# Westminster- Why no love for the Golden?



## Captainobvious

I'm curious...why is it that the Westminster show has never had a golden retriever win Best of Show? For a breed that is so loved and regarded as both a family pet and a hunting/retrieving sporting breed, they seem to get no love in the big show. In fact, BOS winners that fall into the sporting category have overwhelmingly been spaniels (mainly English Springer) and pointers.

In addition, despite being the nations most popular dog breed for the last 22 years (AKC Registered), the Labrador retriever also goes quite unnoticed. In fact, from what I can tell there has never been a retriever breed that has won.

Is there some sort of sentiment that these breeds are the "every-mans" dog and are in some way inferior or less regal or worthy?


----------



## Claudia M

I am a golden retriever owner and lover but I must admit I was rooting for the German shorthaired or wirehaired pointers. The best of all was indeed the GWP. Also liked the flat coated retriever. I was surprised that he did not make it.


----------



## TheZ's

It does seem to me that the judges view Goldens as "common" and popular with those who are not very sophisticated about dogs. As I understand it, the judge is supposed to be determining how good each dog is compared to the standard for that breed. It's hard to believe that with all the Goldens and labs in competition none of them ever are close enough to the standard to win. As an aside, I just didn't get that old english sheepdog. You couldn't even see it's eyes (I know that's a matter of grooming . . . but still) and it's topline was really strange . . . . the rear being noticeably higher.


----------



## Selli-Belle

The OES is supposed to be higher in the rear, that is coat that is brushed forwardand up. Why they groom like that? I have no idea.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

I don't have a problem with it. Goldens are allegedly not good "show dogs" (as compared to other breeds) because of their temperament. But the temperament is why I like them.  If they had to have the temperament of a terrier to win I wouldn't like them as much, so I'm ok with them being overlooked at Westminster.


----------



## Nairb

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I don't have a problem with it. Goldens are allegedly not good "show dogs" (as compared to other breeds) because of their temperament. But the temperament is why I like them.  If they had to have the temperament of a terrier to win I wouldn't like them as much, so I'm ok with them being overlooked at Westminster.


What temperament is needed to win? Do they need to jump around a little more? There are certainly Goldens who do that. What specifically do they want?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## TheZ's

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I don't have a problem with it. Goldens are allegedly not good "show dogs" (as compared to other breeds) because of their temperament. But the temperament is why I like them.  If they had to have the temperament of a terrier to win I wouldn't like them as much, so I'm ok with them being overlooked at Westminster.


I'm also wondering if you can expand on this. Of course the breed standard includes some specifics about temperament which the Goldens should display but isn't meeting this part of what they're judged on?


----------



## HiTideGoldens

I suppose it certainly could be their popularity to a certain extent, but I have been told that it's the temperament - for example terriers are super intense show dogs. Goldens are people oriented and happy go lucky. It just doesn't have the same effect on a judge. Again, this is just what I have been told by handlers. 

But many other breeds have also not won BIS at Westminster. They may not be as popular in the general public, but there are a lot that haven't. The golden is not alone and popularity in the public really shouldn't be the reason a dog wins, right?

I thought it was pretty impressive that Cody made the cut in such a nice group


----------



## Selli-Belle

It is the kind of on the tip of your toes, look at me swagger that wins. Goldens have more of a " this is so much fun, I love my handler" approach to showing.


----------



## Megora

Selli-Belle said:


> The OES is supposed to be higher in the rear, that is coat that is brushed forwardand up. Why they groom like that? I have no idea.


Yep - it's all coat. 

I trained with somebody who shaved all that coat off on her obedience/agility dogs, and they look like normal dogs under all the stuff.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

On a sidenote, I LOVE old english sheepdogs. I grew up with one and they are just the sweetest dogs. I love their fluffy butts in particular!  Big, fluffy and messy dogs (drippy water, etc), but sweet


----------



## Claudia M

To be honest I was not impressed at all with either the GR or the LR at the show. And I concur with TheZ's in regards to the old english sheepdog.


----------



## OutWest

My "other" breed--Cavalier King Charles Spaniel--never goes very far either. At least not in the States. They win quite often in Europe. The Cav is fairly new on the AKC roster and I've thought that was part of the reason--that the judges just weren't that familiar with the breed and its standard. But the newbie Russell Terrier placed very nicely, so perhaps that assessment is wrong.


----------



## Shalva

the structure has to improve... especially in the front assembly. I was watching Frank Kane look for fronts in the Flat Coats... it was quite comical actually... and Douglas Johnson in the goldens as well who were only marginally better than the flat coats and I mean marginally. Until structure improves I don't think we will see a golden winner... and I don't mean type... the dogs in the ring were not necessarily my type but I can appreciate a well built dog...but I didnt see anything to write home about ... shoot an adequate front is not a good front... and where is the upper arm on these dogs


----------



## Nairb

I'm not sure how a Pekingese pulled it off, if swagger is what they're looking for. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Nairb

I actually liked the Doberman, but I'm biased since I grew up in a house full of them. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Nairb

Shalva said:


> the structure has to improve... especially in the front assembly. I was watching Frank Kane look for fronts in the Flat Coats... it was quite comical actually... and in the goldens as well who were only marginally better than the flat coats and I mean marginally. Until structure improves I don't think we will see a golden winner... and I don't mean type... the dogs in the ring were not necessarily my type but I can appreciate a well built dog...but I didnt see anything to write home about ... shoot an adequate front is not a good front... and where is the upper arm on these dogs


I did see a few lighter dogs. Not sure if they would be classified as "English type." The Westminster website has the judging on video. The very first dog being shown on the video was very light and built differently than the others. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Captainobvious

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I suppose it certainly could be their popularity to a certain extent, but I have been told that it's the temperament - for example terriers are super intense show dogs. Goldens are people oriented and happy go lucky. It just doesn't have the same effect on a judge. Again, this is just what I have been told by handlers.
> 
> But many other breeds have also not won BIS at Westminster. They may not be as popular in the general public, but there are a lot that haven't. The golden is not alone and popularity in the public really shouldn't be the reason a dog wins, right?
> 
> I thought it was pretty impressive that Cody made the cut in such a nice group


 
I agree that BIS is not for the most popular, however- if there are 80 times as many Goldens as there are Pekingese for example, I find it hard to believe that there arent exemplary models of breed standard that should be able to make the cut.


----------



## Shalva

Nairb said:


> I did see a few lighter dogs. Not sure if they would be classified as "English type." The Westminster website has the judging on video. The very first dog being shown on the video was very light and built differently than the others.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


all the dogs were american type... english type has very little to do with color... there was one dog that looked more english than the others but I couldn't see the number clearly and the dog did not make the cut


----------



## Claudia M

Interesting eye Shalva - I thought that the flat coat was better built than the GR. I wonder if they have pics on the website to go back and look at them.


----------



## Kmullen

I think judges also have to be more educated about "good fronts." I see good fronts on dogs that are passed up by a lot of judges. Of course there is more to a dog than fronts, but I have been so disappointed with Judges whom I feel should know better. Passing up good dogs based on handlers in the ring! That is another story! I will get off the soap box now 

But, I agree the lack of upper arm in the breed.


----------



## cubbysan

Selli-Belle said:


> It is the kind of on the tip of your toes, look at me swagger that wins. Goldens have more of a " this is so much fun, I love my handler" approach to showing.


You could definitely see that in all the goldens in the ring yesterday. They were having fun and a lot of that had that goofy "I want to play" expression on their faces.


----------



## Bob Dylan

What I do know is that our Goldens will always be winners in our Hearts & Homes!

We have the best group of GR (from breeders & Rescues).


----------



## Shalva

it doesn't matter how many goldens there are ....61 entered at the garden .... 61 dogs with poor upper arm and front angulation will not beat 1 affenpinscher with better structure... and when you choose the best of breed you are choosing the best of what you are offered that day... There is more to a dog than a front of course but the fronts are the glaring problem... a judge shouldn't choose a dog based on a front alone but if people are asking why a golden never wins BIS then we have to look at the structure of our dogs and fronts are a glaring problem... 

In Flat Coats... the fronts as a whole were absolutely horrendous and we were all talking about it while watching the breed yesterday... about how absolutely horrendous they were ... some looked absolutely concave... Frank Kane really did pick out the best of what he was offered I am not surprised he chose the dog he did and the others were mosty my pics as well... 

these dogs are supposed to be balanced moderate hunting retrievers... and a dog with no front angulation and no upper arm can not work in the field all day and prow is not front, nor is fur.


----------



## Shalva

Claudia M said:


> Interesting eye Shalva - I thought that the flat coat was better built than the GR. I wonder if they have pics on the website to go back and look at them.


Well and thats the issue... was one better than the other perhaps... were either of them even adequate or good... absolutely not


----------



## DanaRuns

Shalva said:


> it doesn't matter how many goldens there are ....61 entered at the garden .... 61 dogs with poor upper arm and front angulation will not beat 1 affenpinscher with better structure... and when you choose the best of breed you are choosing the best of what you are offered that day... There is more to a dog than a front of course but the fronts are the glaring problem... a judge shouldn't choose a dog based on a front alone but if people are asking why a golden never wins BIS then we have to look at the structure of our dogs and fronts are a glaring problem...
> 
> In Flat Coats... the fronts as a whole were absolutely horrendous and we were all talking about it while watching the breed yesterday... about how absolutely horrendous they were ... some looked absolutely concave... Frank Kane really did pick out the best of what he was offered I am not surprised he chose the dog he did and the others were mosty my pics as well...
> 
> these dogs are supposed to be balanced moderate hunting retrievers... and a dog with no front angulation and no upper arm can not work in the field all day and prow is not front, nor is fur.


If this is true and agreed upon by judges and breeders, why in the world have not breeders bred to the standard?



> Forequarters -- muscular, well co-ordinated with hindquarters and capable of free movement. Shoulder blades long and well laid back with upper tips fairly close together at withers. Upper arms appear about the same length as the blades, setting the elbows back beneath the upper tip of the blades, close to the ribs without looseness. Legs, viewed from the front, straight with good bone, but not to the point of coarseness. Pasterns short and strong, sloping slightly with no suggestion of weakness. Dewclaws on forelegs may be removed, but are normally left on.


Breeders don't breed to this? And seriously, there's not a Golden Retriever in Westminster history who has the front and the rest of the structure described in the breed standard?


----------



## Shalva

DanaRuns said:


> If this is true and agreed upon by judges and breeders, why in the world have not breeders bred to the standard?


look at german shepherds or bulldogs or any of the other dogs that have changed so dramatically throughout the years... 

look at goldens in the past and what they look like now... breeders breed to what is winning... everyone has a different eye and has key things that they think are the most important... 

if all you have in the ring are dogs wiht short upper arms and lack of front but everything else is good then you choose that dog and at a prestigious show like westminster or crufts or whatever these choices can influence what the breeders breed for in the future. 

this has been a big discussion amongst lab breeders... especially when the dogs were bred to look like coffee tables and were fat... do you put what is correct into the ring knowing that you will get dumped because the dog looks so different from everything else or do you concede and put what is winning in the ring... knowing that it is incorrect and not what should be... 

I dont know that is a hard decision to make ... especially when shows are so expensive...


----------



## DanaRuns

Shalva said:


> look at german shepherds or bulldogs or any of the other dogs that have changed so dramatically throughout the years...
> 
> look at goldens in the past and what they look like now... breeders breed to what is winning... everyone has a different eye and has key things that they think are the most important...
> 
> if all you have in the ring are dogs wiht short upper arms and lack of front but everything else is good then you choose that dog and at a prestigious show like westminster or crufts or whatever these choices can influence what the breeders breed for in the future.
> 
> this has been a big discussion amongst lab breeders... especially when the dogs were bred to look like coffee tables and were fat... do you put what is correct into the ring knowing that you will get dumped because the dog looks so different from everything else or do you concede and put what is winning in the ring... knowing that it is incorrect and not what should be...
> 
> I dont know that is a hard decision to make ... especially when shows are so expensive...


So, so much for breeding "to improve the breed" according to the standard??? The thing that is chanted so much on this website as gospel, to the point of fights and closed threads, actually isn't? And all the people who complain that Westminster is political are just expressing sour grapes? And all the show people who look down their noses at Goldens as "common" are not expressing any feeling held by judges? Or is it some combination?

How is it that the most prestigious show does not bring the best Golden Retrievers? Ever?

This is all confusing for a newbie like me.


----------



## Amberbark

Loved the Goldens representing at the Garden, but didn't see good front assembly and inadequate layback of the shoulder. Really inhibits reach in the front.......:no:


----------



## cubbysan

Not being in the show world, can somebody post a picture of a well known or not so well known golden that does have a good front so we can understand the standard. 

A lot of those dogs yesterday come from very familiar lines so it is what most of us are used too to seeing.


----------



## Pretzel's Mom

Can someone tell the last time a Golden won a best in show? 

I would think someone would breed to the standard so that they could.


----------



## Altairss

I was wondering about that, when watching the front movement on the goldens at this show it seemed really wide not single tracking, some paddled or elbowed out. Most had pretty side movement and did single track really nice in the back but I just thought the front movement was really odd and not what I remembered when I used to help show a few goldens back in the 90's. I actually went and looked it up after watching front movement to check lol

*Gait
*When trotting, gait is free, smooth, powerful and well coordinated, showing good reach. Viewed from any position, legs turn neither in nor out, nor do feet cross or interfere with each other. *As speed increases, feet tend to converge toward center line of balance*. It is recommended that dogs be shown on a loose lead to reflect true gait.



Shalva said:


> the structure has to improve... especially in the front assembly. I was watching Frank Kane look for fronts in the Flat Coats... it was quite comical actually... and Douglas Johnson in the goldens as well who were only marginally better than the flat coats and I mean marginally. Until structure improves I don't think we will see a golden winner... and I don't mean type... the dogs in the ring were not necessarily my type but I can appreciate a well built dog...but I didnt see anything to write home about ... shoot an adequate front is not a good front... and where is the upper arm on these dogs


----------



## Altairss

My good friend just gave up on showing her lab. Her lab is wonderful great lean and not a short fat log on legs. Really nice confirmation one of the best i have seen in years. She kept getting told how fantastic this dog is but she can't place at the shows. She had someone bring her a box of cheese burgers and she was told to fatten up her dog so she could win.
Seriously? that killed it for her, she has not shown her since.


----------



## DanaRuns

> I was wondering about that, when watching the front movement on the goldens at this show it seemed really wide not single tracking, some paddled or elbowed out.


Yes, I noticed that too, including daisy-clipping and elbowed out. But I am still amazed to learn that breeders do not breed to the standard, and that judges put up dogs with poor fronts, except, it seems, at Westminster.

As a newbie, it's hard to understand and hard to know whom to believe, when told that such-and-such has an excellent front assembly (three of the dogs at Westminster, specifically that I'm thinking of), only then to be told that no Goldens have good fronts, or that the ones that do don't win.

I'd like to see a full-throated discussion of all this, in hopes I can better understand.


----------



## tippykayak

FYI - if you are watching the video of the Goldens competing against each other, the carpet was VERY slippery, so keep that in mind when you're watching them gait. Many of them were all over the place because of the traction.


----------



## Altairss

There were some good fronts but they did not make it thru. That doesn't mean they did not have other faults that we could not see the judges have to get their hands on the dog to get past the coat. We had a small view into what they see. Also which faults do the count against more heavily a less then steller front or a poor topline etc.
Based on their view of the standard they have to make an education decision on how to place.


----------



## DanaRuns

tippykayak said:


> FYI - if you are watching the video of the Goldens competing against each other, the carpet was VERY slippery, so keep that in mind when you're watching them gait. Many of them were all over the place because of the traction.


I saw one dog go around twice because of slipping on a turn.


