Firstly, A question like this, has a few pinpoints.
What is the detail transcription for mediocre ???
It is something seen with mathematical Statistics which are the ,referenties,put in
So is it a horse that has not been winning a t.c. race or a b.c. race or not even a gr1
Why are Mediocre Thoroughbreds Getting the Best Runners ?
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
The subject matter of whether or not the gene pool is narrowing is an interesting and controversial one, but the bottom line is today, the TB breeding industry is a business, and participation of various parts of this industry- breeding-training-racing-selling, etc. has enormously enlarged with the increasing demand for racing stock around the world. Not that racing didn't exist in other parts, but the focus now is on speed, and the best speed horses were raised in the US, so the market grew, and in particular the commercial market as this is a 'convenient' and 'competitive' place to look at a large humber of horses and bid on them for whatever the individual thinks the horse is worth.
So in essence, everything is built now on demand and supply, and it goes without saying that in a flowing business, the supply always supersedes the demand, so prices will be competitive and the bad can be culled out. Private sales have their pros and cons, but they do exist, fortunately.
Having taken on a 'commercial' aspect is the one major difference between today and the yesteryears.
Each period had its leading sires and they got to breed the best with some exception [Man O'War is one] and the most, and that's just the way it is. In nature, only very very few males actually improve the breed; with the exception of an occasional 'wonderboy." The rest is up to the females which includes the nurturing part of procreation.
Also, remember that the TB as we know the breed today, goes -- so I understand-back primarily to three imported Arabian stallions, so their gene pool started off small and never got much larger to begin with. Survival of the fittest under the controlling hand and mind of man replaced natural habits and choices. Inbreeding was heavily practiced at times with both success and detriment. Many stallions of note had soundness problems. Dark Ronald was troubled by soundness problems throughout his career; yet, he became a phonomenal sire of both race horses and Warmbloods.
Austique Writes: " Fact: The breed is not as in decline as many would like to think, but we have the mindset that it is because you see a lot of high profile early retirements. Why? Because there is much more money to be made in the breeding shed with stallion today than there ever has been in the past with unlimited books and inflated stud fees. "
Yes, I see it the same way. It's a fact, and the grading of races may have done more harm than good for the breed. It's new, relatively speaking. Before, horses were, for the most part, measured up against each other over and over again, but even then, soundness problems occurred due to various causes, not just genetic. And while nature has an inbuilt system to compensate for any one shortcoming that can occur, breeding crooked to crooked isn't exactly a promising practice.
Now it gets even worse because medical technology can surgically alter such crookedness while keeping the genetic material intact.
Stud farms such as Coolmore have never before existed; neither did horses get to fly first class. Today's upper level horses are 'pampered.' And let's not talk about medication, drugs, or whatever it is called. Not much has really changed, it just got more sophisticated and complicated based on the sheer number today and the problems of control.
The escalating economics of sports which includes horse racing, calls for a quick turnover which allows breeders to breed more, sell more, and get the offspring through the ranks quickly, harvesting only those for breeding duties 'they' believe can make it as stallion on a hefty stud fee. The rest gets either lost in the shuffle, sold through auctions to the general public or gets entered in the professional racing machine of the claiming system. Some find very useful positions in regional breeding programs. Nothing wrong with that, if you want racing to proliferate.
Austique writes: "I am also confused by the term "mediocre runners". Most of the stallions standing in KY today are graded stakes winners and those that aren't typically have the female family to back up them being there. Not every horse can be a superstar and not every superstar can be a great sire, just look at Skip Away."
Top horses are singled out by people who run the industry, and those deemed by this elite as "not-so-well-bred horses" are deprived of the same chances. supporting/promoting a stallion is very costly. There is a lot of prejudice out there as are other sports. The people with the money control the breeding industry, and that's one reason why horses such as Skip Away won't get the best stakes winning mares to breed, even though he has proven to be a top notch race horse. Read the section in Bob Baffert's book Dirt Road To The Kentucky Derby, in which he explains why he purchased Silver Charm , what Lukas thought of him, and why he was eventually sold out of the country. Interesting. When Seattle Slew was sold for a meager $17K in an auction, he was badmouthed about not having the pedigree and that he was not conformationally pleasing. Only when a horse shows tremendous speed very early on will he be able to break the prejudice barrier.
