Awful stallion Giant's Causeway ...

[TBLADY]

THANK YOU ROKEBY!!!!!!!! I have bred to Freud at $5k, and at is figure if booked before Dec 1 or 2005 of $7500 and I ahve booked to him again at his advertised fee of $10K I have one freud colt on the ground and he is stunning...now a yrlg! Hes big bold and very confident in himself. Nice bone, great conformation...can I find a little fault here and there...I can in just about all of them!

I have also seen my fair share of GC foals and some were so so and some were WOW. since I will never afford $300K for anything in my life I need not worry too much about him. But his little Brother Freud is interesting...he might be a stretch at $10k for some....but hes getting good size books, regaurdless of what the mares are bred like. Which aint too shabby for a horse that ONLY BROKE his maiden as someone stated.
Thats ok I'll take him! I'll also be breeding to ten Most Wanted and Read The Footnotes...cant wait to see them babies!

[reese]

For such a "horrible" stallion how did Giant's Causeway manage to rank 3rd in KY, 3 nationally and 1st as the 3rd crop sire? Blood Horse must have made up the numbers

Giant's Causeway's Rankings - 2006

2006 (Updated Daily)
Nat'l Rank Third Crop KY Rank Rnrs/Wnrs SWs/SWins Chief Earner,

3 1 3 210/94 14/20 Aragorn 1,408,600
Total 7,192,000

[Rokeby Forever]

28% winners from foals is about as bad as it gets, Reese. Look at the median earnings/starter....for GC's support, his overall numbers are terrible.

[Rokeby Forever]

Sysonby wrote, "People breed to stallions only for 2 YO SWs? And here I thought breeders were patronizing GC because of his Grade 1/ Group 1 winners...."

I kind of think people do breed to Giant's Causeway thinking he's a "2 year old sire". In 2004, he was #6 on the Two Year Olds Earnings List. In 2005, he was #1 on the Two Year olds Earnings List. Where did he finish 2006? #77!!! No wonder Coolmore now calls his fee "Private" - a stat like that would make me embarassed to publish his fee, too! NO stake winners out of 149 foals - just 11 winners and only ONE repeat winner?

And, of the two year olds that put him on top in 2004 and 2005 - Sharmadal disappeared and so did First Samurai (his ONLY Grade 1 dirt winner). Soundness issues?

I kind of think that breeders still patronize Giant's Causeway because he can still sire the $1 Million yearling....for a $300,000 fee, that's not a bad return. The bubble might burst soon (ala Fu Peg), but his Euros run well - I can understand support over there. His top 5 earners lifetime are all by Euro mares.

[ef]

28% winners from foals is about as bad as it gets, Reese. Look at the median earnings/starter....for GC's support, his overall numbers are terrible.

This whole "28%" thing is completely erroneous if you are looking at his performance in the Northern Hemisphere. I will be the first to say that he has not done well (as of yet) in the southern hemisphere, but it is unfair to include those foal crops and/or his current 2 year olds in statistics regarding his performance in this hemisphere.

Giant's Causeway's Northern Hemisphere winners are, as follows:

2002: 80 winners/ 146 named foals= 55%
2003: 70 winners/148 named foals= 47%
2004: 14 winners/110 named foals= 13%

Overall= 164 winners/ 404 named foals = 41%. That's pretty goddamn respectful, especially given his large crops, and that his latest crop of 3 year olds has not been precocious!

22 Northern Hemisphere stakes winners/404 named foals= 5.5%

He's not quite the big flop that you'd like us to believe.

[Rokeby Forever]

Nobody's including his 2 year olds of 2007, ef.

I could look at another 3 year sire, More Than Ready. He's just as booked as Giant's Causeway is now, but from fewer foals, he's got more winners, more stakes winners, and is working with 1/2 the quality (or less) of mare/producer that is sent to Giant's Causeway.

What happens to Giant's Causeway if he suddenly gets More Than Ready's book of mares? More Than Ready has already proven that he can sire more stakes winners with much less to work with.

I've said all along that GC's niche is in Europe - his top 5 lifetime earners are out of Euro mares. Leave him there!

[reese]

28% winners from foals is about as bad as it gets, Reese. Look at the median earnings/starter....for GC's support, his overall numbers are terrible.

Then how does the BH come up with GC rated 3rd nationally and 3rd in KYand 1st as 3rd year sire? That issue hasn't been explained.

[Rokeby Forever]

Here are GC's current lifetime numbers from the Thoroughbred Times:

http://www.equineline.com/extendedconte ... type=stats

He's actually improved since I last looked. Our of 507 foals of racing age, (excluding his 171 two year old this year), he has 176 winners = 34%. Where did you come up with the inflated number of 41% lifetime winners?