----------



## DanaRuns

Altairss said:


> There were some good fronts but they did not make it thru. That doesn't mean they did not have other faults that we could not see the judges have to get their hands on the dog to get past the coat. We had a small view into what they see. Also which faults do the count against more heavily a less then steller front or a poor topline etc.
> Based on their view of the standard they have to make an education decision on how to place.


The thing that freaked me out was the assertion that the reason Goldens don't win at Westminster is because they are not bred to their breed standard -- I took the fronts as just an example of that. I'd like to hear more about whether or not show dogs are bred "to improve the breed" and whether the breed standard is the guide; and if not, why not?


----------



## cubbysan

I think a lot has to do, too, with what breed the judge has actually bred himself. I think he will subconsciously see his breed's standard in the other breeds and it has a lot to do with the interpretation of the standard.

Example, when I used to follow the Great Pyrenees in the shows, a judge who came from a St Bernard background, would pick a Pyr that looked more like a St Bernard, or a judge from an English Mastiff background, might pick the taller Great Pyrs, etc.


----------



## Altairss

Some of this is difficult, you cannot breed a perfect dog. You have to breed to the standard. Where is your starting point? Its finding the best dog you can and improving on it. All dogs have faults you have to decide as a breeder what you can live with and improve on. For example when I was showing shelties I had fantastic moving dogs with great reach and drive. But to the standard they were a bit long in the body and some had missing dentation. Missing teath has just started to become a huge on going problem. After that I only kept dogs to show if they had full dentation but to do that I had to make a concession on Reva's coat she was slightly soft coated a fault but to me better then missing teath.
Its give and take. You sometimes have to take the bad with the good and the great but you have to then take a dog that does not move as correct in the front and breed that dog only to a dog that has a correct front and that passes on the front.
Baby steps lots of baby steps. That is why you hear of people needing to really know their dog and to carefully research the cross before breeding. If you breed poor front to poor front well you can't be surprised if you get a poor front can you?
Its very very difficult to breed dogs to improve them it why you need a mentor or better yet several to discuss pro's and cons and make imformed decisions.


----------



## Nairb

Could be because they look bigger on video than in person, but I got the impression that they looked rather large for the most part. Maybe it's just because I'm used to looking at my dog, who still doesn't have much of a coat. Even their legs and paws looked exceptionally large in the video.


----------



## Altairss

Since the goldens have a height standard I was surprised that they did not use a wicket ( to measure height) on them more often at shows that I have been to, the way they do with most breeds.


----------



## cubbysan

Nairb said:


> Could be because they look bigger on video than in person, but I got the impression that they looked rather large for the most part. Maybe it's just because I'm used to looking at my dog, who still doesn't have much of a coat. Even their legs and paws looked exceptionally large in the video.


When I was at the Rhode Island Golden Retriever National in 2008, I was in the stands watching the ring. When the Goldens came out, there were two breeders sitting behind me, I think they were from the West Coast, one of them commented to the other, "Boy the goldens are big out here." That has stuck in my mind ever since then, because they all appeared to be standard height to me.

Maybe because at last night's show and at a Specialty you are going to have more mature, older dogs, so they will be bigger, fuller and better coat than a younger dog.


----------



## Nairb

cubbysan said:


> When I was at the Rhode Island Golden Retriever National in 2008, I was in the stands watching the ring. When the Goldens came out, there were two breeders sitting behind me, I think they were from the West Coast, one of them commented to the other, "Boy the goldens are big out here." That has stuck in my mind ever since then, because they all appeared to be standard height to me.
> 
> Maybe because at last night's show and at a Specialty you are going to have more mature, older dogs, so they will be bigger, fuller and better coat than a younger dog.


You're probably right about the coat, plus I think video tends to add pounds. I definitely wasn't referring to height. Here I have a 9 mo. old already pushing the upper limits of the weight standard for a female, and is trim and fit, yet these other dogs look huge in comparison in the video.


----------



## Kmullen

Another thing is people have different opinions on good fronts. I can breed to the "standard" and I may not get what I want. The dog might have lovely structure, but is not producing himself. If this makes sense. There are things that I do not want to give up on my girl and of course things that I would love to improve.

Movement is my pet peeve. I want a very clean moving dog (nothing dramatic!). Also, I like to look at what the handler and how the handler is moving the dog. Too fast, too slow?

I think you really have to feel the dog also to determine the strucuture. Coat can be such an illusion.


----------



## Kmullen

MissMolly's said:


> Can someone tell the last time a Golden won a best in show?
> 
> I would think someone would breed to the standard so that they could.


 
Goldens have won Best in Shows at All breed shows across the country just not at westminister.


----------



## GoldenSail

This is a great article on front structure and show dogs written by Patricia V. Trotter. An excerpt:


> In my February column, I discussed front-end assembly and the problems associated with incorrect, upright shoulders. Because so many world-class dog people are concerned about the disappearance of correct forequarter structure from the gene pools of our breeds, the subject merits further discussion.
> 
> The unfortunate fact is that straight shoulders, as incorrect as they may be, appear to facilitate winning in two ways, which makes them very seductive. First, they provide picture-perfect posture, making the dog seem to always be "on" because it cannot "let down" and lower its suspension as easily as a well-angled animal can. Therefore, the dog requires less effort to project the kind of stand-up show dog persona that may impress judges and ringside observers more than the correctly angled dog does........
> ....
> The second way in which straight shoulders facilitate winning is by making it easier for the dog to move straight and with what many perceive as more trueness on the coming-and-going movement. Because the range of motion of the straighter-angled dog is much less than that of the correctly angled one, the reduced distance of forward extension and follow-through shortens the stride, diminishing the room for error. The longer stride provided by the correct shoulder has much more extension and follow-through. Consequently, this greater range of motion allows more room for deviation from absolutely straight movement.


Responsible Breeding - It's What's Up Front That Counts


----------



## Megora

Goldens - their looks and movement isn't the problem. Or I highly doubt it is. 

If judges were selecting primarily based on movement and structure - that GWP would have beat the little troll dog this year and the running mop shrub wouldn't have won last year.  

Goldens DO win BIS. Bertie's grandfather Leo who showed in the golden ring this year has won several best in shows. Many of the other goldens in the ring have won BIS as well. It's just Westminster that's different. 

My feeling is the judges go in there with this expectation of what a Westminster winning dog looks like or something like that. The strong majority of the dogs winning at this show have been small dogs, particularly terriers.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

MissMolly's said:


> Can someone tell the last time a Golden won a best in show?
> 
> I would think someone would breed to the standard so that they could.


I don't believe the golden has ever won best in show in Westminster.

You would think so.


----------



## Pretzel's Mom

When I was watching one of the annoucer made the remark "he felt this year a big dog was going to win".


----------



## MyBentley

Captainobvious said:


> I'm curious...why is it that the Westminster show has *never had a golden retriever win Best of Show?* For a breed that is so loved and regarded as both a family pet and a hunting/retrieving sporting breed, they seem to get no love in the big show. In fact, BOS winners that fall into the sporting category have overwhelmingly been spaniels (mainly English Springer) and pointers.
> 
> In addition, despite being the nations most popular dog breed for the last 22 years (AKC Registered), the *Labrador retriever* also goes quite unnoticed. In fact, from what I can tell there has never been a retriever breed that has won.
> 
> Is there *some sort of sentiment that these breeds are the "every-mans" do*g and are in some way inferior or less regal or worthy?


In a nutshell . . . yes, IMO. Retrievers, golden and labs, have a long history of being family dogs and hunting dogs in our country. They are not unusual or exotic. I think the N.Y. based dog show simply has a "small" mindset.


----------



## Shalva

Megora said:


> Goldens - their looks and movement isn't the problem. Or I highly doubt it is.
> 
> If judges were selecting primarily based on movement and structure - that GWP would have beat the little troll dog this year and the running mop shrub wouldn't have won last year.
> 
> Goldens DO win BIS. Bertie's grandfather Leo who showed in the golden ring this year has won several best in shows. Many of the other goldens in the ring have won BIS as well. It's just Westminster that's different.
> 
> My feeling is the judges go in there with this expectation of what a Westminster winning dog looks like or something like that. The strong majority of the dogs winning at this show have been small dogs, particularly terriers.


A golden has NEVER won BIS at the garden ..... do they win BIS sure but they have never won at the Garden.... 

I find your comments regarding the affenpinscher and or the pekingese incredibly ignorant. I am sure that you personally have had your hands on both of those dogs to be able to feel what is under that fur and judge the quality of those dogs. I am sure that you are also an expert on those dogs and their standards as well. Would I have liked to see my breeds of choice win? sure ... but I am also well aware that there is no substitute for getting your hands on a dog and feeling what is there. I would never be so full of confidence or arrogance to say that a dog that I personally did not have my hands on did not deserve to win. 

The quality of the terriers is very high... as I recall the year before lasts winner was a deerhound and a few years prior to that a Newfoundland... not small dogs by any stretch.


----------



## DanaRuns

Shalva said:


> A golden has NEVER won BIS at the garden ..... do they win BIS sure but they have never won at the Garden....
> 
> I find your comments regarding the affenpinscher and or the pekingese incredibly ignorant. I am sure that you personally have had your hands on both of those dogs to be able to feel what is under that fur and judge the quality of those dogs. I am sure that you are also an expert on those dogs and their standards as well.


I think the winkie at the end was an indication that Megora was joking. I am learning a lot in this thread, and don't want to see it locked because it devolves into personality clashes. I just want to hear more about why no Golden ever wins in the Garden, why breeders aren't breeding to the standard, and why one who does cannot win. This is all very...shocking, I suppose...to me.


----------



## Megora

Shalva said:


> A golden has NEVER won BIS at the garden ..... do they win BIS sure but they have never won at the Garden....


This kinda follows with your perception of me as ignorant, I guess... but I didn't make that statement. 

I can actually read (believe it or not). And click links. And wasn't born yesterday. 

No. A golden has NEVER won at the garden. 

Majority of dogs that DO win at the garden are terriers, and small dogs. Hence my statement. 

I believe it is 70 something small dogs to 30 something large dogs that have won at this show. 




> I find your comments regarding the affenpinscher and or the pekingese incredibly ignorant.


I repeat. 

Troll dog and running mop shrub. :

Understand that I assume these dogs have merits that have gotten them there, but please don't try saying that these dogs have better structure than the dogs they beat. Or had better movement or whatever.


----------



## Shalva

Megora said:


> Troll dog and running mop shrub. :
> 
> Understand that I assume these dogs have merits that have gotten them there, but please don't try saying that these dogs have better structure than the dogs they beat. Or had better movement or whatever.


How would you or I or anyone else who has not had their hands on those dogs know whether they did or did not have better movement, structure or whatever.... 

that is the point. I have not personally had my hands on either of these dogs... so I couldn't tell you... a friend who is a judge HAS had her hands on the peke and was very impressed...


----------



## Vhuynh2

Shalva said:


> How would you or I or anyone else who has not had their hands on those dogs know whether they did or did not have better movement, structure or whatever....
> 
> that is the point. I have not personally had my hands on either of these dogs... so I couldn't tell you... a friend who is a judge HAS had her hands on the peke and was very impressed...


I bet many of the judges at Westminster are annoyed that people watching on television think they can evaluate the dogs better than the judges who are actually there. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## cubbysan

I have also heard that on any one particular day a dog might just "want to win". You can take the same judge and the same dog on two separate days, one day the judge might place him and on another he may not. There are just certain days that that dog "wants to win" more than the others.


----------



## Megora

Shalva - I think this is where I feel fairly cynical about it all.... if we were talking about class dogs only or dogs that are being judged against others of their breed, I agree it may come down to structure, movement.

But when you have that arena where all of the dogs out there are very top dogs.... and the OES.... I suspect that more likely than not each one of them had the best to offer as far as their breed. According to what those judges in the breed rings and group rings saw or felt. 

That BIS ring though - I just feel that some judges who are chosen to be in that big ring have other reasons for choosing the dogs they do. Call me ignorant, that's FINE.  I'm not thin-skinned or wobbly when it comes to other people calling me names based on what I sincerely feel.


----------



## AlanK

Bob Dylan said:


> What I do know is that our Goldens will always be winners in our Hearts & Homes!
> 
> We have the best group of GR (from breeders & Rescues).


Yep All of our beloved Goldens are BIS to me.


----------



## DanaRuns

cubbysan said:


> I have also heard that on any one particular day a dog might just "want to win". You can take the same judge and the same dog on two separate days, one day the judge might place him and on another he may not. There are just certain days that that dog "wants to win" more than the others.


And I have had judges tell me that that's bunk. They evaluate the dog's structure (with hands on, as Shalva says) and movement, and pay zero attention to the dog being "on" or the handler's machinations. In fact, judges have told me that they also ignore it when a dog is having a "bad day," is misbehaving, has blown coat, or whatever, and that they'll put those dogs up anyway if they are the best dogs.

Hard to know what's real and what's male bovine excrement.


----------



## DanaRuns

I heard the announcers last night say the reason Goldens don't win is because of their temperament. Too affable. I note also that the OES also has a similar affable temperament.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

I find it interesting that on one hand people are criticizing the fronts and layback of the dogs shown in the breed that they saw on the live feed, but then are saying you can't assess the BIS winning dog without putting your hands on them. I think front assemblies and layback are the hardest to tell visually, at least for me. Particularly on a tiny video where the dog is 30 feet away from the camera. I ALWAYS have to put my hands on a dog before I can decide how I feel about their front assembly. Some look better than they feel and some feel better than they look in a stack.

I'm curious how one can assess and assume the layback is terrible on a dog unless we're seeing a huge bump on the shoulders? Creative grooming can cover up things like that, but short of an obvious bump of steep shoulders, how are we determining that on these dogs?? I am also generally curious why front assemblies are inexplicably deemed to be the most important thing in the world?? I don't see why they are all of a sudden more important than everything else on the dog. That seems a bit unfair...I thought we weren't supposed to be fault judging but judging based on the dog's attributes.

For one, I noticed that Cody's foot timing looked perfect in the group, his topline was rock solid, he looks to have a lovely headpiece, he appeared clean coming and going, etc etc etc. Why is he not worthy because his front assembly is (allegedly) not perfect? I've never had my hands on him so I'm not totally sure. It just really bothers me when people "poo poo" a dog (as many people did yesterday on facebook and are doing here) without having their hands on them.


----------



## cubbysan

DanaRuns said:


> And I have had judges tell me that that's bunk. They evaluate the dog's structure (with hands on, as Shalva says) and movement, and pay zero attention to the dog being "on" *or the handler's machinations*. In fact, judges have told me that they also ignore it when a dog is having a "bad day," is misbehaving, has blown coat, or whatever, and that they'll put those dogs up anyway if they are the best dogs.
> 
> Hard to know what's real and what's male bovine excrement.


 
If that is so, then why do many owner/inexperienced handlers, end up hiring an experienced handler to finish their dogs. It probably all depends on the judge.


----------



## Shalva

the dogs are judged to their own standard...with basic structure in mind... none of us know what is under that fur except the judge... on this particular day the judge felt that the affenpinscher met the affenpinscher standard more closely than than the sheepdog or any other dog at the show... 

I am not as cynical having shown a flat coat that won the breed in every show she was entered in except two, one local show, and the other one being westminster... and it didn't matter if she had a "face" at the end of a leash or my husband... a judge managed to "find" her ever time.


----------



## GoldenSail

I have not had a chance to watch goldens but I have heard many people (including some I highly respect) comment that the front assemblies of goldens in general are not very strong right now. This discussion made me dig for some articles and I hope anyone sincerely interested read the one I posted by Pat Trotter. She's highly respected when it comes to conformation and even she admitted many breeds in America feel like they are 'losing their fronts.' Whether that is a reason a golden hasn't won BIS at Westminster who knows? There are 161 recognized AKC breeds and they can't all win BIS at Westminster and they shouldn't win because of personality or popularity.

