# Field Bred versus Show Bred Goldens



## Savanah (Apr 14, 2013)

What are the main differences in the field bred versus show bred goldens besides the size and energy level. I was told by a breeder that the field bred goldens shed significantly less than the show bred goldens. Is that correct? Thank you.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Shed less? I don't think so. The big difference is in coat length and texture. The field coats are much easier to maintain. Combing out a field dog might take five minutes.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

My youngest guy sheds way less than my other two, but that is because he doesn't have much undercoat. He's part field.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

A correct coat is a correct coat though. A correct coat on a conformation dog does not require a lot of maintenance, while an incorrect coat will require more work regardless if they are field or conformation bred. And all goldens shed


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Biggest difference I found was the texture of the coat. Field goldens definitely lower maintenance. And they dry a lot quicker.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I disagree. My conformation bred dogs do not have high maintenance coats. For example, Jack (at almost 4 years old) does not carry excessive coat, it is correct in texture, dries quickly and never mats. A field bred dog with an incorrect coat will be higher maintenance than a conformation bred dog with a correct coat. I have seen both field and conformation dogs with incorrect coats, I wouldn't want either.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I disagree. My conformation bred dogs do not have high maintenance coats. For example, Jack (at almost 4 years old) does not carry excessive coat, it is correct in texture, dries quickly and never mats. A field bred dog with an incorrect coat will be higher maintenance than a conformation bred dog with a correct coat. I have seen both field and conformation dogs with incorrect coats, I wouldn't want either.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


What is an incorrect coat on a field bred dog?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> What is an incorrect coat on a field bred dog?


I don't totally understand your question. An incorrect coat is incorrect regardless of what venue the breeder competes in. The standard calls for "a 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." It further says that "excessive length, open coats, and limp, soft coats are very undesirable."

So an incorrect coat has nothing to do with the venue the breeder competes in. I have seen field bred dogs with silky soft, limp coats that take forever to dry. I have also seen conformation bred dogs with open coats and excessive length that would be a nightmare in the field. So regardless of venue, correct is correct and incorrect is incorrect.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I don't totally understand your question. An incorrect coat is incorrect regardless of what venue the breeder competes in. The standard calls for "a 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." It further says that "excessive length, open coats, and limp, soft coats are very undesirable."
> 
> So an incorrect coat has nothing to do with the venue the breeder competes in. I have seen field bred dogs with silky soft, limp coats that take forever to dry. I have also seen conformation bred dogs with open coats and excessive length that would be a nightmare in the field. So regardless of venue, correct is correct and incorrect is incorrect.


But there still is a difference in the coats. Or do you disagree?


----------



## Brave (Oct 26, 2012)

Do you find that the hair on the belly is thinner? I am noticing that with Bear and wonder if its genetics or simply age. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I think a correct coat is a correct coat regardless, as I said above. My conformation dogs don't require tons of maintenance. To be honest, I am lucky if I comb them out once a week and when I do it just takes a few minutes for each. Certainly when they are being shown they are groomed more frequently, but they are relatively low maintenance dogs.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

When the OP asked the question they were speaking in generalities, not how some individual dogs appear to be. 

Looking at each style as a group as a whole, the conformation dogs have a much longer flowing coat with lots of furnishings. The field dogs as a group have a shorter, close lying coat with light to moderate furnishings. 

In both groups, the dogs have roughly the same "number" of individual hairs on them, so they shed roughly an equal number of hairs each year, relative to gender, intact vs altered, etc. The perceived difference in shed coat is really due to the length of the coat. If you collect a small pile of individual 2" hairs and a small pile consisting of an equal number of 4" hairs, which pile will appear to be "larger"? That is really the difference.


----------



## Tayla's Mom (Apr 20, 2012)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I think a correct coat is a correct coat regardless, as I said above. My conformation dogs don't require tons of maintenance. To be honest, I am lucky if I comb them out once a week and when I do it just takes a few minutes for each. Certainly when they are being shown they are groomed more frequently, but they are relatively low maintenance dogs.



There is a difference in the coats, correct or not. Why do you never see field bred types at Westminster? They are not showy dogs. I don't know if Tayla's coat is correct or not. I'm assuming she comes from a bad breeder (we adopted her) from TN and is supposed to be field lines. She looks nothing like all our friend's goldens who are all conformation bred. No mistaking that her coat takes much less time to dry than theirs.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Swampcollie said:


> When the OP asked the question they were speaking in generalities, not how some individual dogs appear to be.
> 
> Looking at each style as a group as a whole, the conformation dogs have a much longer flowing coat with lots of furnishings. The field dogs as a group have a shorter, close lying coat with light to moderate furnishings.
> 
> In both groups, the dogs have roughly the same "number" of individual hairs on them, so they shed roughly an equal number of hairs each year, relative to gender, intact vs altered, etc. The perceived difference in shed coat is really due to the length of the coat. If you collect a small pile of individual 2" hairs and a small pile consisting of an equal number of 4" hairs, which pile will appear to be "larger"? That is really the difference.


Sure, the length of coat is different. But my point was in response the comment which was made above that a conformation bred dog will require more maintenance than a field bred dog. I disagree that that is the case and used my dogs as an example.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Tayla's Mom said:


> There is a difference in the coats, correct or not. Why do you never see field bred types at Westminster? They are not showy dogs. I don't know if Tayla's coat is correct or not. I'm assuming she comes from a bad breeder (we adopted her) from TN and is supposed to be field lines. She looks nothing like all our friend's goldens who are all conformation bred. No mistaking that her coat takes much less time to dry than theirs.


No one is saying they don't look different in appearance. The OPs question was about shedding and a comment was made that conformation dogs require more maintenance. I was simply disagreeing with that statement, as a correct coat is correct no matter what dog it's on, and used my own dogs as an example.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Swampcollie said:


> When the OP asked the question they were speaking in generalities, not how some individual dogs appear to be.
> 
> Looking at each style as a group as a whole, the conformation dogs have a much longer flowing coat with lots of furnishings. The field dogs as a group have a shorter, close lying coat with light to moderate furnishings.
> 
> In both groups, the dogs have roughly the same "number" of individual hairs on them, so they shed roughly an equal number of hairs each year, relative to gender, intact vs altered, etc. The perceived difference in shed coat is really due to the length of the coat. If you collect a small pile of individual 2" hairs and a small pile consisting of an equal number of 4" hairs, which pile will appear to be "larger"? That is really the difference.


Your description fits my conformation and field bred boys to the tee.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> No one is saying they don't look different in appearance. The OPs question was about shedding and a comment was made that conformation dogs require more maintenance. I was simply disagreeing with that statement, as a correct coat is correct no matter what dog it's on, and used my own dogs as an example.


Who decides what "Correct Coat" is, is subjective in nature. 

I suspect that if you brought your dog and my dog out on a full day of jump shooting ducks and pheasants in the South Dakota creek bottoms (that are just loaded with thistle and cockleburs) you might have a different consideration for what is correct. My dog will take about 5 minutes to comb the burs and debris out of its coat. I suspect you might have a different experience with yours. 

The golden retriever is supposed to be a working hunting dog, that is the breeds purpose and what is "correct" should be "fit for purpose" shouldn't it?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Swampcollie said:


> Who decides what "Correct Coat" is, is subjective in nature.
> 
> I suspect that if you brought your dog and my dog out on a full day of jump shooting ducks and pheasants in the South Dakota creek bottoms (that are just loaded with thistle and cockleburs) you might have a different consideration for what is correct. My dog will take about 5 minutes to comb the burs and debris out of its coat. I suspect you might have a different experience with yours.
> 
> The golden retriever is supposed to be a working hunting dog, that is the breeds purpose and what is "correct" should be "fit for purpose" shouldn't it?


There's absolutely no way you would know that to be true or false unless you have personally had your hands on my dog. Which you have not. Just because you "suspect" something to be my experience does not make it so. You are more than free to assume my dog's coat is not correct, if you feel so inclined, and make rude statements about your apparent knowledge of his ability to work in the field and required grooming thereafter. You would be wrong, but one can assume what one wishes.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I agree with Michelle above that if the dog has a correct coat then there should not be a problem with that dog running through fields and getting wet. Especially if the owner has a slicker brush on hand and keeps the dogs groomed.

I think there are some goldens in the ring who have a little more coat than the norm.... but generally the goldens that I've seen in the ring near here tend to have just a touch more coat than my Jacks. So it's not going to cause major issues for these dogs to be running around their yards and swimming. I'm probably offering a naive and narrow opinion there, but it's what I've seen personally. 

All our dogs have picked up burrs. Even our CAT picks up burrs. You have the big burrs and the little burrs. If they are out there, the animals find a way to go trotting that direction to wade through them.  

Clean up time usually takes about 5-10 minutes with a wire slicker brush. Even the cat. 

Grooming a golden retriever is a SNAP if you've ever had to groom a collie. Their coats are simply MADE for going through bushes, burrs, etc... with minimal tangling. 

Collies get a simple leaf caught in their skirts, and it's an instant mat.

That is what's meant by the sporting breed having an appropriate coat for their purpose. Whether you have a field golden or a show golden.... or random pet bred golden.... they generally do not have the type of coats that would render them completely useless out in a field or lake. 

The exceptions would be those goldens like my Danny, with whom it wasn't much the length but the thickness/density of his coat that made it difficult to keep his coat clean and dry. If he went swimming or had a bath, it generally took him nearly 2 days to dry completely by air. 

Compare that to like say my Jacks who goes swimming and normally is vaguely damp by the time we walk back to the car, and is completely dry (just air drying) within an hour. 

Jacks has never had a matt - ever. And grooming him generally is a quick once-over with the slicker brush. 

Shedding for these dogs - can be mild or really bad, depending on how frequently you groom (just brushing them out with a good slicker brush) and how frequently you bathe them (it causes a coat blow every time). 

I brush both Jacks and Bertie every night - pretty much - because it's relaxing for them, and it does cut back on the amount of hair they shed in my bed.  

The one advantage to owning a collie is they do not shed really. <- The fur just stays there and mats because it can.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I have had two field bred goldens, they do shed less, easier to groom, than my other goldens.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

megora said:


> i agree with michelle above that if the dog has a correct coat then there should not be a problem with that dog running through fields and getting wet. Especially if the owner has a slicker brush on hand and keeps the dogs groomed.
> 
> I think there are some goldens in the ring who have a little more coat than the norm.... But generally the goldens that i've seen in the ring near here tend to have just a touch more coat than my jacks. So it's not going to cause major issues for these dogs to be running around their yards and swimming. I'm probably offering a naive and narrow opinion there, but it's what i've seen personally.
> 
> ...


 try a old engish sheep dog,night mare to keep mats out of.


----------



## Rainheart (Nov 28, 2010)

I think having a correct coat is the big thing!

Beamer's coat, IMO, I'd say is correct. Never had an issue with matting, dries very fast and whatnot. He is conformation bred from a reputable breeder. Our last golden, she did mat a lot (she was from a BYB). I also do see two dogs that are conformation bred at my vet (I know who the breeder is, very reputable) yet their coats are a mess and mat up SO easily.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Flips coat probably wouldn't be considered completely correct, but I am totally in love with his coat. He has nice feathering, ruff, etc, so it is pretty for me to look at, but short on the body with little undercoat, making it soooooooo easy to maintain. He dries within minutes. Very very little shedding (I call him my "non-shedding golden." of course that's not totally true, but the amount he sheds is so minimal it feels like it). It almost feels pointless for me to comb his body, I mostly just comb out his tail and pants.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

My guys are from conformation lines, but even among them and they are all related, there is coat variance. Tiki and her daughter Emmie have that water resistant coat that is hard to get wet and dries very quickly. They both have sufficient coat, but it is not overdone... Tiki still has IMO the correct coat even though she is spayed. My Georgie and Mantha half siblings to Tiki got the spay/neuter coats. Their coats are abundant and pick up,everything. George is like Pig Pen from Peanuts...all the leaves and sticks he rolls in stick like glue to him... I think both of,them would be field disasters with their coats... My Mick who is a Yogi grandson, does not have a lot of undercoat even though his mom, Mantha is loaded. My observation is that field Goldens have less undercoat and shorter hair.. But what is truly correct? And the grooming seminar I went to said never to use a slicker as it breaks the hair. Again, in my opinion, I think some show Goldens are over done in regards to,coat and that some field Goldens are under done with coat...


----------



## Maxs Mom (Mar 22, 2008)

I never knew there was a difference until I got Teddi. Teddi does not shed like any other golden I had before. She has a thinner coat but still double. What she does do is grow hair!! Her hair on the sides of her belly, underneath, on her legs and tail gets LONG. It has thickened as she has gotten older but still a lovely coat to manage. 

Gabby has much less coat. In all her CCA experiences she has been scored well for a correct coat. She definitely does not shed. I think she loses hair maybe 2 times a year but I can brush her and NOTHING comes out. 

What I don't get with the field type are the clumps you can pluck out. I am a bad mom when it comes to brushing, I like my easy keepers. Also my dogs are polar opposites Teddi is laid back with energy for fun. Gabby is non stop insanity!!!! They don't fit into any one mold. 

Ann


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> And the grooming seminar I went to said never to use a slicker as it breaks the hair.


How do you know if it breaks the hair? Or how would bendy wires break the coat when a metal comb wouldn't? <- That's always confused me.


----------



## KeaColorado (Jan 2, 2013)

Here's a nice blurb about correct coat from the Golden Retriever Club of Canada. I find it interesting that it states "a wavy coat almost always indicates correct texture", and that modern grooming techniques for the show ring (e.g., forced air drying) promote the look of an open coat to "add the impression of more coat and bone". I have also noticed that of K's ancestors in the 60's and 70's with pictures on K9data, coats don't appear to be blown open like they are today. 

The Correct Golden Retriever Coat | The Golden Retriever Club of Canada


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

What is an "open coat?"


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

KeaColorado said:


> Here's a nice blurb about correct coat from the Golden Retriever Club of Canada. I find it interesting that it states "a wavy coat almost always indicates correct texture"


By that definition neither Jacks nor Bertie have proper coats.....


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Megora said:


> How do you know if it breaks the hair? Or how would bendy wires break the coat when a metal comb wouldn't? <- That's always confused me.


My hair dresser always tells me to use a comb on my wet hair, not a brush...


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Other than feathering, Bella hasn't shown many signs of having a long coat. I hope it stays the way it is now. When she gets wet outside, I can dry her off with a paper towel. Most of the water beads off of her like a car with a fresh coat of wax.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Sally's Mom said:


> My hair dresser always tells me to use a comb on my wet hair, not a brush...


Right.... because split ends.

But dogs don't get split ends.... right? What exactly are people looking at when they say the slicker would break the coat?


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Megora! I refer you to Indiya Sheehan, of Rainydays Goldens who did a grooming seminar for us... She did not recommend a slicker brush, except on paws. I use one on paws and the ears...


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I love my little conformation girl BUT please slap me over the head for ever wanting her to have more coat! I get why people want more. I was told she was lacking when she was younger and I remember wanted more so badly. But while it looks beautiful, length is not functional and can in fact be deleterious, IMO.

It gets so tiring pulling cockleburs and sticks out of the feathering. It makes labs look appealing! Before she got older and grew more coat (and got spayed) her coat was not that bad. I miss it! It use to never ever matte and bystanders use to think she was freshly washed coming out of a dirty pond or river. Thankfully it still drys fast and it fairly water resistant and she's never had a hot spot...but the length, particularly the furnishings is definitely troublesome. And she still is not as coated as many others...JMO and personal experience.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Sally's Mom said:


> Megora! I refer you to Indiya Sheehan, of Rainydays Goldens who did a grooming seminar for us... She did not recommend a slicker brush, except on paws. I use one on paws and the ears...


Interesting! I usually finish with a slicker on the body and behind the ears, since it seems to pick up the last of the undercoat that the rake leaves behind (the rake is good about getting the deep stuff, but it doesn't get the last little bit). Indya's client dogs and personal dogs always look _gorgeous_, though, so I'm curious how she finishes.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> I love my little conformation girl BUT please slap me over the head for ever wanting her to have more coat! I get why people want more. I was told she was lacking when she was younger and I remember wanted more so badly. But while it looks beautiful, length is not functional and can in fact be deleterious, IMO.
> 
> It gets so tiring pulling cockleburs and sticks out of the feathering. It makes labs look appealing! Before she got older and grew more coat (and got spayed) her coat was not that bad. I miss it! It use to never ever matte and bystanders use to think she was freshly washed coming out of a dirty pond or river. Thankfully it still drys fast and it fairly water resistant and she's never had a hot spot...but the length, particularly the furnishings is definitely troublesome. And she still is not as coated as many others...JMO and personal experience.


The spay may have had something to do with it. Our Chloe's coat changed dramatically after she was spayed. Although she always had a softer (IMO incorrect) coat it got exponentially worse once she was spayed as it got longer.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> The spay may have had something to do with it. Our Chloe's coat changed dramatically after she was spayed. Although she always had a softer (IMO incorrect) coat it got exponentially worse once she was spayed as it got longer.


Oh I agree spay doesn't help  But length isn't good either. I don't think correct texture will save you from nasty burrs, but length and thickness can lessen it.


