Easygoer, I will take the shortest answer first. My comment about "culling the bad mares" was facetious (sometimes tone can be lost in an email) The point I was trying to make is----Who determines the criteria for determining what a bad mare is? Some great race horses have been born to some "mediocre" mares. While it sounds logical to assume you could weed out the "bad" mares---I think the reality is-- it would be almost impossible to execute--what criteria is used to judge undesireable mares?. High price certainly doesn't translate into better genes in my opinion and until such time that someone could convince me that they are unequivocably sure they know how to perform such a feat----I think it is very dangerous to assume a human could perform such a selection process. Look at Barbaro's mare as an example---I believe she didn't even bring a 1,000 bid when she was run through a sale 2 years ago.
On the 300k-500k stud fee comment, I don't think a stallion earns the right to get to that fee in today's market until he proves he can be a sire of sire. So if it takes 10 years to prove it---then so be it. The farms that have started their stallions at the 100k+ price levels breed many of their own mares to these stallions and as such have a hugh advantage to start these stallions fees in the stratosphere because they sell mares in foal, weanlings and yearlings by these stallions for considerable prices because the stallions stud fee is so inflated. (it is a shell game or pyramid game at best with these stallions) If these stallions had to rely on the commercial mare owner to breed to their stallion they couldn't get 20 mares to them.
In my opinion, the 100k+ stallion fee is reserved for proven Gr 1 Classic distance stakes producing stallions while the 300k+ stallion fees are reserved for stallions who prove they are a sire of sires. I recognize some farms are pricing their stallions as if they are accomplished in either milestone but just because someone wished that to be the case doesn't make it so. As always Actions speak louder than words and these hyper inflated stud fees should plumet once the reality catches up with their ability.
Hope that explains my comments from a previous post more clearly.
How Far Can You Go On Sales Alone
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn
-
tinners way
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:48 pm
could not agree more with Bcassisdy- It may yet prove that Coolmore has overplayed the hand with the large books and larger stud fees. When they market a stallion at 20k the risk/reward is palatable for the young sire getting 100+ mares. If they fail or are marginally successful there is someplace to go- in either direction.
Storm Cat has earned his place, as has Kingmambo, AP Indy, and Seeking the Gold. All others are wannabes. The market is not irrational though, the stud farms are roping in a few "too much money" people that bite the hook. Human nature is all about following the crowd, just look at the stock market.
I truly believe that the farms have convinced some mare owners that what is going to make their mare is spending 100k plus. In five years I want to see the table of percentages of resulting foals that made their stud fee back. Economically it has to be miserable, as purses are not high enough to support stud fees, yet alone weanling, yearling, or two year old in training averages. The balloon will pop again.
Storm Cat has earned his place, as has Kingmambo, AP Indy, and Seeking the Gold. All others are wannabes. The market is not irrational though, the stud farms are roping in a few "too much money" people that bite the hook. Human nature is all about following the crowd, just look at the stock market.
I truly believe that the farms have convinced some mare owners that what is going to make their mare is spending 100k plus. In five years I want to see the table of percentages of resulting foals that made their stud fee back. Economically it has to be miserable, as purses are not high enough to support stud fees, yet alone weanling, yearling, or two year old in training averages. The balloon will pop again.
Yeah, bcassidy. On the mares thing, I may have been responding to another post. As you say, tone is hard to capture on the internet, not only that but sometimes it is hard to tell what one is responding to on a threaded message board. I hear what you are saying about the mares.
About the sire of sires stallion fees. How long does it really take to determime when they are a proven sire of sires? I guess I could do ther research here on this site,but do you know offhand? I was guessing 10 or 12 years but that has to be a minimum in the cases of Northern Dancer, Mr. Prospector, etc. how long did it take to figure this out?
About the sire of sires stallion fees. How long does it really take to determime when they are a proven sire of sires? I guess I could do ther research here on this site,but do you know offhand? I was guessing 10 or 12 years but that has to be a minimum in the cases of Northern Dancer, Mr. Prospector, etc. how long did it take to figure this out?
hi guys...hello brogers
Guys...for what it's worth...Forestry has been and is being given a HUGE opportunity, but no one has touched upon how advancing age (or whatever) of his owner might affect the future management and/or control of Forestry. I wish Forestry's owner the best of health and continued success...BUT...