I would agree it is very difficult to not be the one putting your hands on the dogs and evaluating. I also find front assemblies very difficult to judge. On the flip-side though, I did watch flat coats and you do notice when the judge put his hand on the chest and it lays flat or appears to angle in.


----------



## Megora

But if the goldens are "losing" their structure, etc.... that implies they had it to begin with. 

So going by that argument it follows that they should have won at least ONCE in the past. If structure were all it came down to. Or movement. Perhaps in those years when they've won the group and gone to the big ring - beating those other breeds in the Sporting group? 

These judges apparently feel terriers have superior structure to all other breeds, that's what it comes down to as far as explaining why 40+ times the judges have chosen a terrier. 

I'm speaking lightly here, of course....


----------



## GoldenSail

Ok don't get too carried away with the losing their fronts comments.  As a novice my take is that the relative strengths and weaknesses of a breed fluctuate with time. So it would not be quite accurate to say they are losing their structure. I think people tend to mention fronts because it is perceived as a weakness in the breed (but not every dog) at the moment and so they want to fix it. I think that is why the focus--not because fronts are the only important thing. Then they might fix that and start finding another trend in the breed and focus on that, etc. The perfect dog doesn't exist and sometimes you have to make trade-offs depending on what you value and what you are striving for.


----------



## hotel4dogs

In my humble and often wrong opinion, which is probably going to be very unpopular here but isn't meant to insult anyone specific, the problem is that too many people breeding goldens right now for the show ring have never seen a pheasant, or a duck, or watched a dog work in the field, or for that matter put even the most basic performance or working title on a golden retriever.
PRIMARILY A HUNTING DOG.
If you haven't watched a dog hunt, and I don't mean run field trials, I mean hunt, how can you possibly know what you should be breeding for? The straight shoulders, short upper arms, make it virtually impossible for the dog to do what he was BRED TO DO. The heavy, open coats are downright stupid for retrieving a duck. I could go on and on. 
As many of you who correspond with me privately know, I was so saddened I was literally almost sick by the fact that only ONE of the goldens that placed/won had any titles at all, and that was a RN and WC. Now the dog is only 2-1/2, so I give the owner credit that an attempt is being made. Hopefully they will continue on. 
But a lot of these were older dogs, and had no titles other than CH or GRCH. None, zip, nada, zilch. And don't EVEN think to tell me that you can't be a CH and get performance titles. Trust me, it can be done. 
If you don't even try to put any performance titles on the dog, how do you know that the dog is truly worthy of breeding? Sure, it's to the physical standard. But that's only part of what makes a golden retriever a golden retriever. What about the rest of it? What about intelligence, trainability, confidence, eager, alert, and so on? What good is a *pretty* dog that has aggression issues, or is dumb as a box of rocks?
The breed is being so badly split because so many of the "show people" haven't got a clue what the dog should look like to do the job that he was bred to do, and so many of the "field people" haven't got a clue that conformation really does matter. Each breeds only to WIN in their chosen venue, not for the golden breed.
Ok, I'm done ranting. It's a topic about which I feel very passionate, I don't mean to offend just stating my opinions.


----------



## DanaRuns

GoldenSail said:


> I have not had a chance to watch goldens but I have heard many people (including some I highly respect) comment that the front assemblies of goldens in general are not very strong right now. This discussion made me dig for some articles and I hope anyone sincerely interested read the one I posted by Pat Trotter. She's highly respected when it comes to conformation and even she admitted many breeds in America feel like they are 'losing their fronts.' Whether that is a reason a golden hasn't won BIS at Westminster who knows? There are 161 recognized AKC breeds and they can't all win BIS at Westminster and they shouldn't win because of personality or popularity.
> 
> I would agree it is very difficult to not be the one putting your hands on the dogs and evaluating. I also find front assemblies very difficult to judge. On the flip-side though, I did watch flat coats and you do notice when the judge put his hand on the chest and it lays flat or appears to angle in.


I read the article, thanks. I actually read only about 50% of what people here recommend because of time constraints, but I'm very interested in this subject and I always read anything I find by Pat Trotter. Most of the meager amount I know about structure I learned from her. So at least one person here is paying attention to your post!


----------



## HiTideGoldens

I understand that it may be disappointing to see few dogs without titles besides conformation titles, but I'm curious how does one know that the other dogs aren't training for other titles, or maybe will train for they after they are done with conformation? I think it's unfair to assume conformation people don't care about the other traits in the breed. I don't have time right now to train my dogs in agility, field and show them in conformation. Conformation shows are weekend commitments, so if I'm gone with one dog I cannot be training all weekend at our "local" field training facility (1.5 hours away). I decided I was going to give myself permission to do one thing at a time and I'm fine with that. Jack and I have done agility and field training, he is not yet titled in either but will be eventually. And Smooch has shown a natural affinity for field, so I am hoping to run her in the WC at the Western Regional or National this year. She is requiring minimal training and I'm hopeful that once we try live birds a couple of times I can decide how much more we need to do before running the WC. I would encourage people not to just judge based on titles alone....sometimes people are doing the work but just not as often as people with more time may be doing it.


----------



## DanaRuns

hotel4dogs said:


> In my humble and often wrong opinion, which is probably going to be very unpopular here but isn't meant to insult anyone specific, the problem is that too many people breeding goldens right now for the show ring have never seen a pheasant, or a duck, or watched a dog work in the field, or for that matter put even the most basic performance or working title on a golden retriever.
> PRIMARILY A HUNTING DOG.
> If you haven't watched a dog hunt, and I don't mean run field trials, I mean hunt, how can you possibly know what you should be breeding for? The straight shoulders, short upper arms, make it virtually impossible for the dog to do what he was BRED TO DO. The heavy, open coats are downright stupid for retrieving a duck. I could go on and on.
> As many of you who correspond with me privately know, I was so saddened I was literally almost sick by the fact that only ONE of the goldens that placed/won had any titles at all, and that was a RN and WC. Now the dog is only 2-1/2, so I give the owner credit that an attempt is being made. Hopefully they will continue on.
> But a lot of these were older dogs, and had no titles other than CH or GRCH. None, zip, nada, zilch. And don't EVEN think to tell me that you can't be a CH and get performance titles. Trust me, it can be done.
> If you don't even try to put any performance titles on the dog, how do you know that the dog is truly worthy of breeding? Sure, it's to the physical standard. But that's only part of what makes a golden retriever a golden retriever. What about the rest of it? What about intelligence, trainability, confidence, eager, alert, and so on? What good is a *pretty* dog that has aggression issues, or is dumb as a box of rocks?
> The breed is being so badly split because so many of the "show people" haven't got a clue what the dog should look like to do the job that he was bred to do, and so many of the "field people" haven't got a clue that conformation really does matter. Each breeds only to WIN in their chosen venue, not for the golden breed.
> Ok, I'm done ranting. It's a topic about which I feel very passionate, I don't mean to offend just stating my opinions.


It's a good rant, and deserved. I've seen a Golden hunt. It's how I got into Goldens. My father forced all us kids (boys and girls, he didn't discriminate) to hunt with him, take hunting classes, etc. I hated hunting, but I loved that dog to death, and so admired watching her work a field, retrieve ducks from lakes, etc. That's how I came to love Goldens.

Now, I *hate* hunting with a cold passion. And I live in Southern California, a densely populated are with 18 million people. How exactly would a non-hunter in a sprawling urban wasteland put hunting titles on a dog? Because one of the things I want to do with Gibbs is title him in areas that show he's an actual Golden Retriever. I can do tracking, agility, obedience or other things we city folk have available. But I have no idea how to put field or hunting titles on him, and I have zero desire to hunt.


----------



## Megora

Barb - can't you place some of that blame on the owners/breeders of these dogs? 

Obedience titles are NOT merely bred for. They are trained for. You have to put the time in. Same thing with field. 

I definitely agree that for the sake of the breed you would hope that the breeders would be at least getting JH titles on their dogs before breeding them. Or taking advantage of the WC tests. <- I know of some conformation breeders who DO. 

I don't know if you can make the point (I don't think you were) that these dogs do not have the abilities if their owners have never tested them.  That's not the reason why these dogs are not winning the Westminster show or the Eukanuba show, or other big shows you can think of. 

Cocker spaniels and springer spaniels are further departed from their hunting backgrounds than goldens even....  and yet they have won several times at Westminster.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Dana, there is a training facility in Corona, which is where we go. But for hunt tests you need to be ok with them shooting live birds. Not exactly my cup of tea but I've gotten over it ....sort of.


----------



## GoldenSail

Ok so I really, really wish the judge would provide commentary when judging. Is it just me? When I was younger I worked at a pig 4H show and the judge was given a microphone and explained to those watching why he was making his choices focusing on the strengths of each pig. I always thought that would be great at dog shows, especially for the general public who has no idea what is going on. I really love when the GRNews for the specialty comes out and the sweeps class has notes just like that for you to read.


----------



## DanaRuns

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Dana, there is a training facility in Corona, which is where we go. But for hunt tests you need to be ok with them shooting live birds. Not exactly my cup of tea but I've gotten over it ....sort of.


Thanks. I'd like to do stuff like that, but I am not going to get over shooting live birds. Not unless the birds have an equal chance of killing the shooter. Not my idea of "sport." But I'll avoid getting on that soap box in this thread. :hijacked: This is about Westminster and conformation.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

DanaRuns said:


> Thanks. I'd like to do stuff like that, but I am not going to get over shooting live birds. Not unless the birds have an equal chance of killing the shooter. Not my idea of "sport."


It was definitely a bit....jarring...the first time I saw it. Kinda made me sad actually. But I am fine with it for proving my dog. Hunting generally is not my cup of tea though.


----------



## GoldenSail

Ok, I say this having spent a long time trying to get a JH and learning the ropes in the field with two pass and two fails and....ultimately I feel like a JH or WC should be easily obtainable for a decent dog if you know what you are doing.


----------



## hotel4dogs

A couple of the dogs were, I believe, over 10 years old. I'm just guessing that they would have been putting some titles on by now if they had planned to. But if you looked at their sires/dams, there were almost no working titles, either. So it's not that they were planning to do it later.
I understand the time thing, which is why I said I'm not singling out anyone, just making a general comment. I work full time, unfortunately including most weekends, and it's hard for me to get away at all on weekends. I do get it.
But some of the "show people" I know somehow manage to send their dog out with a handler for literally a couple of years on the show circuit. Ok, you can also send your dog out with a field pro for 3-6 months then. Same thing, different venue. 
And a lot of the other sporting dogs somehow managed to find time to do multiple venues. 





goldenjackpuppy said:


> I understand that it may be disappointing to see few dogs without titles besides conformation titles, but I'm curious how does one know that the other dogs aren't training for other titles, or maybe will train for they after they are done with conformation? I think it's unfair to assume conformation people don't care about the other traits in the breed. I don't have time right now to train my dogs in agility, field and show them in conformation. Conformation shows are weekend commitments, so if I'm gone with one dog I cannot be training all weekend at our "local" field training facility (1.5 hours away). I decided I was going to give myself permission to do one thing at a time and I'm fine with that. Jack and I have done agility and field training, he is not yet titled in either but will be eventually. And Smooch has shown a natural affinity for field, so I am hoping to run her in the WC at the Western Regional or National this year. She is requiring minimal training and I'm hopeful that once we try live birds a couple of times I can decide how much more we need to do before running the WC. I would encourage people not to just judge based on titles alone....sometimes people are doing the work but just not as often as people with more time may be doing it.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Goldensail, I agree, but sometimes you come to holes in your training like I did with Jack, where we used bumpers so much that in water he expects to see a bumper and not a duck. He is fine on land with ducks and pheasant, but in water is unpredictable because he is used to bumpers. He will swim around forever looking for his bumper. Totally my fault, as the "trainer" but it's where we're at. It is hard to overcome for me right now because of my own personal time constraints, so he is definitely a decent dog, could pass a JH no problem if bumpers were used in water instead of live flyers....but that's where we're at. Kira has been benched with pano for awhile so she is out for now. Smooch may have some issue once we work with live birds....I have no idea. But so far she has been a breeze to train in the basics. So my long winded way of saying that I agree, but sometimes we mess up our own dogs without realizing it


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Barb, I agree and there are definitely breeders who probably don't care. I just meant don't assume that about everyone.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Danaruns, I didn't specify field titles for just that reason. I was careful to say "any performance title" over and over. 
A dog who can be trained to do well in obedience, agility, and tracking certainly isn't a dumb dog with no trainability.

Edit to add....I was also careful to say WATCH a dog hunt, not necessarily hunt over them yourself.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Michelle, if anything the trend in my area has been a very exciting trend toward people putting titles on their "show dogs", and putting CCAs on their "performance dogs". So good to see!
Also in the show ring, in this area, you tend to see more moderage dogs, with moderate, correct coats winning. At least much of the time, anyway.


----------



## Megora

Barb - that may mess up their coats though.  

*** My neighbor is a high ranking member of the English Setter Club of America. She has easily gotten CH's on her dogs. Her husband's job is getting field titles on them. So these dogs are CH's and JH's etc... her dogs aren't obedience dogs, but that's probably because neither she nor her hub are into obedience training necessarily. 

They both are retired - and hardly ever home. When they are home, she's out in her garage grooming them or her husband's taking the dog's out biking them. 

And I know pointer (GSP's) people who are similarly devoted to producing dogs who are the complete package - including obedience. 

I wish there would be more golden retriever breeders out there like these people. I don't think it's necessarily the dogs.... it's the breeders/owners.


----------



## Shalva

cubbysan said:


> If that is so, then why do many owner/inexperienced handlers, end up hiring an experienced handler to finish their dogs. It probably all depends on the judge.


Because a handler can make a bad dog look good and a good dog look outstanding. I think the face matters to some judges... I know who they are and don't show to them... I think it would be naive to say that there are no judges who are political... sure there are ... but I don't think that is the case for most judges... however, I do think a handler can make a dog look better than the average owner handler... that having been said my Natalies breeder is an outstanding handler and does better than most pros. 

handlers also know hte judges and what they like and what they don't like ... etc etc... they are often better groomers than the average and they have all the equipment at the shows... which saves us from having to lug it around or purchase it at all.


----------



## GoldenSail

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Goldensail, I agree, but sometimes you come to holes in your training like I did with Jack, where we used bumpers so much that in water he expects to see a bumper and not a duck. He is fine on land with ducks and pheasant, but in water is unpredictable because he is used to bumpers. He will swim around forever looking for his bumper. Totally my fault, as the "trainer" but it's where we're at. It is hard to overcome for me right now because of my own personal time constraints, so he is definitely a decent dog, could pass a JH no problem if bumpers were used in water instead of live flyers....but that's where we're at. Kira has been benched with pano for awhile so she is out for now. Smooch may have some issue once we work with live birds....I have no idea. But so far she has been a breeze to train in the basics. So my long winded way of saying that I agree, but sometimes we mess up our own dogs without realizing it


This is why I added..."if you know what you are doing" to my statement. There is a first time for everything and I feel like field training has been a steep learning curve for me. Also, some problems are harder to overcome than others. I think my water issues with Scout are more crippling than my friend's steadiness problems (but maybe because she's my dog, lol). OTOH I try best not to overlook my own dog's weakness in addition to my own. Known plenty of people zoom through JH with little training and experience...they just had a good dog.

I think we also need to be careful when we make generalizations because they are just that....generalizations!


