Not sure where to put this really, but just wanted the viewpoints of a few people, not necessarily just those with Labs.  Having been to a show recently, with my stand, I was somewhat taken aback, when a very well known person in the breed, stated quite openly, that to get anywhere at champdog level and above, their breed needed to carry extra weight for the show ring. 

I've heard people with Labs defend the show weight for such a long time, and for so many reasons, to hear this open opinion was actually quite refreshing in one instance, and saddening in the next in that anyone would stack weight on their dog simply to show it?? 

I am sure they don't stack the weight on, but perhaps some of the thinner types that want a chance of winning, need to add a little weight on so that they look more uniform like the rest, therefore making the judging fairer/easier..

At a show at the weekend most of the same breeds pretty much looked almost identical I would say weight wise, so perhaps it wouldn't be ideal to have a huge swing in weights of the labs in the ring. So they try and stick to within a certain weight range maybe. Labs aren't known for being the skinniest are they (I don't think), specially spayed bitches, do they show spayed bitches?

So long as it's not an unhealthy weight then I'm sure the dogs enjoy being fed extra anyway. :)

Yes they show spayed bitches, but, when you hear of examples of people putting  1 stone on a dog to show, you have to wonder if that's right? 

> At a show at the weekend most of the same breeds pretty much looked almost identical I would say weight wise, so perhaps it wouldn't be ideal to have a huge swing in weights of the labs in the ring. So they try and stick to within a certain weight range maybe

There is perhaps something to that, not so much for the reason you say, but people wanting their dogs to look more mature than they are so they are competitive against the mature exhibits sooner.

People mistake weight for body/maturity.

How often have we had posts on champs asking how to get weight on their dog, and the real answer is let the adolescent develop slowly in it's own time instead of trying to enhance the look of body and maturity.

If you looked carefully at the judging of classes, the dogs would have looked similar in the classes as the puppies are judged with puppies, juniors with juniors, and then the classes based on wins will have dogs of a similar level/age/quality.

It is in the challenge that you suddenly see the difference between a baby and a fully mature adult in Open, and why a dog that won out of lower classes quickly can look out of place in the Open class as it isn't as mature as the others and looks the odd man out, often doing less well for a while.

1 stone does sound a little excessive for a dog. Is it the non spayed bitches that need to put the weight on to get nearer the spayed ones I wonder.

Very true, but with the instance of Labs, people often cite the whippety thin working type, vs the show type, how much of that (or how little) is down to carrying extra for the ring I sometimes wonder??

The 1 stone is no joke btw, this is fact, from some one who has done well with their Labs.  How can it be beneficial to any dog to have 1 stone extra to wander around with?

So back to your original question then why do they need to carry extra weight for the ring, rather than the more leaner and healthier look of the working type.

It is not beneficial at all to carry extra weight, for the dogs, but hey, I'm a fan of the GSD and I think that some of the types of GSD shape are not exactly in my opinion healthy looking, sloppy backs and all.

Your avatar there that's not a lab though is it? :) and by the way I think it is the best avatar picture after mine on the whole forum.lol

Actually yes, my avatar is a Lab, she's just very pale chocolate, something else some of the show folk have berrated her for, despite being able to do what she was bred to do ;)

She's a halfie, half show, half mix of breeding, and has a heritage going back to banchory bolo, one of the greatest dual champions.  But that's by the by, I don't believe in coffee table Labs, and having seen some that are incapable of even running, it begged the question, why is it that people believe generally Labs need to be overweight, and even more, why, from my limited experience, is weight rewarded in the show ring?  Or at the very least, touted to be? 

I have just had a quick peek at your website and noticed she is a lab, just an amazing coloured 1 at that, never seen a ginger 1 before lol you'll be marked down for that my girl,

It does beg the question that I thought a show dog is supposed to look the way it would to perform the job it was bred to do, so lab = gundog = fitness surely?

There you go, what do I know I don't even show.

Had this conversation before, why should she be marked down for the tone of liver?  She is liver all over, and is capable of throwing darker liver pups, just as a darker liver Lab (or a black or yellow Lab) is capable of throwing paler liver pups?  Unless you dna tested every Labrador to ascertain what they are genetically, coat colour wise, I think it's a failure on the part of anyone looking at a chocolate Lab to discount them on their appearance of coat shade, unless they are mismarked. 

No, not a question at all about show/working dogs, but a note from a few posts on here, and recent experiences, that Labradors are fat in the show ring.  Mine most certainly aren't fat, but then I don't show them ;)

> Mine most certainly aren't fat, but then I don't show them ;-)

And you don't want to either if they have to be little fatties to even have any chance of winning. Oh and personally I think there is nothing wrong with liver colour, though it looks more tan to me, mind ;) pleasant change from the black and yellow.