----------



## Vhuynh2 (Feb 13, 2012)

When does spay coat usually develop/become obvious? 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## Kylie (Feb 16, 2013)

My 6 year old female's coat was always thick, long and uneven and only got worse after a spay. Granted it's normally beautiful when its kept up with, and super soft, but I swear if that dog walks within a mile of a bur it ends up matted in her coat. The hair on her stomache is so long it mats if you don't brush it every week at the very least. My two conformation goldens are a different story though. One honestly doesn't need brushed (except behind the ears), but always gets complements on how amazing her coat it, the other does require maintenance to keep it looking really nice, but if you skip brushing it for a couple months it still can be cleaned up without a hassle. Plus he is always getting complements. I am taking the two conformation goldens to get their CCA's (hopefully!) so we will see what the judge says.  sorry for the long post.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

I've noticed a difference in the undercoat more than the top coat of a field versus conformation dog. The dog in my signature below was a decendent of Barty (a foundation dog of Topbrass). She was pure field. In the photo she is fresh out of swmming in the ocean. Her undercoat is completely dry, only the topcoat was ever wet. You could part her fur and it would be dry inside no matter how long she was swimming. You can see in her photo that her fur is short, she does have some feathering on her legs and tail, but not much. Many people would ask if she was a red lab. She had energy plus! Fabulous drive until the week she died at 13.

My conformation puppy, Lucy, you can click on her K9data link and see her parents. All conformation, but titled in field and hunt along with conformation an other venues. Lucy has what I call a typical show coat, thick and long. When she is finished in conformation I might trim her fur shorter for hunt and field events and not feel guilty one bit. I want her to dry quickly and stay free of sticks and debris in her fur.


----------



## Popebendgoldens (May 16, 2008)

Back in the 60's to 70's when one mentioned a field bred golden (no offence to good breeders of field goldens), it was a polite way of saying the dog was poor breeding. 

I am sure that is not the case today. According to the standard the golden should be able to do what it both field and conformation. I have seen poor quality show goldens and great quality field goldens. It is a matter of adhering to the standard no matter if you are showing or hunting. 

I have seen beautiful championed show goldens that are great in the field as well. it does absolutely nothing for the breed if we have show goldens that can't go into the field and retrieve.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Sally's Mom said:


> Megora! I refer you to Indiya Sheehan, of Rainydays Goldens who did a grooming seminar for us... She did not recommend a slicker brush, except on paws. I use one on paws and the ears...


Ha.... I don't know who she is.... 

At class this past week we had some people expressing the wish to have a multi-purpose seminar with a few (local) people to cover several different facets - like dumbbells from Adele, etc. I wasn't the only one chipping in that it'd be nice to have somebody to help with dog grooming. I don't really attend seminars because they are SO EXPENSIVE and I'm cheap, but I'd attend something like that. *And that's not even getting a breed focused talk on grooming*. 

Let me rephrase my question this way - as far as use of a slicker brush, is it all w/regards to growing as long a coat as the dog's genes allow? 

The reason why I like the slicker brush is it's a universal type WEAPON to get loose hair out, remove burrs, and clean up feathering. 

When Danny's breeder showed me how to groom, I went cross-eyed imagining having to keep all the different combs and brushes on hand and switching tools per purpose. Because her dogs generally have a lot of coat, she did take classes on grooming and I know she definitely gives free grooming sessions to her puppy people (to help them survive). 

I also have a friend/neighbor who owns/breeds/shows/hunts with her English setters - and her car is parked out in her driveway because her garage is a grooming salon for her dogs. <- I can't imagine being that dedicated just to get the coat to grow longer than average. 

As that applies to the topic - her dogs go from the show ring and out into the field with her husband. They have SETTER COATS (long and full, silky, etc) and they go running through fields and brush.


----------



## drofen (Feb 2, 2013)

Nairb said:


> What is an "open coat?"


Yes, this... anybody?


----------



## Popebendgoldens (May 16, 2008)

drofen said:


> Yes, this... anybody?


I looked up the definition of an open coat, and it means that there is little to no undercoat. It looked rather strange when I saw a golden with an open coat. Btw I believe that open coats are a fault for the breed and should not be bred


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Soft and open are not the same thing, but are both incorrect. A soft coat lacks the resilient guard layer that sheds the water and that has the firm texture that also keeps burrs and debris from sticking to the coat as well--instead it has a cottony texture. The other incorrect topcoat variation is a fine, silky guard layer, which will also not function correctly. An open coat stands off the body all fluffy-like. The grooming practices of some show exhibitors, who back-blow and puff the coat up can artificially create an open coat. Some double-coated breeds whose coat was designed to insulate against cold, rather than water, do have what would be considered an open coat for a Golden--think Keeshonden, Siberians, Malamutes, etc. There, the undercoat lifts the guard hair, rather than the guard hair holding the undercoat in, rather like a duck's feathers hold in and protect the down, which is how a Golden coat SHOULD function.

None of my dogs have excessive coat (in fact when I was showing Winter to his CH he was often one of the least-coated dogs in the ring) but he still has far more coat than my girls who have field lines blended in their pedigrees. He loves to hunt pheasants, but when we are done I am sometimes over an hour brushing the crap out of his furnishings and belly (even after I have put in Show Sheen or Cowboy Magic before we hunt). I cannot imagine how much longer it would take on some of the really big coats I see in the show ring. Breeze and Bonnie both have a much shorter body coat, and with it super-dense undercoat. You can literally see water rolling off Bonnie when she gets out of a pond. It is wonderful for hunting and training, and the only place she ever gets tangles in is the soft fuzzies behind her ears. Really easy-care.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Popebendgoldens said:


> Back in the 60's to 70's when one mentioned a field bred golden (no offence to good breeders of field goldens), it was a polite way of saying the dog was poor breeding.


Not for serious field people it wasn't! There were some really good field Goldens in that era, some of which are still influential to this day in FT and versatile pedigrees. Dogs like Gus, Barty, Cotton, Quar, Ki, Sparky, Bainin...

The split had already started by then, so it might have been a way some of the more conformation focus folks saw it, but there were proportionally more people still focusing on breeding a good-working, good-looking dog then. I would say that segment is on an upswing again, but we have a long way to go. Some conformation breeders will still dismiss field-bred dogs out of hand as they don't have the substance and flash needed for top-level breed competition, just as serious FT breeders are not going to look at a show-bred dog that has no proof of high-level advanced retrieving work in its pedigree in generations--not for the extremes of the tests FT dogs must attempt. When Jackie Mertens does a breeding to a nice versatile dog with show titles, she plans it for her obedience/agility buyers, not her FT homes.


----------



## problemcat (Apr 4, 2013)

*Down another path of OP*



Savanah said:


> What are the main differences in the field bred versus show bred goldens besides the size and energy level. I was told by a breeder that the field bred goldens shed significantly less than the show bred goldens. Is that correct? Thank you.


Going back to the OP, I'd like to ask about more than coat. What are other differences in field vs show? How much does personality factor in? And how much does energy level vary?


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

_*Generally*_, field bred dogs are going to have higher energy and exercise requirements. However, there are wide variations, and I know lots of field-bred dogs who can settle and be lovely companions when they are at home. Their owners have taken the time to train those expectations, and to provide them with the mental and physical stimulation they need. There are also show-bred dogs who are very active, and need similar training and boundaries.

Really the best predictor is to meet as many of the relatives as you can! If mom and dad, and aunt's and uncles and half-siblings are all go all the time, then that is what the pups are likely to be. If the extended family you meet is pretty chill, then you have a better chance of getting that. If one parent is all boing, and the other is quiet, then you will see less predictability.

Behaviour you see on a puppy visit is less predictive as the pup you see as quiet, may have actually been raising hell for two hours before you got there, and the one who seems bold and pushy may have just woken up. With differences between individual pups in a litter the breeder's cumulative observations combined with puppy testing results will be more telling.


----------



## Popebendgoldens (May 16, 2008)

Thank you for the definition of an open coat. Once you see a golden with an open coat, it stays with you. I just had problems describing it as well as you did.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I disagree. My conformation bred dogs do not have high maintenance coats. For example, Jack (at almost 4 years old) does not carry excessive coat, it is correct in texture, dries quickly and never mats. A field bred dog with an incorrect coat will be higher maintenance than a conformation bred dog with a correct coat. I have seen both field and conformation dogs with incorrect coats, I wouldn't want either.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


I agree with this. My wonderful field bred golden Finn carries an incorrect undercoat, and it is much harder to deal with that the correct coat on my show bred golden Lush who is wash and wear, never matts.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Indya is a very talented groomer who twice has managed to win a huge golden grooming competition between some of the best golden breeders/groomers. She is in her early 30's now, and has finished 7 champions. Without her, Lush certainly would not have caught fire in the ring like she did. There is so much to grooming- muscle memory in the hands, the ability to present problem areas on the dog wisesly. A dog with slightly high set ears needs different grooming from one with low set ears; a dog long in body needs a different tail than one short in body, etc. I learned my lesson by letting someone besides Indya and Karen groom Lush- lol, disaster!


----------



## Katduf (Mar 10, 2013)

If I can ask a question about coats, my 14 month old has a flat wavy coat on the upper part of his back, and its more open on his lower back and sides. Is this age related, or is this how his coat will be? He swims a lot and takes ages to dry, he can run around in the sun for a while after a swim, and he comes inside and sometimes has one more shake and the water is everywhere.









Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Ljilly28 said:


> Indya is a very talented groomer who twice has managed to win a huge golden grooming competition between some of the best golden breeders/groomers. She is in her early 30's now, and has finished 7 champions. Without her, Lush certainly would not have caught fire in the ring like she did. There is so much to grooming- muscle memory in the hands, the ability to present problem areas on the dog wisesly. A dog with slightly high set ears needs different grooming from one with low set ears; a dog long in body needs a different tail than one short in body, etc. I learned my lesson by letting someone besides Indya and Karen groom Lush- lol, disaster!


Jill.... I've got to ask this, and please keep in mind I think Lush is a pretty girl and I think it's wonderful that she's been so successful in the ring.

But.

If a golden retriever has to be sculpted from head to tail to be successful in the ring, doesn't that indicate the dog has a faulty coat to begin with? Or if the coat sculpting is done to cover up other faults... doesn't that really limit who you breed her to? 

I learned from somebody around here that faults are not a stop sign when it comes to breeding a dog who has GOOD features to overrule those faults.... but you just breed to dogs who throw good heads, etc... 

And then how does this level of grooming apply to average dog owners like the OP? 

This is a general question to everyone, but is there any chance that the show ring would go back to showing goldens naturally? Trimming only the ears and feet, for example, leaving the rest of the coat alone? 

And people who are breeding to improve the breed - have they examined why so much trimming needs to be done on dogs in order to be successful in the ring?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Grooming appropriately for the show ring is like a guy putting on a coat and tie to go out for dinner. You want a sparkling clean dog blooming with good health, exuding breed type, and trimmed skillfully to express strengths and address weaknesses within the guidelines of presenting the dog in a natural, unfussy manner. For example, I do not use nose black on my show dogs, but about 75 percent of the people in my area dog. Do I think it is wrong to use it? Nope. I wouldnt, but I do not get all worked up about people who do. 

I am not sure what you are asking about Lushie, Kate. All dogs have faults, but she has very few relatively, and has won under every kind of judge rather than being a dog who must carefully choose who she is shown too. She has been shown alot in her summer underwear with no coat on, lol, and won her specialty major that way. It is a myth that sculpting a golden fools good judges. They put their hands right on the dog, and most are grumpy about an overgroomed

Indya takes the time to groom a golden by hand very naturally instead of clippering under chin and throat-latch, and on the shoulders like many handlers do. Lushie is easy- she isnt sculpted at all. She doesnt carry a lot of coat, so what you see is what you get. However, someone in a rush gave her a setter tail, and that looked horrible. I do not like stylized show grooming where the dog practically has a "brazilian", with a channel cut down the inside pants. That is why I will stick with Indya and Karen Mammano- both emphasize natural grooming. It doesnt look natural to strip out a golden like an English cocker, but it wins with some judges. My point was what makes a talented groomer- an internalized knowledge of the standard, and then the skills to address a dog's weaker point and hightlight strengths. Lush has a gorgeous front, pitch black natural pigment( many goldens are shown in nose black but not Lushie) but her rear isnt as good as her front. Leaving some feather on her hocks makes her bend in stifle look its best, whereas shaving the hocks down to the bone doest. 

All goldens have faults. A rule of thumb is not to show one with more than three minor faults. No golden is perfect, but all can look closer to ideal in the hands of a magical master groomer. If anyone tells you their dogs have no faults, they are either kennel blind or lying!

As for trimming the average pet golden, yes it should be done. The cat foot shape is functional too, and prevents burrs , mats, and mud between the toes. A little trimming of the ruffle, is way better than furminating or worse shaving- as the coat is designed to protect skin from the sun- melenoma, mast cell. Our pet owning goldens hare keep there dogs in lovely coat, trimming ears, paws, ruff, and shaping the tail in the proper fan. This is just pride in your dog to me.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Ljilly28 said:


> Lushie is easy- she isnt sculpted at all. She doesnt carry a lot of coat, so what you see is what you get. However, someone in a rush gave her a setter tail, and that looked horrible. It doesnt look natural. My point was what makes a talented groomer- an internalized knowledge of the standard, and then the skills to address a dog's weaker point and hightlight strengths. No golden is perfect, so all can look closer to ideal in the hands of a magical master groomer. If anyone tells you their dogs have no faults, they are either kennel blind or lying!


Sculpted (to me) means trimming around the head, neck, shoulders, chest.... as opposed to a more basic clean up? Looking at your signature pic, I think she's been groomed in those areas (and it's not a criticism of her, again she's a pretty girl). 

The reason why I ask all this is I've had people pushing me to get Bertie into conformation - like conformation type people. I'm not really into conformation, but I do see the value of getting your dog out there for training and fun in the ring. Especially since I'm not planning to rush him into the obedience ring until he's ready (2 or 3 years old).

I would be fine about having his ears and feet and tail professionally cleaned up, but I'd be mad if anyone touched those other areas listed above. Right down to his whiskers. I want my dogs to have their eyebrow, cheek, and nose whiskers. Because they are functional and adorable. I trim the eyebrow whiskers to keep them from curling into the eyes, but that's just cutting them back to 1/2 size, not removing them.  

I would not be doing this to get a CH on him - really so it won't matter if he's going out there basically au natural. But I do think it's sad that most people have to really trim coat if they want to be successful.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

In that photo, she is more naked than sculpted. She is 16 months old in 90 degree sun, so she just doesnt have much to work with, and hasnt grown her front ruff yet. 

If you look you will see many show dogs actually clippered there under the throat and on the shoulder. 

You have to find a happy medium that lets your dog's structure be seen rather than buried under heavy coat that hides it, but does not look artificial like a cocker. 

A Mars Coat King to strip out a bit of heavy coat to me is not "sculpting". To me sculpting is building a dog out of hair that isnt really there- like a dog with a straight, horrible front being bulit the proper shape out of coat. Even then, I say play on. Judges arent stupid.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I thought this interview with Marcia Schlehr who has been in the breed for decades was very good and informative. Here's some of the highlights revolving around coats in the breed ring:



> How Goldens have changed over the years: hm (That could take  hours!) Certainly the show dogs have become considerably more uniform in many ways. However, not always for the better. Modern winners have much more hair, but nearly always the wrong kind (soft, lacking undercoat, lacking weather-resistance). .....
> 
> As for "the 'show' part", I'm judging the dog, not it's performance. As long as the dog performs in a way that I can properly judge it, that is sufficient. Of course it's nice to see a dog that is happy and cooperative as a Golden should be, and nicely trained, but beyond that, no "extra points" for flash and dash. The "showing fool" too often is just that. Some of the best dogs I've seen thought the show ring was booorrring...and I can't say I blame them! .........
> 
> ...


Link.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> You have to find a happy medium that lets your dog's structure be seen rather than buried under heavy coat that hides it, but does not look artificial like a cocker.


But why not breed for a more natural/moderate coat then.... that naturally shows that dog's structure as opposed to hiding it? 

I think that is my only issue with coats. I don't believe for a second that a good conformation coat couldn't handle a lot of outdoor working time or would prevent a show dog from doing any kind of field work. I think those are excuses that people use. 

But it's freaky-deaky how much you see people do to what should be a wash and wear dog coat. It's not like our breed is anything like a poodle or a cocker and needs to be trimmed! 

**** And btw, cocker spaniels are one of my favorite breeds, but I guaran-darn-tee it that I'd learn to use clippers and sculpt away to keep my dog looking like a dog instead of a mop.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Megora said:


> I think that is my only issue with coats. I don't believe for a second that a good conformation coat couldn't handle a lot of outdoor working time or would prevent a show dog from doing any kind of field work. I think those are excuses that people use.


It isn't all about the dog not being able to handle it. My girl could care less when she's running around with a twig or burrs stuck up her butt feathers. Guess who gets to clean it up though? Me! It's a lot of time consuming work for a coat that's *supposed* to be low maintenance. It's enough that I hesitate to do water work with her at times because I know I need time after to clean up depending on what she picks up in the coat. A rinse can be ok depending on what is in the coat, but you'll feel the dirt for days until you really have a go at it with shampoo.

An incorrect soft open coat too that some dogs have will soak up water. This adds a lot of weight and drag and certainly does not on the swim or the recovery (long dry times, gets owner very wet, etc).


