Ok, sitting at a dog show trying to educate the interested puppy buyer who is sitting there with a breed book comparing and learning about all the breeds. They ask why the standard says "Size, Proportion and Substance
Size--The height at the withers for a dog is 22½ to 24½ inches; for a bitch is 21½ to 23½ inches. Any variance greater than ½ 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." And most dogs and bitches winning are outside this weight range as they see. What would your answer be? Mine was that standard was written awhile ago and Labradors are slowly changing into a heavier stockier breed. What else to say??? I did also add one thing that has not changed is the beautiful temperament. Such a happy go lucky breed and I can see why this person is interested in a Labrador for their children.

Wonder what would happen if they wicketed and weighed all that entered?

There are still great, typey grand champions and champions that are that weight, at least in working condition and even in showing condition, and in different parts of the country, bred and shown by longtime breeders. Not all Labs look like Mastiffs! Americans have gotten fatter as a people, too!

Really? A 65 pound male Labrador? Name one stud dog that weighs 65 pounds. 80 pounds is the top weight, and there are very few 80 pound stud dogs. Most male labs are 90-100 pounds. But 65?? I don't think so.

I was thinking of an 80 lb Grand Champion, breeder/owner handled. BY. Not naming names. He's still showing and going for more levels and invitations.

He's been put up for majors by breeder judges from both sides of the pond since he was a puppy in sweeps, and he had I think four majors to finish.

Try putting a 125 lb Lab in anything other than a motor launch--or yacht! Size matters.

There are little girls out there, too, and they are exquisite little girls. I happen to prefer the smaller end of the standard, more English in ideal size. Taller ones are also correct in the US standard.

To not let you hijack this thread: how would you answer the OP?

I think most dogs would measure in, but a lot of bitches still remain under sized. The size used to be a just a guideline. The FCI standard, by which Labradors are judged around the world by states this about height: "Ideal height at withers: dogs 56 - 57 cms (22 - 22.5 ins); bitches 54 - 56 cms (21.5 ins)". The taller height limit was an American thing and the upper end was added because the American breeders at the time liked a taller dog for field work. I don't believe any breeder worth their salt would discount a lovely example of the breed that is typey and balanced but slightly understand especially when compared to a dog that is within the standard yet is just mediocre. This is especially true if one prefers the International standard where height is simply measured by an "ideal".

The weight was only a guess at the time the 1957 standard was written. No one actually took out a scale to weigh their dogs. The FCI standard does not even mention weight.

I have a male that has done very well in the ring. He has a lot going for him and is what I consider a lot of dog. He is very short coupled and is more of a square dog in proportion as compared to many boys who are as long as a freight train. He stands at 22 1/2". I show him near working weight and he weights 83 pounds.

I don't believe that the Labrador should weight 90-100+ pounds. When I started in Labs, they were very lightly got up, almost weedy. They lacked proper front and rear angulation and were sparsely coated. Many breeders were heavy into importing the English dogs at the time and we saw many wonderful dogs coming to the states. They brought more head, bone and coat. It was what we needed at the time. However, we began to breed for more and more and the dogs of 1990s-2000s became more and more overdone (one reason the dual purpose breeders in the LRC became alarmed and rewrote the standard). It was a contest of which dog had the most bone, the most coat or the most head. Body length started to expand as well with the heavy use of a few popular stud dogs at the time. This is what throws off the proportion of the dog, IMO and gives that short legged appearance. Fortunately, I think we are starting to see the pendulum swing back to the center of a nice, typey moderate dog with good bone, beautiful head, thick coat and of the proper proportions, with nothing overdone.

How about just READING the standard:

It clearly states over and below height requirements is a DISQUALIFICATION.

But weight states APPROXIMATELY. Meaning some are more and some are less, but no where does it state that weight is a DQ.

Not to mention we ALL know that the standard was changed against the recommendations of some of the TOP show lab breeders in the country. So without confusing a new person or a pet buyer, you can just state weight is an approximation and unless you actually feel the dog under the coat, you can't really be sure of the weight. My boys are smaller and LOOK smaller than some of the top show dogs (they do win though) but they pack about 85-95# on their frames due to be solid rock muscle. Putting your hands on my dogs would tell you that.

When was the last time anyone actually saw a judge DQ a Lab because of height? There are some very small bitches as well as some very large dogs currently being shown and winning. Seems to me not many judges care what the standard says.

Labs are a head, coat and tail breed, structure/height/weight hold less importance for judges.

