RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

How Labradors are Supposed to Look? (pics)

51K views 178 replies 78 participants last post by  RJW 
#1 ·
A brief reminder. According to all records, Jay Carlisle was responsible for first popularizing the Labrador Retrievers to the U.S. As a matter of fact in the 1950s, the LRC itself recognized him as "singly the most important person responsible for the Labrador's popularity in America."

Jay Carlisle got his first Lab in 1933 and founded Wingan Kennels. To operate the kennel and train the dogs he imported a master dog trainer from Scotland named Dave Elliot. Dave was revered by his peers for his understanding of every element about dogs -- how they think, how they learn, how they work, how they should look. (Trivia: It was Elliot that introduced whistling and handling to retriever trials).

Three years later Elliot wrote and Carlisle published a book called The Labrador Retriever. The book contains four short chapters and is illustrated with photos of the champion Labradors of the time. The first chapter is the breed standard. The second chapter are some insights into training the breed. The third chapter is a presentation on why there should never be a split in the breed between dogs used for trials and dogs used just for hunting. The final chapter is advice to judges for finding the best dogs at trials.

So what can we extrapolate so far. The Labrador Retriever was, is, and always was intended to be a WORKING animal. That was their function.

Form follows function. When the football coach needs someone to protect his quarterback, he looks for a very big, strong man. When he looks for a running back, he looks for someone with speed and quickness. Similarly when beauty contest judges are looking for a winner, they look for exaggerated beauty features like big toothy smiles, large breasts, slim waist and toned legs.

According to Richard Wolters in his book Duck Dogs the split in the breed between field and show began in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when the guardianship of the conformation side of the breed was turned over to people who paid lip service to the working side but had no actual involvement, in particular Helen Warwick. Under her powerful tutelage as the breed columnist for twenty years of the AKC Gazette, the show side of the breed became anglophiled -- enamored with how British show Labs (the split had already occurred over there) looked, importing studs and dams from England, and importing judges from England to judge at Labrador specialties.

So what do we take from this? When the function of the Lab became winning conformation shows (read "beauty contests") those fanciers moved the form of the Lab to accommodate that function. It was the show side that derivated from the original breed type, not the field side.

And so now I show you scans from Carlisle's and Elliot's book The Labrador Retriever.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I look at these pictures and I see where we breeders could improve on the structure of these animals, but should we have changed their type? This is from a time when the breed's form matched its function!!







 
#4 ·
To me, these dogs, these conformation champion dogs of the 1930s look like our field dogs of today! It is the show side that changed the look and type of the breed, not the field side. It is the show side that changed the breeds function so they changed the form!

I hope those of you who have field Labs, can now hold your head a little higher about the way your dog looks.
 
#5 ·
maybe its just me, but i see these dogs as in the middle, some from each side. i think the fields have gone thinner and more athletic that these examples and the show piggier. the difference is the show end did it deliberately, and the field line did it accidentally while focusing mostly on performance.

equal blame regards....
 
#57 · (Edited)
While I agree for the most part with the above perspective...I'm not so sure that the "blame" as it were, is equal.

When you soley breed based on physical appearance..You're cognitively manipultating the results as far as physical appearance is concerned irregardless of physical ability and known undesirable traits genetic and otherwise....When you breed for preformance traits you are also making a cognitive choice based on desired performace in both physical as well as mental ability. In both cases you're intention is to manipulate the outcome. However, I feel the more "risky" route in terms of "bettering the breed" Is the one where appearnce takes center stage.

Conversely, this could be argued with the recent emergence of EIC and other performance driven maladies
 
#7 ·
I tend to agree with David. I think the second set of pictures reflects, the most, what the standard is supposed to look like.
 
#13 ·
:shock:

I think the reason we clean water making it clear is because that is the way people want it, to be able to open their eyes underwater and still be able to see. :rolleyes:
 
#10 ·
Interesting bit of history. I have NEVER thought the Lab "Breed Standard" found in today's show ring was an attractive dog. Much prefer an athletic dog which the show ring does not encourage or represent. AKC can take the current Breed Standard and stick it......er......on the dark side of the moon. And the history of how the show ring got away from athletic dogs to short tails, short legs, big heads and over weight animals is very interesting. I'll take a dog that looks like Super Chief everytime. Now that was a nice looking dog!
 
#47 ·
Here is a couple pics of Super Chief I found on the net (hope its ok)!




 
#11 ·
Kevin, thank you, that too was worth the read.

Those dogs in the pictures look a lot like working dogs I see.
 
#12 ·
reminds me that I had a grandson of Super Chief a long long time ago - great looking and good field work - held back by his handler of course.
 
#15 ·
I agree that these pictures show more of the field labs then the show dogs, but...I feel that "field breeders" are more concerned with the function then form. From the people I have talked to the dog has to look right but function is the key. After all, if the dog doesn't do what it was originally bred to do, in my mind, isn't a "dog," it is something else.

