And, to be fair, if you overlaid an angle diagram on those two photos, the show line dog looks to my eye (without the diagram imposed), to be far superior. The working line dog in the photo looks to have poorer shoulder conformation, and poorer angles at the rear than the show line dog.
Absolutely, the working dog is my ugly old red girl when she was a pup. And there is far more wrong with her appearance than her shoulders She has a dreadful tail, a snipey nose, and her ears are too long. I just wanted to demonstrate that labradors are not meant to have short legs.
Breeders seem to get an eye in for some part of the body and then go on to exaggerate that part, to the detriment of the dog. I find it sad that a shortcoated dog never seems to win!
I`m sorry but I was very disappointed to see the Lab , I was saddened to see the short legs which then made his back look long, like some type of miniature Labrador
The shoulder and rear angles are a health and performance issue though (unlike the nose, tail and ears). And I'm not calling anyone's dog ugly! Charlie's angles probably fall further short than those on Pippa's working line dog - and Charlie is the most beautiful dog in the world (for me). But this is what I mean (we'll need Rachael to move my dots around if I've got them in the wrong place! Which is quite likely). The angles at the front and rear are an important determinant of structural soundness. The winning Labrador: dots by julieandcharlie julieandcharlie, on Flickr What they should look like (this is from an athletic performance book - not about looks or showing dots #2 by julieandcharlie julieandcharlie, on Flickr
I am not sure whether the right comparison is B and C, or B and D - this seems to be about the depth of body vs leg, this depth of chest behind the leg is getting me. @Oberon? lengths by julieandcharlie julieandcharlie, on Flickr
I don't know about all the technical stuff which I know is what matters when it comes to showing but that winning labrador didn't look right. I know we've discussed this before but a I think a dog that wins best in breed should look fit for the purpose of that breed. You could be waiting a long time for those little legs to fetch your bird back. The Gordon setter was lovely.
Looking at the show dog and the dark yellow working dog, they are both taller than they are long (measuring back length from top of shoulder to base of tail). The working dog is indeed longer in the leg but also has a much straighter shoulder and a longer back. The show dog has better front angulation (more sloped back shoulder) and a shorter back. Overall there ends up being not much in it when it comes to the height versus length ratio. But I do agree that the show dog overall appears to be more stumpy. That's partly a function of the depth of chest as Julie mentioned. I think your dot placement is pretty good, Julie, just front one is out a bit I think and looks like it might be on the sternum rather than the point of the shoulder (which is higher up). It's a bit hard to tell without feeling the dog where everything is....pretty good go at it I'd say.
B and C. But B should be level with the top of the shoulder. It's made a bit fuzzy by the fact that there are loose/saggy pectorals (under the chest and appearing behind the front legs) and this lowers the point where the chest appears to end. Without counting that (ie measuring from bone rather than soft tissue) the leg length is in better proportion.
Yes, it's strange....I see that on a lot of show dogs. Do you think it's because the dog could lose a couple of kgs?
Don't know about all the technicalities of conformation but showed OH a photo of the winner and even in his uneducated opinion she was just wrong. Stubby legs spoil her otherwise good looks.
Is the technical stuff (very technical ) different for show and working lines then? The health and performance is presumably the same but the look is very different. I didn't see the labrador group but if that dog was thought to be the nearest to the breed standard I wish I had. It's a bonnie dog, lovely head but it doesn't look like the breed standard to me.
Ok. Let me put it this way. From what you are all saying, you would vastly prefer my dog, who looks to have much longer legs, than the show line dog in the photo. My dog's poor angles, have probably significantly contributed to his cruciate ligament problems, and his elbow problems (although the cause of that is slightly doubtful). So, given a choice between the dog in the photo, and my (much adored and loved) longer legged dog, the dog in the photo has a better chance of having good health and fewer joint problems.
At the risk of getting into something I admit to not knowing enough about do you think that maybe breeding to create the 'perfect' dog, creating the breed standard, creating the lab at Crufts may have contributed to labradors having problems like Charlie.
No, not at all - it is the exact opposite. If Charlie looked more like the show line Lab in the picture, he would be less likely, not more likely, to have any problems. And it is not the case that working line Labs have fewer problems than show line dogs (before anyone makes that claim).
The 'technical stuff' should be the same for both show and working lines because it's all actually based on function. When I see pics of working line dogs more often than not they have shoulders that are far too straight, meaning they have poor shock absorption. It makes them faster runners which is why it's selected for in working lines I guess. Show dogs are usually way better in this important aspect of 'fitness for function'.
Exactly. And Charlie is not - he looks much more like a working line dog, than a show line dog, on the front angles. This is not a good thing for him.
