RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

First Golden Retriever Bench Champion

24K views 105 replies 31 participants last post by  Cooper 
#1 ·
I found this photo on Facebook. For those who have stated that today's field Goldens more resemble the original "ideal", this photo is enlightening


http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=2873
This dog looks like he could physically handle today's field testing. Notice the length of leg and rear pasterns. Solid topline, nice neck-to-back transition. Moderate substance. Nice feet. No exaggeration in any feature. I do notice that the depth of chest does not reach down to the elbows, as is stated in our Standard today.
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
Looks much like my avatar. Nice looking dog and he certainly looks like he can do field work.
 
#3 ·
Hi Gerry:

There will be mention of Noranby Campfire in the Sept/Oct 2013 issue of the GRNews in an article done by Bill Feeney which I found in an old GRNews -- from the Archives. Also an article by the owner of Noranby Rowdy. In the September-October 2012 issue, Marcia Schlehr did an excellent article about Mrs. Charlesworth and the Noranby dogs. There is another photo of Campfire at nine years of age. He looks like he could still run a trial---also, his chest looked a little deeper with more maturity.

Thanks for finding this and putting this out there for us to see.

Glenda
 
#6 ·
Sometime someone forgot, "Pretty is as pretty does" and began breeding them to be fluffy instead of working retrievers. It is nearly as bad with the Labs. I would have to chuckle when someone would bring their "show dog" to a hunt test to show that they could play the game too. I would be out in a blind and though not in all cases, but most, you would hear the show dog huffing, puffing and wheezing to run a 100 yard mark.
 
#20 ·
It is MUCH worse in Labs in my opinion. Both show AND field breeders have done the breed wrong.

The dog pictured at the top of this thread is extremely pleasing to the eye. Obviously in shape to do an extended days work. I would love to have seen him at work-he must have moved effortlessly.-Paul
 
#9 ·
It is pretty remarkable that the almost identical transition took place in both the UK and the US/Canada during the same periods. Campfire appears in many of the pedigrees of our first North American Goldens. He also appears in the pedigree of Speedwell Pluto, who is very much the basis for almost all Goldens in NA.

This photo of Pluto doesn't show his whole body, but I've seen photos of his body, and they closely resemble Campfire.



An Am CH from the mid-50s begins to show some minor change, but still retains the basic shape
Wessala Pride of Golden Pine http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=1159



As late as the mid-70s you could still see the basic shape in this CH



But also in the mid-70s some subtle changes were takinig place in show dogs, as this dog shows more substance. I also notice the shorter rear pasterns and the more definitive stifle angulation. The forechest is more pronounced. There seems to be more rounding in the skull. The feathering on the front legs is increased. This dog's birthdate was 1973.



Maybe other people notice some other things?

Then, here is a dog whelped in 2004. If you take off some of the coat and pounds, you can still see the basic shape. After going through a phase of quite short legs, the length of leg has re-appeared.


One thing is obvious, Noranby Campfire was born in 1912 (!!). It took 60 years for the changes that took place between him and the dog born in 1973. We are now 40 years beyond this last dog shown. That's 100 years! This kind of "evolution" does not happen quickly.

I don't know any of these dogs personally ... I just followed pedigrees to find dogs of certain decades to see if trends could be followed.
 
#12 · (Edited)
Even that 2004 show champion is moderate compared to a lot of the "teddy bears" in the GRCA ads of today.

I don't think that it's particularly heart breaking as someone mentioned earlier. They are beautiful dogs with great personality and they fit the bill for a lot of house holds who don't use dogs for hunting or field tests. I have one at my house along with my field bred model. He is happy to go train with us and sit at the line watching his "sister" work. Then he gets his fun bumper for being a good boy. He is a joy to have in our lives and very cuddly. Great with my two toddler grandkids.

The only sad thing is when an unknowledgeable buyer goes to a show style breeder with hopes for a hunt test dog and the show style breeder says: "Sure, this dog will be fine for that."

Edit: That said, there ARE breeders out there who breed HT titled moderate dogs who can do the work. It's the extreme show style that I'm talking about.
 
#15 ·
The history of field lines might look somewhat different, Erik.

