I have noticed in the past year+ that breeder judges are frequently putting up sickle hocked Labradors...some in extreme cases... I hear some of these judges saying "look at those angles" with great delight... Why is this? Are they looking at a momentary outline they prefer? Do they not see it in movement? Do they not care about it in movement? Do they have no idea what it is and it's effect? I'd be curious as to what others think about this. I know I'm not alone in seeing it way too much now, but the trend is disturbing... We are losing power and soundness...

I agree with you that it is showing up much more often in our labs. I for one see it and do not reward it. I do like angles, but the angles must be able to function correctly.

Yes, I have made note of it on many occasions. It is not your imagination. I've seen it so bad that the hocks are touching on the go-round...almost like a Shepards. I've seen it put up. They look like "bandy" legs.

I must say some of us have talked about this lately and they are rewarded. But so are dogs with no coat, straight fronts, dip at tailset, etc. The politics can take over and the not so well put together dogs wins. We shake our heads all the time. Thank goodness we come back to show another day. But yes, seeing more cow hocked dogs.

pick the faults that you would rather have - ?

I personally have not seen alot of what you are talking about - I see more poor fronts and poor tailsets and generally more poor movement in front

I don't know... I've seen some that didn't seem political... Yes there are other issues, but this one causes weakness... Cow hocks are a symptom of the conformation issue... They have to stand cow hocked to hold themselves when standing... When seen from the side moving, they can't extend in the rear...

I've seen more straight rears rewarded than sickle hocks. Looks like an Akita. No turn of stifle. Too many short upper arms also. Befuddles me about the short upper arms. A lot of times they move very well but they are still incorrect.

Now off the sickle hock topic. I see so many straight fronts being rewarded again. I think for awhile they weren't. If you look at these dogs in the ring, they are flashier and hold their heads up higher. It takes a judge who really knows Labs not to reward this, IMHO

Another things about straight rears. The opposite of sickle hocks. Those side view movement photos look like they are fully extended. But essentially the leg doesn't look any different when they are standing still.

A lot of dogs with ewe necks compensate by carrying their heads high as well - this is a growing issue in Goldens and Cockers – it “looks” regal but it is a horrid fault for a dog that is bred to carry game. It is sad that it is rewarded because that has just encouraged breeders to breed for the trait.

A lot of upright dogs will move cleanly if they are balanced - it does not mean they move with reach or drive. Dogs with upright front assembly are going to have a lot more shock to their joints while jumping or working.

Too many dogs stand under their ears and necks and have poor shoulder layback - this is not a functional front but it is rewarded all the time. I just think most people really don’t know what a correct front really looks like. A lot of these fronts are followed by rears that lack turn of stifle and rear angles - yes, they do look like Akita rears. The rear feet are not plumb with the point of buttocks, which is where they should be. I think the desire to get short backs has resulted in losing functional angulation to get them.

I personally would like to know what happened to reach of neck and length of leg! The lack of leg (in relation to depth of body)has really put so many dogs out of balance, yet people have trained their eyes to thinking this is ideal when it is truly incorrect. Good necks are essential to efficiently picking up game.

There are a lot of faults out there as no dog is perfect. But it is hard to eliminate faults when they are so often rewarded as being virtues.

Here is a link to an interesting article - written by a Rottweiler breeder but the issues they are seeing are very familiar:

http://www.andelrottweilers.com/showdogmyarticlefinished.htm

While it is easy to judge from outside of the ring it is much more difficult to accomplish this task within the confines of the ring tape.

As a judge, who is about to deliver points toward a championship, you must take the entire picture of the animal when considering a win. Every judge has their own interpretation of the Standard. Every judge has attributes they seek in a specimen when judging. Hopefully, they judge from the perspective of good points rather than bad points (fault judging). We all must remember there is no perfect dog and if we all judged the same it would be boring and our entries would be extremely small.

When in the ring as the “official” judge, one must consider the hallmarks of our breed first – head, coat & tail - along with type. THAT is what makes a Labrador - A LABRADOR. I see many more animals being awarded “the win” that lack type and have incorrect tails than I do anything else. That is more of a travesty in my mind than any other infraction. Again “HEAD – COAT – TAIL.”

Now with that said, function is a critical part of our breed. So each attribute must be considered carefully - fronts, rears, keel, length of back, croup, coupling, etc., but not first and foremost. Because if it doesn’t look like a Labrador function really doesn’t matter as a Standard Poodle can retrieve just as good.

Just Another Judge’s Perspective

I will have to agree on the straight rears comments. I am seeing this an awful lot and it's a pet peeve.
I'd take an over angulated rear over a straight one!!

