Dear Old 1957 AKC Labrador Standard,
How I Miss You. I grieve for all the newer breeders and judges who never got to know you.

You were short and you were sweet, and you were concise and you were totally understandable. And no, you weren't perfect, but then again, none of us are. And we loved you as you were.

I hope someday you will be revived from your tragically induced coma and I will get to see you again, and have the pleasure of proudly and openly judging in your name.

The Labrador Retriever Standard -
AKC Approved April 9, 1957

http://www.cygnet-labs.com/folklaur/1957AKC.LabStandard.pdf

Agree, but don't think it'll do any good.

How refreshing it is to read a standard that tells what the dog should be instead of what it shouldn't be..... Have not read this in years. Thank you Laura for posting this. Hope all the younger breeders read it.

Thank you for reminding us, Laura. I long for that ole standard too!

1. The height guidelines have not changed from 1957 – what has changed is there is now a DQ for height. However, while the guidelines for height did not change, the weight guidelines increased slightly (heavier end of range was 75 pounds vs 80 now). Given this was always the range for Labradors (within a few pounds) I would expect most dogs to fall fairly close to this range yet the opposite is true – most males rewarded by breeder judges in tough competition are in the upper 80 to 100 pound range, which looks nothing like the dog described in this standard (the 1957 standard describes a much more athletic dog than is currently being bred by show breeders, which is line with the initial description of this breed as being solid and very active). It is interesting that so many people complain about the weight range listed in the 1994 standard when a previous version describes an even more athletically built dog (which does not seem to be what most people prefer today, despite the fact that it is correct per the standard).

2. The description of coat has not really changed except now a slight wave being permissible is included. I would prefer that reverted back to the original since people have taken that allowance and run so far away from what is correct that many coats in the show ring today are non-functional and therefore lack breed type.

3. The dog in the picture above the standard seems to represent the printed standard pretty well; however, he looks very different from most dogs showcased by breeders at specialties today. I think going back to a simpler standard is a fine idea, but unless breeders actually breed to the standard rather than for personal preference we will continue to get further away from the dog pictured and the dog described in the standard. The standard itself is not the main problem.

Thanks, Laura. I am waiting for someone to describe Sam as an American field bred type!

Charlotte

It was so much simpler indeed. I've had all breed judges tell me that they are encouraged to fault judge under the current standard because of the emphasis that it contains on faults. The result is the mediocrity that we have come to know only too well in many of their placements.

If one looks at the illustrations in the current Illustrated Standard, published by the LRC, the inevitable conclusion is that many of the illustrations are of a dog more like what we would want to see in the conformation ring that what is described in the standard. Compared to the 1957 Standard, it's a matter of perspective, experience, and seeing how the breed has been improved rather than staying stuck where it was in the 40's and 50's. Agreed, not all of the changes have necessarily been for the better, but overall we have better coats, better substance, better fronts, better rears, and a more balanced dog. No, we don't have dogs that can compete with sighthounds when running across an open field - nor should we. Accordingly, they don't look much like sighthounds these days.

Incidentally, the dog pictured in the 1957 Standard is Eng.Sh.Ch/Am/Can Ch. Sam of Blaircourt, who competed for the honor with another well known dog of his time, Ch. Dark Star of Franklin. I have sometimes wondered where the breed would have gone directionally had Sam not been the choice. If you spend some time on Google compare and contrast these two dogs, perhaps along with Ch. Shamrock Acres Light Brigade and Sandylands Midas. Interesting that these dogs were all successful in the ring, competed as peers, and yet represented quite different examples of type. For me, I like where the breed has gone with those dogs that descended from the type represented at the time by Sam. I think it's led more directly to what we have winning today in the Specialty ring. Thankfully, we don't see many reminders of the others in the ring - well, maybe Midas.

But back to the point - I agree, Laura. I would prefer to see a standard about one third as long as what we have, and that would be either the FCI standard or the 1957 AKC Standard.

I also preferred the 1957 standard, although I did have a few problems with it, including the description of the coat. There is no mention of a double coat, and some of the best, and by that I mean the most water repellent, coats I have had in my kennel have had that slight wave down the back coupled with the harsh texture mentioned in the old standard, so I don't like the description "without wave". I do agree that we are now seeing coats that are much too long and wavy. One thing I do like in the new standard, which is so often ignored these days, is a more precise description of length of leg. I like the description that the distance from withers to elbow is equal to the distance from the elbow to the ground. Unfortunately, the new standard couples it with the statement that the chest should not extend much below the elbow.