----------



## Shalva

hotel4dogs said:


> In my humble and often wrong opinion, which is probably going to be very unpopular here but isn't meant to insult anyone specific, the problem is that too many people breeding goldens right now for the show ring have never seen a pheasant, or a duck, or watched a dog work in the field, or for that matter put even the most basic performance or working title on a golden retriever.
> PRIMARILY A HUNTING DOG.
> If you haven't watched a dog hunt, and I don't mean run field trials, I mean hunt, how can you possibly know what you should be breeding for? The straight shoulders, short upper arms, make it virtually impossible for the dog to do what he was BRED TO DO. The heavy, open coats are downright stupid for retrieving a duck. I could go on and on.
> As many of you who correspond with me privately know, I was so saddened I was literally almost sick by the fact that only ONE of the goldens that placed/won had any titles at all, and that was a RN and WC. Now the dog is only 2-1/2, so I give the owner credit that an attempt is being made. Hopefully they will continue on.
> But a lot of these were older dogs, and had no titles other than CH or GRCH. None, zip, nada, zilch. And don't EVEN think to tell me that you can't be a CH and get performance titles. Trust me, it can be done.
> If you don't even try to put any performance titles on the dog, how do you know that the dog is truly worthy of breeding? Sure, it's to the physical standard. But that's only part of what makes a golden retriever a golden retriever. What about the rest of it? What about intelligence, trainability, confidence, eager, alert, and so on? What good is a *pretty* dog that has aggression issues, or is dumb as a box of rocks?
> The breed is being so badly split because so many of the "show people" haven't got a clue what the dog should look like to do the job that he was bred to do, and so many of the "field people" haven't got a clue that conformation really does matter. Each breeds only to WIN in their chosen venue, not for the golden breed.
> Ok, I'm done ranting. It's a topic about which I feel very passionate, I don't mean to offend just stating my opinions.


THAT I agree with .... is thee a clapping guy.... 

I totally agree with that


----------



## Shalva

an individual front may be hard to evaluate without hands on .... but looking at fronts as a whole is not that difficult if you know what you are looking at .... I would never presume to compare one front to another but when you look at upper arm and that angulation and know whaty ou are looking at and can see the angle its not that hard to see...


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Even on dogs with significant bibs/coat? I think it's really easy to create the appearance of a superior front assembly on heavily coated dogs....I would much rather have my hands on them rather than assuming one way or another though. And again, I don't find fronts to be any more important than anything else on a dog, no matter what the "trend" may be in goldens. A good dog with a so so front can still be a good dog. JMHO


----------



## Shalva

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Even on dogs with significant bibs/coat? I think it's really easy to create the appearance of a superior front assembly on heavily coated dogs....I would much rather have my hands on them rather than assuming one way or another though. And again, I don't find fronts to be any more important than anything else on a dog, no matter what the "trend" may be in goldens. A good dog with a so so front can still be a good dog. JMHO


yes because you are looking at the upper arm which is not hidden by the bib, its not that hard to see... and again I would not presume to have two dogs and say that one has a better front than the other without feeling ...but it is not hard to look at the dogs as a whole and see that they do not have the upper arm or front angulation that they should... we are not talking about prow ... that is hidden by the bib ... we are talking about upper arm length and angulation

I think I clearly said that they are not more important ... and there can certainly be other issues and I am not saying they aren't a good dog... 

what I am saying is that if we want to win at shows like Westminster then we need to improve fronts... because it is a glaring problem... not just in goldens but in quite a few other breeds as well...

I wish I could find some pictures to show you what I mean... I don't mind using pictures of my own dogs to show a bad front ... Connor is very straight in the upper arm... I just have to find a picture to demonstrate it ... and I want to find a good front to compare it to ... but once you know what you are looking at, its not hard to see


----------



## DanaRuns

Shalva said:


> yes because you are looking at the upper arm which is not hidden by the bib, its not that hard to see... and again I would not presume to have two dogs and say that one has a better front than the other without feeling ...but it is not hard to look at the dogs as a whole and see that they do not have the upper arm or front angulation that they should... we are not talking about prow ... that is hidden by the bib ... we are talking about upper arm length and angulation
> 
> I think I clearly said that they are not more important ... and there can certainly be other issues and I am not saying they aren't a good dog...
> 
> what I am saying is that if we want to win at shows like Westminster then we need to improve fronts... because it is a glaring problem... not just in goldens but in quite a few other breeds as well...
> 
> I wish I could find some pictures to show you what I mean... I don't mind using pictures of my own dogs to show a bad front ... Connor is very straight in the upper arm... I just have to find a picture to demonstrate it ... and I want to find a good front to compare it to ... but once you know what you are looking at, its not hard to see


I hope you can find those examples of good and bad front, because while we all may have our ideas of what a good or bad front is, it's hard to picture exactly what you're considering when we don't have dogs to look at or touch.

And maybe I'm just a cynical old fool, but I think you could have the best put-together Golden Retriever in this history of history, and it still wouldn't stand a chance of a snowball in hell of taking BIS in Westminster. Never. Gonna. Happen. While there may be many factors at work, I think there is still a bias that won't be overcome by all the structural improvements that can be made.


----------



## Shalva

I will use a flat coat to show a good front .... 
if you look at the top of her arm where the arm attaches to her body you can see the angle... there is a shadow on it....this girl could go all day... 










Now look at Connor... don't look at the fur... look at where the angle was on Meghan .... and you will see that he doesn't have one... imagine yourself shaving off the hair but just look at where the arm meets the body and how it just goes kind of straight towards his head... compare that to the front in Meghan above .... I could draw a line I guess 
I will try that and add it to this post


----------



## Megora

DanaRuns said:


> And maybe I'm just a cynical old fool, but I think you could have the best put-together Golden Retriever in this history of history, and it still wouldn't stand a chance of a snowball in hell of taking BIS in Westminster. Never. Gonna. Happen. While there may be many factors at work, I think there is still a bias that won't be overcome by all the structural improvements that can be made.


That makes 2 of us.


----------



## Shalva




----------



## havana13

*Overbreeding*

I believe that Goldens and Labs are probably the most over-bred dogs in the US (obviously because they are awesome). The population of goldens is so large, with so many variations from the breed standard, that it's more difficult to get "the perfect dog." 
A less common dog, say the Briard (there are less than 1000 of these in the US) has a purer gene pool, thus preserving the breed standard more closely. 

Don't forget, that dog at Westminster beat out 60 other goldens!


----------



## DanaRuns

Okay, that's it.


----------



## Altairss

The more you see the correct side profile of a correct shoulder to upper arm layback the easier it is to see when you see a dog side stack. If you see it ask to feel it going over a dog with someone who knows teaches you so much. And when you see that same shoulder to front leg when that dog does a full suspension trot you would not ever forget it. the reach in that front leg is amazing.


----------



## Shalva

Well you look and compare to the flat coat above... I am not going to comment on anyone elses dog... thats why I posted pictures only of my dogs... I won't comment on others ... but you can compare yourself and see what you see.... and you need good angle photos... the one wiht the dog at 3/4 i not a good angle to see upper arm angulation 
and there is more to a dog than a front...there is no doubt... a great front on a bad rear isn't going to go far either but most of our goldens are fairly strong in the rear .... 

a friend of mine commented that some of the dogs were over angulated in the rear.. and I didnt think that they were... i thought that the front wasn't there to balance it


----------



## Shalva

Altairss said:


> The more you see the correct side profile of a correct shoulder to upper arm layback the easier it is to see when you see a dog side stack. If you see it ask to feel it going over a dog with someone who knows teaches you so much. And when you see that same shoulder to front leg when that dog does a full suspension trot you would not ever forget it. the reach in that front leg is amazing.


I agree it is practice... and having someone show you so you can feel the angle.. then its like a lightbulb... a good friend had me feel these angles a bunch of years back and I have never forgotten it... probably why i am such a stickler for front angulation and assembly


----------



## GoldenSail

Shalva would you say Connor is a type A front? Which incorrect front type do you think is most common?


----------



## Altairss

Also remember when a judge is judging, one fault will not necessarly knock that dog out of the ring so to speak all dogs have faults the judge will put up the one he see and feel by going over them is the closest to the standard out of the dogs he is looking at in that ring not the breed as a whole.


----------



## Megora

^ I could be naive or not looking accurately at this picture here, but I thought that Berts has a fairly good front to him. Despite my somewhat suspecting his mom (CH) was a bit more straight in the front. Of course he's still "naked" in front and the coat will probably change his look somewhat as he grows up. 

Watching at shows when you might see more than one dog out there who has a good front and the whole package.... I assume there is something more the judge is looking at.


----------



## Shalva

GoldenSail said:


> Shalva would you say Connor is a type A front? Which incorrect front type do you think is most common?


I think he is a type A... I would have to go and look at him again.... I think he could have more neck ... but that could be me splitting hairs and a short neck means a more upright shoulder too and I dont think he is that upright in the shoulder... maybe a little.... 

I think that right now type A seems to be the most common... I didn't think the necks looked short but that is an area that I would want to get my hands on the dogs to really feel what the shoulder layback is like... that is harder to see without hands on


----------



## Shalva

Megora said:


> ^ I could be naive or not looking accurately at this picture here, but I thought that Berts has a fairly good front to him. Despite my somewhat suspecting his mom (CH) was a bit more straight in the front. Of course he's still "naked" in front and the coat will probably change his look somewhat as he grows up.
> 
> Watching at shows when you might see more than one dog out there who has a good front and the whole package.... I assume there is something more the judge is looking at.


I dont think it is naive at all, I can see some upper arm angulation there... shoot alot more than I see on most goldens... including my connor...I think he is a pretty puppy and I will e interested in seeing how he grows into himself... if he has a front now he will likely have more as he gets older...


----------



## Shalva

Altairss said:


> Also remember when a judge is judging, one fault will not necessarly knock that dog out of the ring so to speak all dogs have faults the judge will put up the one he see and feel by going over them is the closest to the standard out of the dogs he is looking at in that ring not the breed as a whole.


and they aren't supposed to be judging faults at all... they are supposed to be judging positives...


----------



## Megora

Shalva said:


> I dont think it is naive at all, I can see some upper arm angulation there... shoot alot more than I see on most goldens... including my connor...I think he is a pretty puppy and I will e interested in seeing how he grows into himself... if he has a front now he will likely have more as he gets older...


Thank you. 

And before you get too down on the breed - please keep in mind that Bertie came from one of those litters where they are somewhat uniform (if that's the word). I won't show or breed him, but I expect at least two of his brothers will definitely be in the show ring soon and down the road these dogs will be adding to the breed. 

All the breeders I've eavedropped on who are deeply involved with getting the CCA out to our area and discussing upper arms and all of those alien terms.... they are breeding to better the breed. 

That doesn't mean I anticipate the golden winning at Westminster any time soon. Much as I watch and hope, hope, hope....


----------



## Shalva

Megora said:


> Thank you.
> 
> And before you get too down on the breed - please keep in mind that Bertie came from one of those litters where they are somewhat uniform (if that's the word). I won't show or breed him, but I expect at least two of his brothers will definitely be in the show ring soon and down the road these dogs will be adding to the breed.
> 
> All the breeders I've eavedropped on who are deeply involved with getting the CCA out to our area and discussing upper arms and all of those alien terms.... they are breeding to better the breed.
> 
> That doesn't mean I anticipate the golden winning at Westminster any time soon. Much as I watch and hope, hope, hope....


don't misunderstand that I am not down on the breed I love the breed but I think it is important to know our strengths and weaknesses in the breed because without that we cant improve them. 

to delude ourselves into thinking our dogs are perfect and there is just some vendetta to not let them win at these big shows doesn't help the breed... we need to know what we have and what we need to work on so that we can make it better for the dogs

i think your guy is a nice puppy.... I will be watching to see how he grows...


----------



## Megora

I believe in New York vendettas against pretty dogs.  

*** and keep in mind my reason for responding as I have is you have people - not just here - who are primarily placing the blame on those faults like the upper arms as an excuse for why the breed doesn't do well at certain shows or under certain judges. 

I think certain places just favor some breeds over others. I don't know if the judges go in with a heavy load on their shoulders and they don't want to be the first to break tradition by putting up a fan favorite, but.... ? So they are trying too hard to see the positives in some breeds and push away others? I don't know. It's not just Westminster. 

Going local - I WISH I could see a golden win at one of the two big local shows. And there definitely we have had a bigger variety of other breeds win. But still no goldens.


----------



## TheZ's

Hey take it easy on New York  . . . wasn't that BIS judge from California? Actually not sure of that but the judges are from all over the country.


----------



## Nairb

Now I'm going to be looking at every picture of a Golden trying to see whether they have good fronts or not. I think I have a better understanding of it now, but it's still difficult for an untrained eye to see. I assume they have to be in a good stack? Anyway....it's hard for me to believe that none of the 61 dogs at Westminster had adequate fronts.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Shalva already articulated this a few posts back, but I would strongly suggest that people do not post pictures of dogs that are not their own for critique.... it has happened before and gets ugly. People are more than welcome to post pictures of their own dogs.


----------



## Caesar's Buddy

I know this will ruffle some feathers, and I probably have no right to say it... But I personally do not care what Westminster thinks or says about all of our Goldens. I am an old guy who has been around the block way to many times, but I have have many dogs of different breed, and not one of them comes close to a Golden. Westminster types can have their prissy little prancey poos, I will take a big old slobbery mouthed, loving Golden any day of the week.

Love em to death and some day I will be able to get another buddy.

Pat


----------



## Claudia M

Caesar, DH had an English Setter, A Brittany, three Goldens and a Golden/Border Collie Mutt. We are now on the 4th Golden. The only one that came close to the GR was the mutt. 
Until last night I was convinced that he would like another Golden for our second pup in the house. Now I think he may go with a flat coated retriever or a German pointer.


----------



## BajaOklahoma

Some of the comments on this thread make me laugh, but I have to agree that Goldens and Labs aren't getting the attention/respect they deserve.

I have two Old English Sheepdogs at my feet as this moment. And I actually married my husband to get his Sheepie - seriously. There was a snarky comment on an OES board by someone from Europe - hated the combout and cutting that is so "American." A fellow poster quickly put her in her place with a reply about the scraggly cut they accept in Europe. lol It's what you get used to seeing.
Sheepies have a higher rear than front, so the combout is designed to emphasize this. The coat is everything, so the fluff is designed to show off the quality of both the undercoat and the overcoat. Did you know that Sheepies don't have fur, they have hair that will continue to grow forever (I gave up at 12 inches). I wonder if that wonderful coat is held against them - they are beatuiful dogs under there. No frou-frou either. I have friends whose dogs are champions at agility, weight-pulling, dog sledding, therapy, dog scouts and so much more.
And the Johnson family is amazing. They were recognized as the AKC Breeder of Year just a few years ago. Remember Smokin' - he is their dog too. And when the fires moved into Colorado Springs, they opened up their kennels to any family's dogs displaced by the fire. Some were there for months and they never charged the families for the cost of food or care. Some of us donated some money to them, but they didn't ask or expect the help. A great family.

I will always have both Sheepies and Goldens.


----------



## Nairb

BajaOklahoma said:


> Some of the comments on this thread make me laugh, but I have to agree that Goldens and Labs aren't getting the attention/respect they deserve.
> 
> I have two Old English Sheepdogs at my feet as this moment. And I actually married my husband to get his Sheepie - seriously. There was a snarky comment on an OES board by someone from Europe - hated the combout and cutting that is so "American." A fellow poster quickly put her in her place with a reply about the scraggly cut they accept in Europe. lol It's what you get used to seeing.
> Sheepies have a higher rear than front, so the combout is designed to emphasize this. The coat is everything, so the fluff is designed to show off the quality of both the undercoat and the overcoat. Did you know that Sheepies don't have fur, they have hair that will continue to grow forever (I gave up at 12 inches). I wonder if that wonderful coat is held against them - they are beatuiful dogs under there. No frou-frou either. I have friends whose dogs are champions at agility, weight-pulling, dog sledding, therapy, dog scouts and so much more.
> And the Johnson family is amazing. They were recognized as the AKC Breeder of Year just a few years ago. Remember Smokin' - he is their dog too. And when the fires moved into Colorado Springs, they opened up their kennels to any family's dogs displaced by the fire. Some were there for months and they never charged the families for the cost of food or care. Some of us donated some money to them, but they didn't ask or expect the help. A great family.
> 
> I will always have both Sheepies and Goldens.