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Here is my personal opinion on conformation: using it with the idea of selecting the best breeding stock is a joke. If one is truly wanting the best breeding stock, then doing things to hide or minimize faults wouldn't be a consideration.

Instead I think of conformation as a game. Here's the dog I'm working with, now what can I do to make it appear better than all the other dogs. Those who are the best at playing the game win. Of course the better the dog you have to start with, the better off you are, and the more significant the faults, the more you have to "play".


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Have you competed often in conformation?


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I was floored when I was with my friend showing her flat coat. She bathed the dog *once*, did very minimal grooming: neatened paws, tail, and ears but did not try to hide faults with the scissors. She did not use product, or blow the dog dry any days of the show. She handled the dog herself and did not have a polished performance but...she won! None of it mattered. This is how I want to show dogs. This is how I think dogs should be shown. Not to begrudge anyone who loves their fluffing--I understand wanting the dog to look spectacular--but this is totally my ideal. A coat that requires minimal work and no extra grooming for the show. I think far too much emphasis is placed on coat. Worrying about length and damage and etc. It's a working dog, so it should not have excessive coat and some damage is honorary to the working state. JMO.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

@Gail (I think that's your name, it's been a long time...)

I'll use Jacks' coat and the below pic as an example, because it was pouring when I took that picture + he has the best no-fuss coat without lacking too much length. He was 3 when I took this pic. He's now 5 years old and has even longer tail feathers and trousers than he did in that pic.

Even though it was pouring, you could somewhat see the slicker effect on his coat. 

He also has a thick undercoat without it being a nightmarish quantity like Danny's. This keeps him warm and comfortable as far as hiking and swimming in the winter months, and he's also very quick drying. I have swimming pics that everyone has seen with him - he generally shakes off the excess moisture and air dries within 1-2 hours, no need for blow dryers. And cross your fingers, he hasn't had any skin issues besides a minor yeast overgrowth in his coat from not being bathed after swimming in a yucky pond. That yeast overgrowth was cleared up with a minor shampoo treatment, results almost immediately. 

Bertie will probably have more coat than Jacks simply on the basis that at 3 months he already had more leg and butt feathering than Jacks had at 12 months.  But his coat has the same feel as Jacks' coat so I'm :crossfing thinking that he will be another wash-wear dog as far as swimming trips when the final coat comes in. So far, he is completely drying within an hour - obviously without the full coat on his chest, belly, and butt. 

As far as burrs and pine-needles - neither dog has the soft fluffy coat type that really gets tangled around the burrs. Even the feathering. Both dogs have leg feathering that touches the ground. I posted pictures on here ages ago with Jacks loaded with burrs over every part of his body. He was cleaned up within minutes. 

Our collie - as I said earlier - has a soft fluffy coat that wraps and tangles around simple twigs and pine-needles stubs that he picks up when he runs around our yard. 

The reason why I'm posting all of this is really to emphasize it's not necessarily length and fullness that causes problems with maintaining a clean golden. There are other things going on - I assume coat faults.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Loisiana said:


> Here is my personal opinion on conformation: using it with the idea of selecting the best breeding stock is a joke. If one is truly wanting the best breeding stock, then doing things to hide or minimize faults wouldn't be a consideration.
> 
> Instead I think of conformation as a game. Here's the dog I'm working with, now what can I do to make it appear better than all the other dogs. Those who are the best at playing the game win. Of course the better the dog you have to start with, the better off you are, and the more significant the faults, the more you have to "play".


(This might irritate some people, but since I don't do conformation, I'll plead ignorance. )

I'm not going to wade into the coat debate, but I've often wondered the same thing about professional handlers. Why the need to pay someone a lot of money to stack your dog, and run around in a circle? I realize it's not quite that simple, but if it's truly about wanting the best breeding stock, why hire someone who is trained to hide faults (if that's truly what a handler does)? Or, do people use pros because they know the judges well? Either way, that reduces the likelihood of the best dog winning. Can't these skills be learned in a relatively short period of time?


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> Have you competed often in conformation?


Nope, but I've worked shows enough to have formed an opinion, and I stated up front that it was my opinion. I have no problem with conformation when viewed as a game or a hobby, I just don't see it as truly serving the purpose of selecting the best breeding stock.

Not much different from saying an obedience trial doesn't actually tell you who the most obedient dog is. Some of the most successful obedience dogs arent all that obedient outside the ring. It's a game, and those who learn to play the game best win.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Conformation is not just about "running a dog around in a circle" anymore than competitive obedience is about training circus tricks. Certainly it's a hobby, as are all dog activities, but I don't think it's accurate to simplify something when you've never done it. 

The purpose of a professional handler is often two-fold, for me at least. I do not have the time to drive to shows every weekend. So if my dog is being shown and I'm doing it myself I need the time to groom my dog, the time to drive to the nearest show (could be 1 hour to 8-9 hours away), if the show begins on Saturday I need friday off to travel and set up at the show site, if the show begins friday I need two days off, etc etc. I don't have the time to do that with my job, so while I am showing Smooch myself for the time being, when it came to Jack and for training for Smooch, they were shown by handlers. 

Furthermore, showing a dog is not as easy as it looks. Sure you can walk your dog into the ring and have them galloping around like a loony toon, but that's not showing your dog. It takes training for a dog to understand what is expected of them in the ring. The judge has to be able to see what they need to see to evaluate the dogs. And pros are pros because they are good at training dogs. Just like you want your obedience dog to do their best in the ring, for conformation you want your dog to do their best. So you aren't going to try to accentuate a small fault on an otherwise good dog. And pros know how to train a dog, show a dog and make it look easy. A dog with so many faults that a handler is falling all over themselves trying to conceal them shouldn't be in the conformation ring, IMO, and likely won't be successful. Jugdes aren't stupid. And while there are a lot of silly things that go along with conformation (thousands of dollars spent on ad campaigns, political selections by judges, etc) it IS about evaluating the dogs and determining who most closely conforms to the breed standard.


----------



## LJack (Aug 10, 2012)

It always amazes me why people like to start versus threads, because as implied by the title it really does turn into an us versus them. I guess it appeals to our competitive human nature. It makes me sad to think we all love this breed, but resort to holding some times low opinions of other worlds we are not a part of. 
I honestly know nothing about field work. Being in Arizona, I may not ever because working here is difficult, birds have to be shipped in from the Midwest and i am not real outdoorsy in that shooting, camping, rouging it kind of way. I am the person who need to locate the potties before enjoying an outdoor event. no potties and i am out of there. 
I think there is enormous value in every single disciple our dogs compete in. Though not my preference, I think the feild dogs are beautiful and I love to see photos in action and read the articles in the GRCA news that give a tiny look into that world. So, I am sad to see these types of threads where instead of extolling the virtues we see in the dogs in our world, degenerates to making judgements about dogs in other worlds. There are some folks out there who do both and have valuable opinions to offer based on experiences with both. I just wish we could change tone from attacking the other side to extolling the virtues of our own. But, I guess that is what we tend to get when we go versus.

On grooming for what it is worth, I do my own. I have only been at it with Jinx for 17 months now. I never use anything but scissors, thinning shears and the occasional stripping knife(it is not a real knife, it sounds scary but it is not). I don't see it as trying to hide faults or dupe someone. I see it as making sure her hair does not get in the way. An example is her top line. She has a decent one, but her cape grows too think in one area and creates the look of a hump that is not truly there. With out grooming this hump ruins the look, the outline. A judge will feel it is hair when they go over her, but what if it slips their mind when looking at a final line up in a large class. It could have been 15 minutes since he touched her. I want my best shot and i think Jinx deserve her best shot, so I groom out the hair hump.
I do not consider my self anywhere near the level of a pro, but I figure if I can groom, train and handle my girl as an amateur and win points it is not just all about politics and over grooming. Though some time it can feel that way


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

LJack said:


> It always amazes me why people like to start versus threads, because as implied by the title it really does turn into an us versus them.


I so agree with this. Maybe it's because I primarily do conformation, but it does seem as though people feel totally comfortable picking apart conformation dogs and conformation as a whole, while I don't think i've ever seen a similar thread picking apart field, obedience or agility dogs. There are often a lot of assumptions made in these types of threads based on really limited first hand knowledge, if any. I would never purport to understand what goes into training for competitive obedience, for example, because I've never done it. I find it interesting how many people who have never participated or truly tried to learn about conformation are so openly critical on this forum. I cannot imagine making the same types of comments about dogs and people who compete in other venues, personally.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

GoldenSail said:


> I was floored when I was with my friend showing her flat coat. She bathed the dog *once*, did very minimal grooming: neatened paws, tail, and ears but did not try to hide faults with the scissors. She did not use product, or blow the dog dry any days of the show. She handled the dog herself and did not have a polished performance but...she won! None of it mattered. This is how I want to show dogs. This is how I think dogs should be shown. Not to begrudge anyone who loves their fluffing--I understand wanting the dog to look spectacular--but this is totally my ideal. A coat that requires minimal work and no extra grooming for the show. I think far too much emphasis is placed on coat. Worrying about length and damage and etc. It's a working dog, so it should not have excessive coat and some damage is honorary to the working state. JMO.


I agree! I want my dog's coat to look good (obviously would prefer not to have huge holes in it, etc) but I do not worry about it to the point where my dogs are not doing the things they love. 

I would really love for more owner handlers to be in the ring too though. I am trying to show Smooch myself for this reason. She shows well for me, has basic ring training from a handler (since I am still a novice at this) and I am better at understanding ring procedure and how to show a dog now than I was when I tried to show Jack several years ago. I think she is a beautiful girl and I am hopeful that I can at least put points on her, and hopefully I can finish her myself.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I so agree with this. Maybe it's because I primarily do conformation, but it does seem as though people feel totally comfortable picking apart conformation dogs and conformation as a whole, while I don't think i've ever seen a similar thread picking apart field, obedience or agility dogs. There are often a lot of assumptions made in these types of threads based on really limited first hand knowledge, if any. I would never purport to understand what goes into training for competitive obedience, for example, because I've never done it. I find it interesting how many people who have never participated or truly tried to learn about conformation are so openly critical on this forum. I cannot imagine making the same types of comments about dogs and people who compete in other venues, personally.


1. This thread was started by a prospective puppy person looking for more information on the breed. 

2. Summing up a thread as a us-vs-them thing is unfair, especially as people have been fairly well-behaved here. 

3. Conformation people are apparently cannibalistic, at least if you listen to them talk privately about other people's dogs or other people. 

4. Conformation people do talk about performance sports in a very critical tone. Primarily field, but geez they are in obedience and agility as well.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

It was never my intent to attack, but rather share my own opinion and experiences to give the discussion some food for thought. Not discussing these things is a disservice to our breed, IMO. I know it can be tough, but I think frank and honest discussion is important.

Like I said I did do some conformation with my girl before deciding she wasn't the best representative of the breed and choosing to spay. Along the road I sort of found my way into doing field work and that has shaped a lot of my views. I can tell you I was told by other, more experienced golden people that my dog did not have enough coat when she was younger. So I was desperate for some. Much like I see the occasional post asking for more coat now on the conformation section. I get it, I was there, but I have moved on from that point.

I never quite understood why I was told she needed more coat as a youngster. To be honest, she's never had a hot spot and used to never matte and was a lot more wash and wear back then. She would swim in icy water in the middle of winter and not get cold and it didn't hold us back initially with field training. So what would more coat give us? Nothing, honestly. Just looks! It was also bothersome to me when I had help with grooming hearing "This isn't correct BUT we all do it anyway to win, because they look better, etc, etc." And I did some of that too thinking I needed to. (I won't ever again). Understand this was not coming from rank newbies!

Fast forward and we are more serious about field work and she has filled out and developed more coat. Honestly, taking care of the coat is not fun anymore. It holds us back. I don't take her out swimming as often as I would like because the clean-up is a lot of back-breaking and tiring work. Ripping out burrs is horrendous. Now I just want to slap myself in the head for ever wanting more coat. I don't consider myself a lab person, but I am an active person so the more wash and wear coat looks very appealing at times. I want to spend more time playing and less time cleaning. And I know the problem is likely to get worse with age as I know most dogs grow even more coat as they reach their senior years, particularly the butt feathers which is the real problem for me.

There is still a place in my heart for conformation though. I just view things a lot differently than I used to. I still find there are some valuable things about it. Structure is important. I think it is great that people enjoy it and the grooming. I guess my biggest wish is that people didn't feel like they *had* to go that extent to be successful with a good dog. .


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Nairb said:


> (This might irritate some people, but since I don't do conformation, I'll plead ignorance. )
> 
> I'm not going to wade into the coat debate, but I've often wondered the same thing about professional handlers. Why the need to pay someone a lot of money to stack your dog, and run around in a circle? I realize it's not quite that simple, but if it's truly about wanting the best breeding stock, why hire someone who is trained to hide faults (if that's truly what a handler does)? Or, do people use pros because they know the judges well? Either way, that reduces the likelihood of the best dog winning. Can't these skills be learned in a relatively short period of time?


I use a professional handler bc my right leg is metal held together with pins and screws. The oddness in my movement detracts from my dog. You mostly find people complaining about profession handlers when they are showing a pleasant but mediocre dog who is pet quality themselves, and want to bla,e something rather than looking at their dog realistically. Many people compete effectively against the pro handlers, and there are many dogs pro handlers cannot finish and send home.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Ljilly28 said:


> I use a professional handler bc my right leg is metal held together with pins and screws. The oddness in my movement detracts from my dog. You mostly find people complaining about profession handlers when they are showing a pleasant but mediocre dog who is pet quality themselves, and want to bla,e something rather than looking at their dog realistically. Many people compete effectively against the pro handlers, and there are many dogs pro handlers cannot finish and send home.


It's not a big deal. It's just something I've wondered about from afar. I'm sure I could handle Bella over to an obedience pro and see better results than what I can deliver, but its not allowed in that venue. 

Conformation must cost a fortune. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Is it safe to say that a coat that matts easily or picks up burrs and sticks like a magnet would be incorrect, regardless of what venue the dogs' parents compete in? FWIW, I own Finn's "nephew," and his coat is about as correct as it comes, wavy, dense, and mysteriously immune to burrs. When I want to wash Jax, I can't just spray him with a hose because he's like a freaking duck. I have to work the water in with my hand until he's saturated, and then I have to soap him, often adding a little water as I go because the guard coat just does not hold water. So there you have two "field bred" dogs, closely related, one with incorrect coat and one with ideal coat.

I find the whole "field vs. show" thing to be something of a false distinction. It's not as if the breed has evolved into two totally discrete subtypes that are irretrievably separate. There are people breeding generalist litters who are quite successful across multiple venues. I think "field vs. show" is often a distinction you hear applied to BYB, rescued, or pet store dogs whose parentage is unknown or untitled, and then, based on how the dog looks, people apply a label. Is he cobby and light? Show bred. Leggy and dark? Field bred. I think it's more about categorizing than anything else.

I think there's a problem when a dog lacks breed type, regardless of the reason he's lost it. If he has no ability to retrieve or a totally incorrect coat because he has been overbred for the show ring, that's not a great example of a Golden. If he is completely out of standard because he has been overbred for field or agility competition, that's not a great example of a Golden either.

I have admiration for people who compete successfully, whatever the venue is, but the dog I want to own is the one who is the most balanced representation of the working retriever described in the standard. Still, I don't think it makes sense to fault any of the competition venues because they can't measure the whole package perfectly. 

Sure, I'd like to see some judges hold dogs a little more to the standard itself rather than to the style that's popular, though I make that comment from a place of relatively little experience. I'd like to see _some_ people who breed for field competition pay more attention to making sure their dogs have good breed type. I'd like to see _some_ conformation breeders pay more attention to working ability. But I'm not in charge of all those people, and I don't want to be. I do know that the breeders I most admire and those from whom I'd like to get my next dog are those whose dogs represent a balanced expression of the standard.

Does that mean they compromise their ability to compete at the most extreme levels? Maybe. But that also means that those extreme dogs aren't for me. Give me the dog who could plausibly get a CH and who could also go out for a day of hunting. Whether I do either of those things with him or not, those are the qualities, all together, that make him the kind of companion dog I want: the gentleman's working retriever, athletic and smart for a day out in the countryside, wash-and-wear so he's clean and dry by the evening, and charming and handsome so he's winning over guests at dinner.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Nairb said:


> It's not a big deal. It's just something I've wondered about from afar. I'm sure I could handle Bella over to an obedience pro and see better results than what I can deliver, but its not allowed in that venue.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Sure it is. The dog just has to show in the B classes if not being shown by its owner or a family member.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

Loisiana said:


> Sure it is. The dog just has to show in the B classes if not being shown by its owner or a family member.


Wow. I didn't know that. I'll still be doing it myself tough. If we to down in flames, we'll go down together. Haha.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

GoldenSail said:


> And I know the problem is likely to get worse with age as I know most dogs grow even more coat as they reach their senior years, particularly the butt feathers which is the real problem for me.


Not always - the primary thing we noticed with our old men was the texture and coat quality changed. Their coats were a bit more oily and somewhat coarser in spots, softer/cottony in others. I *assume* it was related to the change in hormones as that got up in age. So if you have a neutered/spayed dog, in theory you won't notice a drastic change? (my theory?). 

With Danny his coat got really curly in old age. When he was younger he had a straight-to-wavy coat. 