I think the most unfortunate effect of the new standard was that it was so disliked by most breeders, including myself, that it became acceptable to ignore it as much as possible, continuing to breed to the old one or the UK standard. This situation in itself may not have damaged the breed, but because of it, many new people have come into the breed believing that standards are not important and that you should just "breed what you like". Most of these people do not hunt and have never seen what the dogs must do in the field. I will say that in my part of the country (upper midwest) there is an encouraging trend toward seeing more conformation people at hunt tests, especially at the Junior level. I have hopes that this experience is alerting them to the athletic requirements of a working dog.

I would just like to offer a comment in response to "interesting"'s post
There are several reasons that dogs that you see win specialties are sometimes heavier. First of all some dogs just are heavier boned then others are. Some are taller with heavier bone which would cause that dog to weigh more. Some dogs are so heavy coated that it makes them look much heavier and yes, there are some that are just plain overweight. We like to see exhibits that are in working condition but it just doesn't happen that often and when it does many times that dog isn't the best representative of the breed. You are looking for a dog with breed type (head coat and tail), balance, correct angles, clean sound movement, good eye color, kind expression and typical temperament,tail carried level with the back, good bite and correct pigment for the color. All of these factors are things that you are NOT able to change. Weight can be changed therefore most judges will make allowances for excessive weight on a good representative of the breed. It would be a disservice to the breed to put up an lesser specimen because they were in better condition and weight but had structural or other faults. In a perfect world we would have all the dogs at a good weight and conditioned but that just isn't the reality. I have passed up on dogs that were overweight if there was a comperable dog in the ring with them that wasn't. There are so many things to factor when judging and you must set priorities by what is a fault and what is just a failing.

Change does not = improvement. Personally, I can see a dog like Sam functioning very well as a working retriever; I do not see how adding 15 to 20 pounds of bone and substance to him could possibly improve him. I CAN see how something like a better laid back shoulder or a well-let down hock would improve him, but it is not necessary to change the amount of bone to get better structure. Some of these puppy classes have 6-9 month puppies that look like adults, weighing in a 80 or more pounds. I have yet to hear a rational argument as to how that is an "improvement" other than people here just like everything super sized.

A dense tightly wrapped coat is an improvement on a light tightly wrapped coat, but no amount of longish, open, or soft coat is functional or correct and should never be considered an improvement.

When I read the 1957 standard, I think it describes a solidly built athletic dog that is built to retrieve and is no more substantial in bone/ribspring than the Chessie, who was built for the much the same purpose - I do not envision a dog that would topple a boat or who could win a carting or weight-pulling contest. The weight guidelines in the standard provide a range that gives a picture of how much substance this breed was expected to have and since there were far more working retrievers "back in the day" than there are now, I would have to believe it was plenty of substance for them to do the job for which they were intended.

My post assumed dogs are shown in working condition - I do not equate fat to substance and a fat dog only looks unhealthy and unattractive. I was speaking to the increase in the amount of bone dogs are carrying (vs. fat)which adds weight. The amount of bone/substance (not fat) many dogs are carrying is far too much yet people love to brag about "tree trunk legs", etc.

The weight range in the standard assumes the dog is in working condition, so any dog that is not overweight should be expected to fall fairly close to this range - not 20 pounds heavier.

I can agree with you on some points like the excessive amount of bone and substance seen on some dogs which I agee is not typical nor is it attractive. However, most dogs today have more bone then the dogs of the day the old standard was written. Just look at the old LQ and retriever internationals. It is the evolution of the breed. Yes there are examples of excess, but overall almost all dogs have more bone now than they did back then. That equates to more weight. I have dogs that I consider to be moderate and most of my males weigh 85 - 90 lbs. They are well muscled and not heavy, but do have that thin layer of fat that a Labrador should have on their ribs. I said THIN layer..... Breeds evolve and the standard should be revised to reflect those changes in weight. The old standard allowed for the evolution of the breed in that it did not have disqualifications.

Oh, Laura, I so agree with you.

I am so tired of telling new lab judges what a lab should look like after they have read the "new" standard." The new standard is sooo negative and sooo long.

Yes, the old standard had it faults, but it was positive and so much more concise.

Why, oh, why, should our wonderful, happy, loving, giving, smart breed have such a downer of a standard???

