DDT: It was a good article and mt-DNA is an important factor in providing a horse with the needed energy to win at long distances. Family 1 and 23b are the best at generating Derby winners.
By the way, the winner of the Fountain of Youth, Wildcat Red and the show horse Top Billing both have Buckpasser in the X passing position.
My research has shown that Buckpasser in the X when combined with another handicapping angle creates an excellent betting tool for the Ky Derby.
Secretariat and Buckpasser
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster, Lucy
Stan
Yes, I was aware that both Wildcat Red and Top Billing have Buckpasser in an X passing position, I was focused on Commissioner because he has Buckpasser in the X passing position directly from his broodmare sire which did not seem to help him much, did it, and I might add that several other horses that had him in the X passing position ran in various races and did not win those races. As far as I am concerned you can keep your Derby handicapping formula because there are just too many holes in it for my taste.
DDT
Yes, I was aware that both Wildcat Red and Top Billing have Buckpasser in an X passing position, I was focused on Commissioner because he has Buckpasser in the X passing position directly from his broodmare sire which did not seem to help him much, did it, and I might add that several other horses that had him in the X passing position ran in various races and did not win those races. As far as I am concerned you can keep your Derby handicapping formula because there are just too many holes in it for my taste.
DDT
formula
DDT: Did you ever actually look at the angle that I developed in my book regarding Buckpasser for use on the Kentucky Derby, Preakness and Belmont Stakes that have strong impact values and strong ROIs for all three legs of the Triple Crown. If you are going to degrade my angle that I had published in my book at least show evidence to why you think it is a bad angle. Do you know what the details of my angle were?
It is easy for one to say that my angle has too many holes in it but it is quite another to point out its fallacies with factual evidence.
It is easy for one to say that my angle has too many holes in it but it is quite another to point out its fallacies with factual evidence.
Stan
First off I want to apologize if in any manner I degraded your book or your methods. Yes, I read the entire book and impact values have their place in handicapping even if there are many avenues utilized to reach and take advantage of those values. I would hope that we all try to remain civil during our discussions, and I am very pleased with our progress concerning the subject at hand. I posted earlier that I was glad to see you using the term "maybe", however, in the book you did not present the information concerning Buckpasser in the X passing position and the X factor in that manner and one could easily believe that your opinion is actually factual when in reality it is an opinion. Again, I did not mean to degrade your latest book and if it came out that way, I am sorry that it did.
DDT
First off I want to apologize if in any manner I degraded your book or your methods. Yes, I read the entire book and impact values have their place in handicapping even if there are many avenues utilized to reach and take advantage of those values. I would hope that we all try to remain civil during our discussions, and I am very pleased with our progress concerning the subject at hand. I posted earlier that I was glad to see you using the term "maybe", however, in the book you did not present the information concerning Buckpasser in the X passing position and the X factor in that manner and one could easily believe that your opinion is actually factual when in reality it is an opinion. Again, I did not mean to degrade your latest book and if it came out that way, I am sorry that it did.
DDT
The X of Bold Ruler
To All: Bold Ruler was the leading North American sire 8 times. He fathered 11 champions and is the sire of 356 offspring. 82 of those 356 were stakes winners which gave him a phenomenal percentage of stakes winners to foals of 23%. His AEI (average earnings index as a sire) was a fantastic 7.73.
However, as a broodmare sire he was certainly less than spectacular. In the 1995 Stallion Directory of the Blood Horse he is listed as follows: His daughters to that point had mothered 1,547 foals and 119 stakes winners which translates into 7.7% stakes winners from foals and an AEI of 1.96). Respectable but by no means anywhere near his extraordinary 23% stakes winners as a sire and an AEI of 7.73.
Any student of pedigree will agree with the idea that Bold Ruler certainly had Genetic Traits on his Autosomes that were superlative and he stood at Claiborne Farm where the best mares were brought to him year after year. Yet in spite of that he NEVER led the broodmare sire list in North America. He led the sire list 8 times but as a Broodmare sire he was never the leader. How come?