Thanks. I saw Mr. Johnson interviewed after his group win. He came across as a very genuine, likable guy. I just Googled for photos of OESs. The one he brought to Westminster is exceptional. I don't know the breed, but it's obvious even to my untrained eye.


----------



## goldensrbest

goldenjackpuppy said:


> On a sidenote, I LOVE old english sheepdogs. I grew up with one and they are just the sweetest dogs. I love their fluffy butts in particular!  Big, fluffy and messy dogs (drippy water, etc), but sweet


 They are also stuborn, we had one,very cute,but hardheaded.


----------



## Megora

goldensrbest said:


> They are also stuborn, we had one,very cute,but hardheaded.


They are very stubborn and difficult to motivate - from what I've seen.  That's why I wouldn't ever want one. That and I suspect I'd be constantly clipping. I hate the look of the show ones.... :bowl:


----------



## Shalva

TheZ's said:


> Hey take it easy on New York  . . . wasn't that BIS judge from California? Actually not sure of that but the judges are from all over the country.


the judges are from all over the world. I didnt pay close attention to the judging panel this year as we were not there ... but the Wolfhound judge was from Norway, Frank Kane the flat coat judge is a very prominent UK judge, if you go to the kennel club website they have a bio on each of the judges and they are from all over. 

no definitely not just NY judges....


----------



## goldensrbest

I think there is enough LOVEon here for OUR BREED, of choice, we could all WISH IT TO HAPPEN SOME DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## goldensrbest

Megora said:


> They are very stubborn and difficult to motivate - from what I've seen.  That's why I wouldn't ever want one. That and I suspect I'd be constantly clipping. I hate the look of the show ones.... :bowl:


 I remember the puppy class we had her in,the lady told us she has never had a old english that passed the class, that was in the 80's.


----------



## Megora

Oh yes - judges even at local shows come from all over. 

But when they go to Westminster, I expect they have some kind of load on their shoulders to "think like a Westminster judge" or something. LOL. 

Say whatever I want about the other big shows I've watched year to year, but you have a wider diversity of which dogs get the nod at the end. Wesminster is too predictable for your average novice viewer. 

Again, I'm speaking flippantly but it's startling to see some judges who may not even LOOK at some dogs in other shows are putting them up in this show.


----------



## tippykayak

I always wonder if the reason Goldens don't win against other breeds is simply because the style of dog that wins in a Goldens vs. Goldens competition is not as close to the _written_ standard as it is in other breeds. And since the judges are going by how closely the dog meets the standard, when you take a Golden into a ring with other breeds, a lovely Golden—even one with incredible structure—is going to lose if the other dogs are closer to their own standards. It's not a competition over whose dog gaits the nicest or even whose has the nicest front. It's over whether the dog conforms to standard better.

So maybe some of what people do to beat other Goldens backfires when the Golden enters a ring with other breeds?

Part of my opinion is probably shaped by the fact that I don't know structure and angles as well as many folks, but when I read the standard and I look at Goldens in the ring, I see substantial differences. I was at Westminster and watched the Goldens compete, and I also hung out in the benching area for literally hours, so I did a lot of looking and listening. And I reviewed the breed standard to look for the gaps between what I was seeing in the ring and the benching area and the standard as it's written.

I'm going to pull a couple parts of standard just to talk about what I saw vs. what I interpret as I read. The parts of the standard I'm skipping are the parts that the Westminster Goldens seemed to do really well. I'm only interested right now in the places where they didn't seem to meet it (in my inexperienced eyes).



> Legs, viewed from the front, straight with good bone, but not to the point of coarseness.


There seems to be a ton of room for interpretation in "good bone, but not the point of coarseness." To me, the amount of bone I see on some dogs in the ring seems coarse because I think of an ideal Golden as one who can jump out of a boat. If it looks like the dog couldn't handle an agility course, he would seem to have too much bone, at least the way I read that line.



> Feet: medium size, round, compact, and well knuckled, with thick pads. Excess hair may be trimmed to show natural size and contour.


I don't know if I'm crazy or if my sense of "medium size" feet is just wrong, but some of the dogs with heavy bone in the legs seem to have HUGE feet. I walked around looking at feet in other breeds too, and some of the Westminster Goldens definitely did not have "medium" feet.



> 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. Untrimmed natural ruff, moderate feathering on back of forelegs and on underbody; heavier feathering on front of neck, back of thighs and underside of tail. Coat on head, paws, and front of legs is short and even. Excessive length, open coats, and limp, soft coats are very undesirable. Feet may be trimmed and stray hairs neatened, but the natural appearance of coat or outline should not be altered by cutting or clipping.


Here's where, as a judge, I would see the largest gap between Goldens shown and the Golden described in the standard. At Westminster and the handful of other shows I've been to, Goldens were not shown in the coat that the standard says they should be shown in. They are trimmed beyond all reasonable interpretation of "stray hairs neatened." They are fluffy as all heck, and every inch of most dogs shows some sign of trimming.

The standard specifically says "the natural appearance of coat or outline should not be altered by cutting or clipping," and yet most dogs were clearly cut over most of their bodies. And whatever they do to the coats between bathing, trimming, and blow drying does not make the coats look dense and water-repellent, or firm and resilient. They look fluffed and silky, and several of the dogs I actually touched were absolutely fluffy and silky.

I'm a neophyte, but it looks to me like some dogs are bred with a huge amount of coat which is then cut back in order to flatter the dog or hide potential faults. That does not seem to be in the spirit of a hard-conditioned working retriever, and if I were a judge looking at a toy dog that met its standard and a gorgeous Golden shown in typical show coat, I don't see how I could pick the Golden.

When I wandered over to the Tollers, I noticed that they were clearly much closer to their standard for coats: "Overcoated specimens are not appropriate for a working dog and should be faulted. While neatening of the feet, ears, and hocks for the show ring is permitted, the Toller should always appear natural, never barbered."

As a side note, somebody on the forum mentioned a while back that trimming might be a reason that darker Goldens have a harder time competing, since the contrast between the undercoat and the outer coat is greater and thus the trimmed areas pop out. I thought that was interesting point with lots of merit.

To me, that's the simplest explanation for why Goldens don't seem to do so well once they get in the ring with other breeds. The style of dog that seems to beat other Goldens doesn't seem to meet a small but significant portion of the standard all that closely.


----------



## Nairb

So...I'm not the only one who thought those legs and paws looked huge! I've been told 100s of times, that Bella has huge paws, but now I'm not so sure about that after seeing those dogs. 

Is it safe to say the variations from the standard are the fault of the judges? Breeders are going to breed what wins. 

How do we know the same thing doesn't happen with the other breeds too? 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Megora

I think the reason why they groom the way they do - thinning around the necks and capes - is to avoid the short necked look. It isn't always because the dog is too heavily coated (though that's sometimes the case). Yes, the judge will feel the length of the dog's neck anyway once s/he gets their hands on the dog, but when they are out in the ring the judge can only look at them and second guess. 

I've actually seen a dog or two in the show ring that was shown with minimal grooming to the neck area, and they did not look as polished as all the other dogs in the ring. 

Even the huge bone and feet of the dogs - I think is partly optical illusion because of how they were groomed. Blown out and brushed up. 

Size of feet, like the actual foot and pads - I think is somewhat in comparision to other breeds. They are medium sized... vs small like collies or large like german shepherds or mastiffs.

Bone - I never actually understood this part until I actually got my hands on collies and setters - and border collies for that matter. And that's where (I think) the definition is exactly. For a breed that will be powering across a distance whether in water or marshy or fieldy terrain and carrying heavy birds, they need to be solidly built. That doesn't mean they should be built like a clumber spaniel, of course... but I don't think that's the case with those dogs in the ring....?  

As far as built for the agility ring - not too many breeds are. The three best dogs I've seen running in agility (keep in mind I've only stopped to watch a couple times when an agility trial was in connection to an obedience trial) - they were a papillion (tiny, feather boned), a border collie (very light boned), and a pit bull (think short and very powerful legs). 

My very novice opinion anyway.


----------



## tippykayak

Nairb said:


> Is it safe to say the variations from the standard are the fault of the judges? Breeders are going to breed what wins.


I really have no idea. There seems to be a complicated relationship between what judges pick and what breeders breed. Obviously, good breeders want to breed what will meet standard and win. And a judge's sense of Golden type is going to be influenced by what is shown. So I don't think you can assign fault anywhere in particular.

I mean, if all dogs are shown trimmed, the judge can hardly pick a dog who's not trimmed. And even if one dog came in less trimmed, that shouldn't be the reason he wins, right?



Nairb said:


> How do we know the same thing doesn't happen with the other breeds too?


My guess here is that there isn't a pressure in non-working breeds to be typey in a way that's not a key part of the purpose of the breed. If you don't have a job, there's no potential for conflict between a popular style and the parts of your standard that are about work. I mean, just look at the Affenpinscher standard. It seems to me that there wouldn't be the same amount of tension between ability and look that you might get in a working retriever. That standard mentions five times that the dog should look like a monkey. There's only one mention that it was developed as a vermin dog and no mention that it should still have that ability at all.

Though, that said, some of the working retrievers (thinking again of Tollers here) don't seem to have as much divergence between the standard and the winning dogs. Is that because the standard emphasizes work more? Or because the current style trend is closer to standard? Or because the judges or breeders have made a conscious decision to do things in a particular way? I really don't know.


----------



## tippykayak

Megora said:


> As far as built for the agility ring - not too many breeds are. The three best dogs I've seen running in agility (keep in mind I've only stopped to watch a couple times when an agility trial was in connection to an obedience trial) - they were a papillion (tiny, feather boned), a border collie (very light boned), and a pit bull (think short and very powerful legs).


I don't think Goldens should be built for the agility sport specifically, as the ability of a working retriever is pretty different from the ideal build for agility. However, I think they should look as if they'd be able to run a course effectively. A working retriever would have to be a balance between power and agility, so while I think they need to be able to carry heavy birds and power across a swamp, there's a point at which you have too much mass on the dog.

The dogs that actually seem to win in field competition and the dogs who are bred for hunting seem almost universally to be at least a little more moderate than a lot of what is shown in the ring. That tells me that there's a point at which you start to have too much bone and too much weight.


----------



## KatieBlue'sMidnightSky

Tippy~

It's so funny that you posted exactly what I was thinking last night. Although, I am a huge sucker for these big fluffy goldens, in my heart, I know it's not necessarily correct. I'm still learning a lot, and I never want to offend today's breeders, but I do worry a bit about where the golden is headed. 

When I met my first "show" golden, I was shocked at the massiveness of their bone/body/paws. Those male paws are as big as mastiffs! Bear paws! lol! But boy are they gorgeous to look at! 

Although I have some worry, I do think there is much more talk and desire on many breeder's part to breed closer to the standard; get back those things that were lost, such as fronts. I also see more and more breeders doing multiple things with their goldens, versus just the breed ring. I love that! 

Of course, this is all coming from someone who knows little about nothing,  Just love the breed, and would thoroughly LOVE to see a Golden win Westminster!


----------



## Altairss

todays Golden is very different from those I showed during the 90's. During the 90's I would hear breeders remark all the time ring side about those new newfie looking goldens. Bigger broader heads fuller thicker bones etc. Stouter and wider of body. They are now the norm, course I sorta like those blocky heads but they are not what I was showing not then the dogs of today are definately more more lol.

Changing with the times, I had a great friend that passed away a few years back at 70 years old, she grew up hard even here in the PNW her dad did not believe in wasting money at a store so if they wanted to eat the hunted just about everyday. She ate squirrel and frog as part of her everyday life things common to where she lived. Peg would tell me stories about all the hunting dogs they owned over the years. They needed them and they always had a mixed pack of several. She loved Goldens but she told me that those goldens of the 90's were not anything like the GR of the 40-60's etc. Well they were and they weren't.

Compared to the other hunting dogs GR were better family dogs they were not likely to bite or scratch at you or drive you completely nuts if you got to bring them in the house. But if a family today had one of those from that time frame and tried to make it a pet companion dog that dog would drive them nuts. They were a hunting dog they had a job and they wanted to go do it not just hang around. They were willing to settle down at night because you had hunted or worked them all day. Some of the blood hounds and other types of pointers etc Peg had growing up all had to stay in the barn as most of them did not have any off switch. It was only a few of the dogs like a GR or a Chessie that ever got the privilage to come in the house. They were happy to settle near the fire and rest and hang out with the family.

As our society changed and our life style have changed the dog breeds have adjusted to that change. Peg loved the changes well most of them that the GR made over the years to a more pleasant companion, it is why she got into them but they certainly were not the dogs she had known most of her life. The dog rings are a constant eb and flow of changes in the breed as breeder adjust the breed to what the current style of dog that fits the needs better of the society it lives in. Are those changes always good maybe not, but would I change my lovable golden as they are today well probably not.

Peg used to say to her GR Buck as he laid at her feet looking at her with adoring eyes, I love you but that is a dog that won't hunt not the way I expect a hunting dog to hunt. To me he was a good hunting dog but I do not live a life where if my dog has a off hunting day I might not get to eat.


----------



## Selli-Belle

A couple of comments here.

1) As Megora stated, the thick legs are to an extent a grooming issue to make the legs look thicker.

2) Big feet....my Dexy had big feet, but they were extremely functional for swimming. It was like he lived with swim fins on his feet, boy could he swim.

3) Goldens with more mass are functional for two reasons, the first is for swimming in colder waters. The more slightly built dogs can't stay as warm, so they need to keep moving to stay warm which is detrimental to being still in a blind. The other reason is for pushing through thick cover. A few years ago there was an article in the GR News from someone who visited Guischan (the estate where Goldens were developed) and stated that a more substantial dog could handle the thick cover of the Highlands better than a slighter dog.

4) About agility, my girl Selli has a lot of bone, to the extent that she would not need to have her leg hair fluffed to show, yet she has no problem running an agility course and if I were a better handler, she likely would have her MACH. Speed and the ability to make sharp turns are critical for major success in agility, however following handler cues is equally if not more important. Border Collies are likely to always be the top agility dogs, but Goldens (even more substantial ones) are no slouches.

There are plenty of examples (including some on this forum ) of Goldens who can and do do it all!


----------



## GoldenSail

I think the breeds that have done a better job of maintaining versatility (a dog that looks good and can hunt) are the less popular breeds. I think popularity and large numbers really pushes things into more extremes and you specialize more in order to stand out from the large crowd. JMO.

And I do agree that many (not all) show goldens are too coarse for my taste. It really can tire a dog out early in the field and can get in the way. You need a balance.


----------



## tippykayak

I hope I didn't make it sound like all the Goldens had too much bone or were coarse. I was just trying to make the point that to my uneducated eye, some of the dogs shown at Westminster, which you'd think would be the cream of the crop, seemed a bit extreme when compared to the standard.

A certain amount of mass and bone is clearly desirable, but at a certain point, I think you're heading away from utility. I'm not sure exactly where to draw that line, but some very successful dogs do seem on the extreme side when it comes to bone, coat, mass, and feet.


----------



## hotel4dogs

here's a bit of trivia....
Anyone know why goldens are supposed to have thick "pants" and a very bushy tail?


----------



## Altairss

Take a peak thru old photos on the K 9 data site even the dogs in the sixties had some nice dense bone. I too feel some of todays dogs can be a bit overdone bone wise for my taste it looks corse to me. But your very right its not all of them I saw plenty of dogs that looked very moderate in bone.

Same thing has happened in some of the Sheltie lines although in the last few years its been getting corrected I don't see nearly as much coarse bone as I was seeing only ten years ago.


