MADELYN - My instincts follow similar line as yours in this regard, although looking at the past record of their first / second dams , they themselves were very lightly raced with earning of less than $20K- But later they became excellent producers with numerous winners.
For interest the following are a few of the better lots being displayed;
Doctors Nurse (2005) unraced Kingmambo /Volga . In foal to COOL CAT
Entre Nous 2005 sadlers wells /dayanta.In foal to danehill dancer
Quequena 2004 Anabaa/ querbrada . in foal to lomitas
others (random)
zheni in foal to bahamian bounty
with distinction in foal to echo of light
welsh cake in foal to sahkee
impetious in foal to cockney rebel
tequila brown in foal to oratorio
Broodmares ...
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
hi b2w
And howdee back at ya b2w. Welcome aboard.
In-foal mares at Tatts July aside for a moment...seems (to me anyway) that often at Tattersalls (Nov/Dec sales anyway), broodmare prospects that were non-winners often fetched but a fraction of what their similarly bred/sired counterparts that were winners brought. I've seen it time and time and time again that what I might describe as a premium was often paid for broodmare prospects that were winners (as compared to what was paid for similarly bred/sired broodmare-prospects that were NOT winners, whether raced or unraced),
Re In-Foal mares, there might also be a distinction between what similarly bred/sired In-Foal mares (that were winners) fetched versus what similarly bred/sired In-Foal mares that were NOT winners fetched. And of course, when it comes to In-Foal mares (as compared to broodmare prospects) many factors (as you know) come into play (for starters: the covering sire, the date last bred, the age of the mare, her produce, etc etc etc), but it seems clear (to me anyway) that (at least in the broodmare prospects category) winners often fetch noticeably more (sometimes significantly more) than similarly bred/sired non-winners.
Just an observation that might be worthy of note...particularly if (historically anyway) the same held true/translated when it came to what In-Foal mares that were winners fetched, as compared to what similarly bred/sired In-Foal mares that were NOT winners fetched.
That said...and All Things Considered...a look at previous Tatts sales (and results) of similar offerings (such as are on tap in July) might prove beneficial to you, and possibly offer some perspective (if not insight) as to what you might expect at Tatts July.
It'll be interesting to see how things unfold at both Tatts July...and Nov/Dec.
Best of luck, if you reach in and buy one (or more).
Respectfully.
b2w wrote: Hi everyone..I've been reading this terrific forum for a while now and thought I'd drop in a quick howdee to 'y'all'.
And howdee back at ya b2w. Welcome aboard.
b2w wrote:I have an interest in everything relating to the racing broodmare.
On a related subject an upcoming tattersalls July sale has quite a few 'mares in foal' on offer. Out of the 200 odd such mares majority have been to stallions with a fee of $5000-$20000 range. I've shorted listed about 20 which have a good pedigree but even these are mostly unraced, AND with no previous produce due to a young age.
Reading some of the earlier comments in this thread it seems that these mares would be seen as relatively high risk especially in the absence of a race record by most on this forum.
It would be interesting to find out how you guys view this ... where in most cases perhaps the stallion fees are more than the mare itself.
In-foal mares at Tatts July aside for a moment...seems (to me anyway) that often at Tattersalls (Nov/Dec sales anyway), broodmare prospects that were non-winners often fetched but a fraction of what their similarly bred/sired counterparts that were winners brought. I've seen it time and time and time again that what I might describe as a premium was often paid for broodmare prospects that were winners (as compared to what was paid for similarly bred/sired broodmare-prospects that were NOT winners, whether raced or unraced),
Re In-Foal mares, there might also be a distinction between what similarly bred/sired In-Foal mares (that were winners) fetched versus what similarly bred/sired In-Foal mares that were NOT winners fetched. And of course, when it comes to In-Foal mares (as compared to broodmare prospects) many factors (as you know) come into play (for starters: the covering sire, the date last bred, the age of the mare, her produce, etc etc etc), but it seems clear (to me anyway) that (at least in the broodmare prospects category) winners often fetch noticeably more (sometimes significantly more) than similarly bred/sired non-winners.
Just an observation that might be worthy of note...particularly if (historically anyway) the same held true/translated when it came to what In-Foal mares that were winners fetched, as compared to what similarly bred/sired In-Foal mares that were NOT winners fetched.
That said...and All Things Considered...a look at previous Tatts sales (and results) of similar offerings (such as are on tap in July) might prove beneficial to you, and possibly offer some perspective (if not insight) as to what you might expect at Tatts July.
It'll be interesting to see how things unfold at both Tatts July...and Nov/Dec.
Best of luck, if you reach in and buy one (or more).
Respectfully.
-
Bunty Lawless
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:05 pm
mikec wrote:Assuming you put any faith in either Tesio or Joseph Estes ( American thoroughbred review ) they each have conflicting points of view on the subject.
Tesio : Felt like unraced mares had an advantage over extremely successful race mares as the unraced mare has it's " nervous energy " still intact vs. leaving it all on the track. Don't know if he got this one right or not but who am I to argue with him ? He also liked out of favor stallions & I definitely won't argue with him there.