...I ask (all things considered) is it possible that some interest(s) might make offer(s) to try and buy Forestry for a king's ransom. He is not (to my knowledge) a syndicated horse and a simple Yes or No (from his owner) could make his sale a potentially simple transaction.
That said...I personally do NOT believe that Forestry has done nearly enough to be considered a TOP sire, and furthermore I suggest he is defining himself as more the sprint-sire than the classics sire. Regardless, Forestry is arguably quite popular right now, his owner is arguably quite the businessman and arguably right now might be the perfect time to sell...and get a brinks truck full of cash.
Thoughts?
brogers...I believe that your first sentence (which I bolded) is incomplete. I suggest it should have specifically asked..."As for Forestry, I am not sure what people expect" FOR $100,000.
That said...and all things considered, are you defending Forestry as good value at $100k based on his accomplishments as a racehorse sire...or is your position that he's worth $100,000 simply because people will pay it?
Those two points are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but I believe that in the case of Forestry they are...for now anyway.
Respectfully
Guys...for what it's worth...Forestry has been and is being given a HUGE opportunity, but no one has touched upon how advancing age (or whatever) of his owner might affect the future management and/or control of Forestry. I wish Forestry's owner the best of health and continued success...BUT...
...I ask (all things considered) is it possible that some interest(s) might make offer(s) to try and buy Forestry for a king's ransom. He is not (to my knowledge) a syndicated horse and a simple Yes or No (from his owner) could make his sale a potentially simple transaction.
That said...I personally do NOT believe that Forestry has done nearly enough to be considered a TOP sire, and furthermore I suggest he is defining himself as more the sprint-sire than the classics sire. Regardless, Forestry is arguably quite popular right now, his owner is arguably quite the businessman and arguably right now might be the perfect time to sell...and get a brinks truck full of cash.
Thoughts?
brogers wrote:As for Forestry, I am not sure what people expect. From his first crop that are five year olds, and thus been given a full opportunity to get to the races and run, he has produced 11 stakes winners from just 75 foals. This is 15%. Doesn't that make him a very good stallion? 71% of them have got to the track which is actually higher than the averages for the breed (69%). What else does one want?
brogers...I believe that your first sentence (which I bolded) is incomplete. I suggest it should have specifically asked..."As for Forestry, I am not sure what people expect" FOR $100,000.
That said...and all things considered, are you defending Forestry as good value at $100k based on his accomplishments as a racehorse sire...or is your position that he's worth $100,000 simply because people will pay it?
Those two points are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but I believe that in the case of Forestry they are...for now anyway.
Respectfully
Hi all,
I'm about to go to bed and haven't read the entire thread so my apologies if I duplicate anything already written.
Adena Springs is in the enviable position of having the physical number of mares themselves and certainly in partnership with Jess Jackson to fill Ghostzappers book without a single outside mare.
As FOS points out, you need a Harvard degree and Tyra Banks looks to get your mare to Ghostzapper even if accompanied by a briefcase full of cash (in this case $200,000). The reason's very simple, your mare must be so superior to their own that they are willng to replace them.
The original post that started this thread questions the stud fee of the mystery stallion.
Stallion farms usually are aggressive in setting stud fees and as long as they are filling books they're proven correct. Don't expect commercial appeal to follow a linear path to logic for they are mutually exclusive.
LSB correctly points out that many seemingly overpriced stallions can be had for less than the advertised fee. The logic in keeping the stud fee high is that the farms is still holding out hope that the stallion will succeed. Of course if they don't there's probably a new address in the stallions' future in places like Turkey (fitting).
Regards,
Pete
I'm about to go to bed and haven't read the entire thread so my apologies if I duplicate anything already written.
Adena Springs is in the enviable position of having the physical number of mares themselves and certainly in partnership with Jess Jackson to fill Ghostzappers book without a single outside mare.
As FOS points out, you need a Harvard degree and Tyra Banks looks to get your mare to Ghostzapper even if accompanied by a briefcase full of cash (in this case $200,000). The reason's very simple, your mare must be so superior to their own that they are willng to replace them.
The original post that started this thread questions the stud fee of the mystery stallion.