One good hypothesis to explain his weakness as a broodmare sire was his X chromosome. It simply was not superlative like his autosomes.
If it is true that the X chromosome at best only plays a minor role in broodmare sire success (As Pan Zareta keeps stating) then how come this great sire, Bold Ruler, never led the broodmare sire list?
However, as a broodmare sire he was certainly less than spectacular. In the 1995 Stallion Directory of the Blood Horse he is listed as follows: His daughters to that point had mothered 1,547 foals and 119 stakes winners which translates into 7.7% stakes winners from foals and an AEI of 1.96). Respectable but by no means anywhere near his extraordinary 23% stakes winners as a sire and an AEI of 7.73.
Any student of pedigree will agree with the idea that Bold Ruler certainly had Genetic Traits on his Autosomes that were superlative and he stood at Claiborne Farm where the best mares were brought to him year after year. Yet in spite of that he NEVER led the broodmare sire list in North America. He led the sire list 8 times but as a Broodmare sire he was never the leader. How come?
One good hypothesis to explain his weakness as a broodmare sire was his X chromosome. It simply was not superlative like his autosomes.
If it is true that the X chromosome at best only plays a minor role in broodmare sire success (As Pan Zareta keeps stating) then how come this great sire, Bold Ruler, never led the broodmare sire list?
-
Pan Zareta
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2074
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
- Location: west TX boonies
Re: The X of Bold Ruler
stancaris wrote:One good hypothesis to explain [Bold Ruler's] weakness as a broodmare sire was his X chromosome. It simply was not superlative like his autosomes.
The gaping hole in this reasoning is that a favorable variant on Buckpasser's x that's of more than minor relevance to performance, and therefore to broodmare sire success, ought to be apparent in a comparison of the performance of his and Bold Ruler's daughters. Both horses were elite performers, champions, HoF. Both entered stud at the same farm in the top tier of the TB breeding population and stayed there all their lives. Their books were of the same size and outstanding quality. In other words, the environmental factors were about as close to identical as it gets but in 13 seasons Bold Ruler got more than double the number of blacktype daughters that Buckpasser got in 11 seasons.
Not exactly supportive of the notion of Bold Ruler's x being a "weakness". The more impartial and informative query in this regard is not why was he never at the very pinnacle of the North American broodmare sire list, it's how often was he close to it.
bold ruler's autosomes
Pan Zareta wrote:
"in 13 seasons Bold Ruler got more than double the number of blacktop daughters that Buckpasser got in 11 seasons."
Even though Bold Ruler had double the amount of stakes winning daughters as Buckpasser, these superlative daughters could never produce offspring that would earn enough cash to elevate Bold Ruler to the top of the broodmare sire list even for one year. His average earnings index as a broodmare sire was only 1.96 as compared to Buckpasser's AEI of 3.23.
The extraordinary autosomes of Bold Ruler were NEVER good enough by themselves to make him the leading broodmare sire in North America. But those super autosomes did make him the leading sire 8 times
The X chromosome does not just play a minor role at best in broodmare sire success.
"in 13 seasons Bold Ruler got more than double the number of blacktop daughters that Buckpasser got in 11 seasons."
Even though Bold Ruler had double the amount of stakes winning daughters as Buckpasser, these superlative daughters could never produce offspring that would earn enough cash to elevate Bold Ruler to the top of the broodmare sire list even for one year. His average earnings index as a broodmare sire was only 1.96 as compared to Buckpasser's AEI of 3.23.
The extraordinary autosomes of Bold Ruler were NEVER good enough by themselves to make him the leading broodmare sire in North America. But those super autosomes did make him the leading sire 8 times
The X chromosome does not just play a minor role at best in broodmare sire success.