I would like to see more photos in GRCA News and k9data that show similar body shots of our field dogs. Same for our agility Goldens. I know it is not the nature of field people to do this :) ... the work is about a dog in action, not static ... but it is really historical information that can help new generations of Golden people learn about the breed.

Since structural integrity is very important to a working dog, the working Goldens have been "protected" ... to a degree ... by "natural selection". There are knowledgeable conformation experts who have found (through the CCA) that there IS some very admirable conformational structure expressed in the field Goldens who have participated in the CCA. Some observers at such events are sometimes surprised at the respectable structural scores that are given to the field Goldens. Those involved in field pursuits can benefit from expanding their education in this regard to further their understanding about how structural integrity furthers the purpose of keeping the dogs' bodies sound.

For example: there may be dogs that would resemble Campfire on a quick look. However, they may not have some of his structural virtues. Even I am not old enough to have known Campfire in the flesh :) ... so going by the photo, I see a front angulation that supports a nice length of neck set well onto his shoulder/withers making a smooth transition to his solid, level topline. Although it may be his position, it appears that his rear angulation is not quite as good as his front's.

The front end is a very important factor in a Golden's work. We have so often focused on the rear due to hip dysplasia; yet, years ago, Torch Flinn used to say that "the back end goes where the front end will take it." When a dog leaps a ditch, the front end is part of the launch; the back end helps. More important, perhaps, is that the front also takes the "punishment" of the landing; the back end does not take the same "jolt" that the front end has taken on the landing.

This could be why field Goldens often have a good front end. Working dogs who tend to "break down" often can be less likely to reach fullest potential and thereby NOT play as an important part in breeding (and, therefore, the future of the breeding programs). So, if two dogs have near-equal working ability, we can benefit by also then looking to the structural integrity of each of the dogs in making our choice of a stud dog or a puppy. Based on this pragmatic evidence of "durability", it is not so surprising that a Golden who works hard in the field has evolved a good front end. Also not surprising that, at least a few years back, there was quite a lot of discussion in conformation that front ends had "deteriorated". Use it or lose it?

The front angulation also has a role in supporting the neck. For the goose hunter, the neck needs this support in carrying a larger bird. We may not see a large bird like a goose in hunt tests or field trials, but hunters do.

You have seen portions of Marcia Schlehr's "Blue Book" on breed structure in the GRCA News. It is worth carefully removing those pages from the books and keeping them for future reference and study. Did you skip over them because you were busy that day? I've found that cutting out articles like those and saving them can provide interesting reading when you have more time. You can also get "The Blue Book" from GRCA for easier reference as well.
 
#16 ·
I am discovering another challenge to the contemporary show-bred Golden. I am training a puppy now, and he seems to have desire and talent. But I don't know how any of you evaluate structure through all of that coat! I have a hard time judging his structure and movement even to tell if he is sound or not.

Does anyone trim their Golden's coat for field work? This puppy's owner will allow it if there is some reason to think it will help.

Amy Dahl
 
#18 ·
I am discovering another challenge to the contemporary show-bred Golden. I am training a puppy now, and he seems to have desire and talent. But I don't know how any of you evaluate structure through all of that coat! I have a hard time judging his structure and movement even to tell if he is sound or not.

Does anyone trim their Golden's coat for field work? This puppy's owner will allow it if there is some reason to think it will help.
Amy Dahl
Definitely, it's useful to trim! Saves time and effort later :)

This is not a totally new problem ... in the article about Honor's Dorado of Sprindrif, it was noted that his owner hacked off his front "apron" and other unnecessary hair for field work. One of the photos showed the "hacked" apron pretty well.

I also trim the "pants" and tail of my girls before whelping.
 
#17 ·
There have been some photos of these early Goldens but getting truly good ones has proven extremely difficult----the quality is poor and doesn't reproduce well in a magazine. If anyone has actual photos of some of the early Goldens, I would love to have a good scan of them at 300 dpi, high resolution. In the last few years, the GRNews has featured some of the earlier Goldens in articles, with photos when available.

John---let me see if I can come up with some to send you, although they probably won't be in color. Look through some of the past issues under the articles "Great Goldens from the Past", if you see one you like, let me know, and I will try to send you a copy. When anyone asks me what breed my Goldens were/are, I state "They are field Goldens, and darn good ones."
 
#19 ·
A lot of very good information Gerry.

