hi guys
On the Saint Liam thread, questions were raised regarding his conformation. My understanding is that he is light-boned and upright.
With that in mind...I ask...
...if your mare is expected to improve what a stallion has to offer (in this case physically)...why breed to him?
If the sales ring is the destination that a breeder intends to aim for...doesn't the idea of breeding to a light-boned and upright horse (especially an unproven one...as in the case of Saint Liam) seem to raise some very serious questions and/or concerns?
Seems like it's tough enough to breed a marketable individual under the best of circumstances. Now that's not to say that a light-boned, upright horse can't run...obviously, many can...
...but try selling one.
Respectfully
...why breed to him?
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn
The better question might be 'why continue to breed to him if your mare doesn't improve the sire?'
If she improves him physically and he ran despite some physical problems, the idea is to have a foal who ends up running like that but looks better physically. The foal wouldn't be upright and lightboned if the mare is brought in that can actually improve it with stronger bones and better pasterns for example.
If she drops a foal that ends up light boned and upright, well then she didn't improve him and clearly you wouldn't like the idea of breeding back if you only wanted a correct individual but that's not to say it won't run--it probably would have a harder time getting a good price like you said. The gamble here is whether you wanna risk her not improving the stallion. Plenty of owners want what he brought to the track and want rid of his physical flaws so if they can get it, that's why they breed to him. Like you said though, is it worth the risk?
If she improves him physically and he ran despite some physical problems, the idea is to have a foal who ends up running like that but looks better physically. The foal wouldn't be upright and lightboned if the mare is brought in that can actually improve it with stronger bones and better pasterns for example.
If she drops a foal that ends up light boned and upright, well then she didn't improve him and clearly you wouldn't like the idea of breeding back if you only wanted a correct individual but that's not to say it won't run--it probably would have a harder time getting a good price like you said. The gamble here is whether you wanna risk her not improving the stallion. Plenty of owners want what he brought to the track and want rid of his physical flaws so if they can get it, that's why they breed to him. Like you said though, is it worth the risk?
hello Heidilady
You wrote "Plenty of owners want what he brought to the track and want rid of his physical flaws so if they can get it, that's why they breed to him."
Fair enough...but (in the case of a light-boned and upright stallion) isn't it better to go the sales and buy (what might be considered) a good one (if there is a good one) and pay a reasonable bonus if necessary, rather than risk the possibility (or even probability) that the light-boned and upright stallion will reproduce himself physically?
I say the smart move (unless of course the time and money is no object) is probably to do whatever might possibly increase your odds for success (including your chance for profit at the sales) and that breeding to an unknown commodity that is light-boned and upright does not seem to increase the odds in your favor.
Next year it will be clear what he sires...if you see a high percentage of good ones...then maybe he'll make more sense to breed to.
Until then...I say let others breed to him and risk the consequences.
Respectfully
You wrote "Plenty of owners want what he brought to the track and want rid of his physical flaws so if they can get it, that's why they breed to him."
Fair enough...but (in the case of a light-boned and upright stallion) isn't it better to go the sales and buy (what might be considered) a good one (if there is a good one) and pay a reasonable bonus if necessary, rather than risk the possibility (or even probability) that the light-boned and upright stallion will reproduce himself physically?
I say the smart move (unless of course the time and money is no object) is probably to do whatever might possibly increase your odds for success (including your chance for profit at the sales) and that breeding to an unknown commodity that is light-boned and upright does not seem to increase the odds in your favor.
Next year it will be clear what he sires...if you see a high percentage of good ones...then maybe he'll make more sense to breed to.
Until then...I say let others breed to him and risk the consequences.
Respectfully
Every single stallion has physical flaws.
Sometimes breeding is a game of deciding what you can live with, or--like Heidi said--what you think your mare can improve upon. People will breed to St. Liam because of his race record, his family, and because he's a first year sire which makes him commercial.
You've singled out St. Liam and highlighted what you believe to be wrong with him. Why choose that horse to denegrate? No stallion is perfect. One of the crookedest horses I've ever seen is your favorite guy, Successful Appeal. Does that mean no one should breed to him either?
