# Not fat Lab but correct barrel ribs!



## tra23dog (Mar 1, 2012)

I am a bit fed up with everyone saying how fat the Lab was that got RBIS at Crufts. The Gundog group judge has just said "He was so well muscled with not an ounce of fat on him". People think fat lab when it is in fact the correct barrell ribcage. The other gundog breeds don't have that, so the Lab looks rounded. Having seen Romeo at a Lab show in the UK a few weeks ago, he was not fat!! Compared to the working Lab he looked bigger in substance but substance is not the same as fat. Hopefully that will dispell the fat Lab theories


----------



## hutch6 (May 9, 2008)

"I'm not fat, there's not an ounce of fat on me. The doctor says it's actualy my barrell ribcage and I just have more substance, besides, when I move all that wobbling and rolling is just my relaxed muscles I'm so chilled."


----------



## tra23dog (Mar 1, 2012)

The bernese, st bernard and newfie rolled slightly when moving but they were not fat either. Muscle moves when the dog is moving! People who have made up their minds will dis this post but it shows how little they know, even after the actual judge has said the dog was pure muscle and not fat!! rolls eyes!!


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

hutch6 said:


> "I'm not fat, there's not an ounce of fat on me. The doctor says it's actualy my barrell ribcage and I just have more substance, besides, when I move all that wobbling and rolling is just my relaxed muscles I'm so chilled."


LOL sounds like a weight watchers meeting:lol:

The Flabrador was well too big.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

tra23dog said:


> I am a bit fed up with everyone saying how fat the Lab was that got RBIS at Crufts. The Gundog group judge has just said "He was so well muscled with not an ounce of fat on him". People think fat lab when it is in fact the correct barrell ribcage. The other gundog breeds don't have that, so the Lab looks rounded. Having seen Romeo at a Lab show in the UK a few weeks ago, he was not fat!! Compared to the working Lab he looked bigger in substance but substance is not the same as fat. Hopefully that will dispell the fat Lab theories


Sadly - this "deja vu" about Labradors happens every year after Crufts - you'd probably achieve more banging your head against a brick wall.

Not one of the people who criticises is familiar with the Labrador Breed Standard which talks about "*BROAD*" and "*STRONG*" - inherent terms *throughout* the breed standard.

I have no objection to people liking a different "type" of Labrador - but that doesn't give them the right to criticise a dog who is conformationally correct, fit and capable of achieving such a high award at the biggest dog show in the world.

It's fascinating how so many pet and novice people believe they have more knowledge than the four esteemed and highly experienced judges who played their role in getting Romeo to Reserve Best in Show beating over 20K dogs in the process.

He won the CC - but to get BOB - BOTH judges have to agree he was the Best CC winner (his daughter owned by a completely different breeder in a different country won Best Puppy).

It's ignorance plain and simple that people don't understand

There is a HUGE difference between "substance" and "fat" - even the TV cameras which add a good half stone didn't make this lovely boy look fat.

Some of the comments I've seen have been rude, ignorant, offensive, and potentially downright slanderous about a superb, happy and excellent example of the breed much loved by his owner and with a HUGE number of fans at Crufts and in the Labrador world - a dog who has already been made up to a SH CH in his own country.

=====================================

I enjoyed watching some of the Labs in the Gamekeepers ring and was fascinated at the diversity within the dogs - but they all had one thing in common - their ability to go out and do a days work.

A friend - with a chocolate (until recently admonished by much of the working community) her first show dog - who has won 1sts in the main ring and mult-qualified her dog for Crufts - took a second in the GK ring at Crufts - She didn't get to either place by accident and has worked damned hard with her dog to get him out working and capable of holding his own in the show-ring and the field.

This dog has substance and is wholly show-bred - Breeders and owners across the globe and proving that substance is no barrier to being able to do the job for which these dogs were bred - in fact, it's a mandatory requirement in many European countries.

