Why are Mediocre Thoroughbreds Getting the Best Runners ?

[Whirlaway]

The following quote is from mike gatto a teacher of genetics. This post found at another forum asked a fundamental question that was never answered. I put forth that same question here ...


"One of the craziest things about thoroughbred breeding today is how sires who were mediocre runners at best are producing excellent runners. This has never been the case in the history of the breed. I add this to my list of another reason why the TB is in decline, with breeders so dependent on one or two lines that the gene pool basically produces these crapshoots. We may as well give $10,000 claimers a chance in the breeding shed; heck, they are so similar genetically now, we may produce a Triple Crown Champion."

After many attempts by some pretty sharp minds to indirectly answer the question, gatto is a subsequent post makes the question a bit more succinct: "Why are mediocre thoroughbreds getting the best runners?"

He never got an answer.

[HR LLC]

If storm cat, ap indy and the rest of the commerical stallions keep getting 150 to 200 mares per year. They are bound to put at least one future stallion on the ground each year regardless of the horses race record.

[LSB]

The following quote is from mike gatto a teacher of genetics. This post found at another forum asked a fundamental question that was never answered. I put forth that same question here ...

"Why are mediocre thoroughbreds getting the best runners?"

Probably the question was never answered because it starts with a supposition that's untrue.

[louis finochio]

When the 7-12 crosses of the Phalaris sire line is doubled up on the mares side, a decline of peformance will be experienced.

Never in the history of the breed have we seen this many crosses of one sire line dominate the breed like we are seeing today.

When you research the pedigrees of past TC winners and great TB you will find it is those outcrossed individuals that went on to greater heights of performance and soundness.

The breeders of today are in a catch 22 situation. The only sire line available today is Phalaris and the medicore sires are moving up the ladder of performance because the Phalaris sire line is in need of an out cross to produced those superior runners.

When the watered down Phalaris sire line is mated back to its own gene pool the result will be a drop off of performance.

I have researched this Phalaris problem for many years and I am believe the only way to bring back the soundness and performance of the breed is to use those non-Phalaris sire lines as a catalyst to light the flame for its reserection.

[Sysonby]

After many attempts by some pretty sharp minds to indirectly answer the question, gatto is a subsequent post makes the question a bit more succinct: "Why are mediocre thoroughbreds getting the best runners?"

It might help the analysis and discussion along if you explain what you mean by mediocre. If you (or the other poster) is alleging that claiming horses are topping the sire lists, I don't buy that premise at all. Nor do I think anything has fundamentally changed. Back in the 70s, there were wellbred Bold Ruler sons like Bold Commander, Cornish Prince, Jacinto, What A Pleasure, and Irish Castle who did very well at stud even though they were arguably less accomplished on the track than other stallions. In the 80s, we had a wave of Northern Dancer stallions like Staff Writer, Sovereign Dancer, Danzig etc. Some of this has to do with which stallion lines are given opportunities by breeders.

[wilf]

Successful stallions throw many runners better than they were themselves. it happens a lot in Florida where horses consistently outrun their pedigrees. Apart from the genetic problems already well described on this thread the basic fact that foals raised in Florida and California rarely see the inside of a barn due to the favourable climate. They hit the ground running and grow up well from an abundance of sunshine and room to play. This has to be a positive factor to help them catch up to the blue bloods in the bluegrass.

[Mahubah]

If by "mediocre" you mean lacking in class above the average, the supposition is not true. Horses like Saint Ballado, Distorted Humor, Dynaformer, Smart Strike, Devil His Due, Storm Cat, and Wild Rush -- all among the American top ten sires last year -- all had quite creditable records as racehorses, easily within the top 1% of their breed. They were not champions (though Storm Cat missed that honor by only a few inches -- he'd have been 2yo champ in 1985 rather than Tasso if it had been his nose in front in the BC Juvenile), but they were collectively quite good.

Nor is it true that this is a new phenomenon. You can go all the way back to Cade, a five-time leading sire in England in the mid-1750s yet a much inferior racer to either his full brother Lath or to the similarly sired Regulus. Closer to modern times, the important sires King Tom, Hampton, Gallinule, Phalaris, Sundridge, Pharos, Desmond, and Son-in-Law all showed ability during at least part of their racing careers but were nowhere near being the best runners of their respective crops.

Simple opportunity works against the very best racehorses necessarily being the very best stallions of their generations -- for every champion going to stud, there are at least ten members of his crop who have the pedigree and race records to make attractive stallion prospects. Sometimes the champ prevails in the breeding shed; sometimes one of the others does.

[xfactor fan]

My best guess is that the best racehorses are intermediate types (what Tessio would have called hybrids) A careful blend of speed and class. You can still see the two types of phenotypes showing up in the modern TB gene pool.

Intermediate types (or hybrids) can't breed true. It is like trying to breed palominos. The way to get 100% palominos is to breed cremellos (double dilutes) to chestnuts (no dilutes) Breeding two palominos together gives a 50% chance of getting a palomino.


Multiply this by about a million other gene combination and then start tearing out your hair.

Combine this with the effect of the large heart gene (however you think it is transmitted) and you get a whole lot of folks trying to breed from champion racehorses that simply aren't going to reproduce themselves.

[Sam]

Never in the history of the breed have we seen this many crosses of one sire line dominate the breed like we are seeing today.

WRONG.

Does the name "Eclipse" really mean nothing to you, Louis?

[Whirlaway]

LSB wrote:

Probably the question was never answered because it starts with a supposition that's untrue.