If the dog is not built to be functional, it really does not matter what the head, coat and tail looks like either - that dog also lacks breed type. Structure is just as important to breed type as the "hallmarks". People take head-coat-tail to the extreme without realizing that a lot of these specimens are on bodies that in silhouette look like a Clumber or a Corgi. Structure is just as integral to breed type as head-coat-tail. Otherwise it just looks like a Lab mix.

The first sentence of the standard describes the Labrador Retriever as a strongly built, medium-sized, short-coupled, dog possessing a sound, athletic, well-balanced conformation that enables it to function as a retrieving gun dog; the substance and soundness to hunt waterfowl or upland game for long hours under difficult conditions....

People should be looking at the WHOLE dog, but many are not interested so they breed for what they like. And this is to the point where even the head-coat-tail piece looks like an extreme caricature of what it should. It is hard to go to a large entry Labrador show and find dogs with legs that are balanced with their depth of body or that look athletic (and by athletic I mean like a swimmer vs a sumo wrestler). It seems in many cases the only part of the body that is important (based on comments people make about various dogs) is bone and weight (my dog weighed 100 pounds at 9 months!).

If one is only breeding for head-coat-tail one is not breeding a dog built for ANY purpose other than to stand still in a show ring or for pictures.

The most important line in the standard is (emphasis added):

"Above all, a Labrador Retriever must be well balanced, enabling it to move in the show ring or work in the field with little or no effort."

When I first started in labs, soundness was most important to me. Then a great judge and dog person, said something that changed my mind. She said that any dog could move well and be sound - even a mutt. But that does not make them a ...... (you fill in the blank).

You can also put it this way -- many dogs can be good hunters, but that does not make them a ........... (again you fill in the blank).

What makes a breed is breed type. In labs it happens to be head, coat and tail. If it has a head that reminds you of a flat coat, it does not have lab breed type. If it has long curly hair, it does not have lab breed type.

If it has straight shoulders or sickle hocks or flat ribs, but looks like a lab -- it has lab breed type, but is not sound.

When judging you must first pick for breed type and then find the soundest of what is left.

But how does a dog with very short legs look like a LAB? A dog must also have correct proportions and that is what we are losing with all of these massive bodies on legs nowhere near half their height. A lab head coat and tail on a Clumber or Whippet body also looks like a mutt and therefore lacks breed type. The rewarding of head/coat tail at the expense of the rest of the dog has led to dogs that really do look like mixes winning in the ring.

And what is with the excessive bone that has nothing to do with the "hallmarks" of the breed?

I would say we are also losing these hallmarks in that many heads now have massive foreheads with droopy eyes, shortened muzzles and fleshy mouths. Many males have VERY strong expressions and yet they are consistently rewarded. So are very incorrect coats. I have seen a dog with a very wooly coat win big awards at specialties lately - he also has the droopy eyes and fleshy neck. So if head/coat/tail really is what should be rewarded, let's start rewarding CORRECT ones (the ones everyone patronizingly calls "old fashioned" nowadays).

Personally, I wish the parent club would require a good working test pass (as opposed to the WC which in our breed is not really a measure of much) in order for a dog to be called a Champion. That way the whole dog described in the standard is evaluated prior to calling it an ideal representative of the breed. Yes, many breeds can retrieve. But any one of those dogs whose primary function is to work as a functional retriever should not be considered ideal for their breed if they have no interest or ability in doing so.

Whole Dog one must remember that your suggestion cuts both ways, are you suggesting that in order to be awarded a Field Champion Title a Labrador must successfully compete in conformation to prove they actually look like a Labrador?

Porportions - you are correct. Since no dog is perfect, judging is a series of steps. And these steps are dictated by what is in the ring.

First, comes type - head, coat and tail. Then soundness. Now the judge can get picking with what is left.

Length of leg to body, balance, amount of bones, condition, temperament, length of body, etc., etc. These are the finer points of the breed and are shared with many other breeds. But they all come together to make a labrador a distinct breed.

As for the massive labs, I do not know what to tell you. I could not get them back into a boat.

I have thought this for many years. If the LRC will not endorse the Championship title on a Labrador who does not have a WC, then they should not endorse an FC or AFC on any lab without at least a conformation certificate. Double standard...double entendre intended. IMO, The present AKC standard for Labradors is out of touch with reality and should be revised to come into compliance with the FCI standard.

Most Champions today - in any breed - do not practice/compete in events that show off their original purpose. No need for the Lab to do so, to get a Ch. title.