Sometimes breeding is a game of deciding what you can live with, or--like Heidi said--what you think your mare can improve upon. People will breed to St. Liam because of his race record, his family, and because he's a first year sire which makes him commercial.
You've singled out St. Liam and highlighted what you believe to be wrong with him. Why choose that horse to denegrate? No stallion is perfect. One of the crookedest horses I've ever seen is your favorite guy, Successful Appeal. Does that mean no one should breed to him either?
hi LSB
You wrote "You've singled out St. Liam and highlighted what you believe to be wrong with him. Why choose that horse to denegrate?"
I did not single him out, I just referred to him because his conformation was a topic on another thread that someone else introduced, as I indicated.
Regardless...this is a tough and often unforgiving game, and a soft and gentle fireside speech does not improve the prospects for success.
The question I asked was intended to be general...but I also wanted it understood that the Saint Liam thread raised the stallion conformation question (in general) in my mind. Regardless...the question was intended to be general...here it is again "if your mare is expected to improve what a stallion has to offer (in this case physically)...why breed to him?"
Sorry if it came off sounding something other than intended. That said...and in response to your question...I offer that if what I've been told about Saint Liam (that he is light-boned and upright) is true...I am suggesting that a physical "flaw" (your word) that I am very concerned about and extremely critical of (particularly on a young and yet unproven stallion) is light-boned. Particularly on a stallion that is (probably it's fair to say) expected to sire sales horses and dirt runners in North America.
I say...he might get the runners, but if they're light-boned individuals, there will probably be a lot of breeders/consignors taking it on the chin at sales time.
You wrote "Every single stallion has physical flaws."
I agree...at least I've never seen a perfect one. Even the possibility is difficult to imagine.
From my perspective, a stallion that is light-boned offers a characteristic that is arguably difficult for many (if not most) mares to overcome. If the mare has bone-mass like tree trunks, and a history of producing foals with plenty of bone, possibly breeding her to a light-boned horse might be just fine (assuming his stud fee and other credentials were to the breeder's satisfaction). In that case it might be worth the risk.
Other than that, I ask, why take the risk that the stallion will dominate, and duplicate his light-bone, especially if the sales arena is the breeder's intended destination? Is it worth the stud fee and related expenses, plus a year in the mare's life, to breed to a stallion with a characteristic that raises such serious concerns?
I suggest, a commercial breeder should do everything within their power to make decisions that enhance chances for success...and the opportunity to profit.
The thoroughbred game...as you know...is not known for being particularly forgiving...that said...light-boned is something that will rarely (if ever) enhance a prospective sale. I cannot recall EVER hearing a prospective buyer saying...'I'm glad your yearling is so light-boned...that's exactly what I'm looking for.'
Few are so privileged to be in a position to ignore or even discount the risks...but if an unproven light-boned and upright stallion appeals to a breeder...and they have their heart set on him...and can afford the risk...I say go for it.
Regardless...I wish Saint Liam and his connections all the success...and look forward to seeing him in the flesh. Until then, all of my comments regarding him are based on heresay (as I previosuly indicated) but from very credible sources.
Best to you.
Respectfully
You wrote "You've singled out St. Liam and highlighted what you believe to be wrong with him. Why choose that horse to denegrate?"
I did not single him out, I just referred to him because his conformation was a topic on another thread that someone else introduced, as I indicated.
Regardless...this is a tough and often unforgiving game, and a soft and gentle fireside speech does not improve the prospects for success.
The question I asked was intended to be general...but I also wanted it understood that the Saint Liam thread raised the stallion conformation question (in general) in my mind. Regardless...the question was intended to be general...here it is again "if your mare is expected to improve what a stallion has to offer (in this case physically)...why breed to him?"
Sorry if it came off sounding something other than intended. That said...and in response to your question...I offer that if what I've been told about Saint Liam (that he is light-boned and upright) is true...I am suggesting that a physical "flaw" (your word) that I am very concerned about and extremely critical of (particularly on a young and yet unproven stallion) is light-boned. Particularly on a stallion that is (probably it's fair to say) expected to sire sales horses and dirt runners in North America.