Affirmed was prejudiced against because he was a Florida-bred and not 'blue-blooded.' There is a definite fear among Kentucky race horse people to lose the reputation Ky had as the horse center of the world. Once upon a time, it was Virginia. And that, by the way, I believe is the major reason why the JC will never allow Artificial Insemination. The JC is a prestigious organization with a lot of power, and it wants to keep it this way and the business/money in Kentucky.
Most of us should not be too concerned as we are too insignificant to be able to change anything on the large scene, but there are plenty of things anybody can do on a small screen, provided greed won't shred it to pieces.
A pedigree is the sum total of ancestors as far back as is recorded; it is not just the lineage of one or several horses, so I don't think the predominance of the Phalaris line has caused many of the problems we see today on the higher levels of racing.
The tug of war over Green Monkey [what a terrible name] had little to do with money or whether the colt was worth 16 million or not; it was a tug of war between two opposing businessmen
SB.[/b]
So in essence, everything is built now on demand and supply, and it goes without saying that in a flowing business, the supply always supersedes the demand, so prices will be competitive and the bad can be culled out. Private sales have their pros and cons, but they do exist, fortunately.
Having taken on a 'commercial' aspect is the one major difference between today and the yesteryears.
Each period had its leading sires and they got to breed the best with some exception [Man O'War is one] and the most, and that's just the way it is. In nature, only very very few males actually improve the breed; with the exception of an occasional 'wonderboy." The rest is up to the females which includes the nurturing part of procreation.
Also, remember that the TB as we know the breed today, goes -- so I understand-back primarily to three imported Arabian stallions, so their gene pool started off small and never got much larger to begin with. Survival of the fittest under the controlling hand and mind of man replaced natural habits and choices. Inbreeding was heavily practiced at times with both success and detriment. Many stallions of note had soundness problems. Dark Ronald was troubled by soundness problems throughout his career; yet, he became a phonomenal sire of both race horses and Warmbloods.
Austique Writes: " Fact: The breed is not as in decline as many would like to think, but we have the mindset that it is because you see a lot of high profile early retirements. Why? Because there is much more money to be made in the breeding shed with stallion today than there ever has been in the past with unlimited books and inflated stud fees. "
Yes, I see it the same way. It's a fact, and the grading of races may have done more harm than good for the breed. It's new, relatively speaking. Before, horses were, for the most part, measured up against each other over and over again, but even then, soundness problems occurred due to various causes, not just genetic. And while nature has an inbuilt system to compensate for any one shortcoming that can occur, breeding crooked to crooked isn't exactly a promising practice.
Now it gets even worse because medical technology can surgically alter such crookedness while keeping the genetic material intact.
Stud farms such as Coolmore have never before existed; neither did horses get to fly first class. Today's upper level horses are 'pampered.' And let's not talk about medication, drugs, or whatever it is called. Not much has really changed, it just got more sophisticated and complicated based on the sheer number today and the problems of control.
The escalating economics of sports which includes horse racing, calls for a quick turnover which allows breeders to breed more, sell more, and get the offspring through the ranks quickly, harvesting only those for breeding duties 'they' believe can make it as stallion on a hefty stud fee. The rest gets either lost in the shuffle, sold through auctions to the general public or gets entered in the professional racing machine of the claiming system. Some find very useful positions in regional breeding programs. Nothing wrong with that, if you want racing to proliferate.
Austique writes: "I am also confused by the term "mediocre runners". Most of the stallions standing in KY today are graded stakes winners and those that aren't typically have the female family to back up them being there. Not every horse can be a superstar and not every superstar can be a great sire, just look at Skip Away."