Structure is an extremely important part of breed type so if it holds less importance for judges, they should not be judging. Proper structure allows the dogs to perform in the way they were intended - a Labrador head, coat and Tail on a Corgi body is not going to be functional in the field at all. A dog that has no balance is not functional. The standard encompasses the total picture and the dogs should be judged as a whole, not in parts - that is how we get caricature-like extremes that do not meet any standard.

The majority of the labs in the ring are not in "working condition". So if a judge is to look at an overweight out of condition labrador and ask him/herself if the dog were in "working condition" the answer just might well be yes.

BALANCE counts too doesn't it no matter what the weight and height of the dog is? I would rather see a larger dog that's balanced well than a dog that exactly meets the height and weight standard that has a straight upper arm, no second thigh who is lacking rear angle & turn of stifle.

I agree with you but unfortunately that's the way it is in the US and could explain why our dogs aren't as consistent as those you see in Europe.

I would say that the standard was written and put in force a long time ago by a subset of the country's Labrador retriever breeders and they apparently didn't have access to accurate scales in that day and age.

I would also say that a large subset of today's breeders are only breeding for what they like and not to any standard. Many of them have also never worked a dog in their life. While the weight guidelines may be a bit off, heavily boned (not to be confused with solidly built) 100+ pound dogs are not what most people think of when picturing an active, athletic medium sized dog!

Well, come watch my 100 lb boy work a pheasant shoot on Saturday! He does great because he has the bone and substance to break through the cover that hasn't died back because we haven't had a frost yet. (And later in the season, thick ice.) He can go through cover, not around, so his marking is more accurate. And he can and will do it all day. If you haven't worked a dog like this, you don't know what you are talking about either! Oh yeah, and my 100 lb Labrador is a medium sized dog. My 150 lb Pyr was large.

Just sounds like someone wants to start up the age old, field dog, show dog debate. Show dogs can hunt. But field dogs can't aways show. So do which ever you like. Don't cut down the other mans beloved dog. Be nice today.

My 88 pound boy, who is an easily finished AKC show champion with master hunter passes, is also capable of breaking through cover - it does not take 100 pounds to do so. In fact my 72 pound champion bitch is also capable of breaking through cover. That does not require a 100 pound dog.

I have yet to see a 100-105 pound dog that fits the description of moderate or medium-sized.

There are many breeds capable of working all day on a shoot in heavy cover, most of which weigh nowhere near 100 pounds. That is not a justification for that much weight. The only thing that can justify it is the description in the standard, and I just don't see it.

150 pounds is what most people consider a giant breed - Newfies are considered a giant breed and males weigh 130-150 pounds per their standard. I am sure many Newfie owners would say they are capable of working all day but they certainly do not meet the Labrador breed standard.

No one mentioned field bred dogs - the discussion is around weight and the breed standard.

The current standard was approved on February 12, 1994 and was effective on March 31, 1994. They certainly had access to accurate scales in "that day and age".

For those who are new to this - that is, weren't around for all of the debate and saw what transpired within the breed when this thing was passed, it was approved by the AKC after a long battle, accompanied by a "road show" in which two or more of the then LRC Directors/Officers made the rounds to discuss the standard with each of the Regional Clubs. Why they did this is a mystery - all but one of the Regional clubs voted against the standard revision, but it was pushed through anyway.

Just a little history for the uninformed or those with short memories.

My answer, in part, would be to think about this fairly critically. It is a fact that muscle weighs more than fat. Since the Labrador is supposed to be shown in "working condition, well-muscled and without excess fat", I would say that a dog or bitch who is in working condition would appear to be "less dog" - approximately 17-18% less, actually, (which is a lot in dogs) than one who is "fat". Imagine a dog at the top end of the standard height, 24 1/2 inches, and the top end of the weight range, 80 pounds in hard working condition. The word "emaciated" comes to mind.... or maybe "weedy". I'm not advocating for overweight, pudgy dogs, but I am saying when you read those heights and weights they are not realistic. If you keep those numbers in mind and look at the line drawings in the LRC;s Illustrated Standard, you will clearly see that the artist didn't think so, either.

Muscle does not weigh more than fat. A pound is a pound........whether we are talking fat or feathers.

However, muscle is denser than fat. A heavily muscled dog that weighs 100 lbs is going to look fitter (not necessarily 'emaciated' or 'weedy')than a dog who weighs 100 lbs because of their excess body fat.

To put it more clearly, it takes less muscle to make up a pound than it does fat, in terms of volume. Density is the correct term.

