Poll : Which more important?

[st. louis kid]

I don't know the answer, but I like to watch who I consider some of the smartest people in the breeding business and see what they do. If you watch Will Farish from Lanes End farm, when he culls mares at the mixed sales, they usually are mares that have fine bloodlines, but had poor results as runners. Maybe the answer is he is looking for both.
Not that I consider him all that smart at his racing program(basically just throws tons of money out), but I know that Frank Stronach's advisors are very big on race record and less so on pedigree.

[Mood Swings]

I too would go for pedigree

[griff]

do the stakes mares have to be from not so good families?/

griff

[Danzig]

Both, however, race before pedigree.

[Dave C]

To me either pedigree or race record are fine as long as they have good conformation to pass on and I'm not talking legs but body. I've seen alot of unraced or lightly raced mares by fashionable broodmare sires but they are badly bred and it shows up in their conformation. I wouldn't touch them. My best broodmare is unraced, but she is unraced because of bad hooves not lack of talent or poor conformation. Breeding her means doing research on stallions that will provide foals without her feet problems. Race record can be an indicator of good genetic potential but I've seen seen too many horses outrun their conformation because they were just so competitve they wouldn't quit even when they were exhausted. Their conformation will be a better indicator of what they can pass on than their race record. To summarize: having only one of pedigree or race record isn't enough, they have to have something else to support the idea that they have good genes to pass on.