Even Sammy's coat got wavy - and his coat always was very straight.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Why has the look of conformation bred dogs changed so dramatically over the years? Someone mentioned earlier that if you dig deep into ancestries of champions of yesteryears, their photos don't depict the blocky head and showy fluffy coats of today. They are closer to the description of the field golden.


----------



## drofen (Feb 2, 2013)

tippykayak said:


> When I want to wash Jax, I can't just spray him with a hose because he's like a freaking duck. I have to work the water in with my hand until he's saturated, and then I have to soap him, often adding a little water as I go because the guard coat just does not hold water.


Maxwell is just like this, mostly on his back. It's ridiculous.

Do coats change as puppies get older? Or are they born with the type of coat you can expect them to have as an adult? Maxwell has always been very, very soft on the head and shoulders. So much so that people often comment on it, asking if I'd just bathed him when it had been a week or more. These areas readily soak up the water when I bathe him. He has started to develop what I call his "racing stripe" down his spine. It is obviously more coarse, flatter, wavy, and it may as well be a rain slicker. It's about 5 inches wide and runs from the base of his neck to the base of his tail. Can I expect the rest of his coat to grow in the same?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

drofen said:


> Maxwell is just like this, mostly on his back. It's ridiculous.
> 
> Do coats change as puppies get older? Or are they born with the type of coat you can expect them to have as an adult? Maxwell has always been very, very soft on the head and shoulders. So much so that people often comment on it, asking if I'd just bathed him when it had been a week or more. These areas readily soak up the water when I bathe him. He has started to develop what I call his "racing stripe" down his spine. It is obviously more coarse, flatter, wavy, and it may as well be a rain slicker. It's about 5 inches wide and runs from the base of his neck to the base of his tail. Can I expect the rest of his coat to grow in the same?


In my experience, the soft fur you're talking about is puppy fur, and the "racing stripe" is the adult fur coming in. Soon his whole coat will be like that. Jackie got it on his back and his face first, and then the rest filled in. You can actually see it in this blog entry. That was right around the time that he got over his fear of deep water.


----------



## drofen (Feb 2, 2013)

tippykayak said:


> That was right around the time that he got over his fear of deep water.


Coincidence?

I think not!


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> I think there's a problem when a dog lacks breed type, regardless of the reason he's lost it. If he has no ability to retrieve or a totally incorrect coat because he has been overbred for the show ring, that's not a great example of a Golden. If he is completely out of standard because he has been overbred for field or agility competition, that's not a great example of a Golden either.
> 
> I have admiration for people who compete successfully, whatever the venue is, but the dog I want to own is the one who is the most balanced representation of the working retriever described in the standard. Still, I don't think it makes sense to fault any of the competition venues because they can't measure the whole package perfectly.
> 
> ...


There is a small but growing number of us working at doing precisely this. It sometimes feels like swimming upstream, but I think it is what most upholds the integrity of the breed. And that workability, combined with sound structure and good looks is what is attracting more people to those sorts of breeding programs, and is starting to have some influence on what we are seeing in the show ring--I am seeing more moderate dogs than I was 10 years ago. 

It is hard though, as even in hunt tests, which are supposed to be non-competitive (the dogs are judged against a working standard, not the performances of the other dogs), you get snide comments about your "pretty dogs" and in some cases a stricter application of the standard because of a preconception that they don't work well (which is only reinforced when one shows up who balks at water, etc....) 

In the show ring, I do pick and choose my judges because being tweeners, my dogs tend not to have the flash, and I will not do what it takes to win with some of the all-rounders we get up here who have no idea what correct coat, structure and movement are. I will not paint noses (I applaud judges like Don Sturz who have told exhibitors their dogs will be excused if he catches it), take off whiskers, or puff up coats with a force dryer, and I will not restrict hunting activity for the sake of preserving coat! They get a bath at home before we leave for the show, and are trimmed--feet, ears, tail-tip, and I do take some fur out of the ruff on my boys with a Coat King as that is the one area they have plenty of coat and it can make the neck appear stuffy(but nowhere near thespaniel.setter type clippering you see in the European ring). I do use a force dryer, but only to remove most of the water from their coat, and then put them in a towel to set their coat, and then they are good to go for the weekend. When Win got his national JAM, he had had his bath six days earlier! He'd been bathed on a Sunday, I travelled to NH on the Monday to see Marge and go to a show there, and then on the Wednesday we headed up to Quebec for the specialty. When the coat is correct, and the judge knows what it should be like, you do not have to do much. But it is rare to get a breed expert who appreciates this at most weekend shows, especially in this economic climate--our shows are small and clubs have been hiring judges who are close and can do a lot of groups.


----------



## KeaColorado (Jan 2, 2013)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Why has the look of conformation bred dogs changed so dramatically over the years? Someone mentioned earlier that if you dig deep into ancestries of champions of yesteryears, their photos don't depict the blocky head and showy fluffy coats of today. They are closer to the description of the field golden.


This is what I was getting at, and I think a lot of it has to do with how conformation dogs are groomed for the ring, compared to days of old back before the kool dry was invented  

As for hiring a handler, I have come around to the world of conformation, with K being my first conformation dog. My initial intent was to compete in obedience, which we are doing, but our breeder exposed me to the world of showing because through a twist of fate, we ended up with one of the show prospect females from K's litter, so now I'm hooked on conformation too. We've done a few handling classes, and I have struggled with gaiting, stacking, etc. I had no idea how much skill was required, but it turns out showing a dog is harder than it looks. My class instructor, who works as an assistant for a very well-known handler, would often demonstrate using K and she made it look SO EASY. Then there's keeping the dog in tip-top physical shape - we do regular swimming and balance work using Fit Paws equipment. I've used a handler for a few shows, and I really enjoy watching from outside the ring. Much less nerve-wracking than me being in there with K!

We have our first meeting with a field trainer at the end of this month. I have no idea what to expect, as K comes from CH lines with a few dual titled CHs about 3 generations back, but from what I've observed through our obedience training and galavanting in the great out of doors, she is very focused on her environment, loves to retrieve things from the water, and is interested in birds. My goal is to expose K to as many venues as possible, both performance and show, see what she is good at and what she likes the best, and pursue titles from there. As long as we're both having fun, I'm going to strive to learn as much as I can about as many venues as possible. When we got her, I had no intention of field training (or doing conformation for that matter), but partly because of things I've read on this forum, I've decided that if I'm going to own a breed that was primarily developed for the field, I want to have a foot in that camp, and at least see if she has what it takes. 

As for the OP's original question, since K is my first golden, I have no means for comparison. I will say that K is an easy keeper compared to my springers. She hardly sheds aside from blowing her coat a twice a year and she doesn't have much of a dog smell. She is also brushed and bathed regularly and eats a healthy diet. When she gets wet, she dries very quickly. She's never had a mat or a hot spot. 

Thanks for this thread, I think it is so important to have open communication between people with different perspectives, it's the only way we'll ever learn to speak each other's language.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Why has the look of conformation bred dogs changed so dramatically over the years? Someone mentioned earlier that if you dig deep into ancestries of champions of yesteryears, their photos don't depict the blocky head and showy fluffy coats of today. They are closer to the description of the field golden.


Part of it is the cumulative influence of a couple of very influential conformation dogs. They did very well, and became popular as sires, and as more people who focused on conformation competition linebred on those dogs, the characteristics they possessed became more pronounced, and people deliberately selected for those traits (because if some coat is good, more must be better!!) The more moderate dogs, with less coat and bone, became less desireable to breeders looking for the traits the other dogs brought, so they became less sought out. The pedigrees of the vast majority of show-bred Goldens you now find in the US strongly feature these key dogs--finding an American show pedigree that does not include Charlie is nigh on impossible!!


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

sterregold said:


> Part of it is the cumulative influence of a couple of very influential conformation dogs. They did very well, and became popular as sires, and as more people who focused on conformation competition linebred on those dogs, the characteristics they possessed became more pronounced, and people deliberately selected for those traits (because if some coat is good, more must be better!!) The more moderate dogs, with less coat and bone, became less desireable to breeders looking for the traits the other dogs brought, so they became less sought out. The pedigrees of the vast majority of show-bred Goldens you now find in the US strongly feature these key dogs--finding an American show pedigree that does not include Charlie is nigh on impossible!!


So basically this is when the split began? Because back in the day the more moderate dog you mentioned also had the correct coat and build. You couldn't really distinguish the field bred from the conformation bred back then. From the photos I have seen anyways. Far from the long fluffy show dogs of today.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

The split was already well under way at this point. The focus on these dogs essentially consolidated it. There were similarly dogs of great influence on the field side who had a reputation for throwing water courage who many field breeders used intensively. While breeders such as Torch Flinn continued to do both field trials and show (her Tigathoe kennel produced the last DC in the breed in Quar; another who owned both FT and conformation Ch's was Lisa Halcomb of Sun Dance), most by this point had picked one venue or the other and were focusing their breeding on that.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

sterregold said:


> The split was already well under way at this point. The focus on these dogs essentially consolidated it. There were similarly dogs of great influence on the field side who had a reputation for throwing water courage who many field breeders used intensively. While breeders such as Torch Flinn continued to do both field trials and show (her Tigathoe kennel produced the last DC in the breed in Quar; another who owned both FT and conformation Ch's was Lisa Halcomb of Sun Dance), most by this point had picked one venue or the other and were focusing their breeding on that.


Interesting! Thanks!

But my question is why change the look? Just because certain breeders liked the look better?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

I'm curious what "long and fluffy" dogs you are referring to? Are these dogs you've seen at shows here in CA? Dogs in ads? While I have, of course, seen dogs in the ring with coats I don't think are entirely correct...."long and fluffy" is not something I see out here generally. If anything, as a general matter overdone dogs (i.e. oversized, too much coat, too much bone, coarse looking) are penalized in the ring out here.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

About professional handlers, one pertinent idea comes from Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours rule. To become virtuoso and the best you can be at something, this time committment is critical. For example, I put 50,000 hours into being a prep school teacher. Result? I was the Presidential Scholar's Program Nationally Recognized Teacher representing the state of Conneticut, won the Faculty Award at my school one year from amongst my wonderful peers, scored a perfect score on the GRE subject test in Literature, was in whose who, got a raise and promototions- whatever. 

While I was doing that, my show handler was showing dogs day in and day out, and had already been since she was a junior ten years before that. She interned under a great handler, learned, went out on her own. If a handler has put in 200,000 hours of her life showing all breeds of dogs in many weathers and venues, under many judges, she is probably going to be way better at it than me! I give many of the pros credit for being virtuosos at what they do. It is so much more than running in a circle, especially as the way the dog moves it a big part of a judge's decision. 

Sometimes, you will see a dog owner handled who really doesnt belong in the show ring and is more of a pet, but the person believes in it and shows it for four or five years straight only to a tiny select handful of judges. Once in a while you will see a dog in the grey area that probably is more of a nice pet out with a handler as "gas money". These situations are rare though, and often there are many beautiful, deserving goldens of different styles in an entry. You can't expect to take a dog in not groomed like the dog in the photo given to us in this thread, and give the dog his best chance at winning. That does not mean you are sculpting him into something he is not though.In some of these threads, we have people writing as if their pet dog is so much nicer than these mythical long and fluffy dogs in magazines or the show ring. I want to go on recored I have never seen that mythical perfect pet dog who is so much more deserving wiythout the owner lifting a little finger to groom the dog.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Savanah said:


> What are the main differences in the field bred versus show bred goldens besides the size and energy level. I was told by a breeder that the field bred goldens shed significantly less than the show bred goldens. Is that correct? Thank you.


I have both a field bred golden and three show bred goldens, and all shed equally. If you bathe weekly and brush daily, it really isnt a problem. There are lots of products to spritz on that help, if you are not planning to show your dog. Crown Royal Magic Touch smells great, makes brushing easy, and repels tangles; some people use other stuff called THE STUFF or Cowboy Magic leave in. Spayed or neutered dogs can get a cottony consistency to the coat which is hard to manages, but weekly brushings are fine. Use a grey hound comband then a good quality natural bristle brush. If you nvest oin a dog blow dryer, then shedding isnt a problem.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Ljilly28 said:


> While I was doing that, my show handler was showing dogs day in and day out, and had already been since she was a junior ten years before that. She interned under a great handler, learned, went out on her own. If a handler has put in 200,000 hours of her life showing all breeds of dogs in many weathers and venues, under many judges, she is probably going to be way better at it than me! I give many of the pros credit for being virtuosos at what they do. It is so much more than running in a circle, especially as the way the dog moves it a big part of a judge's decision.


I think something to keep in mind with those handlers is they only take on dogs they can be successful with, even while they started off with their own dogs. 



> Sometimes, you will see a dog owner handled who really doesnt belong in the show ring and is more of a pet, but the person believes in it and shows it for four or five years straight only to a tiny select handful of judges. Once in a while you will see a dog in the grey area that probably is more of a nice pet out with a handler as "gas money". These situations are rare though, and often there are many beautoful, deserving goldens of different styles in an entry. You can't expect to take a dog in not groomed like Jacks in the photo you gave us, and give the dog his best chance at winning. That does not mean you are sculpting him into something he is not though.


Jill, the fact is though I already said I have zero interest in "winning" as far as conformation. I provided that picture not necessarily as a "Hey my dog's more beautoful...than yours", but just to illustrate what I was saying about coat being functional without being scarce. It applied to the conversation because I think your golden doesn't have to be a field dog in order to be a golden retriever the way they should be.  You believe the same, I'm sure since your dogs are out there chasing porcupines and whatnot. 

Jacks - I'm not under any delusions as far as his conformation, even though I've been admittedly flattered by compliments on him by very many people whose opinions on the matter I respect. I had many people (who owner/handled their dogs to CH's) who were urging me to get him into conformation. Not to the same extent as I've had with Bertie. With Jacks it was "You should really think about getting him into conformation" and with Bertie it's been "You WILL get him into conformation" - sometimes based on first glance and sometimes based on respect for the dogs his breeder produces. I know definitely too the whole thing about artistic grooming and handling to cover flaws - as we all went over Jacks faults as itemized by me. I was one of those terrible mom's picking her kids apart. LOL.  I was told that the faults as listed by me were very easy to cover up. I have no idea if that was creative sculpting or strategic handling, but yep.

W/regards to what people have pushing me to do with Bertie and my stance on not touching his coat, my interests lie only in getting my dog out in the ring for ring experience. That is one advantage I see with a lot of conformation dogs is they can be downright unflappable in the ring. 

I would definitely take classes if I ultimately decide to go this route with Bertie. Classes are cheap. I have seen owner-handler types at shows who are so nervous and unsure of what they are doing out there - it's cringeworthy and kinda sets your mind to make sure you don't do the same thing out there.  

I've seen pictures of dogs with their ruff thinned away and the cape removed and so forth, and I never cared for the look. Not for my own dogs.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

It was a factor of what was winning, and winning big, at that, and then producing many more big winners. As the competition became fiercer, people selected for the traits that gave them a stronger chance of winning. Charlie was the #1 dog in the breed for three years in a row, and had a couple of kids who won a national. His son Teddy Bear was one, who won the National and was a very prolific sire--50+ champion get. Teddy sired litters like the one Blues Boy and True Bear came from, where the majority of the pups got a CH (that litter was 7/9!). That litter itself was also intensely linebred--Charlie was the grandfather on both sides, and the dams of both parents were littermates. That intensifies characteristics rapidly. Grooming equipment avaialbe, and techniques which have been introduced, as well as the development of more sophisticated groomiong products (despite not supposed to be putting stuff int he coat!) have also influenced trends. You also have to remember, that when many of those early dogs earned a CH, the Golden was a rare breed over here. So the competition was not as intense. As they gained popularily and numbers, the competition also became tougher, so people bred for what would give them an edge.

We are not the only breed that has experienced this. If you look at the Labrador champions from the early 70's they are nothing like the dogs you see in the ring now, a change which can be largely pointed to the importation of Sandylands lines from England. Cocker Spaniels changed so much that they were split into two breeds!

Down at the bottom of this page, you can see pictures of the dogs that went Best in Show at Westminster over the years. You will see that a great many of them have notable differences from how the breeds appear today in the show ring. The Bulldog has more leg. The OES is not puffed and teased and backcombed. The Fox Terriers do not have as much coat. The Bull Terrier's head is not as extremely egg-shaped, and it also has more leg. The first poodle's coat is down and loose, without an extreme topknot. The English Setter is not dripping in coat, and Cockers do not have skirts that dust the floor or round little domed-heads (although you can see that shift starting in the 1940's). And so on. In some cases, some of these breeds have also won more recently, and they now look quite different. There is maybe less noticable change in the breeds which are not heavily coated, or as numerically popular, but even there one can see certain traits being intensified, like the heads on the pointers.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I'm curious what "long and fluffy" dogs you are referring to? Are these dogs you've seen at shows here in CA? Dogs in ads? While I have, of course, seen dogs in the ring with coats I don't think are entirely correct...."long and fluffy" is not something I see out here generally. If anything, as a general matter overdone dogs (i.e. oversized, too much coat, too much bone, coarse looking) are penalized in the ring out here.


