Pedigree Query

(rouge, if you need to move this go ahead, I could not decide where to put it)

I believe it was EP Taylor that swore by the Multiple mating theory, in a nutshell and someone can probably explain it better than I can, if you bred a certain horse to a certain mare enough times eventually you will get what you are looking for.

Look at some of the greatest horses in the last 30 years... Dubai Millennium is in my opinion, THE best horse I'v ever seen in my lifetime, and while he is by a world class sire, and out of one of the strongest female families in the book, out of 5 FULL brothers and sisters (ballroom, chaquiras, dajhee, dubai sunrise) he is the only one to amount to ANYTHING. Now, dubai suprise is still 2 so the book is out, but you catch the drift.

Sunday silence has 3 full sisters, Secreteriat has 2 full siblings and about 12 half brothers and sisters in all, Man O War has 4 full brothers and sisters, none of them anywhere near the level of runner Man O War was,
the great northern dancer had 3 full brothers, Citation had 3 full siblings, my gosh native dancer had 5 FULL siblings, Affirmed 2 full siblings, War Admiral had 5 full siblings.... I can go on but you catch the drift..



what is one to make of this information? In some of thoose cases, the mare female siblings went on to be stakes producers.. some, not all. not even half.

My first impression was to say that some of these matings are with mares of not good female families, but Dubai Mill buffs that arguement, as his 2nd dam is one of only 3 horses to foal 4 Grade 1 winners, fall aspen. that's pretty damn stout no matter where you are. It could be, COULD be that the mating to Shereef dancer did not help her ability to pass on the families legenary traits for whatever the reason may be...OR that while Fall aspen herself was able to be an unbelieveable dam herself, she did not do a great job of passing on the ability to her offspring, lol, Colorado dancers' half brother IS timber country

and looking at it, of all of fall aspen's kids, grade 1 winners and all, take out timber country of course, the fillies produced all of 1 horse of consequence, Dubai Millenium, after years of being bred to t he best sires money can by.

So while looking at it from the outside, one can say "if you throw numbers at it (breeding) eventually you will get a runner"... well I don't buy that in this instance.. Aspen Leaves, colorado dancers' half sister mated with SAdlers wells 3 times nad not one of them ever saw the track.

I think in the case of Dubai Millenium, and in most cases, the mare was not a very good producer of runners, and they just keept pushing the square until it eventually fit into the round hole.


Of 10 foals of racing age (Colorado Dancer), she has 1 stakes winner (guess who). Is this what you would qualify as a "great mare"? I wouldn't. her mother was a world class mare. The ability to constantly pass on genes is the sign of greatness, not to strike lighting in a bottle one time.

Now, let's take NATALMA. the first time she mated with NEARCTIC you got northern dancer. Unlike Colorado Dancer however, she was a stakes producing fool. One cannot dare question the gene passing abilities of Natalma. She literarly gave birth to raicng as we know it today.

So.. with that said, when it comes to the multiple mating theory, the best odds to get a horse that can run if you have a mare without a great track record is to keep going back to the same stallion, is the best I can make of it.

I find this intereging.. for instance take Set them Free, Ill get along and Belva.

Of the 3, you ask who is worth the most money and the majority will tell you ill get along (dam of smarty jones). HOWEVER, given what I just showed above, I'll take set them free and I would run away with Belva before I would take ill get along.

Belva has already produced two very good horses, english channel and Sedgefield and has siblings who have produced graded stakes winning horses as well.

set them free has had 2 grade seperate grade 1 winning horses, one winning the kentucky derby and the way everyone is talking Alonzo seems to be pretty decent as well.

What scares me about Ill get along, is not so much the family, it's the off the cliff drop off in talent from Smary Jones to Speedy Jones and Elusive Moment. thoose are the same dropoffs you see with the siblings of Dubai Mullinum, Seattle Slew, Man O War. I think you would be hard pressed to see another smarty jones out of ill get along or anything resembling it.



thoughts??

bdw0617 wrote:if you bred a certain horse to a certain mare enough times eventually you will get what you are looking for.

In other words - if Forestry is bred often enough to Magical Masquerade, a horse worth $16 million at the sales will eventually pop up?