Stallion farms usually are aggressive in setting stud fees and as long as they are filling books they're proven correct. Don't expect commercial appeal to follow a linear path to logic for they are mutually exclusive.
LSB correctly points out that many seemingly overpriced stallions can be had for less than the advertised fee. The logic in keeping the stud fee high is that the farms is still holding out hope that the stallion will succeed. Of course if they don't there's probably a new address in the stallions' future in places like Turkey (fitting).
Regards,
Pete
Has a palomino jean that pop up some.
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
hi Pete
WOW...your sentence (which I bolded) sounds like a subject (or title) for a masters thesis...and you said you were on the verge of going to bed?
I tip my hat to you for that one
Best to you.
Respectfully
Pete wrote:I'm about to go to bed and haven't read the entire thread so my apologies if I duplicate anything already written.
Pete wrote:Don't expect commercial appeal to follow a linear path to logic for they are mutually exclusive.
WOW...your sentence (which I bolded) sounds like a subject (or title) for a masters thesis...and you said you were on the verge of going to bed?
I tip my hat to you for that one
Best to you.
Respectfully
Hey FOS,
I'm glad my late night ramble made sense to somebody. Since my son woke me at 7am I am in no better shape today but I am ready to shape something approaching a cogent thought, or a burp, but I'm not sure which.
Mark Twain....
Until the stallion farms refund stud fees for those horses that never run do yourself a favor by making all but a few specialized statistics conform to the number of named foals.
The very fact that stallions have different percentages of starters and winners unbalances the statistics immediately.
Winners to runners is a poor statistic that only serves to bolster numbers for stallions that aren't performing from a number of foals comparison.
Comparisons based on the number of winners can give a picture of the quality of foal that a stallion gets but they should always be analyzed simultaneously with those based on number of foals.
Use care with AEI / CI comparisons. It's a good tool but you need to analyze it and understand anomalies that affect it.
Jason Hall makes Luhuk a best value in his fee range based on his AEI/CI comparisons. Luhuk's two native North American crops to race (to 2005) haven't fared well but his AEI is based on his South American born invaders, special horses sent to North America like Avanzado. It's skewed and an unreasonable use of the statistic.
More later but I feel a burp coming on.
Regards,
Pete
I'm glad my late night ramble made sense to somebody. Since my son woke me at 7am I am in no better shape today but I am ready to shape something approaching a cogent thought, or a burp, but I'm not sure which.
Mark Twain....
There are lies, damned lies and statistics!
Until the stallion farms refund stud fees for those horses that never run do yourself a favor by making all but a few specialized statistics conform to the number of named foals.
The very fact that stallions have different percentages of starters and winners unbalances the statistics immediately.
Winners to runners is a poor statistic that only serves to bolster numbers for stallions that aren't performing from a number of foals comparison.
Comparisons based on the number of winners can give a picture of the quality of foal that a stallion gets but they should always be analyzed simultaneously with those based on number of foals.
Use care with AEI / CI comparisons. It's a good tool but you need to analyze it and understand anomalies that affect it.
Jason Hall makes Luhuk a best value in his fee range based on his AEI/CI comparisons. Luhuk's two native North American crops to race (to 2005) haven't fared well but his AEI is based on his South American born invaders, special horses sent to North America like Avanzado. It's skewed and an unreasonable use of the statistic.
More later but I feel a burp coming on.
Regards,
Pete
Has a palomino jean that pop up some.
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
Several factors have to be considered in deciding whether a stallion is worth the fee or not, and it's really an analysis that has to be made by the individual mare owner based on the goals of his/her breeding program. As has already been pointed out quite eloquently, mare owners who lack clear-cut goals and are just flocking to the fashionable sire of the moment without regard to the merits of the mare for any particular purpose are doing no one any favors -- though the stallion managers/owners do have the right to say "no to any particular mare, which seems to leave the ultimate responsibility for the quality and suitability of the stallion's book with his connections, at least for those horses popular enough so that their connections can pick and choose.
Just for fun, let's take two completely hypothetical American stallions, both third-crop sires. Both Stallion A and Stallion B have 6% SWs so far, and both average $65,000 earnings per starter. Both have sired 80 foals per crop and stand in the Northern Hemisphere only.