I did say photos of yesteryears. Photos of champions on K9 data clearly look different than champions of today. And if you have to clip, trim, and sculptor like people have mentioned on here instead of pretty much all natural like years past, I would say they have more hair. Of course they didn't have blow dryers back then which could produce some fluff. Photos of years past show both field bred and champion bred to be pretty equal in looks. Or maybe that's because they were not split back then. But Sterregolds explanation cleared up a lot of my questions.


----------



## Kmullen (Feb 17, 2010)

Nairb said:


> (This might irritate some people, but since I don't do conformation, I'll plead ignorance. )
> 
> I'm not going to wade into the coat debate, but I've often wondered the same thing about professional handlers. Why the need to pay someone a lot of money to stack your dog, and run around in a circle? I realize it's not quite that simple, but if it's truly about wanting the best breeding stock, why hire someone who is trained to hide faults (if that's truly what a handler does)? Or, do people use pros because they know the judges well? Either way, that reduces the likelihood of the best dog winning. Can't these skills be learned in a relatively short period of time?


Well I can say why I hire a handler, it is not because I can not get points on my dogs...I got points on both of my dogs when they first started off. I teach and coach cheerleading and to be honest, I do not have time to travel everywhere to get points on them to be able to finish them in a timely manner. It would be more expensive for me to pay entry fees, gas, hotels, set up cost then paying a handler for the weekend. I wanted for them to be finished, so I could go to other things like obedience, agility, and hunting.

I like showing and I will eventually show my boy to get GCH points at local shows. 

There is alot to handling a dog in conformation class aside from how they are groomed.

I originally sent my boy off just because I had puppies on the ground and the he did so well that I just figured I would keep him out until finished. My boy does not have a ton of coat... and is def NOT "Fluffy."


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

I'll have to go back and watch the Westminster video again, but given the responses by the knowledgeable conformation people in this thread regarding ideal coat, I have to wonder why so many went for the heavily blow dried, or "open" look. Is that what the judges want to see? I could be off base here, but I look at it again later. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I'm curious what "long and fluffy" dogs you are referring to? Are these dogs you've seen at shows here in CA? Dogs in ads? While I have, of course, seen dogs in the ring with coats I don't think are entirely correct...."long and fluffy" is not something I see out here generally. If anything, as a general matter overdone dogs (i.e. oversized, too much coat, too much bone, coarse looking) are penalized in the ring out here.


I think the pendulum has started swing. I do not see as many dogs with excessive length in their furnishings advertised in the GR News as I did 10 or even 5 years ago. And you will of course see regional variations. When I started showing there were some big winners who had far too much coat for practicality as a working retriever (and there are still a couple of judges in my neck of the woods who will put up a dog with a coat more fitted to a Chow!) I know of a couple of dogs who regularly had to have their underline and furnishings trimmed when they were being compaigned to top dog in Canada (because I watched the handler do it!!)--both multi-BIS winners who did take top dog honours in the year they were campaigned here. The top Goldens in Canada the last couple of years have been more moderate.


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

kfayard said:


> Well I can say why I hire a handler, it is not because I can not get points on my dogs...I got points on both of my dogs when they first started off. I teach and coach cheerleading and to be honest, I do not have time to travel everywhere to get points on them to be able to finish them in a timely manner. It would be more expensive for me to pay entry fees, gas, hotels, set up cost then paying a handler for the weekend. I wanted for them to be finished, so I could go to other things like obedience, agility, and hunting.
> 
> I like showing and I will eventually show my boy to get GCH points at local shows.
> 
> ...


I'm not opposed to it, I was just surprised how many do, and if it meant owner handlers were at a big disadvantage. I don't have the perspective needed to understand how much it factors in. 

And yes....my comment about "running around in a circle" was tongue in cheek. That's why I followed that up by acknowledging that more goes into it than that. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Nairb said:


> I'll have to go back and watch the Westminster video again, but given the responses by the knowledgeable conformation people in this thread regarding ideal coat, I have to wonder why so many went for the heavily blow dried, or "open" look. Is that what the judges want to see? I could be off base here, but I look at it again later.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


The dogs you see at Westminster are not necessarily that repsentative of the vast majority of dogs you will see in a weekend show. The top dogs are invited to participate and they can tend to be more extreme as they are the dogs who are campaigned and going after group placements and BIs wins to get ranking points--they have to beat the glamorous setters to get out of the Sporting group, and often compete against personality plus terriers, and super-sculpted poodles if they get to Best. Who decides to show, and how they groom the dog will also depend on who is judging. I was not very thrilled with the job this years judge did. There was a fair bit of grumbling on the lists about the fact that the dog he gave BOB was handled by a pro who had worked for him, and shown his Clumber to BIS at Westminster....


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

Nairb said:


> I'm not opposed to it, I was just surprised how many do, and if it meant owner handlers were at a big disadvantage. I don't have the perspective needed to understand how much it factors in.
> 
> And yes....my comment about "running around in a circle" was tongue in cheek. That's why I followed that up by acknowledging that more goes into it than that.
> 
> ...


In some breeds the owner handlers are the distinct minority in the ring. There are judges who have a reputation as face judges, or for favouring a certain handler, but you quickly work out who they are and don't waste entry money on them. It can be very intimidating, but you have to work at it the way they have worked at it. In Ontario, when I walk into the ring, I am frequently in there with Will Alexander, Graeme Burdon, Emily Burdon, Colin Brownlee, john, joanne, and Hailey Griffith, and Rebecca McAuley--most of whom you have seen in one group or another on the Westminster telecast at some point. They show far more dogs than I do, so they have far more opportunities to win, and do sometimes have a "face" advantage, but at one point or another the dog I was showing, has beat the dog they were showing, to win the class or take the points. I may have finished my dog faster, and saved on gas and hotels if I had hired one of them to show for me, but I enjoy the challenge of earning the title with my dog, so we keep playing.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Megora said:


> I think something to keep in mind with those handlers is they only take on dogs they can be successful with, even while they started off with their own dogs.


Do you know many professional handlers well, so that you share down time, work side by side, and hear their inside perspectives? Why would a handler take on a dog about whom they have doubts if they can succeed. That is cruel to the client, and sometimes called having a "gas money" dog. It is to a handler's credit to audition dogs, and make sure they are show quality, even just to protect the owner. 

Many top handlers who have retained a true love of dogs , the sport, and ethics have showed almost every kind of dog you can imagine, and for reasons and circumstances both hard and easy to imagine. They have seen it all, have streamlined ways of working with dogs to fit their own styles over whole careers. Many go on to become judges themselves. Within the ranks of the pro dog handler are some tremendous dog men and women. It is really hard for a novice to walk into a ring, and work a dog as well as a pro handler, but not for some unfair reason- bc the handler has spent career perfecting a craft. The novice needs to be willing to put in those 10,000 hours Gladwell sees as making the difference between soso and great. Anything you practice almost daily will become more second nature than something to do every few months. The experienced owner handler has huge advantages over the pro handler, and in many cases does win. 







> Jacks - I'm not under any delusions as far as his conformation, even though I've been admittedly flattered by compliments on him by very many people whose opinions on the matter I respect. I had many people (who owner/handled their dogs to CH's) who were urging me to get him into conformation. Not to the same extent as I've had with Bertie. With Jacks it was "You should really think about getting him into conformation" and with Bertie it's been "You WILL get him into conformation" - sometimes based on first glance and sometimes based on respect for the dogs his breeder produces. I know definitely too the whole thing about artistic grooming and handling to cover flaws - as we all went over Jacks faults as itemized by me. I was one of those terrible mom's picking her kids apart. LOL.  I was told that the faults as listed by me were very easy to cover up. I have no idea if that was creative sculpting or strategic handling, but yep.


People can and do talk, and have various ideas about dogs in the grey area between a specials quaility top show dog and a nice quality pet dog with too many faults to finish. Some black & white entries will catch fire and finish fast- in justa week weeks of show days, some grey area show dogs will be more of a marathon than a sprint but eventually finish, and some simply can't finish even after 40,000$ of showing, but will get a point or two to keep the owner hoping. Having owned a dog in each catagory, my suggestion is to get the dog /puppy evaluated by a very objective handler so you have an idea what ballpark you are in. 

As far as not grooming the dog to give him his best chance, I don't get it. It is no fun going to shows, and not placing in the class etc.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

@Jill 

1. I don't know very many handlers personally. I've met them, watched them, etc. Some are nice. Some not. I did have the impression that they evaluate dogs before taking them on. So your bigger name handlers will generally take on dogs they can be successful with. It's a business, right?

If you are asking if those people who have commented on Jacks were good opinions to seek - yes. The one lady who chatted with me a long time about Bertie is a fairly respected opinion and would be the first to tell you what she doesn't want to see in a show prospect. 

With Jacks all ungroomed at dog shows he also gathered people stopping to talk with me about who is breeder was and what they liked about him. Not enough for me to get him into things knowing how much grooming would be necessary to keep his face clear and after he grayed early, that was that. 

2. I can't imagine not putting the training time and so forth for obedience. Conformation not being a goal for me, i would have different objectives with my dog. Very simply said. 

I have friends who are showing their own dogs - and even with putting in their time as junior handlers, it still is not an easy sure thing getting points. They are having fun with their dogs and thats what matters right now.

Watching what they and even those owners sitting ringside go through while their coifed and expensively prepped dogs go into the ring and come out emptyhanded - I wonder why they wouldn't do obedience instead where their dogs go into the ring with high score and placements and it's up to the owner and dog to keep those points. 

***sorry about typos - I'm dealing with touchscreen keyboard until I get my computer back.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

You don't seem all that enthusiastic about conformation. It's cool that in the dog world there are so many different games to play with dogs. Different strokes . . . I think it would be hard to form a nuanced opinion of how much grooming is too much for your golden in the show ring, without getting out there and doing it over a good amount of time.


----------



## sterregold (Dec 9, 2009)

On the grooming aspect, I will say this-- I will not mousse legs, or back blow and use product to put volume into the coat because it is not correct. Clean, yes. aappropriately trimmed, yes. painted or pouffed, no. Judges need to see dogs presented in a way that highlights what is correct und the breed standard. Some of the grooming turns a correct coat into an incorrect coat. Now, the judges who tend to like my dogs, are also judges who understand that pouf is not correct, so preparing them as I do is appropriate for showing to them.

It was becoming such an issue up here that the GRCC Judges Education committee actually sent out a letter and education package to every judge who was licensed in the breed a couple of years ago.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Again... my feeling is if you have to trim a lot of coat or shape or thin.. I have to wonder what direction you are takinv the breed if you HAVE to do all that. 

There are pictures of some dogs that I have seen that I see hard expressions and naked necks and just a weird appearance due to the overzealous clippers of their owners or groomers. That's the far extreme.  

I am not that enthusiastic about conformation in a competitive sense... but I've sat and watched a lot of shows every year since I was little - me and my sisters standing or sitting on the floor ringside and rooting for our favorite dogs and placing friendly bets with each other on who was going to win bis.. So I'm into this thing for the love of more things to do with my dogs, because I can.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

I have never finished a dog. I am hiring a handler for the first time for my girl Lucy's next shows. It's a 3 show cluster. The handler I am using is well known here in AK. I've seen her in action several times before I decided to hire her. Why hire a handler? Well I've taken plenty of show and go classes. I also had personal training from a friend that finished several of her own goldens. I showed Lucy twice. Everyone told me I did well, but my puppy's breeder told me you could continue and you could learn, but it will take you a long time to finish your girl. So I'm paying for handling and grooming to speed up that process. I have extremely strict guidelines from the handler from leashes, to obedience classes I can or can not take. Washing her at a particular temperature, baiting her with specific foods, etc. There are a lot of rules from the handler, but I want to finish Lucy. Why finish Lucy? Well I would like to breed her someday and I feel she is an excellent representation of the breed. I think finishing her is something to do for myself and for her breeder. We all gain up and down the line. If I can show that Lucy is finished and X dogs are in her lineage, we all gain. Any titles she achieves will help her and her parents, her siblings, her future offspring in the end. They are all tied together.

Going back to the handler issue, if you have ever watched a professional handler train a dog for the ring, it is amazing to watch. They know how to get every inch of that dog to pay attention to them and give them all the positioning and grace they can. It is wonderful to watch a good handler. The junior handlers are also great, I think I like watching them the most!


----------



## dogloverforlife (Feb 17, 2013)

One of the reasons we got a Lab instead of a Golden was due to their different coats. BF didn't want to always be combing burrs out of a Golden. I told him I would do it, but of course he didn't listen.
We will be able to see how bad it is this fall when we take both Emma(Lab) and Hawkeye(Golden) dove hunting.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Megora said:


> Again... my feeling is if you have to trim a lot of coat or shape or thin.. I have to wonder what direction you are takinv the breed if you HAVE to do all that.


 Not many good breeder judges are fooled in the slightest by that stuff anyway.

The dog you offered us as an example in your photo carries much more coat than any of my dogs except Tally. He would need some careful stripping, shaping, and trimming to look more balanced front and rear and to work on his topline. You would HAVE to do that to be competitive. 

If you did work on his coat, trim a little, and try and balance him more, would you be taking the breed in a bad direction? I just dont see it in those terms.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Ljilly28 said:


> Not many good breeder judges are fooled in the slightest by that stuff anyway. I think you are blowing out of proportion the effectiveness of all that stuff. You would need to get out there in the rings and compete for a while to test and see for yourself.


If people feel that the only way they can give their dogs a chance in the ring is by doing more trimming than cleaning up the edges - that's what I'm commenting on.

Eta - the dog i gave as an example is Jacks (like you could forget his name!). If you are critiquing my dog, you can use his name. Dont be shy.  I will not breed my dogs, ever. Even if the bizarre happened and i got a otch or ch on a dog - that dog will not be bred. Period. The goals of doing all this obedience and in theory conformation is for that experience of being out there in the ring with my dog. That is what all these games we play with our buds comes down to. 

I love Jacks' look and would smack somebody if they tried to mess up his coat. People who have met him in person and gotten their hands on him like him.

*** i really hate thisnfangled keyboard.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

If someone could strip out some hair under a dogs' ears and throat, then a little on his shoulders to shape a lion's mane, trim his paws into cat's paws, and calculate the right amount and angle of hock hair to make his stifle look more bended and more in balance with the front, unpoof the poof of hair making his topline look lumpy, and that means he might go out and compete well as opposed to being overlooked. . . to me, that is what puts the "show" in dog show. Judges are not fooled anyway as they feel with their hands.


----------



## drofen (Feb 2, 2013)

I think attempting to accentuate the best qualities, and de-emphasize faults is not an unscrupulous strategy.

We do that all the time. When interviewing for a new job, when dating, or heck, when choosing what clothes to wear.

Megora I think you're putting the preponderance of blame in the wrong place. To me it sounds like you're upbraiding the owners/handlers/groomers for doing too much grooming. In my admittedly inexperienced opinion, it is the judges' responsibility to see through this--and several people have mentioned that; Jill and Sterregold both among others. If the uber-groomed dogs are being rewarded with points/wins, then to me that's the judge's fault. And it sounds like that's been an issue as it was shared that additional education has been distributed to the judges regarding the issue.

I admire your altruistic stance at being into conformation for the fun of it all. But I also think perhaps you're doing the sport a disservice as well. If one isn't going to seek to be competitive in a competition, I think the entire field is brought down. Realistically if one is going to call it a competition, there has to be a winner, and seeking an advantage isn't unscrupulous at all.

Where it becomes an issue is when those that are being unethical (PEDs in baseball and cycling and horse racing) are not caught and sanctioned for unfair play. Or as in horse racing, if the entire industry has lost its soul to poor ethics. I'm not sure grooming your dog (however severe) falls into quite the same category.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Ljilly28 said:


> If someone could strip out some hair under a dogs' ears and throat, then a little on his shoulders to shape a lion's mane, trim his paws into cat's paws, and calculate the right amount and angle of hock hair to make his stifle look more bended and more in balance with the front, unpoof the poof of hair making his topline look lumpy, and that means he might go out and compete well as opposed to being overlooked. . . to me, that is what puts the "show" in dog show. Judges are not fooled anyway as they feel with their hands.


Well.... Jacks ears and paws and tail are done on a routine basis - and that part i dont have a.problem with. Same with rear feet (the part i call hocks).


You can brush some that topline so it lies flat. You can brush the neck and chest area to tame it. I won't trim it.

That's irrelevant with Jacksipants, but I will be grooming Bertles the same way.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

If I could ever learn the correct way to trim paws I would be thrilled. It doesn't matter how many websites I read and videos I watch, I just can't get it!

It really doesn't bother me what grooming happens for the breed ring (it does bother me when judges put up overdone, incorrect dogs, and people who breed those dogs in order to win). But I still feel it has evolved more into more of a game/hobby than to select the best breeding stock. When one does something differently according to what a judge likes, that's playing the game. Which is fine, everyone should have something they enjoy doing. But some people look at a CH to automatically be a creme of the crop dog, and some think that if a dog doesn't earn a CH it should never be bred, and I don't see it that way.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> If I could ever learn the correct way to trim paws I would be thrilled. It doesn't matter how many websites I read and videos I watch, I just can't get it!
> 
> It really doesn't bother me what grooming happens for the breed ring (it does bother me when judges put up overdone, incorrect dogs, and people who breed those dogs in order to win). But I still feel it has evolved more into more of a game/hobby than to select the best breeding stock. When one does something differently according to what a judge likes, that's playing the game. Which is fine, everyone should have something they enjoy doing. But some people look at a CH to automatically be a creme of the crop dog, and some think that if a dog doesn't earn a CH it should never be bred, and I don't see it that way.


