Broodmare conformation

Tonno100 · Postby **Tonno100** » Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:39 am

Can anyone shed any light on this mare's conformation, both good and bad, particularly interested in anything good since people seem to find it easier to pick out the faults

Here's her 2009 foal, also interested what people think of this

Thanks guys!

Dave C · Postby **Dave C** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:06 pm

If I were looking to buy her strictly on conformation, I wouldn't. She is slightly mismatched front and back; leans towards sprinter on the front end, routing on the back. The mismatch isn't terrible so it wouldn't surprise me if she was able to run through it. The problem with this type of mismatch is that it is difficult to breed away from it.

Having said that, if she could run through her conformational faults, and you have stallions available that can match well to her pedigree to strengthen either the the sprinting or routing components, then her conformational issues can be overlooked when deciding whether or not to purchase her.

As for her legs, I couldn't care less what they look like. They run from their shoulder and hips, crooked legs just put them at risk of injury.

zinn21 · Postby **zinn21** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:30 pm

I like her foal, big and stout. Is there a lot of Northern Dancer in the mare and foal?

Fireslam · Postby **Fireslam** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:42 pm

Mare is back in the knees and upright in the pasterns; foal is upright, also. This type of conformation is much more forgiving on turf than on dirt.

Joltman · Postby **Joltman** » Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:11 pm

Seems pretty straight from the head on, but I concur that as much as the picture shows, looks back at the knee to me. I would definitely look for a stallion to correct that.

jm

fastappy · Postby **fastappy** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:38 am

She may be back in the knees. What strikes me most is that the cannons should be shorter in relation to the forearm.

springboro · Postby **springboro** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:23 am

first thought was back at the knee.

Tonno100 · Postby **Tonno100** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:31 am

Everybody's first thought with this mare is that she is back at the knee, she gets that from her sire - Danehill - she didn't run through her faults at all, she was unraced.

The foal is by Cockney Rebel.

My thoughts on her were that she gives the overall impression of being too top-heavy for her somewhat light limbs, she has a decent hindquarter, a powerful, though slightly upright shoulder and a common head (though this photo doesn't show it properly.

Thanks guys!

cewright · Postby **cewright** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 am

Actually the thing that jumps out at me is the little ones ankles. They appear swollen or inflamed. JMO

Chuck

Dave C · Postby **Dave C** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 1:17 pm

Tonno100 wrote:Everybody's first thought with this mare is that she is back at the knee, she gets that from her sire - Danehill - she didn't run through her faults at all, she was unraced.

The foal is by Cockney Rebel.

My thoughts on her were that she gives the overall impression of being too top-heavy for her somewhat light limbs, she has a decent hindquarter, a powerful, though slightly upright shoulder and a common head (though this photo doesn't show it properly.

Thanks guys!

Being by Danehill, if her broodmare sire is a noted sire of speed I wouldn't touch her at any price. Nothing against Danehill as a broodmare sire, just that crossing Danehill to a speed line and producing conformation like hers would be a strong indicator that the gene pool had been poisoned and would take three generations to become useful again, with a lot of culls in the process. JMHO

Tonno100 · Postby **Tonno100** » Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:49 pm

She isn't from a speed line, her dam is half-sister to a horse who was second in the St Leger, but I see what you're getting at.

aurora · Postby **aurora** » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:25 am

Nice barn!

Firebrand · Postby **Firebrand** » Thu Jun 11, 2009 10:54 pm

Tonno100 wrote:Everybody's first thought with this mare is that she is back at the knee, she gets that from her sire - Danehill - she didn't run through her faults at all, she was unraced.

The foal is by Cockney Rebel.

My thoughts on her were that she gives the overall impression of being too top-heavy for her somewhat light limbs, she has a decent hindquarter, a powerful, though slightly upright shoulder and a common head (though this photo doesn't show it properly.

Thanks guys!