No, they care. If a judge called for a wicket, they would never get a good Lab entry ever again. That's assuming they even got a Lab assignment. But any exhibitor in the ring can call for a wicket, so if you think a dog you are showing against in your ring is outside of the standard and should be disqualified, you have every right to do so. But be prepared to be shunned.

I do wonder - does anyone have a picture of a 24 1/2" dog that weighs 80 lbs, or a 21 1/2" bitch that weighs 55 lbs? I'd just like to see what one looks like.

Try an experiment - measure all your dogs. I did this not long ago and found that my tallest bitch was 1/2" below the standard (therefore could not be disqualified in the ring).

Most of the time, when I bring this bitch to field events - they say what a handsome dog ????? Well, she is nice, she is a GCH., but she is a bitch :)

All of my other bitches are not "tall enough to show". What is wrong here? We have a parent club that is out of touch.

My dogs have all been measured and they are all within standard. My boys measure between 22.5" and 23.5" at the withers and my girls are between 21.5 and 22.5" The only time I ever see the really tiny females at shows is when I go to the East Coast.

I don't know that it would be easy to find a 24.5 inch Labrador that weighed 80 pounds (not from show lines anyway), but I expect it would not be too difficult to find it in a Chessie - that breed does not seem to have changed nearly as much and their standard calls for "Average size: 55 to 80 pounds and 21 to 26 inches tall at the shoulder." Since that breed was bred for much the same purpose as a Labrador, I would not expect them to be extremely different in size/substance (obviously there should be some difference). Because of that, I don't know that the people who put together the Labrador guidelines were COMPLETELY off the mark.

I also know a CH Golden who has won numerous (recent) specialties that weighs around 78 pounds in show condition per his owner. There is nothing weedy about him. Their standard calls for males to be 23-24 inches and weight guidelines for those males are 65-75 pounds.

There is always some variation, but why is it that people believe Labradors should be 20-30 pounds heavier?

Who cares about weight in the field? A dog can either work or not. My 100 lb stud dogs have no problem hunting all day with me. They love it, enjoy getting the ducks, and being a part of the action. This is kind of a ridiculous argument of " my dog is better than your dog because it weighs less." I like my stout, not overdone, show champions. Besides, an 80 lb 24 inch male will look weedy. No doubt.

No one is saying an 80 pound/24" dog in the field is "better". I personally prefer the height guidelines in the FCI standard and a 24 inch dog seems quite tall to me anyway. The statements made are supporting the concept that it does NOT take a 100 pound dog to break through cover or any of the other reasons given to justify excess weight/substance - that is not a valid argument to produce dogs that have a LOT more substance than is described in the standard and therefore have become extreme deviations from the type described in the standard.

The weight guidelines in the standard are just that, guidelines. However, a 20 - 30 pound deviation from these guidelines (which are quite similar to those for other breeds bred for much the same purpose and are breeds that have never been described as "weedy")is not a relatively small evolutionary difference, it is an extreme difference that has been specifically selected for by breeders. Since there is functionally no need for the excess substance, the only reason I see for its existence is that people like it, despite the standard. Other than the reality that people "prefer" using descriptions like "tree trunk legs", "massive bone", a "ton of substance" to describe their dogs, none of these descriptions are in line with the solid, athletic sporting dog described in the standard (ANY Labrador standard), even if the weight guidelines were taken out of the equation. I really have not heard a valid argument for the excess bone and substance.

A Greyhound is a weedier sort of dog - their males stand on average between 26-30 inches and their weights approximate 65-85 pounds. A shorter dog weighing that much is not going to look the same.

I think people have gone a little overboard with what they think is weedy vs. what they think is solid substance. I think all people are trying to do is provide some perspective.

Amen!

The only thing I can find to say is that some breeders breed to the standard, others breed to win. There are breeders out there who are breeding to the standard (or at least try to).

If the spectators can "see" that the winning specimens are significantly heavier or otherwise outside the standard, then there IS a problem. But it'll remain a problem until the judges recognize it as one. The exhibitors probably won't change until the judges do. Liking my 55-60# girls more and more here, and haven't once heard that the hunting conditions are too tough for them or their 70-75# male littermates.

Oh I recognize you and your argument. A foot cube of fat will weigh less than a foot cube of muscle.