I say...he might get the runners, but if they're light-boned individuals, there will probably be a lot of breeders/consignors taking it on the chin at sales time.
You wrote "Every single stallion has physical flaws."
I agree...at least I've never seen a perfect one. Even the possibility is difficult to imagine.
From my perspective, a stallion that is light-boned offers a characteristic that is arguably difficult for many (if not most) mares to overcome. If the mare has bone-mass like tree trunks, and a history of producing foals with plenty of bone, possibly breeding her to a light-boned horse might be just fine (assuming his stud fee and other credentials were to the breeder's satisfaction). In that case it might be worth the risk.
Other than that, I ask, why take the risk that the stallion will dominate, and duplicate his light-bone, especially if the sales arena is the breeder's intended destination? Is it worth the stud fee and related expenses, plus a year in the mare's life, to breed to a stallion with a characteristic that raises such serious concerns?
I suggest, a commercial breeder should do everything within their power to make decisions that enhance chances for success...and the opportunity to profit.
The thoroughbred game...as you know...is not known for being particularly forgiving...that said...light-boned is something that will rarely (if ever) enhance a prospective sale. I cannot recall EVER hearing a prospective buyer saying...'I'm glad your yearling is so light-boned...that's exactly what I'm looking for.'
Few are so privileged to be in a position to ignore or even discount the risks...but if an unproven light-boned and upright stallion appeals to a breeder...and they have their heart set on him...and can afford the risk...I say go for it.
Regardless...I wish Saint Liam and his connections all the success...and look forward to seeing him in the flesh. Until then, all of my comments regarding him are based on heresay (as I previosuly indicated) but from very credible sources.
Best to you.
Respectfully
Re: ...why breed to him?
FOS wrote:...if your mare is expected to improve what a stallion has to offer (in this case physically)...why breed to him?
OK, back to the original question. Because breeding is a symbiosis. You hope the stallion can improve on your mare. You hope your mare can improve the stallion.
We've agreed that there aren't any perfect horses, so if it seems reasonable to expect that a stallion is going to help the mare, shouldn't it follow that--in a perfect world, lol--she will help him as well? Of course if this actually worked the way we wanted, we'd all have perfect foals.
Half of Ocala passed on Saint Ballado because of his lousy front legs. I bred 2 mares to him, got one with his front legs and one with his Moms straight legs. Thats what breeding is all about. There are many brilliant stallions out there with major physical flaws. It certainly doesnt mean not to breed to them, but breed selectively. It took amazing faith to breed to Danzig those first few years before his foals set foot on the track. Breeders who did were rewarded with a major stallion. I certainly think there will be very smart breeders using Saint Liam and breeding to him the type mare that he needs. He has much to offer.
Re: ...why breed to him?
hi LSB
I appreciate your comments...and although I agree with your premise in general, I believe there are some conformational flaws and/or defects (as compared to other flaws and/or defects) that scream BEWARE...and all but hoist a warning-flag signifying Danger-Ahead.
Light-boned is one of those BEWARE...Danger-Ahead issues (as far as I'm concerned) that all-too-often buyers seem to respond to like Dracula responds to the sunrise.
Yes buyers will buy light-boned horses...and yes many of them will run...but yes too, all-too-often light-boned horses seem to have a stigma (for lack of a better word) attached and suffer consequences (including financial) at the sales.
Buyers (that prefer to race on the dirt in North America) might settle for a light-boned horse...but arguably will expect to pay less (possibly significantly less) as compared to what a horse with significantly more bone mass (and comparable pedigree) might fetch. With that in mind...isn't it counterproductive (if one intends to breed a dirt horse for the North American market) to breed to a light-boned stallion that arguably is likely to sire a high percentage of light-boned offspring?
If a breeder has Brunhilda the powerhouse heavy-boned warmblood-like thoroughbred mare, with bone mass and legs resembling tree trunks...maybe it's okay to breed her to the light-boned stallion...but otherwise, why venture into such potentially dangerous (and probably unprofitable) territory?
Personally...I'd prefer to use a stallion that I felt confident, offered a strong probability to get a solid...quality...as correct-as-possible individual.
