Page 1 of 1
Dosage Profiles vs. Nicking
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:39 pm
by mlwinter
Does anybody look at Dosage Profile numbers anymore? Or for most is it just about a nick rating?
I understand how Dosage numbers are calculated. But can someone send me a link to information on how nick ratings are calculated?
Thanks!!

Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:23 pm
by Rick
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:28 pm
by mlwinter
CA Michael - that is real cute! Thanks Rick! I would assume by both your comments that you don't believe in Nicking? I haven't seen anything so far that would lead me to believe in it...
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:31 pm
by mlwinter
Okay after reading Ricks link, I think it is an even bigger crock than before, IMO.

Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:19 pm
by Roguelet
Reminder:
Many here have an opinion on whether this is a useful tool or not. If you would like to share your opinion on this topic, please do so without slandering anyone.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:28 pm
by geowarrior
For what it's worth, and I'm no expert on this, there are other ways to look at nicking besides the Werk figures. For example, the G1 Goldmine software is a type of software that looks at the statistical success of certain crosses, in comparison with what would be expected as a statistical 'background'. You can do this for winners at the overall graded stakes level, and at the G1 level. To my mind, many of the statistical samples are rather small, but I think if applied judiciously, the approach can probably help one firm up ideas that form in nebulous fashion, or suggest possibilities that can be examined more carefully. Madelyn on another thread reported that she recently went to a Goldmine seminar and will be working with the software some more. She said she'd report when she had formed an opinion of its usefulness.
If it's only Werk nicking you're interested in evaluating, then forget I said anything, I just wasn't totally clear from the title of the thread so I thought I'd throw it in in case it was of interest.
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:56 pm
by Rokeby Forever
The Dosage System is a dinosaur....and worse since Strike The Gold disproved it when he won the KY Derby.
Every year, it seems that it's recalculated to keep it functional. But the truth is that nobody is bred to run 1 1/4 miles any more - just about any sire can sire a KY Derby winner nowadays (How close did Successful Appeal come with Closing Argument?). If a horse can run 1 1/4 miles, it can....and if it can't, it can't. That's all there is to it now. Was Smarty Jones bred to be a 1 1/4 miles horse?
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:42 pm
by Patuxet
Rokeby:
It takes several crops, and sometimes another generation, for a stallion's stakes-winning get to reveal his genetic proclivity and determine if it's sufficiently singular to warrant his being named a chef-de-race. Until that time a horse's dosage profile is dependent on earlier chefs-de-race in its pedigree. As new chef's emerge the dosage profiles of pedigrees containing them will change. When Alydar was appropriately named a classic chef it obviously changed the dosage profile of Strike The Gold. I for one find Steve Roman's work honorable and valuable.
As for your question: "Was Smarty Jones bred to be a 1 1/4 miles horse?", it seems to me that his first two generation are rife with evidence of a genetic potential to get ten furlongs or more.
His sire was out of a half-sister to Gold And Ivory, twice a G1 winner @ 12-furlongs in Europe; she was sired by Hero' Honor, winner of the G1 Bowling Green @ 11-furlongs, and half-brother to KY Derby and Travers winner, Sea Hero. (Let's pause here for a well-deserved Mellon fanfare!)
Smarty Jones' dam is out of a half-sister to Basie, winner of the 10-furlong, G1 Delaware Oaks. Basie was sired by In Reality, the sire of SJ's damsire. And when SJ's paternal grandsire, Gone West, was bred to an In Reality mare, it produced Belmont winner Commendable. IMO there was ample ten-furlong stamina in his pedigree.
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:23 pm
by Rokeby Forever
Patuxet - thank you for the Mellon Tribute! I wish more people appreciated what a brilliant breeder he was.
Gone West/Elusive Quality on the topside doesn't suggest 1 1/4 miles - Elusive Quality was a 7 furlong specialist and I have a note below on Gone West. Ivory Wand was a top class filly, but, again, not a 1 1/4 mile type. Touch of Greatness, as I understand, was not a correct filly and never ran because of it.
On Smarty Jones' bottom side, the In Reality/Smile line can't be concluded to be a 1 1/4 mile siring strain. The dam side originates from old, old Wheatley/Phipps blood, but none of the mares in that family wanted any part of 1 1/4 mile.
You're right that there are distance influences in the pedigree (Hero's Honor, Herbager, Tom Fool....), but his first two generations don't suggest it to me. Oh well...we can agree to disagree, right?
I love Commendable's Belmont Stakes as a talking point for Gone West siring Classic distance horses. From an objective standpoint, Commendable's Belmont Stakes had to be the WORST run edition in the race's history...Commendable crawled around the racetrack, gasped his way home, and the horses behind him treadmilled like it was watching slow-motion.