Pan and Stan
I have enjoyed the interchange between Pan Zareta and Stancaris. Both are fervent in their opinions, both distain the others opinion. What is most admirable about both is that they do not personalize the discussion and revert to name calling. You are a great example of how it should be done. Congrats to both.
Give the Pope and the King of England a horse and in thirty days, they'll be stealing halters.
Stan
If you look at how Bold Ruler managed to top the leading sires list 7 times in a row and one more time in Secretariat's Triple Crown year of 73, you would note that the majority of his big money makers were 2 year olds. His record as a sire of sires yields just two sons that managed to be leading sires. Progeny earnings are not reliable as a source to determine success or failure. Even Buckpasser had high individual earners the 4 times that he led the broodmare sires list. Are you forgetting the fact that a broodmare only passes about 25% of their sire's autosomes on to their foals. The list of superior runners that have failed as a sire or broodmare sire, or both, is a very long list. Do you actually believe that any stallion that carries a super X, if there is such a thing, will eventually become a leading broodmare sire?
DDT
If you look at how Bold Ruler managed to top the leading sires list 7 times in a row and one more time in Secretariat's Triple Crown year of 73, you would note that the majority of his big money makers were 2 year olds. His record as a sire of sires yields just two sons that managed to be leading sires. Progeny earnings are not reliable as a source to determine success or failure. Even Buckpasser had high individual earners the 4 times that he led the broodmare sires list. Are you forgetting the fact that a broodmare only passes about 25% of their sire's autosomes on to their foals. The list of superior runners that have failed as a sire or broodmare sire, or both, is a very long list. Do you actually believe that any stallion that carries a super X, if there is such a thing, will eventually become a leading broodmare sire?
DDT
explain why?
DDT: In 13 seasons Bold Ruler got more than twice as many black type daughters as did Buckpasser in 11 seasons.
OK, then how come Bold Ruler NEVER led the Broodmare Sire List in North America? His autosomes were extraordinary but despite the fact that he begot more than twice as many black type daughters as did Buckpasser he could not ascend to the top of the broodmare sire list. In addition, Bold Ruler's AEI as a broodmare sire was only 1.96 whereas the great Broodmare sire, Buckpasser, has an AEI of 3.23 and led the broodmare sire list 4 times.
Pan Zareta says that at best the X chromosome plays only a minor role in broodmare sire success. If that is truly the case, then Bold Ruler certainly should have have become the broodmare sire leader at least a few times but he never did. His numerous black type daughters could not elevate him to that place despite transmitting superlative autosomal genes.
The X chromosome plays more than a minor role in broodmare sire success.
OK, then how come Bold Ruler NEVER led the Broodmare Sire List in North America? His autosomes were extraordinary but despite the fact that he begot more than twice as many black type daughters as did Buckpasser he could not ascend to the top of the broodmare sire list. In addition, Bold Ruler's AEI as a broodmare sire was only 1.96 whereas the great Broodmare sire, Buckpasser, has an AEI of 3.23 and led the broodmare sire list 4 times.
Pan Zareta says that at best the X chromosome plays only a minor role in broodmare sire success. If that is truly the case, then Bold Ruler certainly should have have become the broodmare sire leader at least a few times but he never did. His numerous black type daughters could not elevate him to that place despite transmitting superlative autosomal genes.
The X chromosome plays more than a minor role in broodmare sire success.
bold rulers X vs Buckpassers X
Here is a very interesting analysis: In the last 41 Kentucky Derbies there were 5 winners that carried Buckpasser in the X passing position:
Orb ----------2013
Super Saver 2010
Funny Cide 2003
Real Quiet 1998
Unbridled 1990
In the last 41 years there were also 8 place finishers that carried Buckpasser in the X passing position:
Bodemeister----2012
Empire Maker--2003
Aptitude---------2000
Cavonnier-------1996
Tejano Run------1995
Prairie Bayou----1993
Summer Squall -1990
Easy Goer -------1989
That brings the total to 13 runners that either finished first or second in the Ky Derby who had Buckpasser in the X passing position.