It is predominantly working folk who are moving away from the breed standard they helped produce (and which has changed very little in over 40 years) - yet it is interesting to note there are FT CH out there who have sufficient substance (more than some of my own dogs) to ensure they wouldn't look out of place in the show-ring (and also providing that Labs don't have to resemble whippets to achieve the ultimate status in the field)

Substance and fat are two completely different things - a dog who is fit and meets the breed standard is criticised by uneducated people who believe they know so much more than the owner, the dogs admirers and the judges 

It's a good job Romeo's owner doesn't speak English - although I am sure there will be more than enough people willing to translate some of the derogatory statements that have been made about this beautiful dog who has achieved more in the ring than the large majority of us could ever dream of


----------



## tra23dog (Mar 1, 2012)

Well said Swarthy!! There is uproar on another thread about rude comments about Jilly, yet everyone thinks it is okay to be downright offensive about the Lab!!


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

swarthy said:


> Sadly - this "deja vu" about Labradors happens every year after Crufts - you'd probably achieve more banging your head against a brick wall.
> 
> Not one of the people who criticises is familiar with the Labrador Breed Standard which talks about "*BROAD*" and "*STRONG*" - inherent terms *throughout* the breed standard.
> 
> ...


Superb post! the ignorance surrounding this breed is astonishing. Every year it is like groundhog day, the same boring argument again and again.

If only the charming people bashing this dog could put their efforts towards protesting against more pressing issues in the dog world; backyard breeding, puppy farming, neglect, abuse, etc.

But no, lets bash the well bred, health tested dog with a superb temperament because it does fit my personal image of what the breed should be. :mad2:


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

People seem to forget, while they might be a show dog, they are also someones much loved pet.

Like to see people's reactions if a thread launching an attack on their pet popped up


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

well said Tra23dog, totally agree with everything you said,
well put.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

As I said on the Jilly thread - fabulous dog and a well-deserved winner with not an ounce of fat on him.

It is amazing how the know-it-alls who know nothing have not bothered to find out anything about him - such as the fact that he is a WORKING labrador as well as a show labrador. Sort of knocks their "observations" (sic) into a cocked hat, doesn't it?


----------



## Misi (Jul 13, 2009)

I'm pretty new to the doggy appreciation society, but I thought that lab was spectacular. Also loved the grin on his owner's face 

I'm not much into little dogs either, but the winner was gorgeous. It's nice to see a more unusual breed do well.

My fave was the Aussie shepherd, but what do I know???


----------



## jenny armour (Feb 28, 2010)

tra23dog said:


> The bernese, st bernard and newfie rolled slightly when moving but they were not fat either. Muscle moves when the dog is moving! People who have made up their minds will dis this post but it shows how little they know, even after the actual judge has said the dog was pure muscle and not fat!! rolls eyes!!


i think the commentator said that that is part of the breed that they roll when walking


----------



## spaniel04 (Nov 27, 2011)

jenny armour said:


> i think the commentator said that that is part of the breed that they roll when walking


I heard this comment but I believe it was made with regards to the Clumber spaniel. The show Clumbers can often be seen with a rolling gait, not because it is part of the breed but because their hips are so bad. Average hip scores are still very very high. I have never seen a working clumber with a rolling gait, generally speaking their hip scores have come right down. My own Clumber's score is 3:4, which is now the norm for young working clumbers. I tried to look up the hip score for the clumber in the crufts gundog group but even though he has now been given a stud book number there are no health checks recorded with the KC for this particular dog (doesn't necessarily mean he hasn't had any done). There is still some way to go to improve this fabulous breed. But I am not sure that this year's crufts BOB (who is a son of last year's disqualified Clumber) is a big enough step in the right direction.:sad:


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

spaniel04 said:


> I heard this comment but I believe it was made with regards to the Clumber spaniel. The show Clumbers can often be seen with a rolling gait, not because it is part of the breed but because their hips are so bad. Average hip scores are still very very high. I have never seen a working clumber with a rolling gait, generally speaking their hip scores have come right down. My own Clumber's score is 3:4, which is now the norm for young working clumbers. I tried to look up the hip score for the clumber in the crufts gundog group but even though he has now been given a stud dog number there are no health checks recorded with the KC for this particular dog (doesn't necessarily mean he hasn't had any done). There is still some way to go to improve this fabulous breed. But I am not sure that this year's crufts BOB (who is a son of last year's disqualified Clumber) is a big enough step in the right direction.:sad:


There's a working clumber on one of the shoots I pick up on - lovely dog, low hip score too, but very moderate and not exaggerated like the show dogs. I'd only ever seen the show clumbers before at game fairs an tbh, wouldn't have thought it a dog I would consider owning - and didn't do very well in the tests and scurries either LOL , but the working one was lovely.