Stallion A, who stands for $75,000, has only 36% winners from foals. However, half his stakes winners have won at the Graded level and he has already sired two G1 winners. He has been a consistently popular commercial sire and averages $110,000 for weanlings, $150,000 for yearlings, and $160,000 for 2yos in training without having a huge "marquee" sale skewing any of his averages. His AEI/CI ratio is 1.75/2.98.
Stallion B stands for only $8,000 and hasn't been particularly popular at the sales; he averages $12,000 for weanlings, $22,000 for yearlings, and $35,000 for 2yos in training -- again, with fairly consistent results across the board. He has only two graded stakes winners, both at the G3 level. But he has 58% winners from foals and an AEI of 1.70/1.45.
Who's the better sire?
It depends on a breeder's goals. Stallion A would probably be considered much the superior by a commercial breeder. He has already shown the potential to sire a top performer, consistently sells well at the sales, and may have a breakout sales horse or racehorse at any time. Further, because of the high quality of the mares he has been seeing, the residual breeding potential of Stallion A's offspring must also be taken into account. Hereditary unsoundness is a possible factor in his failure to get a high percentage of winners, but it is only one explanation; it may simply indicate that it's taking his connections some time to figure out the bloodlines or phenotypes of mares that work best with him, meaning that his production is on something of a hit-or-miss basis; when he clicks, he clicks, and when he doesn't, he doesn't. A breeder who catches on to exactly what the horse needs and has a mare matching that profile may be in a position to make a big profit.
Stallion B better fits a breed-to-race program. He's proving reliable and consistent in getting winners but isn't getting a lot of respect in the sales ring. His consistency in getting horses with at least a little quality from a fair but not exceptional band of mates suggests that he is not transmitting any particular soundness problems and may fit a fairly wide variety of mares. He may be a particularly attractive value for the home breeder if he stands in a state like New York or California that has a solid state-bred program.
Both horses are still early in their careers, so a lot can change with either. Still, both have something to offer, provided that a breeder has a clear idea as to what s/he is breeding for.
Just for fun, let's take two completely hypothetical American stallions, both third-crop sires. Both Stallion A and Stallion B have 6% SWs so far, and both average $65,000 earnings per starter. Both have sired 80 foals per crop and stand in the Northern Hemisphere only.
Stallion A, who stands for $75,000, has only 36% winners from foals. However, half his stakes winners have won at the Graded level and he has already sired two G1 winners. He has been a consistently popular commercial sire and averages $110,000 for weanlings, $150,000 for yearlings, and $160,000 for 2yos in training without having a huge "marquee" sale skewing any of his averages. His AEI/CI ratio is 1.75/2.98.
Stallion B stands for only $8,000 and hasn't been particularly popular at the sales; he averages $12,000 for weanlings, $22,000 for yearlings, and $35,000 for 2yos in training -- again, with fairly consistent results across the board. He has only two graded stakes winners, both at the G3 level. But he has 58% winners from foals and an AEI of 1.70/1.45.
Who's the better sire?
It depends on a breeder's goals. Stallion A would probably be considered much the superior by a commercial breeder. He has already shown the potential to sire a top performer, consistently sells well at the sales, and may have a breakout sales horse or racehorse at any time. Further, because of the high quality of the mares he has been seeing, the residual breeding potential of Stallion A's offspring must also be taken into account. Hereditary unsoundness is a possible factor in his failure to get a high percentage of winners, but it is only one explanation; it may simply indicate that it's taking his connections some time to figure out the bloodlines or phenotypes of mares that work best with him, meaning that his production is on something of a hit-or-miss basis; when he clicks, he clicks, and when he doesn't, he doesn't. A breeder who catches on to exactly what the horse needs and has a mare matching that profile may be in a position to make a big profit.
Stallion B better fits a breed-to-race program. He's proving reliable and consistent in getting winners but isn't getting a lot of respect in the sales ring. His consistency in getting horses with at least a little quality from a fair but not exceptional band of mates suggests that he is not transmitting any particular soundness problems and may fit a fairly wide variety of mares. He may be a particularly attractive value for the home breeder if he stands in a state like New York or California that has a solid state-bred program.