We do, however, have lots of Labradors that can retrieve and swim and do obedience and agility. It is great to have a dog that can use his brain power, as well as be exhibited for his type, etc.

Certainly there are extremes in our breed, no excuses for that - they get put up because some people/judges like the type. Labs are so popular in this country, that I do think it impossible to have only one "look" . We all have the opportunity to have an effect on the breed - but we cannot make them with a cookie cutter .

Sorry to be rather ignorant concerning sickle hocks, but might this be another name for bowlegged? I have a friend that had her Lab's hips x-rayed for OFA and the vet made the comment about the dog being bowlegged. I have been around Labs for quite some time but never heard the comment concerning bowlegged. TIA for any comments on this subject.

No.
Sickle hocks usually are seen in dogs displaying excess in angulation ; the more extreme, the more energy the dog must produce both to hold up the levers of its rear in stance & gait . As the angle between upper vs lower thighs becomes more acute , then the tibia/fibula conformation is inclined to push the hock backwards iow closer to the ground which increases the angle between the tibia/fibula vs metatarsus .

If the vet was referring to the hind legs, bowed legs (to me) usually indicate an unstable or incorrect structure of the hock in which the joint flexes laterally upon weight bearing. A definite structural fault which can dramatically limit the dog's soundness.

I have noticed several dogs with sickle hocks as of late. I even had one from a very well known breeder/judge, and I have to say she was incredibly sound til the day she died. I'm wondering if others are noticing that in some of these sickle hock dogs, there seems to be an additional lack of soundness, and I'm not sure where it's coming from. I recently watched Labrador judging and noticed one of the dogs in the WD ring could not bear full weight on one of his hocks. At one point the judge tried to reposition the other hind leg, the one bearing the dog's weight, and she couldn't move it. When she did, the dog responded by sitting. Later, that same dog tried to jump but couldn't and you could see him give up. I can see that dog breaking down over time. Is it the sickle hocks? an injury? an injury because he has sickle hocks? or just a different ligament issue/some other source of lacking soundness? I have know idea, but this is becoming a more prominent in our breed. Structural soundness should be considered an integral part of type, just as movement should be part of our type. we have a sporting breed.

I posted this image in a Facebook group recently to help visualize what sickle hocks look like, hope this picture shows up, you may have to copy and past the link.

http://www.millenniumbc.co.za/images/std-hindlegsf03.jpg

and another one
http://www.saboxer.co.za/sabox_img/sickle_hq.jpg

Shelley's link

Do all over angulated dogs have sickle hocks?

Another way to recognize sickle hocks by watching a dog's side movement - the dog's rear legs tend to pump up and down, like pistons, rather than extending out behind the dog from the hock joint.

Thanks. The hock area does illustrate the crouching, lack of extension of the sickle hock in that Bulldog well. We just need to remind ourselves that the Labrador normal is not the Bulldog normal. The normal Lab has, one hopes, more length of leg and more rear angulation, with the straight line going to the toes, not the rear of the foot. Labs are not Bulldogs, not horses, but moderately angulated, except when they are sickle hocked--or bow legged with possibly bad knees. It is hard finding a drawing of over angulation in a Lab. The generic side-gai, all-breed show dog of many breeds and groups is something flying with a straighter front and an overangulated rear, but lots of pumping movement in the rear: if it is long enough it doesn't have to crab and folks marvel at that flash and dash, missing the wasted effort. We need to avoid that, too, so I agree with Abby!

Lots of resources out there on gate and movement. I for one think that everyone should see Rachel Page Elliott's Dog Steps VIDEO.

keeping in mind every dog has their own standard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sjYUzKnax0#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFPCYypAx-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPBmW7nB0Qg

I was at an all breed show recently and had time to watch the Labradors (It has been awhile since I was able to sit ringside and watch). There were some really nice dogs and bitches. And then there were some that just made me shake my head. D & B (more so the B) with no length of upper arm - a few looked liked sausages on sticks. Many dogs who could not move correctly - no reach, no drive. I was quite sad to see so many entries like this - dogs who look like they couldn't last an hour or 2 in the field, much less a whole day. There was 1 bitch (who looked a bit older than the others) that was completely cow hocked when standing outside of the ring.

I was happy to see that these dogs were not put up as Winners or BOB. The winners and BOB each day were lovely examples of our breed.

But I have to wonder - where are we going when breeding dogs who look like some of the ones I saw....very sad indeed

Excessive angulation is not the main point with sickle hocks. Most GSD's with all those angles do not have sickle hocks. The main point with sickle hocks is that the joint does not extend when the leg is extended backward during the trot. When the front leg is extended forward, you are looking for reach and how "open" the shoulder joint is. But likewise in the rear, as that rear leg goes back, that hock joint should be open/extended. In a sickle hock, the joint appears to be locked.