Estes : Put together some pretty persuasive statistics in favor of the " successful " race mare but, if he had to make a choice would pick the unraced mare over the unsuccessful race mare. Guess one needs to define " unsuccessful ".
I wonder if there is a place where you can actually look up the ratio of unraced mares responsible for the success of any particular good broodmare sire ?
I tend to agree with the logic of Tesio. Can't argue much with his success either. Then there is the ever present reminder of some of the great racemares that could never come close to reproducing themselves and some couldn't produce much better than a cheap claimer could:
Princess Rooney
Genuine Risk
Paseana
Bayakoa
Just a few of the great racemares that were not the same in the breeding shed as they were on the track. I do believe Tesio had his finger on it. The nervous energy was all used up in these great mares.
-
SemparQuel
- Maiden Special Weight
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:37 am
Here you can find an interesting opinion about the matter.
http://www.hammersmithhillthoroughbreds ... earch.html
http://www.hammersmithhillthoroughbreds ... earch.html
Hi SemparQuel,
Thanks for the link. I read both articles and looked at the site that gives information about the horses that they've bred and sold.
I'd advise that the articles are opinions and for the most part Mr. Brewer makes statements as 'fact' without real research other than the opinions that he's formed.
Danzig and Mr. Prospector are used as examples of sires that succeeded without 'top notch race records' because Mr. Brewer feels that they were from strong sire lines and had 'outstanding families'. Danzig's family was weak.
The point of his first article is that you can breed to race and sell if you choose your stallions carefully. That's not supported by the prices that his foals sold for. His farms' latest crop (that's listed) feature foals by more high profile sires but the sales results remained about the same as in past years, (about) $5,000 per foal. No one can make money at those prices.
In the second article, THE TRUTH ABOUT BLACK-TYPE, Mr. Brewer surveyed the top 124 WA-bred career earners. With respect I'd suggest that a study of this type have a broader base.
27% of the horses on his list are out of non-winning (or non-starting) mares while 25% are out of black-type mares and thus he concludes that mare performance isn't a determining factor in foal success. This ignores the fact that statistically about 50% of all mares would be non-winners and only about 10% would have black-type. From his data I can reasonably conclude that the black-type mares outperformed by (about) 250% and the others were only 50% as good as the average and that's 5x better performance by the BT mares.
I have no bone to pick with Mr.Brewer but I wanted to point out that in the thoroughbred business we should question everything. Simply because someone (including me) has taken the time to write an article doesn't make it illuminated or factual.
Regards,
Pete
Thanks for the link. I read both articles and looked at the site that gives information about the horses that they've bred and sold.
I'd advise that the articles are opinions and for the most part Mr. Brewer makes statements as 'fact' without real research other than the opinions that he's formed.
Danzig and Mr. Prospector are used as examples of sires that succeeded without 'top notch race records' because Mr. Brewer feels that they were from strong sire lines and had 'outstanding families'. Danzig's family was weak.
The point of his first article is that you can breed to race and sell if you choose your stallions carefully. That's not supported by the prices that his foals sold for. His farms' latest crop (that's listed) feature foals by more high profile sires but the sales results remained about the same as in past years, (about) $5,000 per foal. No one can make money at those prices.
In the second article, THE TRUTH ABOUT BLACK-TYPE, Mr. Brewer surveyed the top 124 WA-bred career earners. With respect I'd suggest that a study of this type have a broader base.
27% of the horses on his list are out of non-winning (or non-starting) mares while 25% are out of black-type mares and thus he concludes that mare performance isn't a determining factor in foal success. This ignores the fact that statistically about 50% of all mares would be non-winners and only about 10% would have black-type. From his data I can reasonably conclude that the black-type mares outperformed by (about) 250% and the others were only 50% as good as the average and that's 5x better performance by the BT mares.
I have no bone to pick with Mr.Brewer but I wanted to point out that in the thoroughbred business we should question everything. Simply because someone (including me) has taken the time to write an article doesn't make it illuminated or factual.
Regards,
Pete
Has a palomino jean that pop up some.
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
Hi Folks,
The mares on SimEngineers' list have (approximate) average of >$10,000 per start and median earnings of $7,700 per start. That's very high indeed. Just an example, Trickski was a minor BT winner ($37k in 21 starts) but she's from a good BT percentage family (above average).
I hand write several hundred pedigrees every year because it gives me greater insight to the success of a family.
When I look up breeding mares in a family that have weaker (or no) race record I'm surprised if they're BT producers and surprised if the BT mares aren't. I expect that the BT mares will have been bred to better stallions and that they will also produce better foals.
I insist (of myself) that I understand what I can know as fact and what I can't. Don't accept unqualified statistics that pretend to show that race performance isn't a strong indicator of potential. There's a reason that these BT mares sell at high premiums.
When you read that BT mares produced 25% of the SW from a particular group the first question that you must ask is what percentage of the breeding population were they? Since 3% of all foals win stakes races (of all kinds) it’s probable that around 10%-12% of any breeding population have BT.
