too much of a good thing?

[Shammy Davis]

Barcaldine wrote:

These last several posts fail to recognize THE most important elements of breeding top-quality racehorses:

Good horsemanship and luck.

It's a fool who believes that unscientific "studies" based on subjective and dubious information yield anything other than gobbledygook. From Bruce Lowe to Dr. Dosage to True E-Gimmicks, there will always be competent B.S'ers who purport to know something beyond their capabilities.

We've just seen a few examples of it.

I agree with the first part of your post. The second part beginning with "It's a fool . . ." is a little more troublesome for me.

Since you are the biggest bullsh!ter on the board, I don't suppose we can expect that you would actually say something helpful or incisive. Did you know that it has been proven that toilet paper by weight is the most absorbent material on the market today? Why don't you test this for us. Go out an buy some toilet paper and stuff wads of it in all the orifices of your anatomy and see if it stops the "cr@p" you normally put out from escaping into the environment.

[Barcaldine]

Ever try Anger Management therapy?

[Shammy Davis]

You did post the following didn't you?

It's a fool who believes that unscientific "studies" based on subjective and dubious information yield anything other than gobbledygook. From Bruce Lowe to Dr. Dosage to True E-Gimmicks, there will always be competent B.S'ers who purport to know something beyond their capabilities.

We've just seen a few examples of it.

Since I made one of the previous posts and you exacted an example of it, I take offense at your disparaging remarks. I'm tired of your arrogant superior thinking horsemanship. I wouldn't be surprised to find that your horses are too. Were you asked to leave CA because all your "bullsh!t was polluting its environment? I know the environmental laws in CA are stiff. Further, I don't recall in the past few years your presence being noted in anything other than website discussions of past offenses. If you are so smart, shouldn't we be seeing you amongst the rich and famous, being interviewed on TV, signing the ticket for a top seller at Keenland, or maybe once in a while in the winners circle.

It appears to me that the definition of a "fool" is in your reflection.

It also appears you know something about "anger" because you are taking it out on everyone who apparently is not of like thought. I'm not angry. I'm just expressing my honest opinion. I was not surprised when you appeared on Louis' thread supporting his nonsense. You are the one who needs help.

[Tappiano]

I want to see a study done on which family produces the highest percentage of runners.

[xfactor fan]

When Lowe came up with the family number system it was family 1, He was looking at English winners and ranked them according to the number of winner in each family. 1 had the most, 2 the next, and so on.

[Barcaldine]

xfactor, yes, Lowe's families were ranked by number of classic winners.

The problem this "study" encountered--as with the others I mentioned--is that history doesnt often replay itself in Thoroughbred racing. That is to say, to know which families performed the best according to his test was not a helpful tool in producing future winners. Lowe's system has long been discarded, but not after many fortunes were wasted utilizing it.

Ditto Dosage and True E-Gimmicks.

[Tappiano]

I'm talking about runners not just winners. The majority of pedigree pages I see in sales catalogs hardly ever show mares with a high percentage of starters to foals and it's not because they are saving space on the page.

[Shammy Davis]

Not much information on this. But here is something.
http://www.ironmaidensthoroughbreds.com ... inners.pdf

[xfactor fan]

Re: Lowe and his family numbers.

I suspect that Lowe was accurate for his time and racing conditions. However racing at a distance on turf is very different than short on dirt. And I'd be very surprised if the same families that like distance do well short.

A quick and easy way to look at families and runners would be to pick three tracks, toss out the fillies and mares, and the look up the family numbers of all the colts and geldings for a couple of days. Not a perfect system, but it would be if there is some pattern it should show up.

Colts and geldings have different human selection pressure than fillies and mares. I'd say just look at geldings, but that might take out all the colts that are left intact due to their future stud value.

[Shammy Davis]

Some more trickle down information.

http://classicchampionthoroughbreds.blo ... lines.html

Lowe's numbers have been out of favor for so long. Current thinking and resources are sparse.

[Shammy Davis]

http://www.thoroughbredreview.com/docum ... le1210.pdf

[Shammy Davis]

http://www.pedigreequery.com/forum/view ... a2be3dd94a

[cewright]

What we should be doing is having BREEDING VALUES created for the industry that have KNOWN HERITABILITY. It is not hard to do and you could create figures for different surfaces (dirt, turf, synthetics) and in different racing bands (5-7f, 7-9f, 9f+). This way when you buy a mare, or look at a stallion, you can really know what you have and what you are trying to achieve with known heritable outcomes.

But isn't that what the Dosage is about. And most "experts" poo-poo those figures. Brogers, how would the figures you propose be different?

Thanks

Chuck

[Tappiano]

Isn't this what the Sheikh is trying to do? Buy all the best mares and send them, one by one, to the best sires that money could buy (their dams or sires included)? Eventually you are bound to succeed.

[Shammy Davis]

cewright wrote:

But isn't that what the Dosage is about. And most "experts" poo-poo those figures. Brogers, how would the figures you propose be different?

Dosage is also subjective, but I think the biggest problem is that selection of chefs is never current and, of course, as Diomed, Xfactor, PZ, Vineyridge, and all the genetics gurus et al, would tell you, it doesn't include the importance of the mares. Same problem with other one-sided identifier (Blue Hens) related to the mares. No one seems to fully understand specifically the role of the stallion in the DNA of a foal. Lastly, marketing foals and mares in foal is totally done on the basis of who the sire is.

It appears if you've got a racehorse breeding theory, you can demand some attention. Try the "Inbreeding and Unsoundness" thread on for size. Even I have a racehorse breeding concept, but no way am I going to open it up to critique. I'm afraid if I really put it test, I'd be compared to Nero fiddling as Rome burned. (Just kidding, Barky)

There are too many negative factors involved in racehorse breeding. High stud fees, long gestation, low live foal rates, high vet fees, high boarding fees, long term weanling and yearling prep, bad training vs good training, injury et al, are some of the problems. One wrong move or unsuspected problem and you are down the tubes. A quality canine breeder can produce a minimum of two litters annually for the price of a stallion's booking fee and make a hefty profit up to 10 times the initial breeding investment. Not so with the racehorse breeder.

I think Brogers is speaking to a statistical reference or grading system, rather than something like dosage. Maybe he can explain his idea in more detail. I would be interested in hearing more specifics.

By the way, we have one of the experts on mares right here on PQ. BillfromWA's conduit mare study is an asset to any TB library. Hey Bill, what are your thoughts?