You make some very relevant points.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Loisiana said:


> If I could ever learn the correct way to trim paws I would be thrilled. It doesn't matter how many websites I read and videos I watch, I just can't get it!
> 
> It really doesn't bother me what grooming happens for the breed ring (it does bother me when judges put up overdone, incorrect dogs, and people who breed those dogs in order to win). But I still feel it has evolved more into more of a game/hobby than to select the best breeding stock. When one does something differently according to what a judge likes, that's playing the game. Which is fine, everyone should have something they enjoy doing. But some people look at a CH to automatically be a creme of the crop dog, and some think that if a dog doesn't earn a CH it should never be bred, and I don't see it that way.


So are you saying there are champion dogs out there that don't meet the breed standards?


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Wyatt's Mommy, I always have a hard time knowing where you are coming from. But are you trying to pick a fight with Loisiana ?


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> So are you saying there are champion dogs out there that don't meet the breed standards?


My actual point was that only one dog a day will earn points towards a title, and the dog a judge chooses to put up may or may not be in the best interest of the breed. And just because a dog wasn't picked as the "best" there doesn't mean they wouldn't be a great asset for the breed. So much of it is subjective, based on one persons opinion, so I was saying I don't take the fact that a dog does or does not have CH in front of its name to really bear all that much meaning.

And the same is true to me for all titles. I just don't think titles of any kind really tell you that much about the dog.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Loisiana, well written.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Sally's Mom said:


> Wyatt's Mommy, I always have a hard time knowing where you are coming from. But are you trying to pick a fight with Loisiana ?


Not at all



Loisiana said:


> My actual point was that only one dog a day will earn points towards a title, and the dog a judge chooses to put up may or may not be in the best interest of the breed. And just because a dog wasn't picked as the "best" there doesn't mean they wouldn't be a great asset for the breed. So much of it is subjective, based on one persons opinion, so I was saying I don't take the fact that a dog does or does not have CH in front of its name to really bear all that much meaning.
> 
> And the same is true to me for all titles. I just don't think titles of any kind really tell you that much about the dog.


By saying may or may not be in the best interest of the breed is what I interpret to mean out of standard. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.

Also agree about it being very subjective.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Minimal grooming is a part of the standard. Additionally, there are older breed experts who would say that if you need more than neatening a few hairs then the coat is probably not correct. And if the judge is not fooled why go the extra length? The interview I posted from Marcia Schlehr mentioned an education event where the dogs were shown more natural and the judges wondered why the exhibitors didn't do that in the ring...



> 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*.


It's also against AKC regulations to do some of the things that are common practice (i.e. chalk, product in coat, blacken noses). And some of the grooming practices promote an incorrect coat type.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

With a good judge I'm sure it's all just a house of cards anyway. The grooming, the presentation...it's for the owners to feel like they did something to influence the outcome.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

> My actual point was that only one dog a day will earn points towards a title, and the dog a judge chooses to put up may or may not be in the best interest of the breed. And just because a dog wasn't picked as the "best" there doesn't mean they wouldn't be a great asset for the breed. So much of it is subjective, based on one persons opinion, so I was saying I don't take the fact that a dog does or does not have CH in front of its name to really bear all that much meaning.


2 dogs win points to CH and 4 dogs win points to GCH- so that is 6 even if no group points. I agree many dogs do not win on a given day who have great value to the breed, but those dogs will win over time. "Subjective" makes it seem like the judge's opinion is willynilly, but many judges were longtime breeders themselves and incredibly knowledable dog people who have a set of criteria in their heads. It is much closer to an objective opinion than either someone with less eduction or someone looking at his/her own dog. A CH in front of a name means that many judges looked at the dog and thought it was the best of its peers on several days- quite a meaningful thing as only less that far less than 300 goldens can finish in a year statistically. 

It is a lot less subjective than it seems. When you have a dog chosen by 32 different judges, 10 of them breeder judges each with 30 plus years of experience, that is not random coincidence or the result of some hairspray. 

The feedback from judges on my dog is useful to me in seeing that my judgment of my dog is congruent with reality. You can listen all day long to people claiming they have show quality dogs if only they were to enter, or that they have the best dog in the ring but the judge is stupid or political or the pro handlers get the most attention- but talk is cheap. I think there is a ton of sour grapes in deriding the value of a hard-earned CH or GCH title when you yourself have not earned point number 1 in that venue. 


> so I was saying I don't take the fact that a dog does or does not have CH in front of its name to really bear all that much meaning.


The meaning in this is 32 expert dog people from all around the country think my golden at age 2 is closer to the standard than her peers and her betters, peers including the #1 ranked golden in the country, 2 CH/MHs, and goldens of a plethora of styles. It bears much more meaning to have a dog's structure compared day after day after day by a wide variety of experts in the breed than to claim how exemplary your golden is, without backing it up with concrete results. 

The CH title does have great meaning to me simply because I have so much respect for long time golden breeders who have now become judges, and who give a learned opinion through their selections. These points represent 100s of mornings setting my alarm for 4:45 to get an hour of practice in with Lush before the work day starts, hours of conditioning, a grooming table right in my living room to keep her coat shining but still letting her swim in the ocean, 1000s of miles commuted win or lose. . . 

CH at age 20 months 
Number of Points	17 
Number Major Wins	2 
Number Major Judges	2 
Total Number Judges	11 

GCH at age 22 months
Number of Points	53 
Number Major Wins	10 
Number Major Judges	10 
Total Number Judges	21 
Events w/CH Defeated 15


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Jill, I think you are taking this overly personal w/regards to your own dog. You stated that she was shown with minimal sculpting? That's enough.

I do agree with Jodie specifically because I backed out of a puppy last year because the sire - who was a GCH with a lot more points and wins than your girl.... he had elbow dysplasia. 

I know you backed out of showing your other golden because he has elbow dysplasia and you neutered him shortly after.... but there are people in conformation who do not view that as a show stopper. And yes, these people are very high ranking and "reputable" breeders. 

That's just taking one issue. 

As you are involved with conformation, I'm sure you are aware of the other things that people always seem to talk about when it comes to what they see winning.

How this returns to the actual OP.... that idea "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" is common in both performance lines and conformation lines.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

It usually comes off like sour grapes to dismiss an entire venue's value as someone who does not participate in it. I certainly agree with you about the elbows. I cannot express how much it hurt to neuter my dog and stop showing him. I don't agree that any kind of grooming is ruining the breed bc judges are too smart; I don't agree that a CH title is meaningless knowing the tears, time, travel, and work that goes into it even with a top puppy, and how many very nice dogs just cannot cut it and get sent home or never even place in their classes. The competition is extremely steep in goldens, and anyone who finishes a CH has achieved a meaningful goal..


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Ljilly28 said:


> I am refering to my own dog partly because you picked out my signature picture to comment on, Kate, and partly to use as an example of why I strongly disagree with dismissing the value of a CH without ever doing one.


Ah.... I thought that's what this was all about. 

I have to go back and review what I said exactly... but I'm pretty sure I said she was a pretty girl and I was being very careful about my wording.... 

The extreme examples that I offered did not apply to your girl necessarily. I have seen goldens with a CH in front of their names who... well, look like dog aliens. : That's because they have had so much excessive trimming. 

You started the topic with reference to that groomer and I believe you credited her with Lush's success. 

I would have still have been babbling about slickers if I hadn't seen that and immediately thought of those pictures I've seen of champions who had their coats chopped up. 

After Westminster everyone was posting pictures of the goldens and screaming "***" about the coats. Some of these people show other breeds, btw, so are not "inexperienced" necessarily.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Showing Tito, both myself and with a handler, was a huge eye opener for me and I reversed my opinions on a lot of things.
Sure, there are some judges who are very "political" and will only put up dogs that are from kennels they know well. One year at the big IKC show here in Chicago I congratulated the owner of the dog who took second in the huge (24 or so) open class. The breeder/owner laughed and said, "oh, (judge's name) had better give me something, we've known each other for 50 years". Was she kidding? I don't think so.
But after being part of the show scene, I believe that to be the exception rather than the rule, especially among the big name breeder judges. Word gets out fast when a judge is political, and people simply won't show to that judge. One year in Louisville there were over 25 dogs in the Open class for 4 of the 5 days, and 12 the other day. In the words of a very well known handler (nice way to say it, btw), "There's no point in entering that day, I never seem to have the style of dog (that judge's name) is looking for". So yes, there are some dogs, for whom the CH doesn't have as much meaning as it does for other dogs. But in reality, even in those cases the dog had better be *pretty good* or the judge simply isn't going to be able to put the dog up over the other entries. If I had entered Toby in the ring, even if my mother was the judge there was no way he could have won.
As far as handlers, and others have mentioned this, they cannot make a bad dog into a good dog. They can work with what is there to present it to the best advantage. They have done this thousands of times, and are experts at what they do. 
Tito is a nice, honest dog. But I was only able to put 2 points on him myself. As soon as I let a handler take him in the ring he finished very quickly with 3 big majors. Why? Did they change the dog? Of course not. (FWIW, the handler who took him in wasn't one of the "big names", either). 
But she is excellent at what she does. She can float around the ring like a gazelle, which shows how Tito is capable of moving. When I go around the ring with him, I move like a baby hippo. So he moves in short, choppy strides to stay with me. Ah, but put him in the ring with someone who can MOVE, and it quickly becomes apparent how outstanding his movement is.
Same with stacking him. In less than 3 seconds she could have him standing correctly, focused on her and showing his normal, kindly expression. It took me FOREVER to get him to stand correctly, constantly fiddling with him, and by the time I did so he would be hanging his head trying to figure out why I was getting annoyed. 
If you doubt it, try stacking your own dogs. Get them to stand and stay in one position without moving a single foot, while keeping the pleasing expression, for 45-60 seconds. It's not as easy as it sounds, and takes a lot of practice to be good at it. You only have a couple of seconds to achieve it, not 5 minutes. Seriously, if you've never done it, try it. 
Another comment about handlers, the better the handler, the more selective they are about the dogs they will take. As one very very well known handler told me, "we only take the best of the best. We have a reputation to uphold". So why does that handler win all the time? Not because the judge knows the face, but because the handler only bring in excellent dogs, and those dogs are always going to be worth a second look.
The stuff you hear outside the ring is downright hilarious, and most of it falls under the sour grapes category. A lot of "my dog could be a champion but I don't have the time/money/interest to show him" going on from spectators. A lot of fault finding by people whose dog didn't win (obviously forgetting that judges are not judging faults, but rather are judging positives). One of the funniest ones, for me, was when Tito won his first major and someone, not knowing he was my dog, commented within my hearing "oh, he only won because he had a handler on him". I just burst out laughing...so did 22 of the 24 dogs in the ring, and the other 2 had long time breeder/handlers! Seriously people? You think that's why he won? Wasn't even a big name handler!
I used to think having a CH wasn't a big deal, but now I realize it really is, especially in the highly competitive breeds, of which goldens is one. 
But it's like any other title, in my opinion. You need to look at how long (i.e., how many shows, not length of time) it took the dog to get the CH. 
Age is irrelevant. Some dogs mature faster than others, and some dogs reach their peak young and then decline fast. Others reach their peak young and stay there for years and years. They're all different.
But I do feel that there's a difference between a dog who gets a CH in just a few weekends of shows, and a dog who shows for 5 years, consistently, before finally getting the CH. The first dog is clearly a better conformation representation of the breed than the second one is. 
By the same token, I believe there's a huge difference between a dog who gets an OTCH or a MACH in a short number of attempts versus one who shows every weekend for 10 years and finally gets the title. And for that reason, I think there are things that breeders need to look other than just the titles that the dog is wearing. 
I agree that a lot of it has become a hobby, and some people aren't necessarily showing the dogs to determine the best breeding stock, but I think most are. But I don't fault people for just enjoying the hobby, after all, is it any different than showing your dog in obedience, agility, field events, etc. just because you enjoy the hobby and the people? Not really. So why would one condemn the conformation people for just enjoying a hobby? 
I know, I'm rambling.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

an additional comment (I'm sure there will be many, lol)....
Big big name handler in goldens told me to only show Tito at very big shows. People might interpret that as "selecting judges", but it wasn't.
I was told that, since Tito is not a flashy dog, he needed to be shown to people who "know goldens", not to judges who don't really know the breed standard as well as the big name judges of goldens, and sometimes tend to award flashy dogs rather than the best dogs.
And the handler was absolutely right. In a ring with 3 or 4 dogs in his class, Tito rarely won. In rings with 24 or more in his class, he did, or at least was RWD or in the ribbons. All that changed was the judges' knowledge, not the dogs.
Which is why he finished with 3 majors and a 2 point win (a major that broke).


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Very well said, Barb. 

One question I have... especially since some of the smaller shows generally have just handlers or owners sitting outside the ring watching. They are the spectators. What do you think when they make comments about the dogs in the ring? 

The bigger shows you definitely do have actual spectators who are giving a regular play by play and showing off for the people around them as they pick apart dogs or explain why X dog is simply not going to win. <- The last show I went to and sat at and watched 7-8 hours of showing in the busier rings.... these guys really came out of the woodwork for the rottweilers and mastiffs! LOL.

@faulting people for enjoying a hobby? I'm not sure if anyone was.....? I made a comment that I may get Bertie into conformation classes (because I have no clue what I have to work on). I would then talk to his breeder and talk with friends who show as far as going the next step. That I hope shows that I do understand it's not easy going out there and there is a lot to learn for a person new to the sport. My comments on grooming stand where they are and I'm not overly concerned about omg not giving my dog the best chance to win. I would just be doing a entry here or there just to get my guy out there and have fun.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I don't think the champion means nothing. I know it is a ton of work. I also highly value structure. I just worry about the focus on coat pushing things into the extreme and becoming incorrect and I do think it is a big deal. It saddens me we have several splits in the breed and maybe I am alone in this? Perhaps I should just embrace reality...


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

GoldenSail said:


> Perhaps I should just embrace reality...


Maybe? And I do not mean that in a negative way.
In my opinion, and ironically that is what this post is about (opinion), you have and will always have the so called spilts. There are those who will say that if a dog can not attain it's CH it is not worthy to bred. There are others who say unless a dog is capable of attaining it's MH or AFC/FC is not worthy of being bred. People will always disagree what is most important. But thankfully there are folks that believe a dog can be structurally correct to the the Standard and not attain a CH. And there are likewise those that believe a dog can be correct as per "breed purpose" and not attain a MH or AFC/FC. But what is even better is that I believe there are more and more folks that know you can have both and are truly breeding with the WHOLE dog in mind. And I truly believe THESE are the folks that are steering this breed away from the extremes in either direction and will get us back track.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I don't think a CH is meaningless, I said I don't think you can use the fact that a dog has a CH in front of his name to truly determine if he is the best breeding stock. I know there are lots of exceptional Goldens out there with CH. But I also know most people involved with the sport will admit that some judges are political, some judges put up dogs with incorrect overdone coat, etc. I know not all judges are that way. Im not even saying most of them are. But if SOME of them are, then there have to be dogs out there with CH who are not truly what is the best for the breed. All I'm saying is you can't take for granted that if a dog has CH in front of it's name it's truly an ideal specimen. Look at the dog itself, not just the titles.

And that's not sour grapes on my part, I said I believe the same thing for all sports. Just because a dog has an OTCH in front of his name does not mean he is a totally exceptional obedience dog that will produce exceptional obedience dogs. It might. Or it might mean the dog had a very talented, dedicated owner who was willing to work hard and long enough to make the title happen. I don't think the title on either type of dog is meaningless. But I do think you have to look past the title at the dog itself.

People should be proud of the titles they earn with their dog. But if you are looking for breeding prospects, I don't think you can rely on a title to tell you the best options.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

AmbikaGR said:


> Maybe? And I do not mean that in a negative way.
> In my opinion, and ironically that is what this post is about (opinion), you have and will always have the so called spilts. There are those who will say that if a dog can not attain it's CH it is not worthy to bred. There are others who say unless a dog is capable of attaining it's MH or AFC/FC is not worthy of being bred. People will always disagree what is most important. But thankfully there are folks that believe a dog can be structurally correct to the the Standard and not attain a CH. And there are likewise those that believe a dog can be correct as per "breed purpose" and not attain a MH or AFC/FC. But what is even better is that I believe there are more and more folks that know you can have both and are truly breeding with the WHOLE dog in mind. And I truly believe THESE are the folks that are steering this breed away from the extremes in either direction and will get us back track.


No I get it. It is what is is. I'm just an idealist and can't help but think about what could be and where the future will lead. I try to paint a picture in my head of what I believe is correct and why. I only speak up because it concerns me about the breed and I know I am not entirely alone. I am just saddened by some of the things I have seen and experienced. Also looking at other breeds. There are breeds that are not split so it isn't something that has to be (although it is). There are breeds that are far worse, so it can get worse if we are not careful and concerned about it. Look at border collies. They have entire separate registries and clubs.

I salute those attempting to keep the golden in moderation and focus. It does feel like an uphill battle though.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I also think that, as Shelly said, it's dependent on the area of the country. Here in the midwest I do believe we've seen a shift back toward moderation, and correct coats. I can't speak for other areas of the country.
And I also think that as field is getting more popular, and you are seeing more places for people to experiment with it, more people are giving it a try. That can only be a good thing!