----------



## spaniel04 (Nov 27, 2011)

rocco33 said:


> There's a working clumber on one of the shoots I pick up on - lovely dog, low hip score too, but very moderate and not exaggerated like the show dogs. I'd only ever seen the show clumbers before at game fairs an tbh, wouldn't have thought it a dog I would consider owning - and didn't do very well in the tests and scurries either LOL , but the working one was lovely.


This is my working clumber.








A bit different to the show dogs, isn't he?? He can move as well as my springers and cocker. I am hoping to do some working tests and field trials with him this year.


----------



## Pixieandbow (Feb 27, 2013)

I don't know much about labs and know nothing about the breed standard. What I do know is that he was a beautiful dog, his owner had a great personality and the relationship between them shone through. 

People thinking they know more than the experts is a very common thing though...after all what would people with years of experience and knowledge know when compared with google?


----------



## something ridiculous (Mar 9, 2013)

swarthy said:


> Sadly - this "deja vu" about Labradors happens every year after Crufts - you'd probably achieve more banging your head against a brick wall.
> 
> Not one of the people who criticises is familiar with the Labrador Breed Standard which talks about "*BROAD*" and "*STRONG*" - inherent terms *throughout* the breed standard.
> 
> ...





labradrk said:


> Superb post! the ignorance surrounding this breed is astonishing. Every year it is like groundhog day, the same boring argument again and again.
> 
> If only the charming people bashing this dog could put their efforts towards protesting against more pressing issues in the dog world; backyard breeding, puppy farming, neglect, abuse, etc.
> 
> But no, lets bash the well bred, health tested dog with a superb temperament because it does fit my personal image of what the breed should be. :mad2:


And what exactly is your expert knowledge on the subject?


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

spaniel04 said:


> This is my working clumber.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He's lovely, and very similar to the one on my shoot. TBH, only having seen the show ones I was a bit embarrassed to ask if it was a clumber LOL. He was a cracking little worker too, very different from the ones I saw attempting the scurries at the game fair .


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

tra23dog said:


> Well said Swarthy!! There is uproar on another thread about rude comments about Jilly, yet everyone thinks it is okay to be downright offensive about the Lab!!


But it's ok say someone's labardor is nothing like a lab and is whippety? I've heard it all! TBF, the show world is known for it's bitching so I don't take too much notice of it, but there are plenty that do look a bit gobsmacked when they hear some of the things said  Reminds me of pot and kettle 

Personally, I don't really mind how the show world want to interpret the breed standard and what they think a labrador should look like - each to his own, but it should be remembered that it is just an interpretation. It doesn't say how broad or strong, or well-sprung! The breed standard was indeed set by the working folk, but to put into context, there was no such thing as 'showing folk' then. People didn't just show nor was it a hobby like it is now. Showing was simply a way for the large kennels and gamekeeps to display their dogs - whether that be for use as stud or to be sold (the old catalogue/program included prices that the dogs were for sale too). The breed standard was not a blueprint, but was a very loose description (hence open to quite a lot of interpretation) the purpose of which was to differentiate it from the other popular retriever breed of the time - the flat coat. For example, the well-sprung ribs of the labrador as opposed to the flat ribs of the flat coat. The broad skull of the lab, not the long head with slight stop of the flatcoat. It has never defined how broad it should be or how well-sprung. The lab should be well boned, but it has never defined how much. THAT is all done by the interpretation of judges and would appear to depend on what is currently the trend. Exaggerations also happen over time, so is not apparent to those involved who see it as the norm. There is no question that showing encourages exaggeration (and not just with labs) - it has been seen to the detriment in some breeds, and while I have never said that it has been to the detriment of health in the labrador, the exaggeration still exists. With such a loose, vague description, it is inevitable that there will be not only varied opinions, but a 'look' favoured by the judge and seen to do well in the ring will become the 'norm'.