----------



## FeatherRiverSam

hotel4dogs said:


> here's a bit of trivia....
> Anyone know why goldens are supposed to have thick "pants" and a very bushy tail?


Bushy tail so they can be more easily spotted in the field? Thick pants...protection?

Pete


----------



## Megora

According to my mom, all dogs should have thick trousers "to keep things covered".  

The tail - I always thought it makes them easier to spot when they are out in a field.


----------



## DanaRuns

This is a fascinating thread. 

So, why would these all-breed judges put up Goldens that vary from the standard in show after show, all across the country, then not put one up at Westminster? And I'm still wondering about the mantra "breed to improve the breed" according to the standard versus "breed to win in the ring." I haven't really seen posts addressing that. Why do those differ? And don't different judges prefer different things so that there is no "this is what wins" universally? There seems to be a chicken and egg problem with "breeders breed what wins" and "judges pick what's before them that day." Any wisdom on those things?

Today's show Goldens are pretty, but I fell in love with the more moderate, slimmer-headed Goldens of the '60s and '70s. Gold Rush's Great Teddy Bear, Misty Morn's Sunset, and Cummings' Golden Princess were examples of successful dogs back then that I loved. I wonder if they could compete today. And I wonder if people would think that those dogs more closely met their breed standard of the time.


----------



## hotel4dogs

about agility, goldens are supposed to have a ratio of 12:11 for length to height. I've been told that the best jumping dogs are those who have a shorter back to leg ratio, versus a longer body (think bassett hound, dachshund here). One consistent complaint I hear from golden breeders and breeder judges is that the goldens being shown right now are too long in the body for their leg height. That is probably more the reason some of them seem to have difficulty in agility, rather than having bone. A well built dog, with good bone, can still be an excellent jumper if their proportions are correct. I see some wonderful Bernese Mountain Dogs in agility!


----------



## hotel4dogs

Pete, you are just about right on. The thick pants and bushy tail provide protection when sitting on cold/icy ground for extended periods of time out hunting. 
Every part of the dog is for a specific purpose.


----------



## TheZ's

Thanks to Altairss for the post above giving some perspective on how the role of the Golden has evolved.

Even though I didn't see the show, I could imagine exactly what Tippy was talking about. You can see it in the pictures on k9data. Perhaps the departure from standard is the result of the wonderful versatility of the Golden . . . they're beautiful and the conformation people are breeding them to be ever more beautiful, they're great in the field and field breeders are breeding them for more energy and intensity, they're good at agility and obedience so performance breeders are breeding them to be smarter, faster and smaller, they're good as therapy and service dogs so some are being bred to be very mellow, etc. Is it a good thing? Should we try to return to having all Goldens be capable of being a good hunting dog when in fact only a small portion of them are used for hunting?


----------



## Megora

Barb - what about corgis?


----------



## Altairss

Standards are guidelines and if 50 people read it you will have 50 different overall views of it.
Those dogs you mention won on that day because they were the best dog presented to the judge on that day in that judges opinion. They were pretty nice dogs and since all I have is pictures to go by who is to say what they would do now.

No one is saying todays breeders are not breeding to the standard we are saying in our opinion we might do things differently that doesn't make them right or us wrong or vice versa. We all have our own opinions and you know what they say about that lol


----------



## cubbysan

I just want to thank everyone for this thread. I have learned a lot from it.


----------



## hotel4dogs

absolutely....because the very things that make them good hunting dogs are what make them excellent companion dogs. I've posted this elsewhere, don't remember what thread. I believe Shelly wrote an entire column about it for the CGCC newsletter. If we lose the abiities and traits that make them so good out in the field, we lose the "golden-ness" of the golden, whether or not you ever hunt the dog. The intelligence, the willingness, the trainability, the desire to retrieve, the ability to focus, the patience to wait for long periods of time without going bonkers, the lack of barking (yep, they're not supposed to be chronic barkers folks), the "off switch", the ability to work hard and long when asked to do so, the "non-reactive" temperament, the ability to get along with strangers and with other dogs, those are all qualities of a good hunting retriever. AND of a good family pet.





TheZ's said:


> Thanks to Altairss for the post above giving some perspective on how the role of the Golden has evolved.
> 
> Even though I didn't see the show, I could imagine exactly what Tippy was talking about. You can see it in the pictures on k9data. Perhaps the departure from standard is the result of the wonderful versatility of the Golden . . . they're beautiful and the conformation people are breeding them to be ever more beautiful, they're great in the field and field breeders are breeding them for more energy and intensity, they're good at agility and obedience so performance breeders are breeding them to be smarter, faster and smaller, they're good as therapy and service dogs so some are being bred to be very mellow, etc. Is it a good thing? *Should we try to return to having all Goldens be capable of being a good hunting dog when in fact only a small portion of them are used for hunting*?


----------



## hotel4dogs

Ya know, I've actually seen a couple of good little corgis in agility now that you mention it! 
Maybe it has to do with being too long in the body for that breed's standard? Maybe I misinterpreted it?



Megora said:


> Barb - what about corgis?


----------



## Altairss

Yes a breeder should never loose sight that this dog is supposed to hunt. If you we do not retain those traits and encourage them in all lines we stand the chance of loosing them. I love the push around the northwest to at least take the dogs out and try them in the field even just getting the JH shows you are concerned with keeping those traits that makes this dog what it was meant to be.


----------



## tippykayak

hotel4dogs said:


> absolutely....because the very things that make them good hunting dogs are what make them excellent companion dogs. I've posted this elsewhere, don't remember what thread. I believe Shelly wrote an entire column about it for the CGCC newsletter. If we lose the abiities and traits that make them so good out in the field, we lose the "golden-ness" of the golden, whether or not you ever hunt the dog. The intelligence, the willingness, the trainability, the desire to retrieve, the ability to focus, the patience to wait for long periods of time without going bonkers, the lack of barking (yep, they're not supposed to be chronic barkers folks), the "off switch", the ability to work hard and long when asked to do so, the "non-reactive" temperament, the ability to get along with strangers and with other dogs, those are all qualities of a good hunting retriever. AND of a good family pet.


Well said. I think of a Golden as being the ideal hunting companion for a Scottish nobleman—a gentleman's hunting companion, able in the field but versatile enough to attend a dinner party after a day out hunting.


----------



## hotel4dogs

absolutely perfect!



tippykayak said:


> able in the field but versatile enough to attend a dinner party after a day out hunting.


----------



## Altairss

When we talk about long body it is actually the length between the end of the rib cage to the hip bone or length of loin. At least when sheltie and corgi breeder discuss it. When you are long there it effect a lot of things in how the body can bend and flex and the extra length puts more stress on the back. A well built corgi although long in overall length usually has a very short well formed loin area. 
Someone posted a video here of someone going over and evaluating a litter of GR pups she discusses the length of loin and you can see her use her fingers to measure the distance and hear her say this one is long etc that is a great video to watch as you can watch her hands fit into the coat and form the connection and show you what she is saying. If you ever get the chance watch this in person as someone does this on another dog and ask to feel what they do its wonderful and extremely educational.




hotel4dogs said:


> Ya know, I've actually seen a couple of good little corgis in agility now that you mention it!
> Maybe it has to do with being too long in the body for that breed's standard? Maybe I misinterpreted it?


----------



## DanaRuns

tippykayak said:


> ...able in the field but versatile enough to attend a dinner party after a day out hunting.


For some reason when I read this I envisioned a dog like James Bond. Out running, jumping, pursuing his prey, then shows up looking hot in a tux at the dinner party.


----------



## tippykayak

DanaRuns said:


> For some reason when I read this I envisioned a dog like James Bond. Out running, jumping, pursuing his prey, then shows up looking hot in a tux at the dinner party.


That is exactly what a Golden is. Except instead of a license to kill, it's a license to beg for attention.


----------



## CStrong73

DanaRuns said:


> For some reason when I read this I envisioned a dog like James Bond. Out running, jumping, pursuing his prey, then shows up looking hot in a tux at the dinner party.


I just watched Skyfall this week, and immediately had the same exact thought. LOL!!!

The James Bond of dogs.


----------



## ScottyUSN

Personally I think it's a crying shame the Goldens don't have a wet coat and a tennis ball in their mouth when paraded around the ring. I enjoy Westminster, but that's a dog show I want to see.


----------



## painted golden

*I thought the Doberman was incredible !!!!*



Nairb said:


> I actually liked the Doberman, but I'm biased since I grew up in a house full of them.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Fifi was beautiful! A real show winner.


----------



## pshales

Wow! What a great thread! I've learned a lot this morning! Thanks everyone for bringing some clarity to this topic for me. And the pictures of what's meant by a strong front. If I could just post an icon of a lightbulb turning on-that's what happened for me!

Great morning coffee read!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Nairb

painted golden said:


> Fifi was beautiful! A real show winner.


I agree. I'm not sure I've ever seen a more beautiful Doberman. My family was involved with showing and breeding them until about 25-30 years ago. They're great dogs. Wouldn't mind having one now, but the wife said no, so we have a Golden. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Captainobvious

I just wanted to respond as the OP and say thanks for all of the terrific responses to my question. There was alot of sound reasoning behind the conclusions and I'm learning more than I ever thought I would from this thread already.

We pick up our golden pup this weekend and couldn't be more excited.  On a side note, watching the Westminster shows has also made me a big fan of some of the other breeds out there as well. I have fond memories of a border collie mix we had as a family pet who passed a couple years back and I absolutely love the Australian Shepherds with their beautifully random coats and light eyes.

I used to take my Rottie/Shepherd mix (rescue) to the dog park and we ran into a few magnificent looking dogs that really made me appreciate their quality. I remember an Alaskan Husky, a beautiful female Doberman and the biggest German Shepherd I've ever seen (at only a year old!). That's one thing I really appreciate about the show. You get to see some beautiful dogs that , at least around my way, are mostly watered down versions of what they could be.


----------



## Selli-Belle

For agility, there is a formula I have seen for jumping ability. You divide the weight in lbs by the height in inches, the lower it is the better. Around 2 is ideal. Goldens tend to be around 3, However, it doesn't seem to hurt many of the MACH Goldens I have seen.

Correct structure plays a huge role here too. I am babysitting a poorly bred 18 month-old "English" Golden right now. He is tall (over 25"), slight in build (probably weighs 65 lbs) and has a terribly straight front. My Duge is 21", 60 lbs, muscular and has nice angulation. Duge can jump much better than our guest and is more agile in turning. There is so much more to athletic ability than being a lightweight.


----------



## drloripalooza

Wow, I have learned so much in this thread, especially about fronts. As someone who has always preferred the "field type," I really like to learn about what makes for good function.


----------



## Selli-Belle

[/IMG]

Here is a side view of an almost stacked Duge at 7 months. I have a copy of this with his front and back angles added, but it was a bad print-out to start from. From my knowledge, the Duge is nicely angulated. Recently, I have been thinking his neck seems a bit short, but since he is only 7 months, who knows what he will look like as an adult or even next month.


----------



## Altairss

Duge just looks like he is not using his neck, it was discussed in another thread that one reason the wrong angulation in the shoulder layback became more commonly seen is that they have that pulled up look of using their neck. It give a pretty outline but not a pretty front movement.
Duge looks relaxed into his shoulders. I do like based on this picture his angulation and balance. The best way to see is to have some stack him and bait or alert him up so he is pulling himself forward think of a string pulling his head up directly from where it is now so he has that pround look. Does that make sense? And then snap the picture I think you would probably see he has more neck then this picture gives credit too.


----------



## Claudia M

This thread has gotten me thinking more as well. And the above post from Selli-Belle. 

I have been noticing that Rose (British Golden) is different in built than all the other goldens we had - mind you that the last golden puppy we got was in 1992. So I have been wondering if it was the fact that she is British or if in 20 years maybe the actual breed has changed due to different purpose breeding as Barb stated. 
When she sits she gives a very tall appearance. She is 25' long, 24' tall and weighs 63lbs at 8 months. She is quite muscular though. 
Any thoughts! And I am a big girl - I can take it!


----------



## Selli-Belle

I do not want anyone to think that I am saying that "English" Goldens have poor structure. In fact many American breeders have looked added some British dogs to their breeding program to improve front angulation. Our guest is not a product of that kind of program, but rather from a "greeder" who is on the "English Creme" marketing bandwagon and pays no attention to the structure of the dogs they are breeding.


----------



## Claudia M

Oh Selli-Belle - there is absolutely no offense taken here.  I have been concerned myself about her growth. I believe she will round up at 24.5 height and maybe 70lbs weight which will still put the height/weight ration at 2.8. I don't think any of our previous goldens were as long though. And even so, you can only tell she is that long when she sits. 
Any input or opinions are actually welcomed as far as Rose is concerned and am happy to be able to have expert eyes such as yourself, Shalva, Barb and others give their opinions.


----------



## KatieBlue'sMidnightSky

Claudia M said:


> This thread has gotten me thinking more as well. And the above post from Selli-Belle.
> 
> I have been noticing that Rose (British Golden) is different in built than all the other goldens we had - mind you that the last golden puppy we got was in 1992. So I have been wondering if it was the fact that she is British or if in 20 years maybe the actual breed has changed due to different purpose breeding as Barb stated.
> When she sits she gives a very tall appearance. She is 25' long, 24' tall and weighs 63lbs at 8 months. She is quite muscular though.
> Any thoughts! And I am a big girl - I can take it!



Answer to Q highlighted in pink: Probably a combo of both.

Your girl is very pretty and feminine, I like that. Having said that, she is quite tall compared to the AKC breed standard ~ as tall as the tallest male standard actually.

*Size, Proportion, Substance*
Males 23-24 inches in height at withers; females 21½-22½ inches. Dogs up to one inch above or below standard size should be proportionately penalized. Deviation in height of more than one inch from the standard shall _disqualify_. Length from breastbone to point of buttocks slightly greater than height at withers in ratio of 12:11. Weight for dogs 65-75 pounds; bitches 55-65 pounds. 

Perhaps knowing the KC standard for Goldens might be better for comparison?

The only thing that really caught my eye though was the lump/bump on her top line ~ both standing and sitting. I'm wondering if it's just a fluff in the fur though.


----------



## painted golden

Just for interest would any of you knowledgeable breeders please compare BOB Golden Westminster from 2001- Glory- Nautilus Mainsails to this years Cody?

The breeders of this winner -Glory-had different ideas on what direction they wanted to go in. Glory-Ch Nautilus Mainsail Hurricane was smaller boned. 
Nautilus went in the other direction.


----------



## Debles

The goldens at Westminster sure do not look like they could hunt in the field for a day! Even though they are beautiful, the breed has definitely changed. Look back to Funky Farquar, the first dual champion. I am grateful Sasha's sire is Stoney who is now the first Champion and Master Hunter. Even if my dogs are mainly companion/therapy dogs, I am grateful they still have the strong retrieving instinct .


----------



## Shalva

i never comment on other peoples dogs.... I am just not going to do it, it is like criticizing someones child and no good can come of that. If a friend who I know is not going to take offense asks me in person, then even then I think about what I am going to say... there are very few people that I would be totally honest about my thoughts on their dog... generally my breeders, the woman I mentor and my own mentor... and thats about it... so don't ask me to critique others dogs from photos... I just won't do it... opens up to muchof a can of worms and people will get offended ... even if they say they won't 

I would ask claudia where she measured her bitch at what point... and was she standing upright and how did she measure ... its very hard to get an accurate measure without a wicket... even with my dogs here as soon as I pull out the yardstick (which i cant find and am pretty sure someone took it into their own paws to destroy) or a ruler the dogs get all wonky on me. 24 is awfully tall for a bitch... I would be very surprised if that was an accurate measure 

as for English dogs... a well bred English or European pedigree may well indeed have better upper arm and upper arm angulation... but they tend to have weaker rears (again a general statement) ... they can be very long in the hock which is harder for them to control and can give them the appearance of being hocky.... they also can be so OVER angled that they are overdone and have trouble holding it all together. Our english dogs aren't perfect either.... At Crufts which had 700 goldens entered as I recall might have been 600 and change the years that I went ... I saw some absolutely gorgeous dogs... heads that I like, fronts to die for but as with everything the exhibitors there are no different than the exhibitors here and can, will and do take things to extremes.


