Have there been many examples of average-to-poor racehorses who have made good or great stallions?
I can't think of any.
I do NOT mean stallions who have made few starts due to injury, if those starts were winning ones.
So many great racers became poor stallions that it got me thinking if it worked vice-versa ever.
Thanks for replies.
Poor racehorse/good stallion
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn
Poor racehorse/good stallion
All shouting does is make you lose your voice.
----Arrested Development
----Arrested Development
-
Rokeby Forever
- Darley line
- Posts: 6684
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:52 pm
- Location: Reno, NV
Vice Regent, most notably. Bold Ruckus was by no means a "top" racehorse (he won only two minor stakes from 24 starts), but he was a heck of a sire!
What synthetics are to California racing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gb0mxcpPOU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gb0mxcpPOU
-
LaTroienne
- Restricted Stakes Winner
- Posts: 762
- Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:57 pm
Danzig broke down before he had a chance to prove himself and wasn't a major winner. Similarly, Raise a Native broke down before he had a chance to run majorly, but became a top sire.
Nantallah was also not that great of a racer, earning only $17,000+ on the track, I've found....but he went on to be a top sire, his progeny including Rough Shod II. Phalaris was also medium-class on the racetrack and turned out to be a great stallion.
Nantallah was also not that great of a racer, earning only $17,000+ on the track, I've found....but he went on to be a top sire, his progeny including Rough Shod II. Phalaris was also medium-class on the racetrack and turned out to be a great stallion.
I think that there have been a considerable number of "lesser runners" -- stallions that weren't the best of their generation -- that went on to become great sires.
I don't think that Black Toney was the best horse of his year, but he sure was the best sire from that crop (1911, I think). Bull Lea was a good not necessarily great runner in the late 1930s but he went on to become a great sire.
Was it Nearco or his son Nasrullah that had a short, less than great, career on the track?
I don't think that Black Toney was the best horse of his year, but he sure was the best sire from that crop (1911, I think). Bull Lea was a good not necessarily great runner in the late 1930s but he went on to become a great sire.
Was it Nearco or his son Nasrullah that had a short, less than great, career on the track?
-
Patuxet
- Grade III Winner
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:36 pm
- Location: New England & Florida
Linda_d wrote:
No, perhaps Bull Lea wasn't "great" but IMO he was probably the equal of anything else in his crop. As a 2YO he ran 2nd in the Hopeful and Champagne; at 3 won the Blue Grass beating Menow, and at 4 won the Widener, beating CH. 3YO Stagehand.
Bull Lea was a good not necessarily great runner in the late 1930s
No, perhaps Bull Lea wasn't "great" but IMO he was probably the equal of anything else in his crop. As a 2YO he ran 2nd in the Hopeful and Champagne; at 3 won the Blue Grass beating Menow, and at 4 won the Widener, beating CH. 3YO Stagehand.
average runner/great sire
Mr. Prospector would deserve some consideration for this category. Not a poor runner but certainly no great shakes either but definitely a contender for greatest sire of all times.
LaTroienne wrote: Phalaris was also medium-class on the racetrack and turned out to be a great stallion.
Phalaris won no classic, but 15 races in total and GBP 5,475 which is some GBP 1.5 million in today's money although his racing was during WWI and all at Newmarket. In present day's racing Phalaris would definitely be a winner of group-races.
Re: average runner/great sire
hi Jagger...hi LaTroienne...hi Toccet02...hi guys
The question was...
Jagger responded...
Ridiculous...MAKE NO MISTAKE Mr Prospector was freaky fast. He did have some physical issues that required time and patience (and arguably did compromise/affect his career), but trainer Jimmy Croll dealt with it. Mr Prospector had afterburners...and when he was right, WOW, look out. To suggest that he might have been an average racehorse, is simply absurd (at least to my way of thinking).
No great shakes as a racehorse...Mr Prospector? His regular rider, Hall of Famer Walter Blum, described Mr Prospector by saying (and I quote) "he was a Fu**ing Freak."
For the record...Mr Prospector was absolutely, positively a BRILLIANT freaky-fast racehorse. Despite his physical issues, he won 7 of his 14 lifetime starts....was 1st, 2nd or 3rd in 13 of his 14 lifetime starts...and set two New Track Records (GP-6f 1:07 4/5; GS-6f 1:08 3/5). Hardly average by any stretch of the imagination.
Both Danzig and Raise A Native had physical issues too. Regardless, both were fast fast fast and both were undefeated (Danzig 3 for 3, Raise a Native 4 for 4 and 2-yo Champion). To even suggest that they were average to poor racehorses, seems way out of line (and/or misguided) as far as I'm concerned.