Tonno,

She does have some conformation flaws, but keep in mind that there are a lot of good mares that have had flaws. (There are conformation photos of some blue-hen mares that make me wonder how they produced such good offspring!) How does her pedigree look? If her dam is half to a horse that placed in the St. Leger, then that speaks pretty well.

I ran across a 2003 interview with Peter O'Brien, stud manager at Coolmore, Australia and here's a couple of things he said about Danehill, which I thought applied to the mare you posted the pictures of. She definitely seems to have taken after her sire quite a bit.

"We had to keep his feed down, exercise him, and lunge him every day to keep his [size and] weight down in season," O'Brien said. "That's what his racehorses have inherited. They work and they eat."

"Danehill was a very good looking horse, strong, but he didn't have the best-looking front legs," O'Brien said. "He was back at the knee, [which was] passed on to a lot of his offspring."

The stallion commenced his Australian innings at John Messara's Arrowfield Stud and O'Brien paid tribute to the "wonderful mares" he was given. On paper, his offspring looked good, but on the ground? "To be honest I wasn't impressed with the first crop," O'Brien said. "And Danewin, [winner of more than $2 million in prizemoney] was one of them. Now we know what they are like, we forgive the front legs.

"Breeding into the Star Kingdom line has been very successful, but some were a bit plain. I have since learned."

FOS · Postby **FOS** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:58 pm

hi Tonno100

Tonno100 wrote: Everybody's first thought with this mare is that she is back at the knee, she gets that from her sire - Danehill - she didn't run through her faults at all, she was unraced.

Okay, she has her flaws/imperfections, not the least of which is that she sits back in her left knee (can't tell for sure about her right knee based on the photo) and (on front view) appears also to be a touch offset in that same left knee, but I for one may discount some (if not many, or all) of her flaws/imperfections for the FACT (if for no other reason[s]) that she is (as you indicated) by Danehill. He was one EXTRAORDINARY sire, and I might suggest that understanding Danehill (his strengths, weaknesses, flaws/imperfections, nuances and all) and evaluating a daughter of his may not be a whole lot different than understanding Mr Prospector (his strengths, weaknesses, flaws/imperfections, nuances and all) and evaluating a daughter of his. Seems to me that it's important to know and understand that so many good ones came in many different shapes and sizes, and with any number of flaws/imperfections etc.

I might suggest that recognizing, understanding and evaluating an individual's strengths, weaknesses and flaws/imperfections, then making choices/decisions that may best enhance the individual's chances to be successful is key. In the case of your Danehill mare, the same applies; and selecting stallions for her that may best enhance her chances to be a producer of quality racehorses can (from my perspective anyway) be crucial.

Tonno100 wrote:The foal is by Cockney Rebel.

Interesting choice...a brilliant miler, as was his sire Val Royal, a BC turf (mile) winner.

The foal (based on the profile photo you've supplied) looks to have quite a strong, sturdy body with plenty of substance, and appears (based on the photos anyway) to be a better (arguably a significantly better) individual (to my eyes anyway) than the dam.

The foal appears (to me anyway) to have (on profile view) a better front end than Mom's, a shorter back than Mom's, a better slope to its shoulder than Mom's, a MUCH deeper, stronger set of quarters than Mom's...is better balanced than Mom and (in general) projects the look of a sprinter.

The foal appears to have an average forearm and gaskin as does Mom, and adequate, but not an overabundance of, bone...possibly slightly better than Mom. Your foal appears to have plenty of good qualities, and in time (and in concert with quality care, management and a feed/nutrition program that I'd like to think you've implemented) it wouldn't surprise me if your foal advanced from a Better Than Average or Good category that it may be in now, toward/into a Very Good, maybe even Very Very Good category.

Bottom line...the decision to breed your Danehill mare to Cockney Rebel seems (at least based on what I've gleaned from the photos) to have resulted in a darn nice foal.

Which stallion did you select for the mare in 2009, and what are your thoughts for 2010?

Best.

Respectfully