----------



## Shalva

Captainobvious said:


> On a side note, watching the Westminster shows has also made me a big fan of some of the other breeds out there as well.


I agree... there are so many breeds now that I appreciate so much more ... breeds that I never in a million years thought that I would like... and some that really surprise me... at the top of that list for me is the wirehaired dachshund 
omg I never thought ... ever.... 

Samoyed.... and a few breeds that I will admire from afar... but I also have so much more appreciation for other breeds that I ever did ...


----------



## hotel4dogs

Stoney is an awesome dog, but I do want to correct this statement. He's actually about the 25th CH/MH, not the first. There are 29 of them to date.
While CH/MH is a massive, massive achievement (which we hope to someday get to!), there have also been 52 CH/QAA dogs, a huge step up from the MH level. Most of those dogs ran before hunt tests were introduced, or I suspect we would have seen a lot more CH/MH dogs. To be qualified all age in a field trial, and also a CH, ahhh....what a dog!




Debles said:


> The goldens at Westminster sure do not look like they could hunt in the field for a day! Even though they are beautiful, the breed has definitely changed. Look back to Funky Farquar, the first dual champion. I am grateful Sasha's sire is Stoney who is now the first Champion and Master Hunter. Even if my dogs are mainly companion/therapy dogs, I am grateful they still have the strong retrieving instinct .


----------



## HiTideGoldens

hotel4dogs said:


> Stoney is an awesome dog, but I do want to correct this statement. He's actually about the 25th CH/MH, not the first. There are 29 of them to date.
> While CH/MH is a massive achievement (which we hope to someday get to!), there have also been 52 CH/QAA dogs, a huge step up from the MH level. Most of those dogs ran before hunt tests were introduced, or I suspect we would have seen a lot more CH/MH dogs.


I believe Stoney is the first GCH/MH, if I remember correctly?


----------



## Shalva

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I believe Stoney is the first GCH/MH, if I remember correctly?


GCh makes sense as that is a relatively new title


----------



## Altairss

Shalva, I loved the shoulder diagrams you posted earlier. Are they from a book? If so what is the name I would love to see more of the diagrams from it lol


----------



## Claudia M

KatieBlue'sMidnightSky said:


> The only thing that really caught my eye though was the lump/bump on her top line ~ both standing and sitting. I'm wondering if it's just a fluff in the fur though.


Yeah - it is a fluffy weird growing hair - every time I see it I put my hand on it - re-assuring myself that it is not a bump. It has been like that since the last bath and we'll correct that on the next bath in a month or two.


----------



## Claudia M

Shalva said:


> i never comment on other peoples dogs.... I am just not going to do it,...


Rose taught me that if I pout a little I may get what I want! 

Thank you!


----------



## rhondas

removed post


----------



## Nairb

I would never comment on someone else's dog either, unless it was complimentary. Neither online, nor in person. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## BajaOklahoma

(Referring to the Old English Sheepdogs.)


goldensrbest said:


> They are also stuborn, we had one,very cute,but hardheaded.


Seriously? We've had 4 over 35 years, different lines and never had a bit of stubborness. And it's not something that I've seen in my friend's Sheepies or even my online "friends" with Sheepies.
They are velcro dogs, very anxious to please. And smart. Maude, our first Sheepie, cleaned out my m-i-l's tool shed - pulling everything through a dog door. Rakes, shovels, hoes, full bags of fertilizer, it all was taken outside.
Think of them as hairy Goldens - very much the temperament.

Grooming isn't that bad either. I consider it therapy. I comb them out weekly, for an hour each. Seriously, that's all it takes to keep them mat free.
I do remove the undercoat and have them in a longer coat - more of a natural 70s style than the current trimmed look. They don't shed. The vacuum always has lots of Golden fur, very little Sheepie.


----------



## KatieBlue'sMidnightSky

yeah~ maybe you ladies are right, it's a dangerous thing to do ~ even if the person says they "can take it".


----------



## hotel4dogs

That could well be! In any case, he is an amazing dog, and has a wonderful heart of gold!



goldenjackpuppy said:


> I believe Stoney is the first GCH/MH, if I remember correctly?


----------



## Claudia M

No worries Kimberley - it does help me know what to look for and how to train her. Thank you for your input!
Dummy me - I was more worried about her length than height!


----------



## Shalva

Altairss said:


> Shalva, I loved the shoulder diagrams you posted earlier. Are they from a book? If so what is the name I would love to see more of the diagrams from it lol


I wish I knew where they were from.... a few years back though I bought an excellent book when I was at crufts that was great as an illustrated book of the GR breed standard.... I will try and find the name of it and get that to you... 

the image I posted was one that came across my fb page and was such a good illustration that I saved it... I generally like to cite stuff like that and give credit where credit is due but I just dont know the original source

I am glad you found it helpful


----------



## Debles

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I believe Stoney is the first GCH/MH, if I remember correctly?



You are correct, sorry I left off the G. Thanks!


----------



## hotel4dogs

Yikes, don't leave off the G, it means a lot 
I've had the pleasure of meeting Stoney several times. He is a fantastic dog.


----------



## drloripalooza

Thank you so much for the explanations and diagrams of fronts. Something I will be looking for in the lines of the golden puppy I intend to get in a few years! Even though I want a performance golden, proper structure is important for proper function.


----------



## PrincessDaisy

This has been a great thread. I have learned a lot, and appreciate the information, pictures and diagrams. The current crop of "show" Goldens are much different from the ones my mother owned in the 70's and 80's. 

The Princess is a great hunting dog. If it flies, and I get it to the surface, she'll bring it back. Field, thicket, open water or flooded timber, does not matter. 29 retrieves in one day is her record. The other "retriever" took over an hour to bring back a teal from 30 yards away, constant correction the whole time. So he went in the box and the Princess made every retrieve for 3 hunters. But, she is long and lean, and a bit on the tall side. I know that she does not conform to the breed standard in all respects, but now I better understand to what degree.

Shalva - And when you find the title of the book with photos and illustrations, Please pass along.

There appear to be two dogs popping up in Dogpile search named "Stoney". Lakota and Malagold. To which are the above posts refering?

As to other breeds, the NSDTR has really been getting my attention the last 5 years or so. I grew up with English Setters, Pointers, and Beagles. Dad hunted, and kept dogs for each type that he did. And they were all outside dogs.

Max


----------



## tippykayak

I believe the Stoney in question in this thread is Springcreek Everlore All Time Hi, or, rather, GCH CH HRCH U-CD Springcreek Everlore All Time Hi RN CDX MH WCX VCX DDHF BOSS.


----------



## drloripalooza

I found something interesting. Extended Australian Breed Standard. You must click on the PDF: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...iL14mNYSXC0_dqw&bvm=bv.42553238,d.dmQ&cad=rjt

Click on the PDF.

Illustrations and photographs.


----------



## PrincessDaisy

Springcreek Everlore All Time Hi, "Stoney" is pictured on both Everlore and Lakota web sites. Bred and owned at Everlore and field trained at Lakota. 

Stoney is one handsome dog.


Max


----------



## drloripalooza

Here's the Crufts 2012 BOB for comparison: Crufts 2012 Results |


----------



## Ljilly28

Shalva said:


> it doesn't matter how many goldens there are ....61 entered at the garden .... 61 dogs with poor upper arm and front angulation . ..



It is easy to arm chair quarterback, so I suggest you all get out there and do it much better than these horrible examples of the breed! From standing ringside, it is pretty hard to understand Sydney and Chloe being discussed in these terms, and there were certainly several dogs with outstanding fronts. Wow.


----------



## Shalva

Ljilly28 said:


> It is easy to arm chair quarterback, so I suggest you all get out there and do it much better than these horrible examples of the breed! From standing ringside, it is pretty hard to understand Sydney and Chloe being discussed in these terms, and there were certainly several dogs with outstanding fronts. Wow.


I have seen many of these dogs in shows.... and outstanding fronts seem to be compared to the other dogs in the ring. I think it is very easy to get defensive .... which is why I don't discuss other peoples dogs... instead of looking at what is happening to the breed as a whole. Were there some nice dogs there I am sure there were... but as a whole and that is what I was talking about ... as a whole I saw a couple dogs that I would say had an adequate/good front... and one was your Lush and she is still young... 

I think that you have put a whole lot of words into my mouth... I did not say that they were horrid examples of the breed, YOU said that... what I said was that if we want goldens to win BIS at a show like the garden then we need to improve front assembly THAT is what I said... and I also went on to say that front assembly was worse in flat coats... and several other sporting breeds. I personally don't think there is ANYTHING wrong with a breeder who is trying to work to better the breed to acknowledge a problem that exists in the breed. If we can't acknowledge the issues that we have then how can we fix them. 

Don't forget I TOO have shown at the garden.


----------



## Ljilly28

You would think the opposite would follow then, and that field dogs would have lovely structure. However, that is also relatively rare. Many field dogs with no conformation titles or CCA also do not meet the standard in many ways.

Probably everyone knows Stoney is a beloved dog to me, that I had a Stoney kid and look up to his owner greatly, hope to breed Lushie to him in the future and yes he is the very first GCH/MH, (and also I wholeheartedly admire Tito's accomplishments).

However, I do not just take for granted a top 20 dog without a field title is incapable of getting one nor should morally achieve one. 

I honestly do not see how a person has time to campaign theirs dogs to SDHF and do field titles, unless they co own as a team and divide, or unless they are independently wealthy while still keeping coat at the level of national competition. 

There is a world of difference between SDHF and a GCH in terms of the time it take and expense. It is hard for me to believe a golden that was never campaigned to SDHF could win BIS at Westminster for a host of reasons from petty to legitimate- of course, it is a dog show and some judge's are giant killers and anything could happen. But. I think it would take a mighty, focused, and sustained effort to go BIS there.

I believe Chloe could do her JH, but not while staying the #1 golden in the USA. I think it is a valid choice to have a passion for conformation, and do that to the highest.


----------



## Ljilly28

Shalva said:


> if we want goldens to win BIS at a show like the garden then we need to improve front assembly THAT is what I said....


 On one of the winners' breed lists, they are complaining about why he shouldnt have won. It is human nature. Chloe has won BIS 17 times, and some at huge shows. Her front assembly was the same one going BIS than it was not going BIS, and over many of the same sporting dogs. I guess I just don't agree that the reason a golden didnt go BIS is because all have weaker front assemblies than other breeds.


----------



## GoldenSail

Well having got involved in field training I don't think it is that much of a stretch for a good dog to easily get a JH or WC with minimal training. There is a BIS winning flat coat that at age 9 years old was sent out for field training to a pro. Dog had zero field experience and after two weeks of training entered his first test...and passed. He got his JH in a single month with four straight passes. Natural drive and talent which I think should be the goal!

Also, people spend a ton of money campaigning their dogs. Great for them if they enjoy it, but it would not be more expensive to send the dog to a pro for training to show some minimal quality of work ethic. This is my personal bias because I lean toward the versatile dog--the one that looks good and can work!

There are certainly field dogs with poor structure I see them often and I personally don't like it. I don't like coarse boned, heavy coated dogs that won't hunt either. They both exist. I've encountered them. There are also breeders in the middle trying to go for both. Good for them!


----------



## Shalva

Ljilly28 said:


> On one of the winners' breed lists, they are complaining about why he shouldnt have won. It is human nature. Chloe has won BIS 17 times, and some at huge shows. Her front assembly was the same one going BIS than it was not going BIS, and over many of the same sporting dogs. I guess I just don't agree that the reason a golden didnt go BIS is because all have weaker front assemblies than other breeds.


I would never criticize a dog out there ... I have said that a good front on a poor rear is not good either .... but if we are going to show the best dogs in the US in one place then our dogs need to have great structure and I really think that as lovely as our dogs are, we have some structural issues in the breed as a whole that need improvement and front assemblies are one of them and shoot the goldens were better than the flat coats... wht is interesting is when I was talking about this to the flat coat folks ... the same issue... they were all willing to acknowledge that it was a problem in the breed as a whole... shoot ever read the comments from the judges after a national ... especiall from foreign judges? they all comment on upper arm and front angulation... 

I dont know whether the dog that won should ahve won or not... I didn't have my hands on him or anything else... but from what I could see as the garden wasn't much different from what I see down at west springfield and that is dogs who as a whole are very straight in the front...


----------



## hotel4dogs

Another bitch I just love...
Pedigree: BIS BISS GCH CH Shadowland's Paws For Applause At Tristar CD RA WC VC SDHF CGC TDI
Wins Best in Show at the National Specialty and is out running the WCX the next morning. Didn't pass the WCX, doesn't matter. Did a great job, looked awesome out there. 
While her owners have a passion for conformation, they have also pursued proof that Syndey has the other traits that are so desireable in the breed.
There are many others. She just came to mind because she won at National.


----------



## Megora

I think another reason why field is low priority for a lot of these breeders is because of the politics....


----------



## hotel4dogs

I have seen some field dogs with awe inspiring front assemblies. Unfortunately, that's ALL they had, conformation-wise.



Ljilly28 said:


> You would think the opposite would follow then, and that field dogs would have lovely structure. However, that is also relatively rare. Many field dogs with no conformation titles or CCA also do not meet the standard in many ways.
> 
> Probably everyone knows Stoney is a beloved dog to me, that I had a Stoney kid and look up to his owner greatly, and also I wholeheartedly admire Tito's accomplishments.
> 
> However, I do not just take for granted a top 20 dog without a field title is incapable of getting one.
> 
> I honestly do not see how a person has time to campaign theirs dogs to SDHF and do field titles, unless they co own as a team and divide, or unless they are independently wealthy while still keeping coat at the level of national competition.
> 
> I believe Chloe could do her JH, but not while staying the #1 golden in the USA. I think it is a valid choice to have a passion for conformation, and do that to the highest.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Oh yes, when Tito was showing I would always snicker at what people would say outside the ring when he won, not knowing I was his owner. My favorite was his first major, when someone said, "oh, he only won because he had a (not big name) handler". I about choked laughing. Him and 22 of the other 23 dogs in the ring had handlers! 
And yes, Chloe is the same every time she goes in the ring, but another thing I quickly learned while showing is that, against the same dogs, some days you win, some days they win, some days neither of you wins. Even though it's always the same dogs. I find it humorous that Tito has been put up over many of the big winning dogs at some point or another. Is Tito a better dog? Nope. Just had what that judge was looking for on that particular day in that particular group of dogs. Maybe the other dog was having a bad day, and just showed poorly. It happens. I actually had a judge tell me once that the deciding factor between Tito and the reserve winner was Tito has better feet. Yeah, okay. Whatever. Stoney has lost to a lot of dogs because his teeth weren't quite as good, although the rest of him was better. Just depends on the judge and what they are looking for. 
As for front ends, I've had many many breeders and/or breeder judges tell me that Tito could use a bit more in the front end, but has a lot more than most of what they see in the ring right now. My response...that's scary if his is one of the better ones around....
The other comment I've heard from so many of them is that too many of the goldens are too long in the body. 
These are well known breeders and/or judges, and they are not commenting on a particular dog or dogs. They are making observations about the general traits they are seeing in the show ring right now.
I don't know if the golden not going BIS or even winning the group at the Garden had anything at all to do with the front assembly. Wouldn't even begin to venture a guess.





