for to improve their bitch. The dogs that win are balanced, moderate dogs that have clean movement and solid toplines. As for getting some big and some small in a litter that will happen when you don't line breed.
I personally don't agree that breeding moderate to moderate results in less substance. I think there is more involved than how big or little a dog is. The dogs in England seem to be linebred for the most part on moderate dogs and they are still about the same size not less. If you look back there have been some really good producing males that have not been lots of dog. For example look at Bradking Mike, and Jayncourt Ajoco Justice. Neither were substantial dogs but they produced type to die for.
Traci

If a breed needs more of something, then judges should look for more of that something when they are judging. They should maybe even put up dogs with too much of it as that may be helpful for the breed. However, if a breed doesn't need more, than the judge should judge to the standard.

Maybe our breed did need more bone and substance at one point. It simply is not the case anymore. Now judges should be looking to find dogs with nice necks and good extension.

We've got plenty of dogs with nice heads. Having said that, maybe in the perfect world, there would be so many sound dogs in a competitive specialty that something less functional like a nice head or expression should be the tie breaker.

That beautiful type should be what seperates good from great. But both good and great should be sound in bone structure/movement.