Yeah....well, the problem is you have a very narrow point of view. I will always take a 100 lb male if everything else is great versus a plain 85 lb dog. I don't really care what a dog weighs and I rarely know until they go to the vet. It really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. When you have been doing it long enough then you will learn to filter out silly, singular faults as evaluation criteria. You will start to evaluate the whole dog. My point is a really big dog can hold up just as well as a smaller dog. It all depends on their conditioning.

You can beat this up until it becomes boring. I feel if you don't weigh a dog or ask his or her owner how much they weight, you can't assume the weight of the dog.

For example, I have a friend with an 80# boy that appears to weigh 90 to 95 # to the eye. He's always in beautiful shape, well muscled and kept in fit condition all the time. She works hard with him and her other dogs in conformation, obedience and rally.

Each vet visit, he weighs 80 # on the nose. He's taken 1st in the Am Bred classes, RWD, placed at Potomac and no judge says he small. The critiques all say boy of nice size and conformation. He is 4 1/2, so there is no reason for him to grow further unless she added food or exercised him less. It's not going to happen.

I swear he looks 90 # or over and I'm usually pretty close at guessing weights. I'm always wrong with him and a couple of others. A current stud-dog appears to weigh around 85_90 # but he's actually 10 #'s more than breeders think he is when guestimating. If they ask, the stud-dog owner discloses his weight on the nose. He's another heavily muscled boy.

In my opinion, we can't guess Lab weights. Coats make Labs look larger than they are in full coat. Some of the dogs you guess at 100 # are 90 #, some you think are 85 # are 98 #. Some girls we think are 78 # are 10 # more or less. So unless a scale were ringside, we can't tell a spittin' thing about the weight of a dog. Only what he or she °appears° to weigh which isn't always correct. Jmo.

This entire thread is abosolutely meaningling. Unless ya'll breeders with those 65 lb girls and 75 - 80 lb boys starting posting your names or websites where we can see your labs, your opinions about your beautiful, correct dogs are worth scratch !

We should have a better standard for the Labrador in the United States.

What good would that do if the judges don't abide to it. Like someone said earlier, some breed to the standard and some breed to win. How do we get judges to judge to the standard should be the question.

To LMAO, Pictures of dogs that are mentioned in this thread are unnecessary, we all know what's being talked about, you can see it at every show.

I really don't think that there are that many that "breed to the standard". There may be breeders that have dogs that comply with the standard, but I don't think they took out the standard and bred their line to fit the standard in regard to height. The parts other than height (ie coat, tail, etc) - yes, alot try to adhere to

As far as people breeding to win - I can agree with that, but, I think that there is more than one "type" winning. Knowing which judge to show to - regarding "type" is one way of winning more. There are many breeders who strive to breed healthy, handsome Labradors; that try to stay true to the breed in all ways - ie type, size, working ability, movement, etc, etc

For some of the all breed judges, our standard is hard to understand and utilize.

If they are both fit (meaning the 100 pound dog has too much substance vs being obese), as a breeder I probably would not take either dog and start over, since neither is likely to be a typey representative of the standard. A generic dog has no type, and a dog with extreme components has no type - both look somewhat like a Labrador, but are nowhere close to ideal.

As a pet owner, it would not matter which dog I owned as long as the dog was a good companion.

I think you are missing the point - as has been said several times, the weight guidelines are merely guidelines and there will be deviations and most likely slight changes over time. However, when the changes or deviations are no longer in the ballpark or even the universe of the dog described in the standard, things are getting out of control. Other sporting breeds seem to be able to evolve and improve without gaining 25% to 30% of its body mass to do so.

Substance is only one part of the equation (and the point that is being discussed), and a generic dog with correct substance is still not correct - no one is arguing that point.

A friend of mine has been showing her girl and the Judge told her that most dogs are not to the standard. Her dog was to the standard and finished very quickly under different Judges.

It could have been those judges felt the same way. If all the Labradors to the AKC Standard have to compete against is overdone dogs, they could win if all of the Judges feel this way.

The girl was fit.

I own a small terrier who I adore. When I purchased him the breeder told me he was going to be on the smaller side and I took him knowing that and I love that about him. Now, I am not a breeder of terriers nor do I can to be. But, the standard for my terrier breed says "The ideal height should not exceed 10 inches at the withers. Weight approximately 12 pounds". My boy is exactly that - 10 inches and 12 pounds. He is TINY in the ring compared to other boys. Many of them are 20 pounds or slightly more. That's a huge deviation from what the standard calls for in this breed but it's also being rewarded. My point being it's not just Labradors and it's not just sporting breeds.