Both horses are still early in their careers, so a lot can change with either. Still, both have something to offer, provided that a breeder has a clear idea as to what s/he is breeding for.
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher...You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse." C. S. Lewis
Hi Brogers,
Larger stud books force a decline in the number of stallions that is amplified by any reduction in the number of mares. You’re right that the market is efficient; 646 stallions couldn’t stay in business because mares went to those sires with increased capacity and better marketing.
I accept your numbers as fact but there is still no shortage of new stallions at the major commercial farms. Perhaps a closer look will show where there was the greatest decline, possibly in older stallions being removed from service.
This isn’t any concerted effort on the part of stallion farms to be the vigilant protectors of he breed, no ruthless culling. The criterion for standing a stallion remains the same; can they attract sufficient support from outside breeders to have a chance at commercial success? Frankly any implication to the contrary is self-serving.
A drop of 1.45% represents about 1,000 mares, just to put things in perspective. There are mares that I personally feel shouldn’t be bred but that’s the decision of their owners. It’s the right and responsibility of a stallion owner to refuse any mare that they don’t feel will add to the potential prestige of their sire. If the stallion has poor results because his mares were improperly screened, then let the market take its’ course and remove them from the ranks of active sires.
Given your position I’m surprised that you’d launch a broadside against the mare owners that support your business. How is it their fault if your stallion fails? By producing poor quality horses that can’t compete with your stallions’ better selected get?
By placing blame on the mares you excuse the stallions and as a student of genetics you know that that’s not possible. The unstated corollary is that mare owners need to evaluate their own stock not the stallion. You don’t seem to have enough respect for mare owners and their ability to evaluate stallions, and they’re the paying customer.
Regards,
Pete
Larger stud books force a decline in the number of stallions that is amplified by any reduction in the number of mares. You’re right that the market is efficient; 646 stallions couldn’t stay in business because mares went to those sires with increased capacity and better marketing.
I accept your numbers as fact but there is still no shortage of new stallions at the major commercial farms. Perhaps a closer look will show where there was the greatest decline, possibly in older stallions being removed from service.
This isn’t any concerted effort on the part of stallion farms to be the vigilant protectors of he breed, no ruthless culling. The criterion for standing a stallion remains the same; can they attract sufficient support from outside breeders to have a chance at commercial success? Frankly any implication to the contrary is self-serving.
A drop of 1.45% represents about 1,000 mares, just to put things in perspective. There are mares that I personally feel shouldn’t be bred but that’s the decision of their owners. It’s the right and responsibility of a stallion owner to refuse any mare that they don’t feel will add to the potential prestige of their sire. If the stallion has poor results because his mares were improperly screened, then let the market take its’ course and remove them from the ranks of active sires.
Given your position I’m surprised that you’d launch a broadside against the mare owners that support your business. How is it their fault if your stallion fails? By producing poor quality horses that can’t compete with your stallions’ better selected get?
By placing blame on the mares you excuse the stallions and as a student of genetics you know that that’s not possible. The unstated corollary is that mare owners need to evaluate their own stock not the stallion. You don’t seem to have enough respect for mare owners and their ability to evaluate stallions, and they’re the paying customer.
Regards,
Pete
Has a palomino jean that pop up some.
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
Howdy Brendan,
You make an excellent point. What will be the criteria and who will preside over the expulsion of mares from the broodmare ranks.
I'm rather democratic about the whole thing. If someone is willing to pay and wants to breed their mare, then so be it. As Brogers says, the market is efficient, and I'd add both on and off the track. If the foal can't run but the owner pays the bills then there's no one to blame but themselves. My opinion is just chin music unless they ask me.
Lawyer Ron's dam, Donation, (this may be the one you were referring to) had little going for her as a broodmare prospect. She placed 2 times in 4 starts and her dam, Reddy Change, was a blue collar type who got some cheap black-type but that was the family for 2 generations. She might have been a cull.
Regards,
Pete
You make an excellent point. What will be the criteria and who will preside over the expulsion of mares from the broodmare ranks.
I'm rather democratic about the whole thing. If someone is willing to pay and wants to breed their mare, then so be it. As Brogers says, the market is efficient, and I'd add both on and off the track. If the foal can't run but the owner pays the bills then there's no one to blame but themselves. My opinion is just chin music unless they ask me.