It's very strange as it certainly isn't desirable in my breed in the UK.  Ours are quite a foody breed and so many pet owners get them too heavy.  I have often met people who say great Aunt Maud or Uncle Henry had one of those and it was bigger (what they mean is it looked bigger as ti was fat).

Mind you I have seen some working lien Labradors that really do look like they have whippet in them, very fine bones and narrow.

Neither is like the prototype as seen by Countess Howe's dogs, which are sturdily made,b ut plenty of daylight and athletic looking.

The same could be said of Bull Terriers.  They are supposed to be the Gladiator of the dog world, not like so many I see at shows the 'Sumo wrestler'.

> not like so many I see at shows the 'Sumo wrestler'.

Oh I missed them were they in the interval. lol

Judges are now supposed to penalise if the dog is too fat or too thin ;)

I suppose a lot comes down to the judges own personal taste, some judges might prefer a little more meet on the bones than others do.
Personally I do too. ;)

It used to be that a show labrador would be fed double its maintenance ration in the weeks before a show, deliberately to put weight on it, to the extent that the breed became as much of a figure of fun as the banana-backed GSDs. The Kennel Club have taken steps to stop this because of the health impact, and the most recent Breed Standard say under 'characteristics' "very agile (which precludes excessive body weight or excessive substance)."

As all the standards also say "Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog, and on the dog's ability to perform its traditional work", judges should penalise any that are overweight. However old habits die hard, and it sounds as though they're still porkers. :-(

Find that the amount of weight carried by most dogs follows the amount of bone laid down. Dogs that are of light bone often have less weight and less muscle, those with too much bone who often have amounts of unneeded flesh as well, on balance dogs with moderate bone carry the correct amount of weight and look to the eye alone correct. However as Brainless says you do see dogs with good bone and correct conformation that have been looked after too well.

The Labs I have "gone over" are of both types show & work and there is a definite difference in the construction as well as the weight carried although some of the working dogs are the same shape as those seen in the show ring and one would think that is because they carry a lot of show genes or are indeed full blown show pedigree.

What I am trying to say, not very briefly, is that some of the difference is down to the way they are built although there will be overweight Labs just as you will see overweight Greyhounds and Whippets. Oh! and handlers.

If it has become a habit to show Labs in an overweight condition then this is directly down to the judges but it could also be if you touch the dog you will find all the thought to be flesh will turn out to be solid muscle.

Talking of colour the Lab standard says Yellows range from Light cream to red fox  which is what S Ls dog looks but unless she is a show dog it does not matter what colour it is.

In my eyes many are overweight.  Not many years ago I saw one that actually could hardly move it was so overweight and it won BIS!  Quite shocking really.  Though in some of the working dogs even at the start of the season to me are way to thin.  Think there needs to be something inbetween.

We've always had working Lab's here and they in general have been of good size, until this current one who is very small is stature - All have been capable of doing a days work.

Its not just Lab's but other breeds too that can carry too much weight. Its not always about maturity either as some breeds seem to think the bigger the better, which means that the smaller dogs have weight piled onto them, which is fat in order to compete with the larger built dogs.

You can see when a dog is fat, normally the top line rolls about a lot.

It does come down to the judges and you will normally find that breed judges will be more accepting of weight(fat) than an all rounder. This is how breeds change, a few judges start looking at something different and then all of a sudden it becomes the rage to have a dog like that.

Just on another note with regards type, last year I saw a lovely Goldie at an open show, very different to all of the others there, had a very broad head and was actually golden in colour. The owner said he was of the old type and had never done anything because he didn't conform to what was the norm now. As it was after cooing over him he only went and got BOB!!! They too are a breed which have changed a lot in recent years.

had a very broad head and was actually golden in colour

There was a time 20 years ago when the GR went through a period when the heads became very overdone and resembled a Newfoundland the breeders have now sorted the head and it is no longer overdone, the colour should not be a problem although a judge may like one shade above another they are all correct, I prefer the darker dog myself but unfortunately most of the rings I have watched lately the darker dogs do not have the quality of some of the near white ones.

Things do go in circles though it will return to more darker dogs all it will take will be a gold dog wining well and the breeders will start to consider keeping a darker dog for the ring instead of the light one but I do hope the "Newfoundland head" will not return.

A couple of years ago I saw a litter of GRs which I could have sworn were albino newfoundlands. :-( Awful.

A girl at the park has a gorgeous almost white pup retreiver with a pillar box red collar and red heart shaped dog tag sets the whole look off wonderfully.