The Gamekeepers ring is a funny one. It attracts mainly show dogs that work. I'm afraid your average working folk would probably rather have teeth pulled than go to a dog show. The qualifications are also varied, from a dog that goes along to beat, to a dog that has won a trial award - and due to the very nature of trialling, that alone is a wide variety of ability and I've seen a rottie, a westie and a staffie in the beating line too , so I think it's a stretch to say they hold their own in the field . I guess just as those who show say that non-show folk shouldn't comment about a subject they don't know about, the same should apply to working ability. That's not to decry what they do. As far I'm concerned I think it's great that they give it a go, and can't be a bad thing that some of the show folk are at least trying to get some of the working abilities back in their dogs. The reality is though, that they bear no comparison to a true working dogs abilities and it would be a stretch to suggest they 'hold thier own' in the field


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

spaniel04 said:


> This is my working clumber.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Beautiful Dog, So unlike the few Clumbers I've seen around. He looks like he can do a days work. Lovely.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Odd that the Lab forum is having the same discussion and no one is going off on one.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

spaniel04 said:


> This is my working clumber.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stunning dog :thumbsup:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rona said:


> Odd that the Lab forum is having the same discussion and no one is going off on one.


Not really - they won't have had their equilibrium, tempers and sense of humour worn to a frazzle by an anti-show mob who have no knowledge of what they are talking about ganging up and bullying them on several threads. The people who are pro-showing have had to put up with all that on here - so you will have to forgive us if it comes across that we are sick and fed up of it _yet again_.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

Unfortunately, I can't put it on here due to copyright, but I've just seen a photo of the BASC Gamekeeper's Ring labrador winner and a photo of the same dog in show condition. And I'm sorry, but the dog is carrying extra weight in show condition.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rocco33 said:


> Unfortunately, I can't put it on here due to copyright, but I've just seen a photo of the BASC Gamekeeper's Ring labrador winner and a photo of the same dog in show condition. And I'm sorry, but the dog is carrying extra weight in show condition.


Could you not provide a link to it?


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Well I thought he was fat. So shoot me.....


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

No, unfortunately, it's a closed group.



> Well I thought he was fat. So shoot me.....


Personally, I would say he was carrying extra weight, but wasn't fat. I believe it's what's called 'show condition'. But I did find him very overdone. Yes, he fitted the breed standard, but still overdone.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

rona said:


> Odd that the Lab forum is having the same discussion and no one is going off on one.


Not sure what Labforum you are looking at, but if it's the one I've been a member of for the last 8 years - the site is littered with discussions and some real humdingers on working and show-bred Labradors, which is correct, whether show-bred dogs could do a days work - I would say literally THOUSANDS of threads with the same old, same old and quite easily tens of thousands of pages of the same discussion which always rears it's head again rather strongly post Crufts - if it isn't - then it's because a large proportion of the show and many working folk have left the site, leaving it pretty much to pet only owners.

I've yet to see anything on this site (or any other for that matter) which even vaguely challenges the strength of arguments on the main breed specific forum - and feedback I've heard from other breed specific forums says the same - because there, not only are they passionate about their dogs, but frequently ultra-passionate about their breed.

Sadly - such sites have lost excellent members over time for all sorts of reasons and with that goes a wealth of invaluable knowledge and experience


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Not really - they won't have had their equilibrium, tempers and sense of humour worn to a frazzle by an anti-show mob who have no knowledge of what they are talking about ganging up and bullying them on several threads. The people who are pro-showing have had to put up with all that on here - so you will have to forgive us if it comes across that we are sick and fed up of it _yet again_.


I agree with you on this.

It's amazing how many show people have left the forum since I first joined a few years ago. I can see why.


----------



## shetlandlover (Dec 6, 2011)

swarthy said:


> It's a good job Romeo's owner doesn't speak English - although I am sure there will be more than enough people willing to translate some of the derogatory statements that have been made about this beautiful dog who has achieved more in the ring than the large majority of us could ever dream of


This is exactly what I was saying the other day, it's rude to bad mouth someone else's dog. How would most of the members on here feel if they found a forum full of people calling their dog fat, flabby and needing "weight watchers". I know I would be very upset.

He's not fat, you can see he's not.