Jan

Laura,

Yes, I don't get it. I can see how the coats have been changed by the change in the new standard, but how about the bone? There is noting to suggest that labs should now have bone like Rottweilers, or that they should weigh 95 to 115 pounds. This is not the breed I started out with. The dear old standard at least did no harm.

I have enjoyed reading this thread and everyone's perspective. As a 'new' breeder it has been most informative and it's nice to have the input from the experienced breeders and breeder/judges.

One comment I will make, however, and perhaps it is a bit off track, but before you lay blame for the unwanted changes you are seeing in the breed at the feet of new breeders, think for a moment of who you may have mentored. When I started out - and I have not been in it that long - despite having well bred dogs from some of the top kennels as my foundation stock, I could find NO ONE to be my mentor. I personally emailed a number of long time breeders, outlined what I had, where I wanted to go and what I hoped to achieve, etc and asked for help wrt choosing stud dogs for my bitches (not necessarily having them choosing the dog just explaining the process they go through to choose one), whelping information etc. I wanted to ensure that I was "doing it right" and going in the correct direction.

Sadly, I wasn't even given the courtesy of a reply. So I carried on on my own and did my breedings and they have turned out extremely well (outstanding show dogs with wins at all the major shows). I want my kennel to be known for producing a moderate dog that will do well at All Breed and Specialty shows and work in the field. So far, I am bang on.

My dogs have the close, correct double coats and I like that ... I firmly believe that these dogs need to be able to put in a day in the field or on the water and feel that mine could. I would like to do much more wrt field work, but am in an area where there are not any competent handlers to mentor/guide so dogs are not handled improperly and it's a long drive - 8 hours - to someone I trust.

When I look at the overdone dogs at the Specialties, many of them have kennel names from long established kennels as their prefix ... so it isn't just us new kids on the block doing this! ;-)

And yes I paid my dues .. got taken BIG TIME by some handlers, treated well by others and the current arrangement is outstanding even if it took 7 years to get to this point... I have invested a large amount of cash in the industry to get where I am, so please don't trot out that line in response (and I don't mean to come across as snippy, just informative)

So there are some musings from a newbie while having their morning coffee .....

Again - GREAT POST !!!

And why do they have so much more bone today? Is the the word "moderate" that misunderstood? Evolution is generally driven thru selection, not thru some genetic fluke. Face it, more bone began to win more in the ring ~15 yrs ago. I saw this w/ Goldens as well over the years. The extra bone has taken away so much of the athleticism of the breed and that is sad. Go watch a hunt test or watch the heavier boned dogs try to jump in obed or agility and you really see the difference.

I'm thinking that the lack of respect and even utter contempt for the LRC on the part of many of today's prominent breeders may have a little something to do with the present state of the Labrador breed. Just sayin'...

Unfortunately, if you knew the board of the LRC and their background maybe a little lack of respect is understood.

Why would anyone ruin a breed just to get back at the parent club?

So leave. Get that NLRC or whatever it was called going again, and make up your own breed. Be sure it's put in the Non Sporting group too if there are no plans to prove working ability.

Frankly I wouldn't mentor you either. You sound like an arrogant a$$.
Why mention all the money you've "invested"???
Do you think that makes you somehow qualified for something?
That you feel the need to tell us all how successful you've on your own just proves to me you're not at all.
Take it down a few rungs. You might learn something.
Btw, you don't email strangers and ask them to be your mentor.
Lmao!!!

Actually .. 1) not arrogant at all - far from it.
2) Ask tons of questions and listen to and implement the answers
3) wanted desperately to learn and do things properly
4) mentioned the money invested because on here it's always "oh, you
have to pay your dues like the rest of us" .. just so you know i
paid my dues, financially, emotionally, and with blood sweat and
tears. Work full time, whelp litters, condition dogs by myself.
5) point attempted to make which you missed is that I am not a random
person who had a litter because it would be 'fun' without
contributing anything back to the industry.
6) And yes, my dogs do have winning records .. at the Potomac, at
Specialties and at All Breed shows ...

As for me emailing people, well, that would be between me and them and you can laugh your butt off all you want ... Perhaps you were one of them and I dodged a bullet.

I have contributed to the industry through entry fees, handling fees, show catalogue advertising and advertising in dog publications, class sponsorships at multiple Specialties annually, and raffle table donations at every Specialty I attend. I give up things I would personally like to have in order to be able to do so.

