Several things are operating to produce these numbers.
Since 1950, the population of TBs has increased a lot. Supposedly, the ideal in breeding is to try to upgrade one's mare with a better stallion, and cull the hopelessly slow or poorly made mares. Instead, just about every mare tends to be bred, no matter how lacking in racing merit, and so are most stallions. I think there has been a huge increase in mediocrity.
Just about any stallion you can think of with a reputation of siring unsound horses probably has some gelded sons who made a lot of starts.
I recall a piece in the Blood-horse in the 1960s entitled, "Whatever Happened to Planned Parenthood?" The same question is valid today.
Why don't Derby preps "mirror" distance of the Der
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
-
kimberley mine
- Breeder's Cup Contender
- Posts: 1811
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:43 pm
Delta,
Two things with that graph....first, unclear words on my part--I was referring to "average horse" as your ham-and-eggs claimer, as in a nice average horse, and not either too slow to run or at the top of the heap. Second, that graph is average number of starts per horse per year. It says nothing about average lifetime career starts.
Horses who are too slow to win a race (or are not interested in racing) attrite quickly, usually after about 3-5 races. Go to Canter or Rerun and you'll find horse after horse who is nice enough but just too slow to be worth spending all that money on, including several who went into training but never even raced. Horses who are making money generally keep racing. There's a post I started some time ago following a group of horses from a Keeneland sale--it shows that there are several who never started, some who attrited early (including some that were sound and went to stud), some who raced a long time, and some who were still racing and making money at 10.
Two things with that graph....first, unclear words on my part--I was referring to "average horse" as your ham-and-eggs claimer, as in a nice average horse, and not either too slow to run or at the top of the heap. Second, that graph is average number of starts per horse per year. It says nothing about average lifetime career starts.
Horses who are too slow to win a race (or are not interested in racing) attrite quickly, usually after about 3-5 races. Go to Canter or Rerun and you'll find horse after horse who is nice enough but just too slow to be worth spending all that money on, including several who went into training but never even raced. Horses who are making money generally keep racing. There's a post I started some time ago following a group of horses from a Keeneland sale--it shows that there are several who never started, some who attrited early (including some that were sound and went to stud), some who raced a long time, and some who were still racing and making money at 10.
-
Deltalady01
- Weanling
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:52 pm
kimberley mine wrote:Delta,
Two things with that graph....first, unclear words on my part--I was referring to "average horse" as your ham-and-eggs claimer, as in a nice average horse, and not either too slow to run or at the top of the heap. Second, that graph is average number of starts per horse per year. It says nothing about average lifetime career starts.
Horses who are too slow to win a race (or are not interested in racing) attrite quickly, usually after about 3-5 races. Go to Canter or Rerun and you'll find horse after horse who is nice enough but just too slow to be worth spending all that money on, including several who went into training but never even raced. Horses who are making money generally keep racing. There's a post I started some time ago following a group of horses from a Keeneland sale--it shows that there are several who never started, some who attrited early (including some that were sound and went to stud), some who raced a long time, and some who were still racing and making money at 10.
Kimberley, that's fine as far as it goes....your explanation. I understand "conversational" posting, but I tend to be a little more precise and you will find that I generally will cite my sources if what I'm writing about is any deeper than "which color horse do you like"! I try not to be stuffy, but, since I'm at the beginner level -- although I'm actually probably more of a sophomore -- I think I have an obligation to hold up my end out here and not just be a part of the web noise and general misinformation that passes for intellectual discussion all too often. I'm genuinely interested in learning all I can about all aspects of the sport, but I also know that some subjects are "just for fun" and not meant to be taken all that seriously! I'm still getting my bearings....hope you will be patient with me!