Ljilly28 said:


> On one of the winners' breed lists, they are complaining about why he shouldnt have won. It is human nature. Chloe has won BIS 17 times, and some at huge shows. Her front assembly was the same one going BIS than it was not going BIS, and over many of the same sporting dogs. I guess I just don't agree that the reason a golden didnt go BIS is because all have weaker front assemblies than other breeds.


----------



## Shalva

hotel4dogs said:


> As for front ends, I've had many many breeders and/or breeder judges tell me that Tito could use a bit more in the front end, but has a lot more than most of what they see in the ring right now. My response...that's scary if his is one of the better ones around....
> The other comment I've heard from so many of them is that too many of the goldens are too long in the body.
> These are well known breeders and/or judges, and they are not commenting on a particular dog or dogs. They are making observations about the general traits they are seeing in the show ring right now.


and that is point... you don't get offended... you acknowledge what they are saying and tuck that information away. Its not a critique of a dog it is an ackowledement of what is happening in the breed and without that we can't work to fix it. It is not a criticism of your individual dog... it is an observation. 

We as breeders cant hope to improve our breed if we can't acknowledge what is happening with it for fear of getting slammed or upsetting people. 

Flat Coats have the same issue.... Wolfhounds as well.... and add in some weak rears in wolfhounds... 

we are the caretakers of these dogs and we have to do right by them ... and that means acknowledging the problems as well as the good


----------



## Ljilly28

hotel4dogs said:


> Another bitch I just love...
> Pedigree: BIS BISS GCH CH Shadowland's Paws For Applause At Tristar CD RA WC VC SDHF CGC TDI
> Wins Best in Show at the National Specialty and is out running the WCX the next morning. Didn't pass the WCX, doesn't matter. Did a great job, looked awesome out there.
> While her owners have a passion for conformation, they have also pursued proof that Syndey has the other traits that are so desireable in the breed.
> There are many others. She just came to mind because she won at National.


That is who I was just talking about as I spent the last 7 days looking at how nice her front assembly is and spent the day with her owner. I would put up a photo from LI specialty if there has not been a (wise) decision not to post photos of other people's dogs. Reading the first pages of posts on how weak the field of goldens was was simply not my experience. The opposite was true- there were four or five dogs who were simply outstanding, and Sydney was one. She was exhibited by a junior handler too. There was plenty of quality there.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Shalva said:


> and that is point... you don't get offended... you acknowledge what they are saying and tuck that information away. Its not a critique of a dog it is an ackowledement of what is happening in the breed and without that we can't work to fix it. It is not a criticism of your individual dog... it is an observation.


Except that 61 "individual dog" owners/breeders had their dogs entered at Westminster and you specifically criticized all of them as lacking in upper arm and front angle without ever putting your hands on them. I agree with the overall statement that front assemblies do need to be improved in the breed from what I've seen generally, I just didn't like the approach taken in this thread by criticizing the dogs shown on Tuesday and using them as evidence of the point. It just wasn't nice - for lack of a better way to describe my sentiments.


----------



## Altairss

I think as a whole, it seems goldens are split into either a field or confirmation camp with ony a small portion trying to span the gap in between. This is when you take into account how many goldens are out there and being worked and shown. And while it is good to specialise especially if your good at it. We should not become blind to both sides of a complete Golden retriever.

However it appears more and more people are trying despite the politics involved in either group to do both even if its only a little outside their confort zone and they should be applouded and encouraged. When you have people that have a real zeal for what they are doing politics follow. But if we want to see the breed improve people need to step up and encourage any effort and not put them down for trying. Something I have seen people do at shows put down those that are trying to break into a new area thats not a good thing to see.


I know there were good fronts at Westminster you could spot them what was sad is that they stood out because there just was not as many as I expected. By the same token I saw great topline and great rears soThere were tons of good points about all the dogs. And one fault to me doesn't end that dog in my eyes I just hope the person that owns and campains them will take the faults into account when or if they choose to breed them.
Understanding our own dogs faults and improving them is part and parcel of being a good breeder. And that was the reason for the discussion at least for me, to hope people will put forth the effort to improve this fault if in fact their dog is one that needs it.


----------



## GoldenSail

hotel4dogs said:


> As for front ends, I've had many many breeders and/or breeder judges tell me that Tito could use a bit more in the front end, but has a lot more than most of what they see in the ring right now. My response...that's scary if his is one of the better ones around....
> The other comment I've heard from so many of them is that too many of the goldens are too long in the body.
> These are well known breeders and/or judges, and they are not commenting on a particular dog or dogs. They are making observations about the general traits they are seeing in the show ring right now.
> I don't know if the golden not going BIS or even winning the group at the Garden had anything at all to do with the front assembly. Wouldn't even begin to venture a guess.


Scout does not have the best front, and she is a bit long in body and I have heard those are common problems right now. OTOH I think it is sad when I was showing her that people were readily willing to tell me I should give up because she didn't have enough bone and coat (trust me, she has plenty for a functional retriever which is perhaps less than average) but not one could say "You know, she doesn't have the best front and she's a bit long."


----------



## Altairss

If someones dog does have a bad front that person would or should already know it. Most breeder can admit if only to theirselves, what faults their dog has. I was always my own worst critic of my own dogs while showing and breeding. I needed to be I had a responsiblity to not be blind to my own dogs faults at the same time treasuring and protecting what was good or great about them so I could make careful selections if or when I decided to breed that dog.

I didn't think anyone that I noticed stated all the dogs had bad fronts and while we could not touch the dogs some things were definately apparent when some of them moved out.

Again it was not all dogs and it doesn't mean those dogs did not have great assests in other ways. If we can't look objectively to what might be wrong in large part in the breed how can you fix it?




goldenjackpuppy said:


> Except that 61 "individual dog" owners/breeders had their dogs entered at Westminster and you specifically criticized all of them as lacking in upper arm and front angle without ever putting your hands on them. I agree with the overall statement that front assemblies do need to be improved, I just didn't like the approach taken in this thread by criticizing the dogs shown on Tuesday as evidence of the point. It just wasn't nice - for lack of a better way to describe my sentiments.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

> I didn't think anyone that I noticed stated all the dogs had bad fronts and while we could not touch the dogs some things were definately apparent when some of them moved out.


Yep, someone most certainly did state all the dogs had bad fronts:



Shalva said:


> it doesn't matter how many goldens there are ....61 entered at the garden .... 61 dogs with poor upper arm and front angulation . . .


I'm just saying it wasn't nice and I understand why LJilly is a bit upset, especially given that her dog was shown there. I was upset when I read the post a couple of days ago, considering that very few forum members were even at the garden, let alone had their hands on all the dogs... I had trouble telling a lot of things watching the live feed, I wouldn't presume to be able to evaluate a dog based on it. But I let it go.


----------



## Ljilly28

> and that is point... you don't get offended... you acknowledge what they are saying and tuck that information away. Its not a critique of a dog it is an ackowledement of what is happening in the breed and without that we can't work to fix it. It is not a criticism of your individual dog... it is an observation.


I am not offended by a critique of Lush's front. She has plenty of weak spots, but that isnt a main one. 

The tone of the thread toward the champion dogs recently shown saying 61 were entered and 61 had poor upper arms and angulation was unfair to several of the 61, and gratuitious. It just isnt very nice. 

Also, it implies the people critiquing the whole entry on the forum think they know know more than the judges- not just DJ, but all of the judges who put up all of those dogs in the past, more than their breeders and owners. . .

Of those 61, probably 10 of their owners will read this thread. Probably about ten of the breeders too. 

I felt bad when I read it, and they are going to feel bad when they read it. 

It happens with all sports, but it like saying the losers of the superbowl are soso football players, lol.



Claudia M said:


> To be honest I was not impressed at all with either the GR or the LR at the show. And I concur with TheZ's in regards to the old english sheepdog.


When someone on a forum says she finds the GR entry blah or that she is "not impressed" and she is looking at dogs like Miss Sydney and Miss Chloe, I have to stop and ask what her credentials are in making such an analysis. Is it an informed opinion?


----------



## Shalva

and again whats funny is that even the exhibitors or flat coats acknowledge the fact that fronts were a problem... even the exhibitors ... and we had this exact same conversation so what is that... is that an inability of golden folks to look at their dogs and be objective about what they see? if so ... then that in itself is a problem.... 

what I think ... is that folks should go back and really look at the dogs... and compare them to a dog with an excellent front... like the flat coat above... or the illustration and go and see what you can see... 

and lets take the whole quote of what I said... 
_it doesn't matter how many goldens there are ....61 entered at the garden .... 61 dogs with poor upper arm and front angulation will not beat 1 affenpinscher with better structure... and when you choose the best of breed you are choosing the best of what you are offered that day... There is more to a dog than a front of course but the fronts are the glaring problem... a judge shouldn't choose a dog based on a front alone but if people are asking why a golden never wins BIS then we have to look at the structure of our dogs and fronts are a glaring problem... 
_

in response to the person who commented about how many there were .... and there had to be one... my comment was basically saying that the numbers don't matter... if fronts are a weak spot in the breed then it doesn't matter if there are 400 entered or 600 entered like at crufts... if they have a glaring problem like front assembly or rear or whatever ... it is not going to matter how many are entered... they are not going to beat a breed with an entry of ONE who has superior structure....

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN ... we need to be critical of our dogs... to many people are breeding for what wins ... and are not critical of their dogs.... YA Know why my Meir is neutered... because his rear stinks ... and he is straight in the front... why would I want to breed that... now is his front and rear better than the average... sure ... is it good enough if my goal is to improve the breed then NO 

instead of getting offended we should be looking at our dogs and comparing them to the ideal, that is what a standard is... the ideal... and seeing where they achieve and where they don't and there is no perfect dog...and again I am not going to comment on individual dogs... and I can appreciate a well structured dog but there is a reason that I like my English type dogs... and some nice blends...and part of that to be honest is because I dont like the direction that the American style dogs are going and I wish that the breeders would really focus on these issues....because there is part of me that would really like a dog I could show here in the US but there are structural issues that really bother me and if you can't tell... fronts, upper arm and angulation are some of them.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Let's not split hairs, it was a jab at the 61 dogs who were entered who were deemed to all be lacking in their front assembly without anyone from this forum putting their hands on the dogs. No matter how you slice it, it still wasn't nice. And it isn't nice to keep saying it now, telling us to go back and look at the dogs. Those dogs have breeders and owners who are reading this thread! It's just mean! It's one thing to have private conversations about things but quite another to post it on here or on facebook, which is what others did. That's not sticking my head in the sand about general issues in the breed, that's just being kind to the owners and breeders of those dogs.


----------



## TheZ's

Ljilly, You have a wonderful dog who has done amazingly well for her age. I'd be upset too if after putting in the time, money and psychic energy to take my dog all the way to Westminster, I came on here and read this thread. There has been some useful information but also some thoughtless and uninformed comments including my early one about Old English Sheepdogs, which I have to say I regret.


----------



## Ljilly28

> Shalva said:
> 
> 
> 
> is that an inability of golden folks to look at their dogs and be objective about what they see?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think you see something in my dog's front that my breeder, who is a judge and CCA evaluator, as not already discussed with me 20 times? The minute someone starts paining all "golden folks" with the same brush, I have to say I feel lucky to know so many golden people with integrity, an informed eye, and capacity to resist kennel blindess. I guess you have met different golden folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what I think ... is that folks should go back and really look at the dogs... and compare them to a dog with an excellent front... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, looking at the dogs on a video is different than putting hands on them. There is no way to arm chair quarterback the judging of 61 dogs from a computer screen.
> 
> I think several of the goldens were very, very quality dogs. Chloe has gone BIS many times over all the other breeds. On a different day, a different result could happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## vcm5

I haven't really chimed in on this thread because I don't have the knowledge, but I have been reading it and learning a ton. Unfortunately, I made the huge mistake of letting Winston read the part where Goldens were called the "James Bond" of dogs. I think its rather gone to his head - he has been creeping around trying to assassinate Riley on all kinds of missions today. Oh, and drinking martinis! I don't have the heart to tell him...


----------



## Ljilly28

TheZ's said:


> Ljilly, You have a wonderful dog who has done amazingly well for her age. I'd be upset too if after putting in the time, money and psychic energy to take my dog all the way to Westminster, I came on here and read this thread.


I appreciate that. I was sad when I read it. Not even so much about my own dog, who is young and out of coat with a substitue handler- we never thought we would win- but just bc after being part of the forum for sooooo long it was really harsh. Also, I really respect and like some of the other owners and breeders of the other 61 and they are close friends. I felt bad on their behalf too, as this thread is already circulating. 

There is something to be said for critquing the best of the breed so it can improve, but there is something to be said for supporting your breed and cheering for it too.


----------



## Altairss

The only reason I watched the GR at this show was so I could watch Lushie, I follow her on facebook and on here because I adore her. In many ways she is my ideal GR. I sincerely hope you did not think my comments about seeing some bad fronts to be about her. Cause They were not at all about her and I liked the dogs that went up but I cannot say that I did not see some things that concerned me regarding movement on some of the other dogs because it did. 

So for those that were there or attend regular shows, in your view do you think fronts do not need to improved, I am not talking specific dogs but in general? Do you find the breed as a whole has really good fronts or do you think this is something we should have some concern about?


----------



## HiTideGoldens

I think if we're going to talk about fronts in general it should be a new thread. The way it was discussed in this thread was not very nice and was certainly disrespectful to the owners/breeders of the dogs shown at the garden.


----------



## Karen519

*Jill*

Jill - I watched the whole judging online because I was rooting for you and Lushie and then Ken and I watched the breed judging on TV.
I will never understand why the Goldens or the Samoyeds never win. They are both BEAUTIFUL, INTELLIGENT and LOVING DOGS!
Your girl is just STUNNING!!


----------



## Shalva

goldenjackpuppy said:


> And it isn't nice to keep saying it now, telling us to go back and look at the dogs. Those dogs have breeders and owners who are reading this thread! It's just mean! It's one thing to have private conversations about things but quite another to post it on here or on facebook, which is what others did. That's not sticking my head in the sand about general issues in the breed, that's just being kind to the owners and breeders of those dogs.


and this is why are breed is having more health issues... and structural issues etc etc because when you bring them up ... its being mean!!! 

no worries I will stop being "mean" and will go and be a cheerleader... rah rah 
and we can all think that it is a big mean vendetta against our wonderful perfect goldens and that the reason they don't win is not because they have any issues but rather that they are perfect ... and its the big mean judges that just don't like them cause they are nice. 

yep thats it ... I am sure... will just go with the party line.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

No, you aren't getting it. It has nothing to do with being a cheerleader. I'm saying don't ruin people's joy by peeing in their pool! Why ruin their excitement to have their dogs shown at Westminster. Like Ljilly pointed out, she is well aware of her dog's faults, does that mean she wants her dog critiqued on the forum because she was on a live feed? No, I imagine not. It's not up to the forum to point out the faults in all the dogs that were showing at Westminster. If someone had that conversation privately, I have no problem with it. And as a general discussion on here, sure, I have no problem with that either. But the manner in which many people handled critiquing dogs shown at the garden was just rude. Not just here, a couple people did the same thing on facebook and my response was exactly the same.

Why not just admit it could have been handled better, start a new thread with a general discussion on the same issue and move on?


----------



## tippykayak

I think it's one thing to say that fronts are an important area for improvement in the breed and quite another to apply the word "poor" to the same piece of anatomy on every single dog at the Garden that day.

I honestly don't think you'd have created the same bad feelings if it were simply a focused piece of productive criticism, rather than a blanket statement that is phrased in an insulting—perhaps unintentionally insulting, but insulting nonetheless—way.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

And with that I am closing this thread because I think it has run its course. I suggest people interested in discussing front assemblies and structure start a new general thread to discuss those issues, I think it would be a valuable discussion.


----------