Looking at Bold Ruler for the last 41 years we find only 2 Derby winners that carried Bold Ruler in the X passing position:
Orb --------2013
Funny Cide-2003
and only one who finished second---Prairie Bayou in 1993.
Over the last 41 years the score is 13 to 3 in favor of Buckpasser in regard to winners and place finishers in the X passing position.
Buckpasser's influence in the X passing position is significantly stronger than Bold Ruler's in America's most famous race.
Buckpasser's daughters and their descendants have had a much greater influence on the breed than Bold Ruler's daughters.
Orb ----------2013
Super Saver 2010
Funny Cide 2003
Real Quiet 1998
Unbridled 1990
In the last 41 years there were also 8 place finishers that carried Buckpasser in the X passing position:
Bodemeister----2012
Empire Maker--2003
Aptitude---------2000
Cavonnier-------1996
Tejano Run------1995
Prairie Bayou----1993
Summer Squall -1990
Easy Goer -------1989
That brings the total to 13 runners that either finished first or second in the Ky Derby who had Buckpasser in the X passing position.
Looking at Bold Ruler for the last 41 years we find only 2 Derby winners that carried Bold Ruler in the X passing position:
Orb --------2013
Funny Cide-2003
and only one who finished second---Prairie Bayou in 1993.
Over the last 41 years the score is 13 to 3 in favor of Buckpasser in regard to winners and place finishers in the X passing position.
Buckpasser's influence in the X passing position is significantly stronger than Bold Ruler's in America's most famous race.
Buckpasser's daughters and their descendants have had a much greater influence on the breed than Bold Ruler's daughters.
Stan
It is understandable that Haun and you and many others point to the power of the X chromosome as the reason for great broodmare success when in fact it could be the work of maternally imprinted genes carried on all of the chromosomes in the female. Ongoing genetic science has not substantiated the presence of "super genes" on the X going to heart size. It is the overall contribution from the mare, and not just the genes carried on the X that dictate success or failure as a broodmare, not to mention the contribution of the covering sire. It appears to me that the genes carried on the X are not a primary factor in broodmare sire success but the work of maternally imprinted genes carried on all of the chromosomes.
DDT
It is understandable that Haun and you and many others point to the power of the X chromosome as the reason for great broodmare success when in fact it could be the work of maternally imprinted genes carried on all of the chromosomes in the female. Ongoing genetic science has not substantiated the presence of "super genes" on the X going to heart size. It is the overall contribution from the mare, and not just the genes carried on the X that dictate success or failure as a broodmare, not to mention the contribution of the covering sire. It appears to me that the genes carried on the X are not a primary factor in broodmare sire success but the work of maternally imprinted genes carried on all of the chromosomes.
DDT
-
Pan Zareta
- Breeder's Cup Winner
- Posts: 2074
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:55 am
- Location: west TX boonies
DDT wrote:It is understandable that Haun and you and many others point to the power of the X chromosome as the reason for great broodmare success when in fact it could be the work of maternally imprinted genes carried on all of the chromosomes in the female. Ongoing genetic science has not substantiated the presence of "super genes" on the X going to heart size. It is the overall contribution from the mare, and not just the genes carried on the X that dictate success or failure as a broodmare, not to mention the contribution of the covering sire. It appears to me that the genes carried on the X are not a primary factor in broodmare sire success but the work of maternally imprinted genes carried on all of the chromosomes.
I agree. A scenario involving one or more autosomal variants relevant to elite performance that are expressed only if inherited from the dam seems to be the one that fits best with not only the genome-based information that's been reported but also with the circumstantial evidence, the fact that Buckpasser's daughters didn't outperform his sons any more than they outperformed Bold Ruler's daus., yet their produce earned their sire an unexpectedly high broodmare sire AEI.