Someone listed 4 top race mares (on another thread?) that were weak producers including Bayakoa and Genuine Risk. There are always exceptions but they don’t prove the rule. Personal Ensign, Weekend Surprise, Toussaud and Hasili are superlative broodmares that support the rule.
Understand your stock, don’t make excuses for them. Upgrade when possible to mares that have superior conformation and performance records (on the track and in the shed). Pedigree is a price amplifier that you pay dearly for so buy it when you can. It costs as much to keep a weak mare as a good one.
Regards,
Pete
The mares on SimEngineers' list have (approximate) average of >$10,000 per start and median earnings of $7,700 per start. That's very high indeed. Just an example, Trickski was a minor BT winner ($37k in 21 starts) but she's from a good BT percentage family (above average).
I hand write several hundred pedigrees every year because it gives me greater insight to the success of a family.
When I look up breeding mares in a family that have weaker (or no) race record I'm surprised if they're BT producers and surprised if the BT mares aren't. I expect that the BT mares will have been bred to better stallions and that they will also produce better foals.
I insist (of myself) that I understand what I can know as fact and what I can't. Don't accept unqualified statistics that pretend to show that race performance isn't a strong indicator of potential. There's a reason that these BT mares sell at high premiums.
When you read that BT mares produced 25% of the SW from a particular group the first question that you must ask is what percentage of the breeding population were they? Since 3% of all foals win stakes races (of all kinds) it’s probable that around 10%-12% of any breeding population have BT.
Someone listed 4 top race mares (on another thread?) that were weak producers including Bayakoa and Genuine Risk. There are always exceptions but they don’t prove the rule. Personal Ensign, Weekend Surprise, Toussaud and Hasili are superlative broodmares that support the rule.
Understand your stock, don’t make excuses for them. Upgrade when possible to mares that have superior conformation and performance records (on the track and in the shed). Pedigree is a price amplifier that you pay dearly for so buy it when you can. It costs as much to keep a weak mare as a good one.
Regards,
Pete
Has a palomino jean that pop up some.
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
-
Simengineer
- Yearling
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:20 am
- Location: Colorado Springs
Pete wrote:Pedigree is a price amplifier...
That is brilliant!
And all statistics can be manipulated to support any bias. I find myself trying very hard to present my accumulated data as is, with out putting my own personal spin on it. But then I've already done that simply by choosing the 100 mares on the list. It's like sorting a pit of vipers. But I love gathering data, so I do it anyway.
In regards to unraced mares vs. unsuccessfully raced mares, I'm reminded of the saying: Better to remain silent and appear the fool, then open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Anger is never without a reason, but seldom with a good one. ~Benjamin Franklin
Thanks for the welcome /howdees. 
As suggested to me I have been looking thru the 2007 sales results at tattersalls site www.tattersalls.com
( by going to Sales &Results >advanced search > 2007 / mares ).
It seems buyers at these auctions are paying tens of thousands dollars for the pedigrees alone (with no or little race records) and are paying hefty premiums on top of that for mares with good race record.
Those that can afford it are buying as much pedigree AND race records as they can.
On a positive note SOME broodmares with no / little racing history, are going on to become valued producers of BT's.
As suggested to me I have been looking thru the 2007 sales results at tattersalls site www.tattersalls.com
( by going to Sales &Results >advanced search > 2007 / mares ).
It seems buyers at these auctions are paying tens of thousands dollars for the pedigrees alone (with no or little race records) and are paying hefty premiums on top of that for mares with good race record.
Those that can afford it are buying as much pedigree AND race records as they can.
On a positive note SOME broodmares with no / little racing history, are going on to become valued producers of BT's.
http://www.vicstallions.com.au/specialbond_family.htm
Eight Carat was unplaced herself as a racehorse but is a half sister to the champion Habibti, one of the greatest female sprinters of all time.
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=kla ... eken&meta=
Eight Carat was unplaced herself as a racehorse but is a half sister to the champion Habibti, one of the greatest female sprinters of all time.
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=kla ... eken&meta=
Here's something more specific to the topic:
http://www.thoroughbredreview.com/MythoftheFamily.htm
Avalyn Hunter did a similar study that can be found in the 9/16/05 issue of MarketWatch which also gave the edge to performance over pedigree.
http://www.thoroughbredreview.com/MythoftheFamily.htm
Avalyn Hunter did a similar study that can be found in the 9/16/05 issue of MarketWatch which also gave the edge to performance over pedigree.
-
Simengineer
- Yearling
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:20 am
- Location: Colorado Springs
breed averages
Sorry to bring this one up again... 
In Joe Este's Average Earning Index (AEI) they use a ' breed average ' figure. Where does one get this figure? ( total earnings by all racehorses for the year divided by the number of starts in that year).
I'm wondering whether bloodhorse.com or other organisation would publish this somewhere.
B2W
In Joe Este's Average Earning Index (AEI) they use a ' breed average ' figure. Where does one get this figure? ( total earnings by all racehorses for the year divided by the number of starts in that year).
I'm wondering whether bloodhorse.com or other organisation would publish this somewhere.
B2W