----------



## Wobbles (Jun 2, 2011)

spaniel04 said:


> This is my working clumber.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your dog is beautiful, looks nothing like the show dogs, in fact, I wouldn't have thought him the same breed. This is what annoys me about showing, I love Crufts, I really do, but why do the breeds have to look different for showing? Especially when they look better as their supposed to be. Anyone with eyes can see Spaniel04's dog looks much much better and healthier than a show Clumber. So why is it not this type that is being put as the breed standard? Dog's do not actually need to be shown, there is absolutely no purpose or reason in it for them, it does nothing to or for the dog, it's a human thing about vanity and a bit of fun (or at least it should be), so why should it be bred to a show standard, especially when the show standard is actually detrimental to the dog? Surely an animal bred to work should be bred to a work standard ie GSD's should look like the level backed police dogs, not the sloped backed show dogs. Dog shows are beauty contests at the end of the day, only interested in looks, at least working dog people put being fit and healthy first.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

rocco33 said:


> The Gamekeepers ring is a funny one. It attracts mainly show dogs that work. I'm afraid your average working folk would probably rather have teeth pulled than go to a dog show. The qualifications are also varied, from a dog that goes along to beat, to a dog that has won a trial award - and due to the very nature of trialling, that alone is a wide variety of ability and I've seen a rottie, a westie and a staffie in the beating line too , so I think it's a stretch to say they hold their own in the field . I guess just as those who show say that non-show folk shouldn't comment about a subject they don't know about, the same should apply to working ability. That's not to decry what they do. As far I'm concerned I think it's great that they give it a go, and can't be a bad thing that some of the show folk are at least trying to get some of the working abilities back in their dogs. The reality is though, that they bear no comparison to a true working dogs abilities and it would be a stretch to suggest they 'hold thier own' in the field


All I can say is that in the last two years I've paid more attention to the GK ring - this hasn't been the case - with a VERY clear mix of show and working bred dogs, and folks working their dogs on a regular basis - with well known working kennels in the GK AND the main ring.

If it was all so bad - why would owners of FT CH and FT AW be putting their dogs into the working classes in the main ring and the relevant classes in the GK ring - this years results (Gamekeepers ring) haven't been published yet (a fact that has been raised with Fosse data - my understanding is - they have not yet received the results) - but previous years results are there in black and white.

The comment about "whippety type" working bred dogs was generic and not aimed at any specific dog - just as I would be the first to agree that there ARE some show-bred dogs in all countries that are overdone - I've never denied this. There are examples of dogs at both ends of the spectrum ad many at different levels in-between.

These are both generic comments not aimed at any particular dog - that's hugely different to being downright offensive about individual dogs, which some people have been - if someone asked me for an opinion on their dog, I used to answer them - I don't tend to bother any more - but if I had thoughts on a picture of a dog, a dog at a show etc I would keep those thoughts to myself.

As a "show person" - because sadly my body won't physically allow me to be anything else (and even then I need help) - my comments about working are based on the people I know that do it - so is that complete ignorance or is each and every one of them lying? 

I've also seen some of these dogs in action - but what do I know?

The person who started this thread has all show-bred dogs, but in recent years has, like many of our showing counterparts, moved almost dramatically over to the working side - but quite clearly - as a so called "show person" - the certificates achieved (and no, I am not just talking about the Showdog working certificate), the dogs ability in action witnessed, and the fact that these people are out in the field when they could be in a nice clean show-ring

As a "show person" who doesn't know what I'm talking about, all the above factors I must have clearly dreamt - I've clearly never witnessed any of these dogs in action, and everything I've been told is a pack of lies - it is so nice to know what people really think.

Did I also dream that there are some very nice looking, FT CH dogs out there that could hold their own in the main classes in a show-ring - raising the question for me that if this is possible - why is there a need to go to the extremes of exceptionally lightweight working dogs many of which don't conform to the breed standard however you wish to interpret it.

Yes - it's a set of descriptors that is open to interpretation - but whether the dog is slight or chunky - there will be factors which are deemed as faults under the breed standard - and when judging - most will place different emphasis on how strongly they feel about these faults when assessing these dogs.

I've been "accused" of clearly liking chunky type Labradors - when actually - as anyone who knows me and my dogs will tell you that my dogs have considerably less substance than the large majority of dogs in the show-ring - and I am fully aware of each and every one of their faults and their limitations in the show-ring.

This doesn't mean I can't appreciate either a light or substantially framed dog if I feel they are a good example of the breed in line with my interpretation of the breed standard.

