Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:04 am Post subject: Interpretation of Breed Standards
It is pretty obvious not only to me but to many others, that the interpretation of each breed's Breed Standard has changed over the years. Some much more so than others, Labs not being so greatly affected in my opinion, as some of the more extreme looking breeds.
Now I'm thinking, when the Breed Standards were written, they must have been devised with particular dogs in mind. Dogs of which, at the time, were considered as close to perfect as they could find. There must still be photographs of many of these dogs knocking around for many of today's breeds, so I'm wondering if it would be an idea to not only have a written BS but also a pictorial one too. Maybe this could then act as a visual reference point for judges when comparing each dog to the BS, so the wording would be less open to varying interpretation.
What do you think? And has anyone got any photos of past dogs who were winners at the time, to compare to today's winning dogs?
Very good idea, although many older breeders have a pictorial reference to older labrs - especially in the 1950's and slightly beyond. The biggest difference I find is obviously in my own beloved breed of labs - the working type and the showing type bearing little resemblence to eath other. But then isn't this what the "Fit for function" campaign is all about? Maybe there would be fewer labs in rescues if only people buying them would understand what they were bred for and that which is in a dogs nature cannot be removed easily.
Sounds like a good idea to me too, surely good reference point scan only aid the Fit for Function campaign.
I saw a little piece I think either on the More4 Crufts coverage last night, or the Buying a Puppy doc that followed it, which had something similar and included a shot of a GSD from, I would guess 30/40 years ago, and the difference was marked to the dog that made the BIS final seven (which by all accounts is a fairly mild example of the sloping backs in that breed).
Jules, its a good idea to me. However of course the picture in the minds eye of the original breed Standard setters would look something along the lines of Dual Champion Banchory Bolo or similar.
....who certainly in this very famous shot of him, doesn't in general type show a great deal of difference between modern substantial working dogs of today or the more moderate show dogs.
However if you gave that as a picture (clearer of course!) as to the pictorial meaning of the breed standard, there would be a lot of debate (polite wording there...) as to really if that is what the breed should be, as everyone differs in their perception, as we always say, of the breed standard wording.
Scratches around in head to try and say what I mean correctly here....: I think possibly the thing is, the breed standard is something frequently talked about, but when all is said and done, means very little. Show folks will produce what they enjoy looking at and want to live with and show, and working people will produce dogs that do the business and maybe look OK to their mind. They will 'work' that stamp in their mind to FIT the breed standard. Not the other way around. Judges in the ring will judge to what they like... they may and should READ the standard before a judging appointment to refresh themselves, but then, again, they will pick dogs they see as correct... not the standard folks round a table 50 years ago. Its why every week a different dog wins. If everyone judged to the letter of the breed standard the same dog would win every week.
So, personally, I think its a fantastic idea to have a picture to highight what 'someone' (and bear in mind that would be 'someone different' to who originally wrote the standard as they are all dead now...) thought of as the dog in their mind when they see the standard.... but it will enevitably probably simply cause the same show/working debate as ever, simply because, hand on heart, chances are it will be a VERY moderate showbred dog. And that won't please almost anyone except those with VERY moderate showbred dogs To a man, I cannot see any breeder looking at the new BS picture, and gasping 'Oh my goodnesss! I've been breeding them ALL WRONG! I must change completely pronto!'.... it just won't happen
Di
____________
The boys!
Read: Wylanbriar Dog Blog on the website: Updated! 1st February 12´!
As I understand it - not withstanding the most recent tweaks, the current breed standard for Labs was written about 40 years ago - so sometime after the heady days of the dual champion dogs.
What continues to amaze me is some people's criticism of showbred dogs, a subject which crops up most frequently after Crufts - and IMO are insulting and demeaning to the people owning the dogs, and the judges that put them there.
Yes, there will be interpretations of a breed standard - but how on earth can someone interpret wording such as:
* Strongly built, short-coupled, very active; broad in skull;
* broad and deep through chest and ribs; broad and strong over loins and hindquarters.