Top horses are singled out by people who run the industry, and those deemed by this elite as "not-so-well-bred horses" are deprived of the same chances. supporting/promoting a stallion is very costly. There is a lot of prejudice out there as are other sports. The people with the money control the breeding industry, and that's one reason why horses such as Skip Away won't get the best stakes winning mares to breed, even though he has proven to be a top notch race horse. Read the section in Bob Baffert's book Dirt Road To The Kentucky Derby, in which he explains why he purchased Silver Charm , what Lukas thought of him, and why he was eventually sold out of the country. Interesting. When Seattle Slew was sold for a meager $17K in an auction, he was badmouthed about not having the pedigree and that he was not conformationally pleasing. Only when a horse shows tremendous speed very early on will he be able to break the prejudice barrier.
Affirmed was prejudiced against because he was a Florida-bred and not 'blue-blooded.' There is a definite fear among Kentucky race horse people to lose the reputation Ky had as the horse center of the world. Once upon a time, it was Virginia. And that, by the way, I believe is the major reason why the JC will never allow Artificial Insemination. The JC is a prestigious organization with a lot of power, and it wants to keep it this way and the business/money in Kentucky.
Most of us should not be too concerned as we are too insignificant to be able to change anything on the large scene, but there are plenty of things anybody can do on a small screen, provided greed won't shred it to pieces.
A pedigree is the sum total of ancestors as far back as is recorded; it is not just the lineage of one or several horses, so I don't think the predominance of the Phalaris line has caused many of the problems we see today on the higher levels of racing.
The tug of war over Green Monkey [what a terrible name] had little to do with money or whether the colt was worth 16 million or not; it was a tug of war between two opposing businessmen
SB.[/b]
Last edited by sb on Mon Mar 20, 2006 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
LaTroienne wrote::shock: Where does he get that from? Most of today's top stallions were good racehorses - they were at least SWs. Danzig was the last non stakes winner to be a top sire, and, even then, he had a superior pedigree and prob. would have been a good horse if he was sound.
Wrong from what I read. Firstly, some people were of the opinion that Danzig's damline was 'soft,' which now, of course, it isn't any more, lol.
Danzig ran only 3 or four times before breaking down, but like that 16 million Green Moneky, he showed tremendous speed, and that's what launched him his career as a super stud.
SB
-
Whirlaway
- Grade III Winner
- Posts: 1146
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:27 pm
- Location: Home of the brave.
If you analyze the chart @ the posted link and divide it into thirds, you'll find the Derby sires from 1940-61 had more Classic places and Classic wins, (12/22) when compared to the Derby sires from 1962-83, (4/22) and the Derby sires from 1984-2006 (5/22). The numbers indicate the sires of todays Derby winners do not have the same class level as the sires of the past; they are "mediocre" when compared to their counterparts of yesteryear.
Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. - William O. Douglas
~
It is the characteristic of the most stringent censorships, that they give credibility to the opinions they attack. - Voltaire
~
It is the characteristic of the most stringent censorships, that they give credibility to the opinions they attack. - Voltaire
-
louis finochio
- Darley line
- Posts: 9181
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:21 am
- Location: Alhambra-Calif.
- Contact:
To Whirlaway: Have you researched those mediocre stallions to see what class of mares they were bred to?
If you have, would those mares be classified A, B or C?
For those stallions that were bred to those A class of mares, was their more colts than fillys that were the superior runners?
If you have, would those mares be classified A, B or C?
For those stallions that were bred to those A class of mares, was their more colts than fillys that were the superior runners?
Those without sin cast the first stone.
Louis Finochio
Louis Finochio
-
xfactor fan
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2212
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 8:46 pm
Fine post SB.
The cost of insuring a top 3 year old for the next racing year is out of sight. Many folks make the choice to retire rather than risk the horse or pay for the insurance.
Current thinking is that the original breeding pool for the TB was about 30 horses. mtDNA indicates that the foundation mares came from an assortment of bloodlines, some Oriental some native to the British Isles.
The cost of insuring a top 3 year old for the next racing year is out of sight. Many folks make the choice to retire rather than risk the horse or pay for the insurance.
Current thinking is that the original breeding pool for the TB was about 30 horses. mtDNA indicates that the foundation mares came from an assortment of bloodlines, some Oriental some native to the British Isles.
