Correctly researched and worded standards, and an accurate understanding of the breed's history, are really fundamentally important to the breeding of purebred dogs.  How can people expect to successfully breed without an educated understanding of these two fundamentals?

I think a significant number of breeders today are actually trying to produce dogs that fit the standard but this is a multi-generational plan down a road strewn with pitfalls.  The biggest is lack of genetic diversity because virtually every Lhasa in the US goes back to a small handful of dogs. The lesson I see is:  Once begun, a breed's distortion (as a breed) is difficult to remedy.

American breeders are quite creative and often produce dogs that are very special, I think because they are not under such rigid natural control as in the homeland of the breed.  The down side of that is, however, that there are no controls except the market place and very little emphasis on the original breed's purpose and living conditions, or on it's history.

American breeders have a tendency to be fad breeders.  In the German Shepherd, this occurred throughout the history of the breed.  In the past, though, whenever the breeders dug themselves into a hole, someone brought over an import from Germany and revitalized the breed by offering a correction back to the standard.  In the Lhasa we have had no possibility of bringing in corrective stock because of the closed studbook in the USA and Canada.

Yes, at this time,  Americans are "fad breeders".  This is our downfall. Unfortunately for the breed, the control of type by means of a standard works only so long as the vision of the people in charge is on course.  Since those same people are the ones who are charged with the education of Judges,  the direction of a breed can be seriously diverted if the vision becomes driven by winning, and not by tradition and good zoology.   I believe that somewhere along the way, the powers that be got into their heads that if a slightly compact dog is good, a very short back is even more so.  If very narrow rears were unattractive, then very wide rears were desirable.  If a particular type of construction achieved a flashy look in the ring, then that was correct construction for the breed. They now often have concave backs, short upper arms, upright shoulders and tipped up pelves.

Here I think  what has happened is that US breeders found breeding a dog with an overangulated rear and a relatively straight shoulder with little angulation to the upper arm produced a dog that had a movement that could win in the ring.  Forget that  this is an unnatural, man-made gait, and is extremely hard on the entire front assembly. It looked right but for the wrong reasons and definitely didn't produce a dog that could hold together over time or even do all the things Lhasa Apsos should be able to do.  Among these jobs is jumping and scaling obstacles.

The original function of the breed is that of an hardy mountain companion and watchdog.   Its mountain heritage requires a dog that has great economy of motion and minimal wear on his body.  He is athletic and well-muscled with great agility and elasticity. "Great economy of motion and minimal wear on his body" is not possible with his present exaggerated, man-made gait.  I really am thinking that it's too late to reconstitute this breed.

It's a pretty bizarre belief system, but a whole show dog subculture exists where show ring awards are seen as validation of a breeding program even when the show dogs have become absurd exaggerations of their original ancestors.  I know of no breed whose original work or reason for being was to trot counterclockwise in a small circle inside a square bordered by baby gates.  Certainly the Apso was never bred for this!