DD you are an old softy, judge a dog by its Ahh factor not that there is anything wrong with that but is probably very different to the way most of us look at dogs.

Wow, thanks for all the replies, it's something that greatly perplexes me, as I do know a few people who show Labs that genuinely believe their dogs don't carry an ounce of extra padding, and to be fair, looking at their photos, they really don't look to be.  Although I know you can only really tell if you get your hands on a dog, rather than just a photo, but some of the Labs do look like they are carrying much more than I personally would let mine carry, sometimes an awful lot more.  Funnily enough, just back from the vets for our annual boosters, which is pretty much the only time I see the vet nowadays, both of mine were weighed, Indie, who is slightly larger (approx 24" at the shoulder and medium boned) weighs 32kgs, and I'd rather have her around the 30kg mark, Tau who is slightly smaller, is 29.1kgs, and spot on weight wise.  The vet did say I was splitting hairs with Indie's weight, she is very much within their acceptable boundaries, it is just that with her having had a cruciate op I prefer to keep her on the lighter side of acceptable, difficult with a girl that loves her food!!! 

> DD you are an old softy,

Hey less of the old you lol

It is like people SL, some carry more flesh than others and it seems to depend, given a good diet, that those who are heavier are those with a sturdier frame. Undoubtedly some show dogs will be overweight and some under, that is the way of nature what is wrong is when the judge accepts the overweight unless it is the best there then there is not only an excuse but can lead to people allowing their dogs to follow suit so IMO the judge should make it clear. Something like awarded 1st despite being overweight because of her sound movement and type, that will let everyone know that the dog won despite the weight and not because of it.

You are right it is a shock sometimes when you put your hands on a dog you think fat to find it has a coat over 2" thick and underneath you find the ribs.

My GSD male weighs in at 35kg and looks quite puny for a male, compared to that wonderful champ Elmo and other show types, but I can't get the weight on him he's so energetic, he just burns what he eats, which because he is only a pet is fine by me, no good being heavy for a GSD with their hip problems.

A whole kennel of porkers!

Been there, but not seen their dogs.. Yes they to me hold too much weight for a Lab.

They look as if they would struggle to waddle round never mind run :-O

I'd have to agree, they really do look like they are carrying too much weight; but then aren't the US Labs bigger boned as well? 

I hate to see overweight dogs, it really does them no good, I think it's particularly sad when you see it with a breed you know can be prone to joint problems.  I know my bitch is lighter than many, and people may not think 2kg's is worrying, but I would feel irresponsible if I let her weight slowly creep up to a point where it's possibly exacerbating her joints, her knee is quite calcified now, much thicker than the other knee, but no signs of any lameness for over a year, which I'm pleased with. 

It's their short little stumpy legs makes 'm look worse. Bless if only they could grow a few inches.

Lisa will like us lot, not! lol Shall I drop her a comment, put your dogs on diets love.lol kiddin

I do see some labs that are quite a bit taller than those in the pictures, are they not suitable to show?

There is a guide in the breed standard, you do get Labs that are too tall or even too short, in some countries they actually measure the height of Labs in the show ring, but in the UK, I think it's just done by eye?  As well as being taller, if they're not as round, that will make them look a lot more upright.  You've obviously seen the photos of my two, Indie is big for a bitch, too big really, she's over the height for bitches according to the breed standard. 

>A whole kennel of porkers!

Some dogs probably shouldn't be photographed in longish grass either - where did their legs go?!? :)

> You've obviously seen the photos of my two, Indie is big for a bitch, too big really, she's over the height for bitches according to the breed standard.

I'd say yours are just right, I like that size. If you were to mate your bitch with a tallish dog, these pups would be not be very good for showing would they, if you wanted a winner according to this guide. This guide business is a little too fussy in my eyes a lab is a lab and why can't they be judged on other important issues, like coat condition and fit for purpose of the job they were intended to do, etc rather than height. Just my opinion like. :)

I think there are four things that are important with Labradors, temperament, ability, conformation and health, and a good Labrador, to me, will have been bred with all those four aspects in mind.  Some breed with less regard to one or more of those aspects, and also look at them differently, many working and show folk are miles apart on conformation issues.  There are a lot of Labrador sizes and shapes, and some are without a doubt far too extreme, I like the middle ground, with healthy size and shape, that can do what it was bred to do, and has that fab Labrador character.

As for sticking a dog on Indie, it'd be hypothetical, she's spayed, but she's at the top end of size I think, particularly for a bitch, Tau is a half sister and is just that bit lighter boned and smaller, which is my ideal. Neither are very good for showing, as I mentioned, Indie's too big, and has the wrong shaped rib cage, she's not as barrelly as the breed standard calls for, all her chest size is in depth, which means her tuck up is exaggerated.  Tau's got a better shaped rib cage, and has some very nice points about her I feel, but her coat colour would very much go against her. 