* Chest of good width and depth, with well sprung barrel ribs
* Clean, strong, powerful neck, set into well placed shoulders
* Skull broad with defined stop; clean-cut without fleshy cheeks. Jaws of medium length, powerful not snipy. Nose wide, nostrils well developed
To something that resembles a whippet?
========================
I understand that people will like a type - my own dogs aren't as substantial as many dogs in the showring - but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate a nicely assembled dog with more substance - and I also recognise the weaknesses and faults in my own dogs. Just like I can recognise a nicely assembled working bred dog that looks like a Labrador, even if it isn't my type - and there are plenty of quite substantial and successful working bred dogs.
The breed has diverged the way it has - and I doubt anything is going to change that - if people prefer a certain type - that's their prerogative - but TBH - some of the comments about showbred Labs often including the top winners are downright offensive -
Just because someone doesn't like that 'type' of lab doesn't make it wrong - particularly when it is an excellent example of the breed and meets the breed standard in pretty much every way.
Anyone who owns and shows Labs can tell you that it is pretty much obvious (particularly in bitches) when they are carrying excess weight - something that the winning dogs on Thursday were not.
The standard has really only changed in minor detail from the 1956 standard, which was not a lot changed from the 1916 standard.
But really, the standard is not written about the fully clothed dog, rather the skeleton, the bone structure. As Kate and I were discussing at Crufts, there are a lot of very straight front ends in working Labs at the moment, and this is wrong, not only to the breed standard but also to the ability of the dog to work. I'm not worried about the build of the dog, to a large extent that fits the standard just as well as the show dog and remember, until this year fat was only indirectly part of the standard. It's the geometry which we need to get right in the working dog. Angle of shoulders is not put there to make the dog look pretty, it is to allow it to do it's job with the minimum of energy and the maximum of safety.
However if you gave that as a picture (clearer of course!) as to the pictorial meaning of the breed standard, there would be a lot of debate (polite wording there...) as to really if that is what the breed should be, as everyone differs in their perception, as we always say, of the breed standard wording.
Rather naively, I'm going to ask.....Why would it cause such a "debate"? After all, if he is a fine example of what the BS was based upon, then surely the judges should be looking for dogs who look very similar to him even now. The BS hasn't changed since then (well apart from to tweak it a bit), it's just the More is Better interpretation, which seems to have changed.
As I said before, I don't think Labs have suffered from this change in interpretation anywhere near as much as many other breeds. I just thought the whole point of the BS is to award merits to the dog who fitted the BS most closely. So if the BS for Labradors was based on dogs like Bolo, then surely the judges should be putting up that type of dog and not just the type they favour.
What I will never understand is how some breeds differ so greatly in types - labs, GR, cockers springers for example are vastly different from their working colleagues, but dogs like setters, flat coats, viszlas pointers and the like don't!
____________
All images posted by me on this or any other website remain copyright to me with all rights reserved
So if the BS for Labradors was based on dogs like Bolo, then surely the judges should be putting up that type of dog and not just the type they favour.
But you are talking about a word picture Jules, and no two people will ever completely agree. I tend to prefer the finer end of the show ring thinking the stronger heads of (say) Ch Ruler of Blaircourt are a bit too masculine for my taste, preferring the finer heads of (say) Ch Candlemass Rookwood Silver Moonlight. So taste will always enter into it, and so it should. The breed standard was never meant to be a blueprint as such or it would need the judge to carry a tape measure and protractor into the ring to carry out detailed measurements. It was always meant to be subjective and as such will always be evolving with fashion. But look at old photos. The breed is still recognisable which is more than can be said for some breeds!
The breed standard was never meant to be a blueprint as such
Ah, this is obviously where my confusion lies then, as I was under the impression it was...well pretty much so anyway.
I agree though, the Labs in the ring haven't changed that much and are still easily recognisable as Labs, unlike some other breeds which are now hugely different to how they were 40 or so years ago.
All times are GMT Goto page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Next
Page 1 of 9
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
To a man, I cannot see any breeder looking at the new BS picture, and gasping 'Oh my goodnesss! I've been breeding them ALL WRONG! I must change completely pronto!'.... it just won't happen 