Lawyer Ron's dam, Donation, (this may be the one you were referring to) had little going for her as a broodmare prospect. She placed 2 times in 4 starts and her dam, Reddy Change, was a blue collar type who got some cheap black-type but that was the family for 2 generations. She might have been a cull.
Regards,
Pete
Has a palomino jean that pop up some.
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
-
bcassidy
- Restricted Stakes Winner
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 5:36 pm
- Location: Springfield twshp, NJ
Mahubah---cheers. Excellent example and without a doubt I would breed to stallion B---that is my kind of stallion and he would suit my breeding program perfectly.
I will never understand why someone would spend 65k breeding to Stallion A---- but it happens all the time. Stallion A probably stands at a big market farm and has access to a lot of great mares while Stallion B would stand at a smaller farm in Ky or maybe even a regional farm.
Easygoer---the earliest you could prove a stallion to be a sire of sire would be in the 9 to 10 year range. As real life examples you could track the breeding careers of Northern Afleet, Distorted Humor or Elusive Quality as prime candidates. I believe it will easily be in the 10 year range before any of them could be known as a "sire of sires"
Pete, et al: you are correct, I was thinking about Lawyer Ron's mare, but the point is still valid, what would be the criteria for judging a mare's suitability for reproducing? I believe the German TB industry has attempted something similar and while they have produced some very sound racing stock I don't believe it is very fast. It would be a very dangerous game to play and other breeds of horses as well as dogs have some horrible examples to illustrate how bad it can get. In some ways our industry has a natural selection process all its own but it happens at a much slower speed then some people might like---but that is probably a good thing.
I will never understand why someone would spend 65k breeding to Stallion A---- but it happens all the time. Stallion A probably stands at a big market farm and has access to a lot of great mares while Stallion B would stand at a smaller farm in Ky or maybe even a regional farm.
Easygoer---the earliest you could prove a stallion to be a sire of sire would be in the 9 to 10 year range. As real life examples you could track the breeding careers of Northern Afleet, Distorted Humor or Elusive Quality as prime candidates. I believe it will easily be in the 10 year range before any of them could be known as a "sire of sires"
Pete, et al: you are correct, I was thinking about Lawyer Ron's mare, but the point is still valid, what would be the criteria for judging a mare's suitability for reproducing? I believe the German TB industry has attempted something similar and while they have produced some very sound racing stock I don't believe it is very fast. It would be a very dangerous game to play and other breeds of horses as well as dogs have some horrible examples to illustrate how bad it can get. In some ways our industry has a natural selection process all its own but it happens at a much slower speed then some people might like---but that is probably a good thing.
best regards Brendan
-
summerhorse
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:40 am
- Location: Panama City, FL
- Contact:
I remember reading in some TB history book (forget which, maybe the history of TB racing or it may have been Native Dancer or ??) ANYway a group of breeders got together and started buying up what THEY thought were substandard mares and selling them without papers to remove their influence from the gene pool. Luckily one of them they missed out on turned out to be the mother of some great horse that would have completely changed the world of TB racing as we know it now. Point is, NObody really knows which ones will hit and which will miss until givena shot. I see some mares that should NOT be bred, their pedigrees are plebian at best, nothing has ever come out of their bottom lines and it is unlikely ANY stallion could do much to improve them as to have a lasting influence on the TB world. But they get bred anyway... At least if they don't produce most people will pull them out of service. But with the better bred mares you really DON'T know which ones didn't run because they couldn't or because they were contrary witches who just didn't give a flip or were handled in the exact opposite way of what they needed, etc. etc. etc. At least the bad mares have limited influence on the breed, if their get is no good their line goes away pretty quickly. Look at how many horses a bad stallion with a fashion can get on the ground before it becomes apparent he is not any good!
Every mighty oak was once an acorn that stood its ground.
bcassidy wrote:summerhorse---great comments, especially about the non producing stallions........it seems to me they have more of a negative influence on the breed than single mares can ever effect!
I remember a quote from (I think) Native Dancer's breeder that went something along the lines of "If I'd gelded every single colt I'd owned, I'd only have been wrong once."
Now, THAT is a breeder to admire (even if he didn't do it, he knew enough that he knew he probably should have).