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

AmbikaGR said:


> Maybe? And I do not mean that in a negative way.
> In my opinion, and ironically that is what this post is about (opinion), you have and will always have the so called spilts. There are those who will say that if a dog can not attain it's CH it is not worthy to bred. There are others who say unless a dog is capable of attaining it's MH or AFC/FC is not worthy of being bred. People will always disagree what is most important.* But thankfully there are folks that believe a dog can be structurally correct to the the Standard and not attain a CH.* And there are likewise those that believe a dog can be correct as per "breed purpose" and not attain a MH or AFC/FC. But what is even better is thatI believe there are more and more folks that know you can have both and are truly breeding with the WHOLE dog in mind. And I truly believe THESE are the folks that are steering this breed away from the extremes in either direction and will get us back track.


This is refreshing to hear especially on this forum. The message that comes across when people are looking for a reputable breeder is the complete opposite. 

I also would like to ask what does it take to qualify to compete in the Westminster? How are they able to compete in a top show with an incorrect coat to begin with? Thanks!


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> This is refreshing to hear especially on this forum. The message that comes across when people are looking for a reputable breeder is the complete opposite.


I have never seen anyone post anything to the effect of "Oh, the sire and dam aren't champions so this breeder shouldn't be breeding." People say that people breeding should be competing with their dogs in some venue to show they are worthy of being bred. I think that is consistent with what Amibika posted as well.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> I also think that, as Shelly said, it's dependent on the area of the country. Here in the midwest I do believe we've seen a shift back toward moderation, and correct coats. I can't speak for other areas of the country.
> And I also think that as field is getting more popular, and you are seeing more places for people to experiment with it, more people are giving it a try. That can only be a good thing!


I think that is the case out here as well, in terms of both the style of dogs and people giving field training a try! We have a field training day tomorrow (so excited!  )and a lot of club members are coming out with their dogs to try it out


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I have never seen anyone post anything to the effect of "Oh, the sire and dam aren't champions so this breeder shouldn't be breeding."* People say that people breeding should be competing with their dogs in some venue to show they are worthy of being bred.* I think that is consistent with what Amibika posted as well.


So how worthy are they if they compete and fail? Anyone can compete right? Also it is stressed to look at the line history. How would you know they competed if they don't have CH in front of their name? Look at it thru perspective buyers eyes.

Back to the coat issue. What are the qualifications for Westminster?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> So how worthy are they if they compete and fail? Anyone can compete right? Also it is stressed to look at the line history. How would you know they competed if they don't have CH in front of their name? Look at it thru perspective buyers eyes.
> 
> Back to the coat issue. What are the qualifications for Westminster?


They could have a CCA at the end of their name, which means they were examined by 3 evaluators and determined to be within the breed standard. A dog can also have points toward their championship but not be a champion. That is verifiable on the AKC website. 

As for westminster, here are the entry rules I found by googling them: WKC Dog Show Entry Requirements - 2013 Rules, Regulations, Agreements & Procedures - WestminsterKennelClub.org


----------



## drofen (Feb 2, 2013)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I have never seen anyone post anything to the effect of "Oh, the sire and dam aren't champions so this breeder shouldn't be breeding." People say that people breeding should be competing with their dogs in some venue to show they are worthy of being bred. I think that is consistent with what Amibika posted as well.


To me, the idea that the breeder is competing in some venue was comforting because it showed the breeder was active in the Golden community--they weren't just trapped in their own little bubble. To me that spoke of a commitment to the breed outside the monetary aspects of selling puppies.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> They* could* have a CCA at the end of their name, which means they were examined by 3 evaluators and determined to be within the breed standard. A dog can also have points toward their championship but not be a champion. That is verifiable on the AKC website.
> 
> As for westminster, here are the entry rules I found by googling them: WKC Dog Show Entry Requirements - 2013 Rules, Regulations, Agreements & Procedures - WestminsterKennelClub.org


Thanks! 

Since it has been said that some of the dogs at Westminster don't have "correct" coats and yet they have gone that far to qualify is disturbing. It certainly is sending the message to the general public that this is how a golden is suppose to look IMHO. And really does make it a subjective view in regards to winning confirmation championships.

This is not a personal attack to *anyone* who competes on here and have champions. That is not my intent. I myself am talking to a trainer who wants to get Wyatt in agility. I just see a lot of contradiction when it comes to what is standard and "correct". And have seen the noticeable changes in the looks of the golden over the years and cringe when I hear (and I heard it a few times from a member on here) that she can tell if a dog is from a rep breeder because rep breeder dogs have the big blocky heads. And how many times you hear, when is my dog going to get the long hair? They seem disappointed that their dog doesn't have the long fluffy hair.


----------



## KeaColorado (Jan 2, 2013)

I have seen an awful lot of BYBs marketing their pups using catch phrases like "comes from championship lines/field lines", and would be inclined to think that a breeder who is actively involved in some form of competition with their dogs and/or is planning to keep a pup from their litter for competition or place a few of the pups into performance or competition homes would have a greater incentive to do his or her due diligence in thoughtfully planning a breeding to meet those goals. I guess that's a long winded way of saying it's important to look not only at what's behind the dog, but what the breeder hopes will someday be in front of it (and I'm not talking about titles, but success of both ancestors and potential success of offspring...though titles at both ends are super). That should theoretically paint a better picture than comparing field versus conformation lines in the dog's pedigree.

Regarding coat, I'll reiterate (hopefully the OP is still reading!!) good diet and regular brushing and bathing will do a lot to reduce shedding with all other things being equal...if your plans for the puppy are to have a nice pet, I don't think you'll find much difference in terms of shedding and coat maintenance if the pup is from healthy lines and doesn't have allergies/ichthyosis/thyroid troubles, etc.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Since it has been said that some of the dogs at Westminster don't have "correct" coats and yet they have gone that far to qualify is disturbing. It certainly is sending the message to the general public that this is how a golden is suppose to look IMHO. And really does make it a subjective view in regards to winning confirmation championships.


I think some of it is grooming, as was mentioned above. The thing that is also important to remember is that no dog, even a dog competing at Westminster, is perfect. So while there may be a perception that the dogs are supposed to be "perfect" because they are at a high profile dog show, they are still dogs with faults. I really don't think it is fair or kind to critique the dogs at Westminster specifically based on a video one watches though. And while some of the critiques may be justified, until you have your hands on a dog it's hard to be able to evaluate a dog just based on what you are seeing. The floor could be slippery, the ring could be small, the dog may be in new surroundings and not showing its best. I'm not saying I thought the judge did or didn't do a great job, it's just important to remember that these are still dogs, owned by people who love them. They are not perfect and most are show dogs for a very small part of their life. 



Wyatt's mommy said:


> This is not a personal attack to *anyone* who competes on here and have champions. That is not my intent. I myself am talking to a trainer who wants to get Wyatt in agility. I just see a lot of contradiction when it comes to what is standard and "correct". And have seen the noticeable changes in the looks of the golden over the years and cringe when I hear (and I heard it a few times from a member on here) that she can tell if a dog is from a rep breeder because rep breeder dogs have the big blocky heads. And how many times you hear, when is my dog going to get the long hair? They seem disappointed that their dog doesn't have the long fluffy hair.


It's important to note that the term "blocky" is not in the breed standard. And personally, I have never heard a reputable breeder use that term nor have I heard any exhibitors active in competing with their dogs use it.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> This is not a personal attack to *anyone* who competes on here and have champions. That is not my intent. I myself am talking to a trainer who wants to get Wyatt in agility. I just see a lot of contradiction when it comes to what is standard and "correct". And have seen the noticeable changes in the looks of the golden over the years and cringe when I hear (and I heard it a few times from a member on here) that she can tell if a dog is from a rep breeder because rep breeder dogs have the big blocky heads. And how many times you hear, when is my dog going to get the long hair? They seem disappointed that their dog doesn't have the long fluffy hair.


@agility - very awesome<:

I think somebody (Barb?) already mentioned the regional effect with the breed? Or I have friends who won't show their dogs here in MI but travel to other states where they can do better with their dogs. 

I agree with Barb that at least in our area there has been a push back to more moderate looking dogs. 

There is a breeder in the Midwest whose dogs carry a LOT of coat. They are lovely goldens and she does very well with them. They still stand out in the ring because they have all that coat! 

People who are looking into buying golden puppies simply need to educate themselves on the breed. Understand that the rule of genetics means that most ducks will have ducks as opposed to miraculously giving birth to swans or something.  No amount of bathing and grooming will make a very basic pet bred golden look like one who was bred for very specific traits. 

Because the breed is so popular - you still have a wide variety of people who breed what they have on hand, breed for other important goals than conformation, breed for certain looks FOR conformation etc.... 

Labs are the most popular breed in the US - and just take a look at the difference between your average household lab with field lines behind him, and a lab bred for conformation. That's the side effect of having a very popular breed. 

Flatcoats are a fairly rare breed still and because there isn't such a wide variety of breeders across the country breeding for a variety of purposes.... you will have a more singular look and style. 

My opinion anyway.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I think some of it is grooming, as was mentioned above. The thing that is also important to remember is that no dog, even a dog competing at Westminster, is perfect. *So while there may be a perception that the dogs are supposed to be "perfect" because they are at a high profile dog show, they are still dogs with faults.* I really don't think it is fair or kind to critique the dogs at Westminster specifically based on a video one watches though. And while some of the critiques may be justified, until you have your hands on a dog it's hard to be able to evaluate a dog just based on what you are seeing. The floor could be slippery, the ring could be small, the dog may be in new surroundings and not showing its best. I'm not saying I thought the judge did or didn't do a great job, it's just important to remember that these are still dogs, owned by people who love them. They are not perfect and most are show dogs for a very small part of their life.
> 
> 
> 
> It's important to note that the term "blocky" is not in the breed standard. And personally, I have never heard a reputable breeder use that term nor have I heard any exhibitors active in competing with their dogs use it.


 
Again you are not looking at it thru a perspective buyers eyes and only confirming my views on how subjective the WHOLE confirmation competitions are.

Sure a lot of it is grooming. However the "correct" coat that keeps getting copied and pasted on here is a no fuss low maintenance coat. The working dog coat which in no way shape or form can be blow dried, primped, sculptured to look like some of those dogs. 

And to clarify my "blocky" comment which seems to have gotten lost. This is coming from members who have purchased on here from rep breeders. They see the change in the "look" that has gone on in the past decade and think this. 

_So I guess my whole point_ is the stress on competing (which is awesome) no doubt. But then again anyone can compete right. And the stress of line champions, which could be the best of the best, but then again could have many faults. So I agree with others that have said that just because the dog hasn't won doesn't mean they are less of the standard than one that has in order to breed.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> _So I guess my whole point_ is the stress on competing (which is awesome) no doubt. But then again anyone can compete right. And the stress of line champions, which could be the best of the best, but then again could have many faults. So I agree with others that have said that just because the dog hasn't won doesn't mean they are less of the standard than one that has in order to breed.


I agree with that, in theory, when applied to otherwise reputable breeders. I do not agree with this proposition when it is used by BYBs to justify breeding indiscriminately, to piggy back off the titles obtained by people in their dog's extended pedigree (i.e. advertising puppies as having "champion bloodlines/champion lines") or to justify not doing any competition with their dogs.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Megora said:


> @agility - very awesome<:
> 
> Labs are the most popular breed in the US - and just take a look at the difference between your average household lab with field lines behind him, and a lab bred for conformation. That's the side effect of having a very popular breed.
> 
> My opinion anyway.


Thanks He is a spitfire!

Sure no different with the labs. I agree! And I believe that is the problem IMHO. I believe a lot are breeding just for conformation and it is changing the whole "look" of the sporting dogs. And then you hear about what you said that depending on the region and possibly judges, some fair better than others. Is it that important to get that title to show perspective buyers they compete? Even though it is so subjective? Education doesn't change that. Just saw another thread where someone is going to purchase a dog from a champion bitch and someone is scrutinizing the title. Ok it does not mean that the dog is not worthy now does it?


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I agree with that, in theory, when applied to otherwise reputable breeders. I do not agree with this proposition when it is used by BYBs to justify breeding indiscriminately, to piggy back off the titles obtained by people in their dog's extended pedigree (i.e. advertising puppies as having "champion bloodlines/champion lines") or to justify not doing any competition with their dogs.


This isn't a debate about breeders. And never was intended to be. As a moderator I'm not sure why you are taking this to that area?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> This isn't a debate about breeders. And never was intended to be. As a moderator I'm not sure why you are taking this to that area?


I'm qualifying my agreement with your proposition. I was not the one that brought up breeders, it was brought up in your prior post when you said: 



> So I agree with others that have said that just because the dog hasn't won doesn't mean they are less of the standard than one that has in order to breed.


Which was in follow up to this comment: 



> The message that comes across when people are looking for a reputable breeder is the complete opposite.


And just as a general comment, as a moderator I am still allowed to have opinions


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I'm qualifying my agreement with your proposition. I was not the one that brought up breeders, it was brought up in your prior post when you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And WHERE did I mention byb's?


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> And WHERE did I mention byb's?


My qualification was between its application to otherwise reputable breeders versus application to BYBs. I don't think I said you mentioned BYBs specifically??? You did mention breeders though, they have been in this whole thread by virture of the subject heading. Did I miss something?


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> My qualification was between its application to otherwise reputable breeders versus application to BYBs. I don't think I said you mentioned BYBs specifically??? You did mention breeders though, they have been in this whole thread by virture of the subject heading. Did I miss something?


 
I may be wrong but I believe pretty much EVERYONE on this thread mentioned breeders? But somehow you stressed that in MY post? 

I am here just like everyone else to learn why trainers, breeders, competitions do what they do and why. The split. Who is the judge of correct coats etc. I am learning there are strong opinions on confirmation vs. field. And quite frankly I think this thread is very informative. 
Nowhere was anyone talking about byb's. It was a very obvious cheap shot IMHO.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I may be wrong but I believe pretty much EVERYONE on this thread mentioned breeders? But somehow you stressed that in MY post?
> 
> I am here just like everyone else to learn why trainers, breeders, competitions do what they do and why. The split. Who is the judge of correct coats etc. I am learning there are strong opinions on confirmation vs. field. And quite frankly I think this thread is very informative.
> Nowhere was anyone talking about byb's. It was a very obvious cheap shot IMHO.


Well, in all fairness, we were the ones posting. So it was initially in response to your comment about when people are looking for reputable breeders. I qualified it because I feel very strongly that that proposition not be utilized by BYBs. It was not a cheap shot at anyone, it is simply a qualification of my opinion about the proposition that you stated.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> In my experience, the soft fur you're talking about is puppy fur, and the "racing stripe" is the adult fur coming in. Soon his whole coat will be like that. Jackie got it on his back and his face first, and then the rest filled in. You can actually see it in this blog entry. That was right around the time that he got over his fear of deep water.


I love this stage. Copley's breeder calls it the skunk strip. Mine have gone through it a few times as their adult coats deepened in color of the years. It is so cute.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> I love this stage. Copley's breeder calls it the skunk strip. Mine have gone through it a few times as their adult coats deepened in color of the years. It is so cute.


Kira has it right now at 18 months old. She is blondey blonde except this golden color coming in down the middle of her back. She's like a reverse skunk, but much cuter  Turns out she will not be quite as light as we thought once she's fully mature. I think she will probably be about the color of her lovely half-sister Lush


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Well, in all fairness, we were the ones posting. *So it was initially in response to your comment about when people are looking for reputable breeders*. I qualified it because I feel very strongly that that proposition not be utilized by BYBs. It was not a cheap shot at anyone, it is simply a qualification of my opinion about the proposition that you stated.


 
No it's not fair! You took a shot at a post that nowhere said anything about breeders. It was in regards to what makes a dog worthy to breed. In which others said the same thing. *Now* you are saying it was about a comment on another post in which you took totally out of context to justify your position. The comment about people looking for breeders was in regards to the Westminster and how they portray goldens. WOW! Next time I will just say this is what they will expect from THE PERSON they purchase from.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Kira has it right now at 18 months old. She is blondey blonde except this golden color coming in down the middle of her back. She's like a reverse skunk, but much cuter  Turns out she will not be quite as light as we thought once she's fully mature. I think she will probably be about the color of her lovely half-sister Lush


If you get around to it, I would love to see a photo of Miss Kira and her stripe. 
She is a lovely girl.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> No it's not fair! You took a shot at a post that nowhere said anything about breeders. It was in regards to what makes a dog worthy to breed. In which others said the same thing. *Now* you are saying it was about a comment on another post in which you took totally out of context to justify your position. The comment about people looking for breeders was in regards to the Westminster and how they portray goldens. WOW! Next time I will just say this is what they will expect from THE PERSON they purchase from.


I'm sorry you feel that way. I am not sure why there is such an over-reaction on this as my qualification was not directed at you, but directed at the proposition I was agreeing with. Nonetheless, I'm stepping back from this thread now.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> I'm sorry you feel that way. I am not sure why there is such an over-reaction on this. Nonetheless, I'm stepping back from this thread now.


Feel The posts speak for themselves clearly in black and white. Nothing to do with how I feel

BTW are your dogs in agility?