[brogers]

Rokeby,

Those figures include Australian bred foals and their results in that country also so it is a little misleading as while he has underperformed there a little in my opinion, his oldest there are just summer three year olds.

If you want to look at just what he has done here in North America and the Northern Hemisphere then the figures that Ef supplied are correct.

[Rokeby Forever]

Then it's correct that Giant's Causeway's ONLY Grade 1 dirt winner is First Samurai when Sysonby writes, "And here I thought breeders were patronizing GC because of his Grade 1/ Group 1 winners...."?

What is becoming clear is that Giant's Causeway is a fine sire when bred to Euro mares (siring Aragorn, Sharmdal, Oonagh Maccool, Meteor Glory, Naissance Royale, My Typhoon, Foostepinthesand....). That's what I've said since my beginning messages. Keep him there!

What shouldn't impress anyone is that he went from #1 Sire of Two Year Olds by earnings in 2005 to #77 in 2006. Part of that $300,000 fee is that the commercial buyer expects a 2 year old runner....the fact is, GC had a TERRIBLE year in that department.

[hpkingjr]

Rokeby:

I enjoy your comments and find them somewhat thought provoking but they are, in this case for me, somewhat akin to Louis's classic columns on soundness: I just cannot identify with them.

Let me be candid, I do not have $300,000.00 for a stud fee. You can talk all day about GC as a stud and his short comings but if they stood him for half, I still couldn't afford to breed to him. The reality is that the people breeding to him have the necessary money and can afford to lose it. They are rolling the bones looking for one of his big horses, and more power to them. The pecking order stays the same, we all gamble in this business and hope to make money. They are just in a different league than most. (I am currently bush league) If one of the people breeding to GC has a horse that fits Europe, they can afford to fly them over.

Strictly speaking, your points are well taken but I would most enjoy hearing about the horses that you have bred and raced, and how you made your breeding decisions. Respectfully

[Rokeby Forever]

Hi Hpkingjr,

Hey...I like Louis Finochio! LOL!

Yeah, I have to agree with you....GC will come up with the "big horse," but with a lot of "small horses" in between. I think for those looking for something like First Samurai (something that can win early and get shuttled to stud at a $40,000 fee), he's the wrong stallion....there's only been one. He's stamping himself as a grass sire...and we know those stallions have as much commerical value in the USA as a ham sandwich. GC's Juvenile winner numbers are way down, which probably bouyed his marketability in the USA to this point...if he doesn't get the same quality of mare that he's been receiving, his bubble is simply going to burst....unless his fee someday reconciles with the performance of his American foals.

Honestly, I think Smart Strike is a great "roll the dice" sire at $75,000. He's really worked his way up the food chain, and he's as well bred as a sire can be (even without Storm Cat in his pedigree? LOL!). His fee is pretty high compared to past years, but he's shown that he can sire a "big horse" with an "average" mare. As a Mr Prospector, I don't see why, with better mares now, he can't sire a few sons that might do well as future stallion prospects.

I'm a claiming game guy, Hpkingjr....it's much easier to claim something with a l'il ability and try something that the pedigree suggests, (stretchouts, move to the turf....). Once in a while, it's fun knowing you were a little smarter than the previous owner - - not so much fun if he was smarter than you, though. LOL!

[mlwinter]

Well lets cut all the stallions to the same stud fee, same numbers of mares booked, this way when you compare on a more level playing field.

If it weren't for all the high dollar horses that can't seem to make it, or the once high dollar horses that are now in the old category, there wouldn't be a need for claiming races. Why claim just any $5k, when you can claim one for $5k, and then win a stakes with it. Just because there are too many good horses out there. Look at Lava Man...

Why continue to breed so many horses, when there are obviously so many good horses out there. Or there should be, considering a horse like Storm Cat continues to 'live cover' over a hundred mares a year.

You want to cut back on the horses that end up starving to death in someones field? Stop overbreeding. You want to stop all the ads for these horse that are 'in danger'? Stop overbreeding. Every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks they have a mare or stallion worthy of breeding, wrong...

All stallions should be on a set limit of mares period!! Stop all two yr old racing period. Move the triple crown to Four yr olds. Thus prompting better value, more responsible breeding, and providing horses with a better chance to show their true colors.

You want better stamina? Well it isn't gonna happen with two yr olds continously running a 1 1/16. Just to prep for a Derby chance.

[madelyn]

I am ALL FOR book limits for stallions. But what is the magic number? 100?

[mlwinter]

A hundred is too many, considering the number of stallions standing. Just look at the Blood Horse and Thoroughbred Times stallion registers. Then add the number of stallions that aren't listed in there.

I would think with the variety that there is out there, 50 would be enough.

And when is there going to be some guidelines for the horses that are bred? Are we just going to keep breeding anything and everything that comes along? Or are we going to stop breeding genetic unsoundness, and things such at parrot mouths and crooked legs.