I'd rather have a high probability of getting an exceptional foal by a $15k or $20k (or even less) stallion (that offers what I'm looking for), than risk breeding to a $50k stallion that is light-boned and upright, and I sense offers a probability that I'll get a light-boned and upright foal (out of the same mare).
The exceptional foal by the less expensive stallion could bring a couple of hundred thousand dollars...arguably a light-boned and upright foal by the $50k stallion could bring a fraction of the stud fee. Obviously though, if a breeder gets an exceptional foal by the $50k stallion, the reward could be significant. A simple risk...reward scenario...but arguably (with a light-boned stallion) the odds are probably not very favorable.
As I commented earlier...there is very little room for error in the thoroughbred game, and the breeding-side of the industry (as I am sure you are aware) can be extremely tough and unforgiving, and might test one's limits.
I believe it's wise to make decisions that increase one's chances for success...and leave the stallions that have potential BEWARE...Danger-Ahead conformational flaws and/or defects, to those that a bad result will be of little or no consequence.
Respectfully
LSB wrote:OK, back to the original question. Because breeding is a symbiosis. You hope the stallion can improve on your mare. You hope your mare can improve the stallion.
We've agreed that there aren't any perfect horses, so if it seems reasonable to expect that a stallion is going to help the mare, shouldn't it follow that--in a perfect world, lol--she will help him as well? Of course if this actually worked the way we wanted, we'd all have perfect foals.
I appreciate your comments...and although I agree with your premise in general, I believe there are some conformational flaws and/or defects (as compared to other flaws and/or defects) that scream BEWARE...and all but hoist a warning-flag signifying Danger-Ahead.
Light-boned is one of those BEWARE...Danger-Ahead issues (as far as I'm concerned) that all-too-often buyers seem to respond to like Dracula responds to the sunrise.
Yes buyers will buy light-boned horses...and yes many of them will run...but yes too, all-too-often light-boned horses seem to have a stigma (for lack of a better word) attached and suffer consequences (including financial) at the sales.
Buyers (that prefer to race on the dirt in North America) might settle for a light-boned horse...but arguably will expect to pay less (possibly significantly less) as compared to what a horse with significantly more bone mass (and comparable pedigree) might fetch. With that in mind...isn't it counterproductive (if one intends to breed a dirt horse for the North American market) to breed to a light-boned stallion that arguably is likely to sire a high percentage of light-boned offspring?
If a breeder has Brunhilda the powerhouse heavy-boned warmblood-like thoroughbred mare, with bone mass and legs resembling tree trunks...maybe it's okay to breed her to the light-boned stallion...but otherwise, why venture into such potentially dangerous (and probably unprofitable) territory?
Personally...I'd prefer to use a stallion that I felt confident, offered a strong probability to get a solid...quality...as correct-as-possible individual.
I'd rather have a high probability of getting an exceptional foal by a $15k or $20k (or even less) stallion (that offers what I'm looking for), than risk breeding to a $50k stallion that is light-boned and upright, and I sense offers a probability that I'll get a light-boned and upright foal (out of the same mare).
The exceptional foal by the less expensive stallion could bring a couple of hundred thousand dollars...arguably a light-boned and upright foal by the $50k stallion could bring a fraction of the stud fee. Obviously though, if a breeder gets an exceptional foal by the $50k stallion, the reward could be significant. A simple risk...reward scenario...but arguably (with a light-boned stallion) the odds are probably not very favorable.
As I commented earlier...there is very little room for error in the thoroughbred game, and the breeding-side of the industry (as I am sure you are aware) can be extremely tough and unforgiving, and might test one's limits.
I believe it's wise to make decisions that increase one's chances for success...and leave the stallions that have potential BEWARE...Danger-Ahead conformational flaws and/or defects, to those that a bad result will be of little or no consequence.
Respectfully
halo wrote:Half of Ocala passed on Saint Ballado because of his lousy front legs. I bred 2 mares to him, got one with his front legs and one with his Moms straight legs. Thats what breeding is all about. There are many brilliant stallions out there with major physical flaws. It certainly doesnt mean not to breed to them, but breed selectively. It took amazing faith to breed to Danzig those first few years before his foals set foot on the track. Breeders who did were rewarded with a major stallion. I certainly think there will be very smart breeders using Saint Liam and breeding to him the type mare that he needs. He has much to offer.