Meadowlake was another with but a three race career (but he too was undefeated)...would you call him an average-to-poor racehorse too? I wouldn't.
I find it difficult to understand how any knowledgeable horseperson might describe any of the above as average-to-poor racehorses...in the context of the question (asked by Toccet02, above).
What about Silver Deputy, a mere 2 career starts, but both winning efforts (including the Swynford Stakes at Woodbine)? Yes he was undefeated, but he did it in Toronto...and his winning times were not particularly sparkling...6 furlongs in 1:11 3/5 and 6 1/2 furlongs in 1:17 1/5...hmmm. Would it be fair to include him among average-to-poor racehorses?
If the topic was related to soundness/physical issues and/or length of career, that's a different topic altogether...but when the topic is specifically re average-to-poor racehorses who have made good or great stallions, I might suggest Princequillo for consideration. A lowly claimer made-good.
Arguably, Malibu Moon might fall into the average racehorse (that made good as a sire) category. One win in two maiden races...and a best Rag#14 1/4...hmmm.
Best to you.
Respectfully
The question was...
Toccet02 wrote:Have there been many examples of average-to-poor racehorses who have made good or great stallions?
Jagger responded...
jagger wrote:Mr. Prospector would deserve some consideration for this category.
Ridiculous...MAKE NO MISTAKE Mr Prospector was freaky fast. He did have some physical issues that required time and patience (and arguably did compromise/affect his career), but trainer Jimmy Croll dealt with it. Mr Prospector had afterburners...and when he was right, WOW, look out. To suggest that he might have been an average racehorse, is simply absurd (at least to my way of thinking).
Jagger wrote:Not a poor runner but certainly no great shakes either...
No great shakes as a racehorse...Mr Prospector? His regular rider, Hall of Famer Walter Blum, described Mr Prospector by saying (and I quote) "he was a Fu**ing Freak."
For the record...Mr Prospector was absolutely, positively a BRILLIANT freaky-fast racehorse. Despite his physical issues, he won 7 of his 14 lifetime starts....was 1st, 2nd or 3rd in 13 of his 14 lifetime starts...and set two New Track Records (GP-6f 1:07 4/5; GS-6f 1:08 3/5). Hardly average by any stretch of the imagination.
LaTroienne wrote:Danzig broke down before he had a chance to prove himself and wasn't a major winner. Similarly, Raise a Native broke down before he had a chance to run majorly, but became a top sire.
Both Danzig and Raise A Native had physical issues too. Regardless, both were fast fast fast and both were undefeated (Danzig 3 for 3, Raise a Native 4 for 4 and 2-yo Champion). To even suggest that they were average to poor racehorses, seems way out of line (and/or misguided) as far as I'm concerned.
Meadowlake was another with but a three race career (but he too was undefeated)...would you call him an average-to-poor racehorse too? I wouldn't.
I find it difficult to understand how any knowledgeable horseperson might describe any of the above as average-to-poor racehorses...in the context of the question (asked by Toccet02, above).
What about Silver Deputy, a mere 2 career starts, but both winning efforts (including the Swynford Stakes at Woodbine)? Yes he was undefeated, but he did it in Toronto...and his winning times were not particularly sparkling...6 furlongs in 1:11 3/5 and 6 1/2 furlongs in 1:17 1/5...hmmm. Would it be fair to include him among average-to-poor racehorses?
If the topic was related to soundness/physical issues and/or length of career, that's a different topic altogether...but when the topic is specifically re average-to-poor racehorses who have made good or great stallions, I might suggest Princequillo for consideration. A lowly claimer made-good.
Arguably, Malibu Moon might fall into the average racehorse (that made good as a sire) category. One win in two maiden races...and a best Rag#14 1/4...hmmm.
Best to you.
Respectfully
-
Worksoplad
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:09 pm
- Location: Manhattan Beach, California
"Phalaris was also medium-class on the racetrack and turned out to be a great stallion."
I wouldn't call Phalaris medium class. He was primarily a sprinter who won 16 out of 24 races. In many of them, he carried 140lbs + and gave lumps of weight all round. He might not have had "class" over "classic" distances, but he sure was a top class sprinter.
I wouldn't call Phalaris medium class. He was primarily a sprinter who won 16 out of 24 races. In many of them, he carried 140lbs + and gave lumps of weight all round. He might not have had "class" over "classic" distances, but he sure was a top class sprinter.
"Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, but he who destroys a good book kills reason itself." John Milton.