Well, the first time produced Byron Bay, an unraced gelding. The second time produced The Green Monkey, who's placed once in two starts. So, at least, the pairing is on the improve.

Heres a link.
It was brought up here,
http://www.pedigreequery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9790
But the thread never grew very much.

It's an interesting theory. I know that I've worked for owners in the past that will breed a mare to the same stallion 2 years in a row. If one of those becomes a nice stake horse then the mare goes back to the stallion again, but not for every year. But they do stay close to the same sire lines............

winds

I have heard it said (but cannot recall by whom now) that if a mating is worth trying, it is worth repeating at least thrice to give it a fair chance. This makes a certain amount of sense to me as even the greatest sires in the history of the breed have failed to sire above 25% SWs; 10% is blamed good, so all of the sibling groups initially mentioned in the original post of this thread were ahead of the game. I think, though, that repeated matings make more sense when the mare owner is breeding to race and when he/she has done sufficient homework to have faith that the cross is promising. Commercial breeders, of necessity, have to keep looking for the next hot sire, so for them it makes sense not to repeat a mating unless it has already produced a good runner.

Just as a historical aside, of the siblings groups mentioned, both Man o' War and Secretariat had pretty decent sibs, though none of their own class, of course. Man o' War's full brother My Play won the Jockey Club Gold Cup, while his full sister Masda was a minor stakes winner and multiple stakes producer; of Secretariat's two full sisters, Syrian Sea won the Selima Stakes, then an important race for juvenile fillies, and two other 2yo stakes, while The Bride couldn't get out of her own way on the track but produced multiple Argentine G2 winner At Ease and stakes winner Heavenly Match. Not too shabby.

I was always tought to keep & race the first two foals from a mating esp if they are opposite sex then the rest are to sell from multiple same mare same stallion matings & this does hold true probley 80%+ of the time. Just take a look at the afore mentions horses above Dubai Millennium, Sunday Silence, Affirmed etc they are all first foals from multiple same matings & by far above & beyond more significant than any of their younger siblings. I can not explain myself if or why a mare may lose something from a genetic standpoint when bred to the same horse over & over but there does appear to be something to it. Its also my belief that probley 80%+ a mare tends to have her best foal within her first three regardless of the sire. Yeah I know everyone can find this 20 year old mare that just had a stakes winner etc but % wise that is very much in the low end. What is interesting to me in multiple same stallion mare matings if they work more than once they usually work again & again such as Cee's Song with Cee's Tizzy. I know alot of you may think this is bs & that the 5th time may be the charm or this old mare can still do it because she just has not been bred right but just look at progeny reports & sales books & you will find that by a large % that stakes horses are from the first three foals of a mare & of most multiple matings the first foal from that mating is most often by far the best.

Mahubah wrote:Commercial breeders, of necessity, have to keep looking for the next hot sire, so for them it makes sense not to repeat a mating unless it has already produced a good runner.

BINGO! But how many breedbacks do you see in the commercial market, even when a broodmare has had a successful foal?

Rokeby Forever wrote:

Mahubah wrote:Commercial breeders, of necessity, have to keep looking for the next hot sire, so for them it makes sense not to repeat a mating unless it has already produced a good runner.

BINGO! But how many breedbacks do you see in the commercial market, even when a broodmare has had a successful foal?

You have to add the further complication that the stallion from whom the successful foal was produced might have already been dethroned and shipped to Timbuktu.

one thing I took from what I wrote is that once you "hit the home run", you are better off moving to another stallion than trying the same mating time and time again. of course, by te time the star is 3 it's 2 years too late lol.

which brings up a good question (by me at least), when do you know if you are satisfied with the offspring? I mean can you look at a 5 month old and say "i like this one, i want to go back"


I am not saying that it no other full siblings have been runners at all.. Ghostzapper's full brother, while not Ghostzapper, is more than respectable. English channels' full brother might turn out to be better than him when it's all said and done.As Mahubah put it, Man O' War's full brother run the JCGC.

Its also my belief that probley 80%+ a mare tends to have her best foal within her first three regardless of the sire.

that is not something I agree with. too many examples to go against that arguement.