Sysonby wrote:

It might help the analysis and discussion along if you explain what you mean by mediocre. If you (or the other poster) is alleging that claiming horses are topping the sire lists, I don't buy that premise at all. Nor do I think anything has fundamentally changed.

Please visit http://www.chef-de-race.com/classic_winners/racing_class_of_derby_sires.htm. After carefully reviewing the data there reasonable minds will find the quote by mikegatto to be true. Reasonable minds will also find that things have fundamentally changed. Those facts being accepted the question still remains. Now mind you and PLEASE remember I'm a handicapper learning more about the changing nature of the breed. I'm no pedigree expert, I'm no logician nor am I a geneticist, I don't even like to bet! I posted this question to read what those here in the know think about it. For your information mikegatto never professed to know the answer.

In my humble opinion, Mr. Finochio continues to provide the best answer to reverse the decline of the breed when he writes, "the only way to bring back the soundness and performance of the breed is to use those non-Phalaris sire lines as a catalyst to light the flame for its resurrection." I shall not forget Mr. Finochio it is Fair Play over Phalaris

I certainly would like to read what Linda in Texas thinks about this question.

[LSB]

Please visit http://www.chef-de-race.com/classic_winners/racing_class_of_derby_sires.htm. After carefully reviewing the data there reasonable minds will find the quote by mikegatto to be true.

I guess I must not be a reasonable mind then. If anything, the list your link took us to, proved the opposite of your assertion. Looking just at Kentucky Derby winners, you have to go all the way back to 1981 to find a winner that was sired by "only" a stakes winner.

Not only that but there are plenty of excellent runners that never won the Derby. Do none of them count for anything?

I'm baffled by this whole premise and by a list that, when coupled with your post, seems to assert that graded stakes winners are "mediocre runners."

[austique]

St. Simon is also a huge influence on today's thoroughbred and nobody complains about him causing the downfall of the breed.

Fact: The breed is not as in decline as many would like to think, but we have the midset that it is because you see a lot of high profile early retirements. Why? Because there is much more money to be made in the breeding shed with stallion today than there ever has been in the past with unlimited books and inflated stud fees.

Fact: Owners today are for the most part a less forgiving bunch and are less likely to coddle one who shows less ability than their price tag would suggest causing horses to see fewer starts simply due to the "cut you losses" mentality. We trained on the lower end where there are plenty of horses making tons of starts, but we sent a lot of horses home or aided the owners in selling them to sporthorse buyers after one or two starts not because they were sore, but because they just weren't showing much and the owners didn't want to spend the money to develop them.

Fact: Some horses are being registered with no intent on running them. They were bred for sporthorse disciplines.

I am also confused by the term "medicore runners". Most of the stallions standing in KY today are graded stakes winners and those that aren't typically have the female family to back up them being there. Not every horse can be a superstar and not every superstar can be a great sire, just look at Skip Away.

[Sysonby]

Never in the history of the breed have we seen this many crosses of one sire line dominate the breed like we are seeing today.

WRONG.

Does the name "Eclipse" really mean nothing to you, Louis?

Or St Simon.

[ragsdaj]

From an uneducated point of view I think that the information age and the tools available today make it possible to increase the odds of success for someone such as myself. I may change my mind in a couple of years.

[Whirlaway]

As I wrote earlier I am a handicapper trying to learn about the changing nature of the thoroughbred. I am not a pedigree expert, I am not a logician nor am I a geneticist. However, mikegatto is all of the above and I find it perculiarly interesting that the answers he gave at the other forum apply to most of the questions posted here. There are also some answers to questions not thought of here. For your perusal, I post his answers below.


mikegatto replies:


"All those examples show is that in a world of ever proliferating stakes races, that some of those sires got some seconds and thirds. The fact that a great sire (Mr. P.) is in that list does not answer the question; it just proves the validity of the question to begin with!

The basic premise stands unchallenged: why are mediocre thoroughbreds (if you want to say mediocre stakes runners or mediocre stakes placed horses, or inconsistent stakes runners - its just terminology) getting the best runners?

Think about it guys - if your premise was indeed true (that somehow it was understood or understandable or NOT a shock that these sires would produce the winner of the most famous race in the world), then people would have said - "Wow I think that Distorted Humor will prodce a Derby winner." I didn't hear that from any of you...


mikegatto goes on to write:


So far I've catalogued the following explanations:

1) Graded races shouldn't be used because they are artificial labels

2) Yet the fact that these sires placed in Graded races is used to justify the fact that they were somehow not mediocre...

OK...

Let's ask an opposite corollary: why then are very fast horses NOT producing Derby winners? Cee's Tizzy, for example, was one blazing fast horse, the sire of Tiznow, one of the 50 greatest of all time, IMO. But other than that, if success at sprinting or at a mile in a good time is the criteria in predicting a sire's ability, Cee's Tizzy should be atop the leading sire's list, year after year.

The post on Storm Cat - are you serious? You justify his stud fee by saying that he a won G1 race at 2? Does this not prove my point? He should be a Triple Crown winner begetting Triple Crown winners if your theories (that running ability predicts success in the shed these days) are to be upheld.

I'm not trying to be a smart aleck - or upset anyone's neat and tidy perceptions of thoroughbreds, but I do think these are questions that beg to be answered, and I'm not sure I've heard any logical answers here so far.

#

Surely, mikegatto has touched on something here that needs to be addressed. Denying there is a problem or not addressing the problem or responding with personal attacks will never produce a solution