Every one lovely!
TBH I think a dog that can work all day doing the job it is supposed to and live to a good age with the correct temprament for the work it has to do is a PERFECT example of the breed, the standard needs changing if a dog would be faulted for having the wrong colour of eyes or something if that does not effect the health of the animal or its ability to work
If a colour is healthy but fairly rare why should it be excluded from its chance at shows?

I am not against people showing their dogs but I am against the changes that happen in a breed because of the choices of a judge who picks the more extream end of the spectrum, so people wanting to win breed dogs to look more like that

BTW I dont think that working lab looks ugly at all, focused, keen, ready to shoot off and do its job - v unlike the lumbering oaffs I see round here, they would love to run and get the ball but there is not point cos they are so slow all the other dogs will get there first

I've been thinking about these two dogs, and about something I read the other day, it was about a experiment that purina did, basically they took a range of different labs, matched them in pairs, and fed one out of each pair their daily recommened allowence of food, and the other one 75% percent of their daily recommened allowence of food, and on avarage the dogs fed less lived longer (15%) and they also developed HD later on in life, and less serverly, now from what I can judge by the picture there is a difference in weight, so I wonder if there is a difference in the health of these two, are show type dogs really more structally sound?

But would anyone who works a lab (by work I mean a gamekeeper or whoever who works the dog for his living, not to compete in a trial) ever go for a show bred lab? I would assume not? They will go for the working lines lab that is proven, not in trials but in actual day to day work. When someone needs a dog to do a job they will always go for lines that are proven with work - not risk the chance of buying a show line dog that doesn't have the oomph for work.

Tassle and Shona are right imo. People who work their dogs don't really care what the dog looks like (although a few do have a preference) as long as the dog is up to the job, and since living with a shepherd I can see why. When I am talking about people who work their dogs, I mean people who rely on their dog for their day to day job, and not people who hobby trial, or take part in field trials etc. I think that also makes a difference.

I think you are mistaking bone and substance for fat. The show bred dog shown there is NOT fat. As a breed, Labradors should have little to no tuck up. Labs with a correct depth of rib physically cannot have a tuck up (and I have seen pictures of a very underweight show-bred Lab that STILL had no tuck up). My Lab is a similar shape to that dog with little tuck (and he is half trial bred, too!) and not fat.

The study you describe was not specific to 'types' of Lab. And also, HD is genetic. Being overweight will only aggravate the condition if the dog has HD to begin with; it can't cause HD.

As for being structurally sound for the job the dog was intended to do, it has got to be show/dual purpose bred all the way. Labs are waterfowl retrievers, thus they should have substance, a good coat, tail, etc.

Weight doesn't have to be fat , what I'm saying is that there looks to be more weight on the show bred one.

doing a mish here with devils advocate lol

but could it be the working one is just really underweight? lacks bone and substance?

maybe a good idea would be to start another thread with photos of show/working/pet breeding without stating what is what, then let members give there views on which dog they prefer?

Yep!! someone on an old forum I used to go on was a gamekeeper with a two dual purpose Labs.

Field Trials are a days (or two days) shooting anyway, so any dog that is up to FT standard IS fully fledged working dog.

Plenty of show/dual purpose bred dogs have been working (and have won trials and awards) for generations, so I wouldn't call it a "risk" purchasing such a dog for work. Purchasing a show type with NO working history behind it would be a risk, yes. One from carefully selected lines that have been worked and trialed for generations, not so much.

You are mistaking weight for substance. They look different because the working one has no substance or bone. That is genetic. You could feed the working one up but it would never look like the show one. Likewise you could starve the show one and it would still never look like working one.