When judging, I critique 1st and 2nd to explain why I placed them how I did, including for some classes - the dogs build - which in some instances has been very different - but what the dogs had in common is they had much to like about the when measured against my interpretation of the breed standard, I hope this came across in what I wrote

The build of all the dogs in front of me had no bearing on their placings, and the owners and people who know the dogs would back me up on that.

===================================

I have a number of dogs here who I believe demonstrate significant working instincts - I only wish physically I was able to do something about it - not so I can place myself amongst the so called "all show people in the GK ring" (because of course I don't have a clue what I'm talking about ) - but because it is easy to see the pleasure the dogs get out of simple retrieving and water activities and I would love to know if they have greater potential which could be exploited for THEIR benefit.

This isn't going to happen because of ME - absolutely nothing to do with my dogs and that really distresses me sometimes because I believe they have so much more to give.

Similarly, I have dogs here who would probably think I had two heads if I even tried to get them out there doing something requiring extreme physical effort.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

swarthy said:


> All I can say is that in the last two years I've paid more attention to the GK ring - this hasn't been the case - with a VERY clear mix of show and working bred dogs, and folks working their dogs on a regular basis - with well known working kennels in the GK AND the main ring.
> 
> There are a few, but compared to the working community the Gamekeepers ring at Crufts is a tiny representation of the working gundog world (and mainly attended by those who have show/dual purpose dogs or just fancy doing something a bit different once)  - I did not attend, but I could probably guess which FTW were there . I'm not sure how I can say that 'folks working their dogs on a regular basis could mean all manor of things and is not a reflection on whether they can 'hold thier own in the field'
> 
> ...


I wouldn't presume to know what your dogs abilities are, nor would I want to put off anyone who wants to dip their toe into gundog work for whatever reason and have said as much. There are huge differences in the requirements from someone who wants a rough shooting dog, a peg dog, picking up on a small syndicate shoot, picking up on a large commercial shoot and trailling (although novice / AA trialling will often be on a level of a small syndicate shoot). Many dogs will be capable with training of enjoying working at the basic levels - and that's great, for many they don't need more. However, there are comments about 'retrieves' and working instincts without, it would appear, any understanding of what working instincts are. A retrieve is the least of it. Most dogs will retrieve if not naturally, can easily be taught and not just gundogs either. The real qualities of a working gundog is their endurance (and I don't mean physical fitness) their drive to hunt, their keeness to keep going on any available scent, their ability to mark, to work out, when standing in line, which are the pricked birds etc etc. Jumping ability seems to be mentioned alot in these threads. I am fully aware that structure enables a dog, inspite of it's weight, of jumping (even though most of the working showbred dogs struggle with the higher fences and gates), but as many times as not, they are required to get under fences, through gaps and this is where the heavier frames struggle. I've already said that there are not as many fast, whippety working dogs out there as some comments would make us believe, and the reality is that speed is not actually the advantage that many assume it will be, but a heavy cumbersome body will disadvantage a dog regardless of how fit they are.

PS - your comments another post re European working awards sound like all things are equal. They are not - Our trials are a much higher standard than those abroad. In some contries, they only use cold game, others, they are done on dummies. The standards are not equal, so a comparison won't give a true picture.

And although it's from across the pond so you need to ignore the classifications which don't ring true here, some food for thought for all 
http://retrieverlife.com/what-is-a-labrador-retriever/?fb_action_ids=10200483376105955&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210200483376105955%22%3A545577468794156%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210200483376105955%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

rocco33 said:


> I wouldn't presume to know what your dogs abilities are, nor would I want to put off anyone who wants to dip their toe into gundog work for whatever reason and have said as much. There are huge differences in the requirements from someone who wants a rough shooting dog, a peg dog, picking up on a small syndicate shoot, picking up on a large commercial shoot and trailling (although novice / AA trialling will often be on a level of a small syndicate shoot). Many dogs will be capable with training of enjoying working at the basic levels - and that's great, for many they don't need more. However, there are comments about 'retrieves' and working instincts without, it would appear, any understanding of what working instincts are. A retrieve is the least of it. Most dogs will retrieve if not naturally, can easily be taught and not just gundogs either. The real qualities of a working gundog is their endurance (and I don't mean physical fitness) their drive to hunt, their keeness to keep going on any available scent, their ability to mark, to work out, when standing in line, which are the pricked birds etc etc. Jumping ability seems to be mentioned alot in these threads. I am fully aware that structure enables a dog, inspite of it's weight, of jumping (even though most of the working showbred dogs struggle with the higher fences and gates), but as many times as not, they are required to get under fences, through gaps and this is where the heavier frames struggle. I've already said that there are not as many fast, whippety working dogs out there as some comments would make us believe, and the reality is that speed is not actually the advantage that many assume it will be, but a heavy cumbersome body will disadvantage a dog regardless of how fit they are.
> 
> PS - your comments another post re European working awards sound like all things are equal. They are not - Our trials are a much higher standard than those abroad. In some contries, they only use cold game, others, they are done on dummies. The standards are not equal, so a comparison won't give a true picture.
> 
> ...


Great video. Perfectly summerizes how I feel about the breed :thumbup1:


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

I will say I think on times he was a bit overawed with the big ring BUT his owner/handler worked hard to get him back on form, he cannot be over fat to be able to move as he did with power and drive he moved with ease and covered the ground as he should do.


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Rocco - my apologies if you thought I meant you when I said about people "accusing me of believing they knew the type of dog I like" - that wasn't aimed at you at all - but it is something that has been thrown at me in the last couple of days post Crufts because I defended our BOB who went on to achieve one of the highest spots taken by a Lab in a long time.

As I've said on many occasions, my own dogs are lighter in frame than the majority of show-bred dogs but would most likely be chunkier than the majority of wprking bred dogs field (although I know for a fact there are chunkier dogs out there than mine who have achieved FT CH status. 

My lightest dog is just 26kg - she is light on bone - but does have a nice body and well sprung rib, but still held her own in the few shows she went to (under all rounders and breed specialists) -sadly, we had to stop showing her because she didn't like It to start with, and became less enamoured with it as we time went on.

But she does prove that a dog doesn't have to significant substance to hold its own in the ring at Open show level at least - but it also doesn't take anything away from those dogs with significantly more substance who conform well to the breed standard but are not fat, and that is predominantly the type of dog you will see in the show-ring, although there has been a shift in recent times to more moderate dogs by many owners and breeders. 

These days (with a few exceptions of dogs I see that I particularly like and close friends dogs) I generally keep my opinion on other people's dogs for when I judge and my critiques. 

That doesn't mean I haven't made generic comments about working dogs I have - and I have made generic statements that there are show dogs who are overdone - neither of those are aimed at any particular dog, and if I see dogs that fit that descriptor, I keep my thoughts to myself, or again, they may be shared with the closest of my friends - and I've learnt the hard way that true friends are few and far between.

For me personally, I like a middle of the road dog who would be capable (possibly with training) of working all day if their instincts lay in that area - and I appreciate you saying "don't get distressed" - but that's easy to say when you know they have so much more to give - but that it is my own limited physical mobility which prevents them from doing it - maybe that's me feeling a tad sorry for myself as well - and a hint of jealousy that I will never be able to attempt what so many of my peers have done. 

--------------------------------------

This all started because I felt infuriated by some of the really nasty comments about a beautiful dog who was, whilst carrying more substance than I like in my own dogs, the epitome of what a Labrador should be - as I've said before - the substance is secondary - it's how the dog is constructed that's key - and to me (and clearly to several judges at Crufts and across the globe) felt that this dog was beautifully constructed and balanced, and most certainly not carrying any excess weight.

That doesn't mean I would rush out and try and get a dog just like him - you have to be true to yourself in the type you are aiming for, and at times, that might lead to having to understand the sacrifices you make as to your limitations in following your chosen hobby - that's in addition to any faults a dog may have - some which may be disguised by a good handler, others may not. 

-----------------------------------------

The comments over this lovely dog (and other high achievers) have been, at times, hurtful and downright insulting (and I don't doubt what you have said Rocco about comments coming the other way) this isn't aimed at you.

The point is insulting these dogs (generically as the lab is far from the only dog who's got it in the neck) is spiteful and for the large majority based solely on an uneducated and uninformed views from a wide range of people.

Is this possibly not what happens in many walks of life - not just about dogs, making you wonder if jealousy plays a part, and where people would be so critical if it was them, their brother, sister, husband, child up there with their dog.