A thought and desire I have often had is wishing the golden could not get a CH without a significant working title. JH would not fit the bill in my opinion. Perhaps this approach would lend some credence to the Golden as a true sporting (field) dog. Perhaps the long and rather useless coats would fade away through necessity of field work. Perhaps working ability and talent would be placed a little higher on the show breeders wishes.

Any thoughts?

A side note: I am truly grateful to the works of Glenda Brown for all her hard with with the annual field write up in the Golden Retriever magazines. Education to the working merits of the breed is invaluable!
 
#22 ·
A thought and desire I have often had is wishing the golden could not get a CH without a significant working title. JH would not fit the bill in my opinion. Perhaps this approach would lend some credence to the Golden as a true sporting (field) dog. Perhaps the long and rather useless coats would fade away through necessity of field work. Perhaps working ability and talent would be placed a little higher on the show breeders wishes.

Any thoughts?
The AKC refuses to consider anything like this ... making one title dependent upon another. In the UK they have two titles: CH and SH CH. The CH title requires completing some basic working ability test. The other title is "Show Champion".

The Lab club tried imposing a rule on its members that they could only use the CH title if they also had completed the Lab WC. Essentially, either people didn't join the LRCA or ignored the rule. The Lab WC is MUCH less demanding than the Goldens & other retriever WCs.

AKC has also declined the request to add QAA as an after-the-name designation for retrievers. Canada does have such a designation. I'm not calling that a "title", but rather, a "designation" to point out those dogs who have reached a certain level of expertise.

What finally stimulated some owners of primarily show dogs has been the hunt test program.

The primary problem is that lower-level field titles are hard to evaluate if you do not see the dog perform (or at least know someone who has seen them perform, and whose opinion you trust). Some dogs (of any breed) can complete a WC or a JH and still not have the natural abilities we prefer.

Let me also qualify that the last paragraph does NOT mean that we shouldn't place some value on a lower-level title. Some dogs who never go beyond this lower level, due to who may own them, may very well have the natural abilities many of us seek. It can help expand the working gene pool for some who favor field over show, obedience or agility.

It also serves a secondary purpose. If someone unfamiliar with field work ventures into the field with their dogs for the first time, they will gain a better understanding of what the work involves and also will begin to gain insights into how some dogs do the work naturally, and some do not. The latter, alone, has great educational value for someone who will breed dogs.

A side note: I am truly grateful to the works of Glenda Brown for all her hard with with the annual field write up in the Golden Retriever magazines. Education to the working merits of the breed is invaluable!
It goes without saying that Glenda is one of Goldens' national treasures! As long as there are people like Glenda who can navigate the waters between field and show, there is hope for each group coming closer together, or at least understanding each other a little better.
 
#23 ·
Another thread is talking about the video of a long ago field trial... and one mentioned how surprised she was at the number of goldens! Yes goldens were once big players in the sport! Unfortunately they have lost a lot of ground... Is this to poor breeding on the part of the golden group or better breeding on the part of the lab group? Good campfire discussion.
At the beginning of US field trials I've read somewhere that Goldens were considered the superior water dog. How times have changed!

Why the change? There are probably several reasons.

Some years back, it was true that more people bred Labs for field work than for dog shows. That may still hold true. Someone else will have to track down the stats on that. WRT dog shows, fanciers seem to wreak much havoc with long-coated breeds ... the setters come to mind. My theory is that Goldens are too pretty for their own good :) Focusing on their coat and how it could be made even prettier seems to have played a role in the Golden attracting the attention of many people who valued the appearance v. purpose.

The tolerant temperament of Labs and Goldens made them both popular as family dogs first; hunters, second. The next step was that those who DID want a working retriever did NOT usually want the higher upkeep of the Golden coat as the coat evolved into a higher-maintenance realm. Even our fieldier Goldens can be higher maintenance than a Lab. (I'm not saying "high-maintenance", but just more than a Lab with no feathering at all.)

So, it may be just a matter of numbers: that there are more Lab breeders interested in purpose than dog shows.

Then we can get into the fact that Golden people may be less willing to send their dogs to pro trainers than Lab people. The percentage of successful field trial dogs who are fully owner-trained is very small. If you own Goldens, you may very well have a very emotional attachment to your individual dog. This could explain the relatively large numbers of Goldens (though still outnumbered by Labs) in hunt tests.