----------



## drofen (Feb 2, 2013)

Megora said:


> v
> 
> People who are looking into buying golden puppies simply need to educate themselves on the breed. Understand that the rule of genetics means that most ducks will have ducks as opposed to miraculously giving birth to swans or something.  No amount of bathing and grooming will make a very basic pet bred golden look like one who was bred for very specific traits.


Realistically though, the first time buyer especially, where are they going to get that education?



goldenjackpuppy said:


> Kira has it right now at 18 months old. She is blondey blonde except this golden color coming in down the middle of her back. She's like a reverse skunk, but much cuter


Probably doesn't smell as bad either.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

You have to decide for yourself who you are going to trust to inform your eye, mentor you, and teach you what is correct and why. 

When it comes to coat, too little and you lose breed type and have that labby generic weedy retrievery look and the coat will not serve its function; too much or improper texture and you lose function again,and have an overdone ballgown. Where is the sweet spot? 

If you look in the judges' education packets at photos and illustrations, is that a good resource? A CCA panel? What about hiking or hunting with your dogs in brambles, cold water, and tough conditions in all weathers? How about a breeder who has breed successfully for forty years? Breeders who excel in both field and show ring? How about a pet owner who owns one or two dogs and just thinks their coats are the niftiest and better than all those champions put together bc they know and that is that? You have to get your hands on many goldens in order to learn, and you have to have a teacher. 

How important is coat in and of itself when compared to other issues of form and function in a golden? If an FC has an undesirably dark coat as written in the standard, how important is that? If a show dog with an admirable overall balance and a great front and rear assembly possesses few faults except too much feathering- again, how important is that in the grand scheme of assessing that dog?



> 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.
> 
> Color
> Rich, lustrous golden of various shades. Feathering may be lighter than rest of coat. With the exception of graying or whitening of face or body due to age, any white marking, other than a few white hairs on the chest, should be penalized according to its extent. Allowable light shadings are not to be confused with white markings. Predominant body color which is either extremely pale or extremely dark is undesirable. Some latitude should be given to the light puppy whose coloring shows promise of deepening with maturity. Any noticeable area of black or other off-color hair is a serious fault.


 I wish my dog Tally carried a little less coat but his is of very correct texture, I wish my dog Lush carried a little more coat and had more correct texture on her neck like it is on her back, My dog Copley carries the right amount of coat and of correct texture, and my dog Finn has a spay neuter coat and a half that is like cotton balls growing as his undercoat. Love them all.


----------



## Katduf (Mar 10, 2013)

Can I ask at what age a coat is established, and what a coat may look like within the breed standard whilst it is still developing?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I think you always go by informed opinions. People who are not going to praise and fuss about your dog because they don't want to hurt your feelings. People who have been to every golden national the last 20+ years that they have been active in the breed. People who know the breed and still volunteer and attend breed related events to continue learning. People who judge the breed at shows. Definitely - there are a lot of people out there who I love listening to and learning from. 

When I've had my dogs complimented by these people - it means a lot. More than the average random people stopping to visit with my ungroomed Jacks and raving about how well groomed he is... lol.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Katduf said:


> Can I ask at what age a coat is established, and what a coat may look like within the breed standard whilst it is still developing?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Every dog is different as when they develope their full coat. I don't think anyone can predict what it will look like while developing. A good indication would be what the parents look like.


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

Ljilly28 said:


> I wish my dog Tally carried a little less coat but his is of very correct texture, I wish my dog Lush carried a little more coat and had more correct texture on her neck like it is on her back, My dog Copley carries the right amount of coat and of correct texture, and my dog Finn has a spay neuter coat and a half that is like cotton balls growing as his undercoat. Love them all.


You know I LOVE:--heart::--heart: Mr Finn... Hope he is doing good!
I vote Finny for King!


----------



## Katduf (Mar 10, 2013)

Thank you WM, his parents are beautiful, his daddy holds national titles here. So I think I can be safe in saying he's going to be a lady killer!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Everything goes back to the standard and your interpretation. For guides--personally I love the Blue Book and I thought the article posted earlier about coat from the Golden Retriever Club of Canada is excellent. Find it in full again here. 



> From our observation over recent years, it is clear to many of us that there is now a disturbing trend developing in this breed: *Golden retrievers with incorrect coats are not only a common sight, but they are, unfortunately, also often given merit over more correct specimens*, in part because of a certain “glamorous” look.
> 
> A Golden Retriever must also not be impeded in his work on land, by having a long, silky or open coat. This type of coat will tangle, knot and easily pick up any debris in the field. It will lack all the essential protective coat qualities that a functional hunting dog needs. A* dog with such an incorrect coat will be hindered in his job*, as he will inadvertently pick up twigs and burrs that will slow him down. If the coat is also not of the proper density, the dog will be more prone to scrapes and cuts and the possible skin infections that often follow.
> 
> ...


Consulting people in the breed can be good too. There are several that will tell you that coats in the show ring over time have gotten longer and incorrect. Like that interview with Marcia Schlehr I posted. Find it in full again here. 



> How Goldens have changed over the years: hm (That could take  hours!) Certainly the show dogs have become considerably more uniform in many ways. However, not always for the better. *Modern winners have much more hair, but nearly always the wrong kind* (soft, lacking undercoat, lacking weather-resistance). Proportions have changed -- the Standard gives the desired proportions and most of the dogs measured in the early 1950s survey (and reported in the GRNews) were close to that. Now, most are notably longer, overall. This is due to either or both of two factors: shorter legs and/or longer bodies. Short legs are FAR too common these days. For a dog expected to work in tough cover, over harsh terrain, this is not suitable. Some of the current winners have the same proportion of height to length as the winning Clumber Spaniels, although slightly less "bone". Heads also far too often lack the strength, the 'finish' and the nobility of the classic Golden. I've seen some fairly awful heads lauded as "typical"....!!! And fronts---- finding a truly excellent front assembly in the show ring is exceptionally rare. (Although good front assemblies can still be found, particularly in some of the working field-bred dogs.) By "front assembly" I mean the total of correct ribcage, forechest, and brisket to support the correctly laid scapula and upper arm, with lower les, pasterns, and feet ....all these together constitute the front assembly, in my mind at least.
> 
> It seems that many of the changes began in the 1970s when Goldens surged exponentially in popularity, both as show dogs and as companions; this increased in the 1980s with *the success of some even more extreme sorts (hair and grooming and "presentation" became a sine qua non)....and have not yet gone back to a realistic level. Will it ever? I wonder*. *There is so much emphasis on the "show" and too little on the "dog" in "dog show".
> *
> ...


(Bold emphasis mine)


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

We recently went to a "Retriever Training Forum" training jamboree weekend, and of course it was heavily dominated by lab owners.
Many were surprised at Tito's "correct show coat", having pictured the long, flowing, silky fur you sometimes see. The big surprise (to them) was when, 10 minutes after his water series, you couldn't tell he'd been in the water at all. People kept asking me when I was going to run him, and were shocked when I said, "I already did".
So I got to educate quite a few people, who truly were interested, in what "correct coat" is in a golden retriever.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Barb I get the same thing all the time. People ask me how long I spend brushing them every day and are surprised when I say "never." 
Don't I get a gold star for staying out of this thread for so long?


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Thanks Goldensail! Excellent article and pretty much sums up my observation in not only coat changes but also looks.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

LOLOL 
TWO gold(en) stars!!

I try really hard to remember to brush Tito at least once a month, usually a few days after I put his spot-on tick treatment on.
Now Toby, who had a horrible, incorrect coat, had to be brushed at least once a day, or more, or he matted something awful.




K9-Design said:


> Barb I get the same thing all the time. People ask me how long I spend brushing them every day and are surprised when I say "never."
> Don't I get a gold star for staying out of this thread for so long?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

While there are clearly incorrectly coated goldens out there , many thoughtfully bred dogs fall into a zone of good, acceptable, functional correct coat. There is no one person out there who has the golden with just the MOST correct coat ever, the be all and end all, except in their own minds, because a range of coats fit the standard as it is written. You see this difference of informed opinions by contrasting august breeding programs, comparing the views of respected judges, reading the comments of 3 different CCA evaluators on your one dog . . . No one gets to have the final word- there is a ballpark.

The important thing is to develop a plausible view with care taken to analyze and respect the standard, to learn from experienced experts, and to live with goldens in many weathers and situations so that you can learn from experience too.

I agree with Sterregold that sometimes coat does become pushed to the limit (or even past what the standard dictates) for the show ring in group competition in the top twenty. If your dog is out of coat, it becomes a liability for his/her ability to win in the sporting group, realistically. Some judges take it as a sign of respect that you bring into their ring a dog in beautiful coat. I see some of that as being etiquette, like when men need to wear coat and tie. A dog with a moderate, correct coat can win in the ring, but what coat he/she does carry should be presented in beautiful condition at that level.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I do think that if you take your dog into the show ring, just like you yourself wouldn't wear clothes you would do yardwork in, you wouldn't be running a slicker brush through the dog's hair and trot out there. Back when Danny's breeder cleaned up him and our other guy back then... the difference in expertise between what she did and what we do even now was OBVIOUS. And she only used scissors on his ears feet and tail. The rest was cleaned up with a little spritzing and various combs. 

I just don't ever want the breed to become like other breeds where you wouldn't dream of showing your dog without a 'show cut'. Especially if you are just thinking about playing in a couple shows a year, if that. 

Jill, i laughed when you said jacks carries a lot of coat, because technically his is very moderate and conservative.  That still tickles me that you said that!


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I thought in theory, that judges should be able to view a dog with a blown coat realistically. Many years ago, at an AKC show, Samantha and Tiki were both in the running for WB. Tiki had just blown her coat totally, but she remained entered for the points. The judge loved her which was ironic as they were both very different types, and she told me she had a hard time picking between them... So Samantha was WB and Tiki was RWB. And Samantha was BW and BOB over specials.. I did not view showing Tiki as insulting to the judge because she was out of coat. I felt I should suck it up so there would be points to be gotten.


----------



## Ripley16 (Jan 26, 2012)

My 18 month old sheds like there is no tomorrow. We sweep the house once a day, and get a pile of hair. Its non stop. She is a field golden, but is excessively hairy. She is very water repellent, and is very easy to dry off, and also, does not mat at all (except behind ears if not brushed recently). Other than her excessive shedding, she is very low up keep when it comes to grooming. I generally use a rake on her , then comb, then slicker brush. What would people generally recommend when it comes to grooming tools? If it can reduce her shedding, I'm all ears!!!


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

lol, triplicate posts


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> [QUOTE
> 
> Jill, i laughed when you said Jacks carries a lot of coat, because technically his is very moderate and conservative.  That still tickles me that you said that!


What do you mean by "technically"though? There is no big coat judge in the sky that stamps "Moderate", "Conservative" on a dog, as it is a relative term, that dog relative to a range of others on a sliding scale.

I like the amount of coat Jacks carries.

I guess I don't know what "technically" means. His CCA write up? What judges wrote about him at a specialty? What your breeder says? What my breeders say? Your opinion?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Duplicate post


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Ok so I was poking around some more and to my surprise and delight right there on the GRCA webpage they have lots of educational resources for judges on what they think is proper. Check it out!

They also have a link for how serious they feel a few faults should be. Improper coat is 'very undesirable' and only height, functional abnormality of eyelids or eyelashes, obvious gaps in dentition, or off-color hair is to be faulted more seriously on the list.

There are some articles on grooming in the ring and what the parent club feels is excessive. Here is one.



> The use of mousse, styling gels, lacquer, powder, or any other foreign substance evidenced in the coat in the show ring is grounds for excusal under AKC dog show rules. Use of any type of coloring material is completely unacceptable. The practice of back-combing or doctoring the coat on legs or body to "build substance" or make the coat stand off is incorrect and must be penalized,as should blow drying the coat into an incorrect open coat.


One more good one here.



> The Golden is a natural dog, and excessive grooming or sculpting is undesirable and as unacceptable as a poorly groomed or un-groomed exhibit. Unfortunately, this kind of excessive fluffing and puffing of the coat, in an attempt to create a vision of correct structure, has become increasingly commonplace and is being unduly rewarded by some judges. While it might look pretty, this type of fluffed up, open and overly neatened coat is to be considered faulty under our breed standard and should not be rewarded.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KeaColorado (Jan 2, 2013)

Ripley16 said:


> My 18 month old sheds like there is no tomorrow. We sweep the house once a day, and get a pile of hair. Its non stop. She is a field golden, but is excessively hairy. She is very water repellent, and is very easy to dry off, and also, does not mat at all (except behind ears if not brushed recently). Other than her excessive shedding, she is very low up keep when it comes to grooming. I generally use a rake on her , then comb, then slicker brush. What would people generally recommend when it comes to grooming tools? If it can reduce her shedding, I'm all ears!!!


You might want to start this as a new thread so more people will see your question, or search through existing threads on shedding. We do regular bathing (every other week-ish) with Isle of Dogs royal jelly shampoo, and blow-dry with a forced air dryer. For regular brushing, I use a pin brush and a metal comb with wide teeth on one end. I mist with water and a few drops of conditioner before brushing/combing. I use a dremmel (sp?) for nails. I use a slicker brush on ears and feet, and I trim the ears, tail and feet using 46-tooth thinning shears. I probably spend more time on grooming than I need to, but it's because I prefer the look of my dog when she's groomed, especially feet. Also, she is a therapy dog and as such goes a lot of places with me and also travels with us regularly, and most importantly, she sleeps in our bed and sits on our furniture


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Go to a big show and most of the time you will see handlers openly and blatantly dying the noses of all their goldens....



GoldenSail said:


> Ok so I was poking around some more and to my surprise and delight right there on the GRCA webpage they have lots of educational resources for judges on what they think is proper. Check it out!
> 
> They also have a link for how serious they feel a few faults should be. Improper coat is 'very undesirable' and only height, functional abnormality of eyelids or eyelashes, obvious gaps in dentition, or off-color hair is to be faulted more seriously on the list.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

hotel4dogs said:


> Go to a big show and most of the time you will see handlers openly and blatantly dying the noses of all their goldens....


Can't the judges spot this?


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I have seen at least one dog get its' GCH missing at least three teeth that I can see from the audience. I have seen a bad nose dye job look like vitiligo by the time the dog was in the group. I have seen shaving creme used to create bone. And I have seen all kinds of sculpting. This is a digression from the original question. When showing, my Samantha had a sufficient coat. Neutered, it is abundant and way too thick. It takes the better part of a day to blow it dry. Tiki had a very moderate wash and wear coat when showing. Neutering her gave her longer feathers, but her coat didn't get thicker. Both are Can Ch.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

generally yes.
I had a judge thank me for leaving Tito's snow nose alone. 
My handler refused to dye noses, or do anything else "illegal". I asked a big, big name handler (of goldens) if she thought Tito's snow nose would be a detriment in the ring, and she said not with any good judge, if anything they'd put him up over dogs whose nose was obviously dyed. 



Nairb said:


> Can't the judges spot this?


----------



## Nairb (Feb 25, 2012)

hotel4dogs said:


> generally yes.
> I had a judge thank me for leaving Tito's snow nose alone.
> My handler refused to dye noses, or do anything else "illegal". I asked a big, big name handler (of goldens) if she thought Tito's snow nose would be a detriment in the ring, and she said not with any good judge, if anything they'd put him up over dogs whose nose was obviously dyed.


If I were a judge, I would be inclined to penalize those who would attempt to be deceptive.

(Again....looking at this without perspective that comes from experience in that venue)


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Ljilly28 said:


> What do you mean by "technically"though? There is no big coat judge in the sky that stamps "Moderate", "Conservative" on a dog, as it is a relative term, that dog relative to a range of others on a sliding scale.


I believe most would prefer more "furnishings" than he has. It took him forever to get the type of coat that I even wanted him to have, and I know already that Bertie will have more coat than his big brother. 

That's based on my own opinion comparing my guy's coat to what I've seen on other boys at 2, at 3, etc.


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Nairb said:


> If I were a judge, I would be inclined to penalize those who would attempt to be deceptive.
> 
> (Again....looking at this without perspective that comes from experience in that venue)


I believe it is penalized quite a bit. I know some breeder judges who have excused dogs for it. I think some all breed judges either can't tell or don't care, the ones that care may just ignore it but not reward it. The handler I use finds coloring noses to be "disgusting" and will not do it on any breed, not just Goldens. And while she is an amazing groomer who always makes dogs look their best, she does not comb up legs, blow coats open or use tons of product on the dogs. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## HiTideGoldens (Dec 29, 2009)

Megora said:


> I believe most would prefer more "furnishings" than he has.


Hmmm, I have to disagree. I think he has a lot, certainly enough for the ring out here. My jack doesn't have tons of furnishings but they are normal in the ring with other specials. Dogs with coats practically dragging on the ground are few and far between in california. I couldn't even tell you the last time I saw it. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Hmmm, I have to disagree. I think he has a lot, certainly enough for the ring out here. My jack doesn't have tons of furnishings but they are normal in the ring with other specials. Dogs with coats practically dragging on the ground are few and far between in california. I couldn't even tell you the last time I saw it.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App



Really? His tail and trousers have always been puffy but not necessarily long enough... you can see that in the picture Jill posted on the previous page. The dogs I see do not have coats dragging on the floor, but they do have more to their tail ends.


----------