Dogs with more extreme angulation can have a great side gait (well, maybe not what a lab should look like) and cover a lot of ground. If the hock joint is angulated and "loose" it will look dirty going away but may side gait really well.

A problem I see is hocks that are both over-angulated and too long at the same time. I think this is what a lot of people are calling a sickle hock.

Don't forget that the hock is not the joint but the bones leading to that joint (which is analogous to the heel). The length of the hock should be short...less than 1/3 the height of the dog. I see many long hocks in labs.

NOT TRUE! Check your anatomy again. The hock IS the joint, corresponding to the ankle in humans.

Nope, there is a hock and a hock joint....but yes, the terms are commonly misused.

Well, I guess the University of Pennsylvania school of Veterinary Medicine must be wrong:

https://www.vet.upenn.edu/RyanHospital/K9FirstAid/KnowingYourDog/tabid/1372/Default.aspx

SMH. And you are presenting yourself as an expert. No wonder people are confused.

I like Laura Dedering's comprehensive Lab diagrams at the link below:
http://www.cygnet-labs.com/folklaur/LabDiagrams.htm
See the Lab diagrams, the ones from Great Britain in particular.

It's the rear pastern not the hock.... the hock is the joint..smh

According to the diagrams mentioned above, over angulation "may incline to cow or sickle hocks, produces poor hind action". Thank you Charlotte K. for posting this. I didn't know over angulation was the cause of cow hocks.

You are welcome. I do not think that overangulation always is the cause of cow hocks. It is often a LONG rear pastern or even just weak "couch potato" muscling that contributes to the the cow hocks. A dog with perfect angulation when crouching to spring for bait can also look cow hocked, temporarily. A cow hocked adolescent or bitch who has just weaned a litter can muscle up and have perfect angulation, even from the rear. True sickle hocks lack the working power of a springy cow hock in muscled haunches--the cow hocks can extend if not sickle hocks, too. Think how when you ride you can collect the horse with reins to put the weight on the rear of the horse to enhance the drive--kind of like a Cavalry horse maneuver. You can do it in a dog with a leash, to shift the weight back. It keeps the dog from pulling (young male dog!) and enhances the picture of the dog. I am not sure that my words are conveying what I'd like to say. No, I haven't bred a perfect rear--yet.

Yes, I would love to see this happen as well - if the people who influenced the standard truly believe that what is in the standard is necessary for a working dog, then they should be breeding dogs to that end (i.e., the standard). If a CH must have a WC, then a FC should have a CC. These are equally minimal requirements. If the working requirement gets stiffer, then I could see a dog having to compete in the ring to the same extent. As it is, a WC (at least in our breed - other breeds have stiff requirements for their WC) is not really a standard as much of a basic instinct test. A CC is a basic evaluation of breed type. I see these two as being similar evaluations.

Breeders of dogs that go into performance homes SHOULD pay very close attention to structure because good structure is what keeps the dog sound and able to participate without breaking down or unnecessarily injuring itself. A lot of dogs work IN SPITE of their structure when in reality a dog's structure should enable efficient work. So often breeders put their pet quality (i.e., dogs without balance or issues that would be detrimental in a working home) dogs in to performance homes and that should not happen.

They should also pay attention to coats and their functionality. I am always amazed that my dogs with correct coats can work all winter whereas no one with single coated dogs wants to put their dogs into the water until April because they cannot take the temps (I am not talking freezing water). This is a similar issue with open coats. This breed was bred to retrieve primarily in WATER.

We should all strive to breed a functional dog that has type. One without the other is not a Labrador Retriever.

Although I am not an expert and don't pretend to be one, I do not think UPenn is using the terms as they have been traditionally used. But that happens with common words and is why the actual experts have official language. Although I have heard the terms used as you are using them, I have more often heard people say that the metatarsal bones are the hock, and the tarsal joint is the hock joint. In the front, there is the pastern, which are the bones, and also the pastern joint.

That said, I wouldn't get too hung up on how people use unofficial terms. To stick to the focus of this thread which is "sickle hocks", there are many dogs with long metatarsal bones and/or with a more extreme angle at the tarsal joint who do not have a joint that is stiff which does not open or provide good spring. That said, even GSD's who have more extreme angles, do want short metatarsal bones as well as a flexible joint.

I think Mark Twain was right.

http://tinyurl.com/bnjsm88