I am tired of some of the old guard thinking new people have to go to hell and back before they are 'worthy' of assistance or advice .. frankly - in my opinion - this is why the sport is struggling. I help anyone who asks because when I showed up at my first show with my first dog no one even spoke to me or even said hello .. And no, I don't think i am special, but I do feel it's common courtesy to respond when someone says good morning to you. I now have a great mentor who sets a great example by being polite, professional and helpful to all ...

I, also, prefer the 1957 standard but people forget there was a big fight over the wording of that version as well.

What stands out to me the most in the 1957 standard is how they are so focused on the rear of the labrador and very little is mentioned describing the proper front assembly. I do see some breeders still breeding to this out dated standard who show very little improvement on their breeding lines and keep producing what I call an "old fashion type labrador". Then what happens is the older judges stick to putting up these labs who are closer modeled after the old AKC standard from the past. I have to agree with Greg on how over the years there is a huge improvement on the conformation bred lab. I myself am a fan of the changes and breed to follow the newer standard over the "old" one.

Show Breeder - I respectfully Disagree. I think I interpreted Greg’s comments differently than you did. I do agree and said the old standard wasn't perfect, just better.

In my opinion, the new standard does NOT represent the "improvements" made over the years.
Go re-read all 2020 words of it. There are so many errors and negatives, serious faults (I think I once counted them as 22) and DQ's in the new standard that have resulted in some of the crappy judging at the all breed shows and the total disregard of the standard by the breeders.

SINCE I DON'T KNOW HOW TO POST PICTURES HERE, I DID MY REPLY IN WEB FORMAT SO PLEASE GO HERE:
http://www.cygnet-labs.com/folklaur/SandylandsDogs.htm

Laura, well put. As to your question whether Markwell would be competitive today, I would say yes depending on the judge - and I am NOT talking about all breed judges... they are off the grid when having a discussion like this one. But I will also tell you...... LOL: Mark can eat his cookies in my bed anytime!

Also, to show breeder: please don't construe my comments as meaning that there have been improvements of the breed because of the new standard. Breeding blindly to a mediocre standard will only result in breeding mediocre dogs.

Here is a debate on the revised standard as seen from one of those who helped write it. I will not comment on it, other than to say, it's an interesting point of view, one that I do not necessarily agree with, but that of the working side of the breed. As someone who was active in Labs back then, the controversy is still fresh in my mind.

If you are on Facebook, this a public page for anyone to view and comment about. https://www.facebook.com/kerrybrook.labradorretrievers

I don't see the discussion you reference

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. You have to scroll down the page a bit. It was posted on August 20, if that helps you find it. I was unable to get a direct to the post. The post reads: "The standard was revised in 1994, a process with which I was personally involved. The purpose of that exercise was to close the gap and to create a blueprint for a dual purpose Labrador, viz., one where form follows function. Not much is different. The Specialty Lab has not appreciably changed since. It is frequently fat, cumbersome and coarse; qualities that should not to be confused with substantial lean muscle mass. The advent of AKC hunt tests have certainly helped to identify a separate show case of widely-admired performance dogs and sometimes dual dogs. But in my estimate the Labrador Retriever as as a dual purpose retriever remains on the endangered list. Oftentimes what is heralded as representative of the breed more accurately should be considered its ruination.

For years the Parent Club was an absent parent. Much of what happened during the years of not paying attention has come home to roost. Much work remains to be done. Progress is slow. As a fancy we still lack a clearly discernible communal effort to improve the breed."

I think Markwell should be competitive today - from the pictures he looks to have good substance without being overdone. What I like the most and what I see less of in the specialty ring these days, is his balance. His chest goes to his elbow but not perceptibly deeper, and his length of leg matches his depth of body, unlike many recent dogs that have far too much body for their length of leg. And he is better balanced than other dogs pictured (Briggs, who is taller than he is long (and has less depth of chest than length of leg)). He has a nice short tight coat. He looks solid without looking heavy or massive.

Not so sure about Mark being competitive. I see us looking at and putting up (for sake of a better term) sculpted dogs - more full of substance and a little more angulated

I do think that there should be a revision to the standard. I have several champion bitches and only one could actually make the standard height (and only then, given the 1/2 inch more or less rule), as she is 21". (and she looks to be on the large size to me)

Sad state of affairs when most competing are not even up to the standard height. There is definitely a disconnect from the National Club to reality.

I love the picture.

I was just looking through some old Julie Browns and came across Ch. Anderscroft Mijan's Bravo - born in 1979. Gorgeous dog - looks nothing like most of the dogs in the book. I think he'd be competitive today.

I agree completely. Bravo was a big step forward.