True, but when you bred to Saint Ballado he was standing for $2,500 or thereabouts. And what did Danzig stand for his first few years before Chief's Crown etc. hit the track? I'll bet it was under $5,000 at the time.
I'd consider Saint Liam for the right price... but not at $50,000. As I said I'd choose several stallions over SL even if he was offered for under $10,000. I wish him all the luck as well as the people who opt to breed to him. But when it comes to stallions I'm from Missouri... they have to show me something before I believe. Nor do I put much stock into what they did on the racetrack. Many a great runner has proven to be a dud in the breeding shed i.e Citation/Spectacular Bid/Alysheba to name but a few. Even Secretariat left a lot to be desired and was certainly not a sir-of-sires.
Studs like Saint Liam at $50,000, Smarty Jones at $100,000 and Ghostazapper at $200,000 are pure speculative plays. This game is tough enough without speculating. Speculation is for people that have more money than brains which in the racing world makes up a large percent of the upper echelon owners hence the ridiculous fees you see accorded racing's latest retired star.
Re: ...why breed to him?
FOS wrote: I'd rather have a high probability of getting an exceptional foal by a $15k or $20k (or even less) stallion (that offers what I'm looking for), than risk breeding to a $50k stallion that is light-boned and upright, and I sense offers a probability that I'll get a light-boned and upright foal (out of the same mare).
Hey FOS, I appreciate your comments too.
But as I'm sure you realize your "cheaper" stallion is also going to have things wrong with it--faults it might well pass on to your potential sales baby. Unfortunately the sales have become not only a beauty show but also, in a sense, a fashion show. Buyers want what's currently fashionable and will overlook some flaws to get it.
For example, I was always told that two things--back at the knee and long pasterns--were the kiss of death at the sales. Along comes FuPeg with his long pasterns and his tendency to pass them on and, still, the buyers cannot get enough of them. (How those horses ran and/or stayed sound on those long pasterns is another story. ) The buyers knew the horses had a visible flaw but they overlooked it because they wanted those babies. Could be they'll do the same when St. Liam's offspring appear. In fact maybe they'll say to themselves "at least they don't have long pasterns..."
Anyway, my point is, that what constitutes a deal breaker in the world of horse buying is constantly in flux, and what makes a runner seems to have little to do with any of it. For myself, I'd rather have a racehorse with lightish bone that one with long, weak, pasterns.
I should mention that I'm actually not trying to defend St. Liam. I saw him and didn't want to breed to him myself--but that doesn't mean he might not be right for some people and some mares.
halo wrote:Danzig stood his initial years at $20,000, which was about 25 years ago.
I remember when Claiborne announced that. If there had been an Internet back then, some poster's worlds would have spun off their axis. Raced three times, no stakes, unsound, questionable female family for almost as much as they were asking for Gate Dancer or Sunny's Halo. I mean any fool could figure out which stallion to breed to right?
Sysonby wrote:halo wrote:Danzig stood his initial years at $20,000, which was about 25 years ago.
I remember when Claiborne announced that. If there had been an Internet back then, some poster's worlds would have spun off their axis. Raced three times, no stakes, unsound, questionable female family for almost as much as they were asking for Gate Dancer or Sunny's Halo. I mean any fool could figure out which stallion to breed to right?
As we all know Northern Dancer was on FIRE back then so they were able to justify $20,000 for a 3 start horse. Danzig proved to be the rare exception as a stallion who would go on to prove himself as one of the best sires of his generation. But how many don't pan out? Far, far more than do.
A quick look at many of the top sires of the past 10 years and one thing stands out: Many started out at very modest/reasonable fees. Saint Ballado started at under $5,000 as did El Prado. Distorted Humor stood for $10,000 to 12,500 early on as did Elusive Quality. I'll have to look back to see what Dynaformer and Smart Strike stood for initially but I suspect they were both reasonably priced initially.
It appears FuPeg and Giant's Causeway will remain viable at current prices yet there overall numbers are rather ordinary considering the type and number of mares they both received.