Breed to the standard (form and function) and you should have a good dog.
 
#16 ·
I agree that these pictures show more of the field labs then the show dogs, but...I feel that "field breeders" are more concerned with the function then form.
I agree.

Breed to the standard (form and function) and you should have a good dog.
Form and function were matched according to the standard back when that book was written and those pictures were taken.

If the function of the Lab is to work, who is currently breeding the correct form?
 
#19 ·
I should have said one more thing --

These pictures are from an age when dual champions were not only a possibility, they were a reality!

-- Who went the wrong direction again?
 
#22 ·
I think a better question may be: Who went the wrong direction more? We can not sit here and say that field line breeders have not lost some of the conformation. In my opinion, they have......just not nearly as much as the show lines have. We can all see that today's show lines are no where near those pictured in your excellent post.

Did you post somewhere else that they since have also changed the breed standard, since that of 1930. I am not sure of the changes, but I thought they had, and based on that, it is my understanding that even those pictured from 1930 would not even meet today's standard....(then again, I may be completely wrong and very delirious).
 
#30 · (Edited)
Did you post somewhere else that they since have also changed the breed standard, since that of 1930.
It was revised as recently as 1994. Most changes have been for explanation purposes, few have been substantive. The substantive change in 1994 was related to size.

I am not sure of the changes, but I thought they had, and based on that, it is my understanding that even those pictured from 1930 would not even meet today's standard....(then again, I may be completely wrong and very delirious).
The problem with that argument is that the standard is open to interpretation. When the authors wrote "athletic," to conformation breeders today that says something completely different when they read it. If the authors envisioned the dogs pictured when they first wrote it, I believe they would be horrified by what wins in the conformation ring today.
 
#25 · (Edited)
I may be wrong (and have been many times), but AKC does NOT establish the breed standard...it is the Labrador club. Amnd who makes up the Labrador Club? When you have judges and people active in the breed club AND they produce dogs that do not look like the standard from 20 or even 30 years ago, what tyde lab is put up in the show? Bingo! Dogs that look like what the judges produce.

I agree with Kevin totally. Search for the great conformation stud dog named Dickendall Arnold and then you convince me which side made the biggest move from beautiful labs from the 70's. And Kevin can help me with the name of the great yellow stud dog that was the stud from the 70's - compare him to other conformation dogs and field dogs... remember now, Shamrock Acres Light Brigade!
 
#26 ·
. Search for the great conformation stud dog named Dickendall Arnold and then you convince me which side made the biggest move from beautiful labs from the 70's. And Kevin can help me with the name of the great yellow stud dog that wasw the stud from the 70's - compare him to opther conformation dogs and field dogs...
If that is the case, then wouldn't the question be, which side made the biggest move between the 30's (which is what the OP stated, based on Dual Champions), and the 70's, which you just mentioned?

I think you can see that the move was made within that period, and it still fits in with the OP argument.....Just my opinion
 
#27 ·
I kind of like these dogs...
 
#32 ·
I'm sure everyone gets tired of my posting this picture but as long as there is debate over the breed std I will continue to remind everyone that our field dogs today look much more like the DCs of 50-60 yrs ago than the bench dogs of today.
I agree. I love their looks, and they all have snouts, unlike some of the ring winners today.
 
#33 ·
I do not believe that substantial change was made in the 30's...no where have I seen the
Rottie head on any labs from earlier times nor do want to see it now...
.

I own a male out of Blackwater Rudy on one side and Watermarks the Boss on the other. He so reminds me of Light Brigade (I think that it is the old lines showing through) and inevidiably someone comes up to ask about his pedigree. He also reminds me of the labs that we bought in the 60's...I still favor that old look.

(PS...please ignor my misspellings and typos...I am under the influence from TKR surgery last week)
 
#35 ·


Tank and Lottie. that is a WHOLE LOT of dog in that picture
 
#36 ·
I hope the OP doesn't mind, I have a collection of English Dual Ch photos that I can add to this conversation, as well as a couple of American firsts. Give me a moment, there will have to be several posts due to the number of photos.

DC Banchory Bolo


DC Banchory Sunspeck


DC Titus of Whitmore


DC Bramshaw Bob


DC Banchory Painter


DC Lochar Nessie
 
#39 ·
Anyway, there they are. A great line up of who's who from the early history of the Labrador retriever. I can't help but notice that none of these dogs look much like what is winning in the Show ring today. I do see a closer similarity to the Field labs in type and structure, though not as exaggerated like some of today's field labs. Nice moderate dogs IMHO, I just wish there were more emphasis on producing this kind of Lab instead of the divergent movement we see that only seems to be widening the gap between field and show.
Great topic!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top