Those numbers decline, though, as you move to Master which is a level more difficult for the owner-trainer to do on their own. The e-collar is a valuable and sophisticated training tool. Many owner-trainers just don't have the ability to use it correctly. In today's world, very few dogs get a MH title who have been trained withoOUT the e-collar.

So ... the differences may be a numbers game. More people who want to breed Labs for field purposes, than there are Golden breeders who do so. We can't forget that the Goldens who do get those FC and AFC titles do so by excelling over some very good Labs :). That means that the Golden breeders who do focus on field traits aren't doing so badly.

I read somewhere here on RTF, and it's worth remembering in your darkest moments: The success rate in field trials is quite low. A lot of defeats v. very few ribbons. Every time you go home without a ribbon, there are also a LOT of Labs to keep you company :)

We never see how many dogs are washed out v. the number who succeed. It might be safe to guess that if many more Labs are purchased for field trials, there are also many more who don't succeed. Just a matter of numbers.

I do NOT believe that there are fewer Goldens for the reason often cited: the tests are designed for Labs. I think that's a cop-out. Both breeds are physically capable of doing the tests. Both breeds are intelligent enough to learn the concepts (even as those concepts have evolved into greater complexity over time). Good field Goldens can compare in drive and birdiness to Labs. The key, I think, is presentation of the information. Remember, Einstein was considered a dolt in school ... until he proved himself to be a genius :) Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were both geniuses with computers ... so we ended up with MS-DOS and also with Apple operating systems. Great minds may not always think alike?

I apologize for rambling thoughts ...
 
#26 ·
Glenda you are truly one of my heros in the game. As I was training yesterday I thought of the week I got to spend in Montana with your training group. I learned a lot! Your further support through the years has been nothing short of a blessing. I truly thank you for your personal help and the push you have given the golden through the years!
 
#25 ·
Wonderful post, Gerry - thanks for writing it!

As new as I am to field sport, I have already had a few dealings with Glenda via email. You are very appreciated Glenda for your time and effort and willingness to share your vast knowledge and resources. Not to even mention your contributions to GRCA News and the Golden gene pool.

Jennifer
 
#27 ·
Gerry,
Thanks much for the wonderful response! This has been a wonderful discussion but I must leave it! I will be gone for a week of professional training (for me, not the dogs). Location reportedly has no outside connection.

Gerry I wish to also thank you for your work with goldens, especially with the pra-prcd stuff. We have not met (yet) but likely will at a trial or test someday!

Randy
 
#33 · (Edited)
Breeding for "conformation" effs everything up.
That's what needs to be taken from this.

OUR ideas of "conformation" are hopelessly, and irreparably flawed.

What works in the field, is simply what WORKS in the field. As long as there is a difference between the bench and the field, a breed split is the inevitable outcome. The only other option, is mediocrity in both venues.

Pick a venue and excel in it. That's what Labs did.
And they picked the one that mattered.
 
#34 · (Edited)
Gotta disagree with you here, in my humble and often wrong opinion.

Breeding strictly to win is what effs everything up. Doesn't matter which venue you are trying to win.

"Conformation" means the dog conforms to the breed standard. Don't see how breeding to conform to the standard could possibly eff everything up. It's when people breed to only select parts of the standard, ignoring the other parts, that we have issues. For example, the Golden standard reads, "primarily a hunting dog...." (often ignored), also says, "Coat -- Dense and water repellent with good undercoat. Outer coat firm and resilient, neither coarse nor silky, lying close to body; may be straight or wavy...." (often ignored)...and so on.
 
#42 ·
"Like" button for John's post ... and for Ann and Glenda for doing this. In the past, offers like this have been made to the conformation judges, but the invitation was not accepted. So, perhaps these particular judges deserve an extra warm welcome for stepping outside of their comfort zone?

It can do no harm at all for the judges to see the extraordinary physical and mental capabilities of the dogs running the field trial.

It is also part of Glenda's handiwork that some of the field trial dogs have been included as "demo dogs" in the Judges' Education seminars over the past several years at the National Specialties. For those judges, it may be one of the few times they ever have a chance to put their hands on such dogs. It can only be a good thing to give them such an experience.
 
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