====================================

I really do not have any issue with people liking different types of Labrador (or any other breed) - what a boring world it would be if we all liked the same things - and that goes as much for life partners as it does for dogs,

Think how boring life would be if carpet shops only sold one style of carpet, or garages only sold one type of car - I like being in and driving large cars, a lot of people like teeny cars such as the SMART car - as is their prerogative - and the same goes for dogs of all shapes, sizes, breeds and even crosses.

But NONE of this gives people the right to so publically criticise the winning dogs - if you want to know more about the type of dog you like - go to shows, go on working trials (I wish I could - Champ show judges now have to) - go to see assistance dogs in action - or whatever activity your breed of choice is involved in - and learn to understand why there are (rightly or wrongly) different types - and if you feel so incensed or enthused about these differences, then take the time to get involved in that breed because that is the only true way your opinions may hold any merit - and just remember, Rome wasn't built in a day.


----------



## Pixieandbow (Feb 27, 2013)

shetlandlover said:


> This is exactly what I was saying the other day, it's rude to bad mouth someone else's dog. How would most of the members on here feel if they found a forum full of people calling their dog fat, flabby and needing "weight watchers". I know I would be very upset.
> 
> He's not fat, you can see he's not.


Maybe we should start discussing owners in the same way and see how they like it or measure up to 'ideals'


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Pixieandbow said:


> Maybe we should start discussing owners in the same way and see how they like it or measure up to 'ideals'


lol well some need to rethink their bra wear


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

What a lovely picture of a clumber. Gorgeous dog. :001_tt1:

I loved the lab who came second. I wasn't sure whether he was carrying too much weight or not tbh. I loved that he looked really happy and was still bouncing at the end of the day. Usually I prefer lighter types of dog, but to me he shone as a dog I would really love to own and I would normally go for long haired dogs and workers. Singing:

I think in this instance it's really not obvious that the dog is too fat, nor is it obvious that he's suffering in any way, so I do feel that the criticism in this case is unfounded. imo



> lol well some need to rethink their bra wear


"And now all the way around the ring, so we get a really good look at that movement." Oooer Missus.


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

My main thought on the Lab was that I'd love to be able to lay my hands on him, if only because I seldom see show-bred Labs. 
Thought he looked a bit fat at first but on the move I definitely saw a flash of ribcage, and that head and those legs screamed substance. 

He isn't my kind of Lab - give me a solid but lithe working bred dog any day - but there's no need for some of the harsher insults being thrown around. Nothing wrong with a healthy debate about weight though, especially if it spreads awareness of obesity!
At the end of the day I'm neither a judge, nor the owner, nor a Labrador expert, and while he's heavier than my own ideal I know full well that body condition can't be judged by TV footage of the judging. He looked like a proper character too.

Thought his daughter that took best puppy was a stunner 

Adore the Clumber on here!


----------



## DollyGirl08 (Dec 1, 2012)

This is Simba's dad;









Simba's grandad;









Simba's mom;









Simba....









I think he's got a mix of working and show bred dogs in his pedigree. Yet he looks like no lab i've ever seen before. I'm guessing he's a 'whippety' lab.


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

Simba has miles of leg! Handsome lad though  Scooter was an incredibly gangly youngster but looked more in proportion by the time he was around 4yrs, Simba's still got plenty of filling out to do (keep the photos coming as he does ).

Don't have any young Scooter photos on my laptop but he went from looking like a marginally less leggy Simba, to this:








He's 9 in this photo and still a svelte chap, but has "grown into himself".

Not worth mentioning Breeze because she barely looks like a Lab at all!


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Dogs with mixed breeding can look like a really versatile bunch. Simba may or may not fill out.

This is Dex at around 2 years of age:










And in a similar pose at 10 years of age, a few days ago:










Notice how much he has filled out around the face and is more 'blocky'. Males I find are very slow at maturing and look their best at 4-5 years. His breeding is roughly 50% working, 50% dual purpose (some show, some working).


----------



## DollyGirl08 (Dec 1, 2012)

Thanks  

Well he's 4 next month, eats double the amount Sandy does, but never fills out lol. I think he's just a very slim built boy.
Don't mention his legs...i reckon Sandy had a sneaky frolick with a giraffe!


----------