I always find it interesting how it seems the show world tend to exaggerate features on the dogs they breed. It seems they like to breed for heavier, bigger dogs. However, I found that the opposite in Springer Spaniels. Having known a few show Springer breeders, they tend to breed for a more moderate show dog, a bit taller and leaner than the field counterpart. When I attended some field training days, several guys had Springers. Much to my surprise, they were shorter, squattier and more heavily boned than the show Springer. Go figure?

Case in point: A breeder/judge's web site lists an 8-9 month old puppy with the comments that he is "incredibly substantial" and "weighed over 90 pounds at 7 months". Is this really where we are going - 90 to 100 pound puppies?

If we measured our dogs, many would be under or just barely making it on the lower side of the wicket. Bigger and bigger is mostly fat not bigger.

I think what is meant by bigger in this thread is too much substance (as opposed to height or fat). Fat can be removed and kept under control - it is travesty that so many people keep their dogs fat, but that is a different issue than overall substance changes in the breed.

I keep hearing about tiny/short dogs, but I don't have any that are at any risk of not meeting standard (they are at the lower end of the standard but it is not a close call), nor do I see many of them at shows. I live on the West Coast, so it might be different elsewhere.

I think you're right about what's bigger. To me substance means when you add more bone, more head, broader, deeper rib-cage, you are adding more weight. Nothing in our standard describes heavy bone, mastiff heads or deep, heavy bodied dogs. Sure they will still be able to work despite their conformation just as field dogs still work despite their major structural faults (straight front/rears, weak topline, light bone, etc.)because the breed has a strong retrieving instinct. The standard was drawn up to maintain a certain look for the breed and to enable the breed to function more efficiently in the field.

I just measured two of my current show dogs. My bitch, a specialty winner, is just over 21". My boy is 23". Both are what I consider moderate and not overdone in any way. At their last vet check up, my bitch was 66 pounds and my boy was 87.

For the most part labs in the US are overdone. Breeders breed for and keep over exaggerated examples of type, judges put them up and if this trend continues our labs will no longer look like a lab. Overdone is not typey. When someone doesn't recognize your dog as a lab and sees rottie or mastiff mixed in, somethings wrong, your dog is NOT typey. People who comment that they don't like a plain or generic lab (that BTW probably conforms to the standard) should get out of the breed and breed something that is more flashy.

Actually, a generic dog has no breed type and cannot conform to a standard because generic by definition is nothing in particular. This is typically the type of dog rewarded at IABCA shows because competitive typey dogs generally are not entered. I agree that substance in this breed is going overboard, but a generic or mediocre dog with adequate substance is not the answer.

Since you don't know the definition of generic here it is, generic: "relating to or characteristic of a whole group or class".

Why not? You put several people twice that size in jon boats all the time and nothing bad happens.

Just a follow up - Peyton got 15 birds at a 150 bird shoot which took several hours. He was busy and he was incredibly happy. He was a perfect gentleman, off leash, sitting next to my chair watching the gunners and the sky, not moving an inch if the bird wasn't shot or if it fell in another dog's range. This shoot is pretty much totally in the woods and it's near impossible for a human to get through the cover since we haven't had a frost yet, but Peyton did a wonderful job, and he looked great doing it. If you would have been there you would have seen the advantage he had over the weedier dogs who had to work harder to get the job done. He's my huntin' dawg!

Actually you made my point - a generic dog is generic to the canine species and does not have characteristics of a particular breed that are specifically bred for by breeders, characteristics which define breed type. A generic dog is the average canine. For example, a longer more flexible loin is inherent in the generic dog but is not a characteristic desirable or bred for in a Labrador. A generic dog is typically longer than it is tall, while the standard states it is acceptable for a dog to be slightly longer than it is tall, a dog that is closer to square is more ideal. It does not take an eye for a dog to breed the generic dog; it does to breed a dog with breed type.

While it is a nice anecdote, I honestly do not care how many birds a 100 pound dog picked up. I know several hunters who have made that claim with their 70 pound field bred labs. I know Boykin owners who feel the same way about their retrievers. The whole point is how much substance is typey and I do not equate 100 plus pound Labradors as non-weedy - I equate them to non-athletic and overdone per the standard.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. In the face of convincing evidence, I choose to believe that my dogs is indeed very athletic. As for the standard, well, it's vague enough to allow a lot of variation. I never intended to breed big dogs - my foundation bitch was a shade below standard. These lovely guys popped out and I am thrilled with them. Enjoy your little guys, I'm sure they are very athletic too.