Penalising by coat colour that is ridiculous in my eyes.

Thing is Sian too much one way or the other from the ideal height makes s a dog untypical.

As you have noticed a lot of those dogs seem short on the leg and are probably on the smaller height.

Too small you get dumpy little dogs that would e hard put to be athletic and clear a five bar gate, too tall and light in bone the dog hasn't got the compact power/strength.

My breed ideally bitches at 19 1/2 inches and males 20 1/2.  In their homeland where they are primarily used for hunting a dog I believe will not get a First grading and qualify for champion certificates if it is more than 1cm (less than 1/2 inch) under the ideal or more than 2cm (just under an inch) over the ideal height. 

They deem correct size as important for function, not a beauty point, and dogs at shows are in the breed all measured. 

In the USA on the other hand it seems the bigger the better and you have dogs of correct height often struggling against over size exhibits of 22 - 23 inches, who because of the height lack the compactness needed for the Agility to duck and dive around their prey.

In the UK we tend to find from 19 - 20 1/2 acceptable for girls and 20 - 22 for the boys.

Well, technically, if it were a mismark, then I'd agree it's a fault, but for a shade of liver, I do agree with you that it's rubbish.  There are a couple of marks that seem to be allowable with Labs, medallions or chest flashes, which are mentioned in the breed standard, and bolo spots, which are not, but are not counted as a fault.  But shade of liver is an odd one, a lot of people are just adamant that pale chocolate is a fault, even though you can't tell by looking at a darker dog, or a black or yellow dog, whether they will carry a dilute gene for chocolate.  And what effect does the shade of liver have on the working ability or conformation of a dog, none whatsoever. 

> Penalising by coat colour that is ridiculous in my eyes

Shade yes, incorrect colour is another matter.  For example elkhounds are Grey that's it, but there have been liver pigmented individuals produced in the USA  which have brown lips, amber eyes and Peach coloured coats with brown tipping.

It is suspected that this colour crept in due to some illicit crossbreeding well in the past and is not acceptable.

I would not find a dog with this pigmentation acceptable as it causes light mucous membranes and light eyes very alien to the breed where dark pigment and eyes are a trademark.

If I wanted a Red Spitz there are other breeds available, including the black Pigmented Finnish Spitz and several other breeds.
If anything goes (any colour any size) then you no longer have distinct breeds.

Would an Irish Setter that wasn't Red but Black or Yellow, be an Irish Setter?

> And what effect does the shade of liver have on the working ability or conformation of a dog, none whatsoever. 

Exactly.

Were as short stumpy legs what use are them for this breed?

> Would an Irish Setter that wasn't Red but Black or Yellow, be an Irish Setter?

Now that is silly ;) Irish Setters are only in red, were as labs do have different colours, I know that much. lol

> But shade of liver is an odd one

Doesn't the standard say Liver/Chocolate? in other countries they expand on colour of Liver/Chocolate, where they only do for Yellows in UK.

AKC standard: ..........Chocolate--Chocolates can vary in shade from light to dark chocolate. Chocolate with brindle or tan markings is a disqualification.

That is what I mean, the shade should not matter, but people will have preferences,a dn in two outstanding specimens one of poor colour and one of excellent the better colour will win, as will the one in better coat, condition or showmanship on the day.

My breed says Grey of various shades, medium shades prefered.  There will be judges who PREFER a lighter silvery coloured dog, and others who prefer strong pigment which ensures the dark mask and ears that are a major characteristic, which often goes with a darker topcoat formed by more pigment in the guard hairs.

Don't know bout this judges preferance either...

It is indeed liver/chocolate, however, the UK KC breed standard doesn't give a range, which is why some here are so against pale chocolates, but neither does it say darker is better, which seems to be what many in the show ring prefer.  The reasoning I've been given, is that there is a range for yellow, but none for chocolate, so apparently pale liver isn't the correct liver? 

In my eyes many are overweight

It might not be for me to comment since they're not my breed and I don't have the expertise that the rest of you have...but I was shocked by many of the labs I saw last weekend, especially the younger pups. They looked far too heavy for young bones.

I wonder if the life expectancy of a particular breed such as the lab considerably shortens if it is carrying more weight throughtout it's life. Compared to an ideal weighted dog.

Do spayed bitches that carry a bit extra weight live a shorter life than a dog I wonder.

GR's that's another post LOL.  Think Golden should be dropped from the name.  How many golden Golden's do you see these days?  They are white or cream.