Pedigree Query

From Bagdad's pedigree ...
DP = 26-4-6-0-0 (36) DI = 11.00 CD = 1.56
???

And in his info ... it says placed 2nd in Belmont S. Is that the Belmont Stakes?

RavenSuesMom1 wrote:From Bagdad's pedigree ...
DP = 26-4-6-0-0 (36) DI = 11.00 CD = 1.56
???

That's the Dosage Profile, Index & Center of Distribution, info for predicting aptitude based upon the significant sires, 'Chefs de Race', in a pedigree.
See http://www.chef-de-race.com.

And in his info ... it says placed 2nd in Belmont S. Is that the Belmont Stakes?

Yes. Bagdad ran 2nd to Sword Dancer in the '59 Belmont - which illustrates the flaw of taking into consideration only the significant males in a pedigree. By dosage, 12f should have been beyond the range at which Bagdad was most competitive. His conduit mare profile (the figures just underneath his pedigree in the db here) is more predictive of Bagdad's accomplishments, but even that suggests optimal distance <12f.

Thanks Pan -- went to the site and read all about it. It's kewl.

And it would seem with Bagdad that not considering the mares did make a difference.

Where is the conduit mare profile? I don;t see anything below his pedigree??

Bagdad's dam was by the Epsom Derby winner and important stamina influence Blue Peter, a "notable omission" non-chef.

Factoring in Blue Peter as perhaps a Solid chef (just my hunch, based on a number of BP's good sire sons in Australia and New Zealand) would alter Bagdad's DP significantly and go some way to explain his ability to stay 12 f.

Since the conduit mare profiles are based on the designations springing from mares foaled no earlier that 1900, you will get a false reading on the older horses. If there is no conduit mare, the designation reverts to "C". Not a good tool for any horse foaled before 1965 or so.

Bill

Bill from WA wrote:Since the conduit mare profiles are based on the designations springing from mares foaled no earlier that 1900, you will get a false reading on the older horses. If there is no conduit mare, the designation reverts to "C". Not a good tool for any horse foaled before 1965 or so.

Bill

Sorry Bill,

Must ref: to heritage......... please check!!!!!!!!!

Your's Siegy,

Siegy

I don't understand what you are asking me to check, since the conduit mare profiles are a product of my own creation, and application of the profiles don't have anything to do with your interpretions, I can't figure out what you are questioning. I respect your research, but our two views are just apples and oranges as far as I can figure out (you have never lucidly expained how you arrive at your determinations, at least as far as I have been able to grasp. I may just be too stupid.)

Respectfully,

Bill

Bill from WA wrote:Siegy

I don't understand what you are asking me to check, since the conduit mare profiles are a product of my own creation, and application of the profiles don't have anything to do with your interpretions, I can't figure out what you are questioning. I respect your research, but our two views are just apples and oranges as far as I can figure out (you have never lucidly expained how you arrive at your determinations, at least as far as I have been able to grasp. I may just be too stupid.)

Respectfully,

Bill

Hi Bill,

wow, never Q' your conduit mares, as I, said to you before, so be it.
I'am only intersted to get down to the true state of female imortant's of
older (300 year-old) mare's.
paper's are on line at heritage that mention these.

Respectfully,
Siegy,

My apologies.

Bill

Bill from WA wrote:My apologies.

Bill

Hi Bill,

Excepted!!!

Your's Siegy