-
Whirlaway
- Grade III Winner
- Posts: 1146
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:27 pm
- Location: Home of the brave.
Louis,
Give me a couple of days and I'll do the research and post what I find.
Give me a couple of days and I'll do the research and post what I find.
Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. - William O. Douglas
~
It is the characteristic of the most stringent censorships, that they give credibility to the opinions they attack. - Voltaire
~
It is the characteristic of the most stringent censorships, that they give credibility to the opinions they attack. - Voltaire
-
louis finochio
- Darley line
- Posts: 9181
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:21 am
- Location: Alhambra-Calif.
- Contact:
The TB of today have to be pampered in their training, as their underpining will not stand the rigors of training or racing.
As many gallop boys have said to me, these TB of today are not like the Tb of years ago, as soon as you put pressure of these TB they fall apart and are injured.
Many bloodstock agents have all told me that these TB of today are not sound because of to much line-breeding to the same sire lines.
When mother nature gives us her warning, we must heed her red flag and outcross, to bring back the soundness in our breed.
The reason our TB are retired early is because they are not sound to make those prolific amount of starts their ancestors did. The TB of today are racing for purses that exceed what their ancestors did.
As many gallop boys have said to me, these TB of today are not like the Tb of years ago, as soon as you put pressure of these TB they fall apart and are injured.
Many bloodstock agents have all told me that these TB of today are not sound because of to much line-breeding to the same sire lines.
When mother nature gives us her warning, we must heed her red flag and outcross, to bring back the soundness in our breed.
The reason our TB are retired early is because they are not sound to make those prolific amount of starts their ancestors did. The TB of today are racing for purses that exceed what their ancestors did.
Those without sin cast the first stone.
Louis Finochio
Louis Finochio
-
Whirlaway
- Grade III Winner
- Posts: 1146
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:27 pm
- Location: Home of the brave.
Louis, I believe I understand what your are trying to get at here. This is what I came up with for the three groups: P=Phalaris / NP=Non-Phalaris
1940-61
P/P - 0
P/NP - 1
NP/P - 0
NP/NP - 21
1962-83
P/P - 3
P/NP - 12
NP/P - 2
NP/NP - 5
1984-05
P/P - 10
P/NP - 10
NP/P - 1
NP/NP - 1
A rather interesting and compelling reversal in the numbers here. Clearly the thoroughbred in group 40-61 is different when compared to the thoroughbred in group 84-05. After 1961 we see a substantial drop in the NP/NP group and in the final group the NP/NP has only one member. Keep in mind 1961 while reviewing the following chart : http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10. There appears to be a link between 1961 and the beginning of the decline of the stout runners. Moreover, at the Thoroughbred Times Top 20 Contenders list, the top ten are P/P except for one.
Sadly, some of the things I have learned recently brings to mind the title of first chapter in the Seabiscuit book by Laura Hillenbrand:
The Day of the Horse is Past.
1940-61
P/P - 0
P/NP - 1
NP/P - 0
NP/NP - 21
1962-83
P/P - 3
P/NP - 12
NP/P - 2
NP/NP - 5
1984-05
P/P - 10
P/NP - 10
NP/P - 1
NP/NP - 1
A rather interesting and compelling reversal in the numbers here. Clearly the thoroughbred in group 40-61 is different when compared to the thoroughbred in group 84-05. After 1961 we see a substantial drop in the NP/NP group and in the final group the NP/NP has only one member. Keep in mind 1961 while reviewing the following chart : http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10. There appears to be a link between 1961 and the beginning of the decline of the stout runners. Moreover, at the Thoroughbred Times Top 20 Contenders list, the top ten are P/P except for one.
Sadly, some of the things I have learned recently brings to mind the title of first chapter in the Seabiscuit book by Laura Hillenbrand:
The Day of the Horse is Past.
Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. - William O. Douglas
~
It is the characteristic of the most stringent censorships, that they give credibility to the opinions they attack. - Voltaire
~
It is the characteristic of the most stringent censorships, that they give credibility to the opinions they attack. - Voltaire