Giant's Causeway gets top runners

[Tonno100]

The problem I have with AEI and CI's are that they don't do what they're, ideally, supposed to do.

They're supposed to compare a stallion to the general stallion population, but what they actually do is compare a stallion to the stallion population that his group of mares have previously been bred to. In Giant's Causeway's case the mares he had will have, on the whole, been bred to successful and expensive stallions in the past/future. This makes him look like he's dragging them down much more than he actually is.

This gets polarised yet further by mares who produce a good first foal, then are "upgraded" and sent to stallions like Giant's Causeway.

[FOS]

hi Hotwalker...hi guys

Blood-Horse has an article in the recent issue that asks trainers about what they think of their horses by Giant's Causeway. The comments generally said they are better with age, are versatile with surfaces, and can be strong willed.

Those comments don't seem unreasonable...but what about trainers' comments re conformation of the GCs in general? Common threads that I hear (and have heard) from many trainers (re the GCs) is that (for starters anyway) many (if not most) lean toward being lightly/slightly made and thrifty-types that seem (more often than not) to be somewhat narrow, light-boned and not particularly sturdy behind; and that all too often the GCs sport weak-looking (if not long and fragile-looking) pasterns. Do such opinions in and of themselves disqualify sons and daughters of GC from potentially racing at a very high level? Of course not, but (to my way of thinking anyway) it sounds to me that the bloom that is GC isn't particularly flourishing either.

Bottom line...considering the hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of GCs out there...I've NOT heard much in the way of high praise/accolades from trainers (in general) re the Giant's Causeways.

Can GC get a good one...yes he can, but it doesn't seem (to me anyway) that he has convinced (much less compelled) many trainers and/or owners that they must have one or more by him in the barn.

Respectfully

[Elusive City]

LOL. worst value.

3. Elusive Quality ($75,000 Darley, KY) - Statistical profile closely emulates or falls below those of many stallions in the $25,000 range. Just when we thought reality was about to set in after the buzz from Smarty Jones wore off, Maryfield comes along to perpetuate this guy's inflated value

Glad the Breeders of Raven's Pass didn't listen to this drivel.

Glad the breeders of Sepoy didn't listen to this drivel.

EC

[reese]

hi Hotwalker...hi guys

Blood-Horse has an article in the recent issue that asks trainers about what they think of their horses by Giant's Causeway. The comments generally said they are better with age, are versatile with surfaces, and can be strong willed.

Those comments don't seem unreasonable...but what about trainers' comments re conformation of the GCs in general? Common threads that I hear (and have heard) from many trainers (re the GCs) is that (for starters anyway) many (if not most) lean toward being lightly/slightly made and thrifty-types that seem (more often than not) to be somewhat narrow, light-boned and not particularly sturdy behind; and that all too often the GCs sport weak-looking (if not long and fragile-looking) pasterns. Do such opinions in and of themselves disqualify sons and daughters of GC from potentially racing at a very high level? Of course not, but (to my way of thinking anyway) it sounds to me that the bloom that is GC isn't particularly flourishing either.


Bottom line...considering the hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of GCs out there...I've NOT heard much in the way of high praise/accolades from trainers (in general) re the Giant's Causeways.

Can GC get a good one...yes he can, but it doesn't seem (to me anyway) that he has convinced (much less compelled) many trainers and/or owners that they must have one or more by him in the barn.

Respectfully

"It was just a matter of time before Giant's Causeway reached the 100 mark by number of stakes winners. The son of Storm Cat, who topped the leading sires’ list by progeny earnings the past two years, began 2011 with 96 stakes winners".



Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/ ... z1KDH4uaSs

[da hossman]

Hi Tonno - just some clarification.

AEI measures the results of a stallion's offspring versus the average results for all stallions - AEI gives one the subject stallion's standing in comparison with all other stallions. A 1.00 AEI is the average for all stallions. So if a stallion has an AEI over 1.00 you know his offspring are performing above the average.

CI measures the results of all the offspring of the mares bred to the subject stallion (excluding their offspring by the subject stallion) versus the results of all the offspring of all mares. CI can be used to measure the quality of the mares a stallion breeds. Again 1.00 is the average CI for all mares.

When a stallion has an AEI higher than his mares' CI, he has clearly "improved his mares". As a stallion becomes more successful, the quality of his mares increases as well, therefore making it much more difficult for the stallion to "improve his mares", or for his AEI to be higher than his CI.

For a stallion like Giant's Causeway who started with very high quality mares, it is extremely difficult for his AEI to ever exceed his mares CI - GC started with mares with very high CI. In some ways a stallion who starts with such high quality mares has a disadvantage in terms of AEI v. CI - one could even say these stallions start behind in terms of AEI v CI. Per the 4/23/ Bloodhorse GC's AEI is 1.95 and his CI is 3.09.

Contrast GC with a stallion like Distorted Humor who started with relatively low quality mares - DH's early years of success from modest mares resulted in an AEI much higher than his mares CI. As he received better mares his CI increased, and the difference between his AEI and his mares CI has become very small. Per the 4/23 Bloodhorse DH's AEI is 2.28 and his CI is 2.14.

Please take note of how much lower DH's CI (2.14) is than GC's CI (3.09). DH's early books of modest mares will likely prevent his CI from ever rising to that of GC's.

Another factor that has lowered the AEI of current top stallions is the huge number of offspring they have - their AEI has dropped significantly when compared to the AEI for top stallions in 1980's.

The statistics are useful, but one must be careful to understand how the statistics are derived and the history of a stallion's books to properly understand the statistical measure of any stallion. and remember the old saying "figures don't lie, but liars sure can fiigure"!

[da hossman]

Wow - I just realized I responded to a post from 2008 Guess I should read dates when looking at a thread to which someone recently replied before making my own comments.

[griff]

Soundfast

We have a stallion in WV that, per the March 2011 edition of Mid Atlantic Thoroughbred, page 189 has 82.5% winners from starters, $3584 average per start and $70,739 average per starter..

Mid Atlantic Thoroughbred did not publish his % stakes horses but an average of $70,739 per starter is pretty good for a stallion breeding mid Atlantic mares that are mostly WV mares.

Check out Limit Out on page 189 of tne March 2011 edition of Mid Atlantic Thoroughbred. I think his advertised stud fee is $2,500 stand and nurse.

griff