Louis's Blog on Inbreeding
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster, Lucy
-
louis finochio
- Darley line
- Posts: 9181
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:21 am
- Location: Alhambra-Calif.
- Contact:
It is unnecessary for any pedigree to reach further back than the g-g grandparents, although many of us can trace the pedigrees of our families back to the 1900s. Top racing performances of tbs back to the 6th, 7th generations would have no bearing on the quality of the last generation. Too many tbs are admired, because they had a brillant ancestor some 6 or 7 generations in their background.
Those without sin cast the first stone.
Louis Finochio
Louis Finochio
louis finochio wrote:It is unnecessary for any pedigree to reach further back than the g-g grandparents, although many of us can trace the pedigrees of our families back to the 1900s. Top racing performances of tbs back to the 6th, 7th generations would have no bearing on the quality of the last generation. Too many tbs are admired, because they had a brillant ancestor some 6 or 7 generations in their background.
I don't think I have come across anyone in the TB game who does this, although such flakey thinking exists in other breeds. Most TBs have stellar ancestors in the 6th and 7th generations, and plenty of them.
-
pfrsue
- Grade III Winner
- Posts: 1079
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: You can't get there from here.
louis finochio wrote:It is unnecessary for any pedigree to reach further back than the g-g grandparents, although many of us can trace the pedigrees of our families back to the 1900s. Top racing performances of tbs back to the 6th, 7th generations would have no bearing on the quality of the last generation. Too many tbs are admired, because they had a brillant ancestor some 6 or 7 generations in their background.
...
Actually pretty much everyone can trace their pedigree back to the 1900's. It was still the 1900's twelve years ago.
In any case, doesn't Phalaris go back at least as far as the 6th or 7th generation in most Thoroughbred pedigrees? So that means he has "no bearing on the quality" of the current generation, right?
pfrsue wrote:In any case, doesn't Phalaris go back at least as far as the 6th or 7th generation in most Thoroughbred pedigrees? So that means he has "no bearing on the quality" of the current generation, right?
According to Louis, sometimes Phalaris matters and sometimes he does not. Descent from Phalaris by way of Phalaris daughters in the 6th generation does not matter, for example, although of course, genetically it does. DNA has to come from somewhere.
Mostly, from what I have been able to extract IF a horse is inbred to some of the usual suspects AND has a number of male line crosses to Phalaris AND has lightly raced ancestors in the first three generations AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, has themself hardly raced, then he is an example of a Louis Fashion Bred. If he was a good racehorse, and raced a lot and distinguished himself, then his quality is due to any non-Phalaris lines in his pedigree, and he is a Louis Non-Fashion Bred--BUT this "system" has no predictive capability--a horse has to reveal himself. So one brother could be a FB and the other a NFB...
Bast wrote:louis finochio wrote:It is unnecessary for any pedigree to reach further back than the g-g grandparents, although many of us can trace the pedigrees of our families back to the 1900s. Top racing performances of tbs back to the 6th, 7th generations would have no bearing on the quality of the last generation. Too many tbs are admired, because they had a brillant ancestor some 6 or 7 generations in their background.
I don't think I have come across anyone in the TB game who does this, although such flakey thinking exists in other breeds. Most TBs have stellar ancestors in the 6th and 7th generations, and plenty of them.
Many of the best pedigree advisers do this. Especially when there is a "critical" mass(way above the norm) build up of a superior ancestor or cross. Just sayin. I think there is some validity to it.
What I mean is a few crosses of the same thing 6 or 7 generations back doesn't mean squat but say, 7 or more is a big deal.
-
kimberley mine
- Breeder's Cup Contender
- Posts: 1811
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:43 pm
diomed wrote:
Many of the best pedigree advisers do this. Especially when there is a "critical" mass(way above the norm) build up of a superior ancestor or cross. Just sayin. I think there is some validity to it.
What I mean is a few crosses of the same thing 6 or 7 generations back doesn't mean squat but say, 7 or more is a big deal.
Well, the whole point of in/linebreeding is to reinforce superior traits by a superior ancestor. The more crosses to a particular ancestor a horse has, the higher the likelihood that those traits will be in the mix, particularly if that ancestor was very prepotent.
Look at what happens when you cross Holy Bull and Blushing Groom. The crosses to Lady Josephine stack up, a LOT, and you get a superior runner.
kimberley mine wrote:diomed wrote:
Many of the best pedigree advisers do this. Especially when there is a "critical" mass(way above the norm) build up of a superior ancestor or cross. Just sayin. I think there is some validity to it.
What I mean is a few crosses of the same thing 6 or 7 generations back doesn't mean squat but say, 7 or more is a big deal.
Well, the whole point of in/linebreeding is to reinforce superior traits by a superior ancestor. The more crosses to a particular ancestor a horse has, the higher the likelihood that those traits will be in the mix, particularly if that ancestor was very prepotent.
Look at what happens when you cross Holy Bull and Blushing Groom. The crosses to Lady Josephine stack up, a LOT, and you get a superior runner.
Exactly. Which it is very important to spot these patterns with horses pedigrees. Sometimes you do have to look past the 5th generation. I am always scanning the 6 and 7 gen. It gives you a much bigger picture.
The fun part comes when you get someone going on about a stallion being the cause of every problem known to mankind, who was breeding a hundred or more years ago, then telling you that he only looks 3 generations back. Nothing like consistency. Half the time he contradicts himself in the same sentence.
-
louis finochio
- Darley line
- Posts: 9181
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:21 am
- Location: Alhambra-Calif.
- Contact:
When studying pedigrees, we must always search for the cross. I am referring to pedigrees of line-bred families. If you Inbred you must always use a cross from time to time, & it is important for the breeder to know just when & where it was Introduced.
No tb line-breeder would use an unrelated stallion in his breeding program. Second we see that the cross was made on the Tail or Female side.
to continue.
No tb line-breeder would use an unrelated stallion in his breeding program. Second we see that the cross was made on the Tail or Female side.
to continue.
Those without sin cast the first stone.
Louis Finochio
Louis Finochio
louis finochio wrote:When studying pedigrees, we must always search for the cross. I am referring to pedigrees of line-bred families. If you Inbred you must always use a cross from time to time, & it is important for the breeder to know just when & where it was Introduced.
No tb line-breeder would use an unrelated stallion in his breeding program. Second we see that the cross was made on the Tail or Female side.
to continue.
For a while, you were telling us about crosses to Phalaris in male line descent, and then numbers of starts in the first 14 ancestors, and now it's all about "the cross".
Good luck with that. On paper, the crossings of full siblings can look the same but they are not. Each sibling represents a different outcome of the genetic chance-taking, and they are NOT equivalent.