I have a theory on the 80% tom fool.. and I honestly think this is the case too.

let's take the mare queendom. Invasor's Dam. South American Bloodlines. She was an avg run of the mill sire. the breeders had to work hard to find the bloodlines that will work for her. Notice Candy Stripes, southern halo.. all these are matches you would expect to see with quendom.

Here comes Invasor. After winnings over 7 million dollars, scratch that, quendom is going hollywood!!!! Replace Candy Stripes, southern halo and the likes for distorted Humor, aP indy, seeking the gold and storm cat for the rest of her life. none of which will probably producing anythihng close to invasor. but she's "commerical" baby!!! that's all that matters now, not what she produces, the fact that she produced Inavasor. when they get desperate they might go to Leroi (which might not be a bad match) or CAndy Ride,b ut you get the drift.
\

another example is verbasle, dam of high fly. she was a productve dam her entire career (tomfool). actually one of the more under the radar VERY productve dam's there was.. Hly fly has a half sister that won over a half million dollars. I would consider the foals by kingmambo, gone west and kris s to be not productive by my standards.

then, she gets in foal to a stud with an AEI of .29.. my gosh that's pathetic. But for whatever the reason may be, the nic works like a charm. Go back and look at High fly's races, he really was something. short and long he dominated florida.

So you think they would if not go back to attictus, the best runner this mare every produced, go to someone in the same sire tree right?

WRONG.. HERE I COME SEEKING THE GOLD!!! I'M HOLLYWOOD AGAIN!!!!

BOOK is still out on he's solid gold, one start, picked up I would think 4th place check.


something to me was as ovbious as day when looking at her offspring. Take out Estimraar, and ALL of her other offsprings that were successful have one thing in common that is as easy to notice as anything on earth

ALL THE SIRES SHE USED HAVE SECRETERIAT IN THE SIRES PEDIGREE.


ATTICUS AND GONE WEST EVEN HAVE HIM AS A

DAMSIRE

You can't look at this situtatoin above and tell me that it's a lack of just the mare getting lucky. IMHO, it was clear when tey were going for racing, and when they were going for commercial. the two usually don't coexist.

madelyn wrote:You have to add the further complication that the stallion from whom the successful foal was produced might have already been dethroned and shipped to Timbuktu.

And, of course, there's always the problem that the sire of the successful foal may have done well enough that the small- to mid-level commercial breeder can no longer afford him, so unless the mare gets sold to someone who can afford the increased stud fee, she won't be seeing that particular sire again.

Mahubah,

Is there statisical evidence that more stakes horses are born in a mare's first 5 foals?

most mares don't have 5 foals, i would think that is skewed data if there is even any.

You might want to search through some of John Sparkman's old columns in Thoroughbred Times; seems like he addressed the issue of stakes winners vs. birth order at one point but I have no idea which issue. You would certainly have to address the issue of results vs. opportunity at each point as the later in the birth order, the fewer mares even have foals at that position; thus, a statement such as "60% of all stakes winners were among the first five foals of their dams" isn't very useful because it doesn't address the ratio of successes to opportunities. Obviously, if 60% of all Thoroughbreds are among the first five foals of their dams, you would be getting only what chance would expect.

I'm guessing that there is a somewhat lower sucess rate for later foals, but this probably has to do with two things. One, a mare that has not previously produced much tends to be put to cheaper sires as she ages, reducing her chances of producing a good foal. The other is that older mares need extra attention and nutritional support during pregnancy and may be less able to give a foal an optimum prenatal environment and the best quality milk if they don't receive care designed to replace the resources they have put into their earlier progeny.

bdw0617 wrote:most mares don't have 5 foals, i would think that is skewed data if there is even any.

Why do you think that?

Well I always look also at how well or poorly a mare was mated. Using the example of two of my mares, Believe It Shesdue and Miss Ballet, both mares were poorly mated for the first several foals. Believe It Shesdue doesn't really have anything going, pedigreewise, with Strike the Gold or Stephen Got Even (although one of those could jump up and improve the page). Miss Ballet couldn't do the impossible and produce a good horse by Private School or Waving Past. This is an area where I think statistics might not really be applicable, unless you restricted a study to mares who had five foals (or more) in succession and were well mated.