http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/tc/contenders/default.asp
Remembering the quote:
"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."
That was mikegatto two years ago. He is so right on as it looks to be the case this year w/the top contenders sired by medicore runners. I've gotta say it makes it kinda fun and exciting there not being a dominant horse, kinda like NASCAR restrictor plate racing at Daytona and Talladega Superspeedways; all the cars bunched together, patience and position are the keys to victory.
2006 Derby Contenders: Thoroughbred Times Pedigree Profiles
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
-
Whirlaway
- Grade III Winner
- Posts: 1146
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:27 pm
- Location: Home of the brave.
2006 Derby Contenders: Thoroughbred Times Pedigree Profiles
Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. - William O. Douglas
~
It is the characteristic of the most stringent censorships, that they give credibility to the opinions they attack. - Voltaire
~
It is the characteristic of the most stringent censorships, that they give credibility to the opinions they attack. - Voltaire
I never understood that statement. How does the guy define mediocre runner? Was Holy Bull mediocre because he didnt win a TC race? Mr. P?
Who are these mediocre runners the writer has in mind? Looking at the last 10 years of classic races which sires didnt win a Gr I? Our Emblem,he lost two grade I's each by a nose, so that makes him what? Mediocre? Kingmambo-almost champion in Europe. Is he mediocre? Maria's Mon; Champion juvenile.
I dont get it..
Who are these mediocre runners the writer has in mind? Looking at the last 10 years of classic races which sires didnt win a Gr I? Our Emblem,he lost two grade I's each by a nose, so that makes him what? Mediocre? Kingmambo-almost champion in Europe. Is he mediocre? Maria's Mon; Champion juvenile.
I dont get it..
Let's say you can define mediocre for the sake of argument. Since it is seen with some frequency on the mare side I don't know why it inconceivable that a sire that didn't meet track expectations couldn't go on and become a good sire and produce a stakes winner.
nothing is equal in the TB business and a horse's track performance is as much influenced by the people that race the horse than the horse itself. Who is best to judge the merits of a stud? His progeny most likely.
nothing is equal in the TB business and a horse's track performance is as much influenced by the people that race the horse than the horse itself. Who is best to judge the merits of a stud? His progeny most likely.
Hi folks,
There's always someone whose figured out what's ailing the breed and who needs to be beaten up to improve it (Mike Gatto).
There have always been stallions that had questionable credentials as there are today. It sounds as if Mike Gatto simply doesn't know the history of the breed. Stallions had smaller books (huge books is a very recent phenomenon) and they stood regionally when it was either difficult or impossible to send mares elsewhere.
There are problems today with the saturation breeding of certain sire line like the sons of Storm Cat, some that I feel lack strong qualifications to stand at stud, but they will either succeed or be culled.
Ultimus and Alibhai were less than mediocre runners since neither ran yet they are important sires that have left their mark on the breed. Danzig was fast but never even ran in a stakes race how would Mr. Gatto explain accepting his blood and risk losing his 19%SWs?
Mares can't be as hightly selected as stallions on race performance because so many more are sent to the breeding shed (> 10x). Do the math. I get a sense (here and elsewhere) that people would like a definitive champion. A change of perspective might help because it's not likely that we'll see an Affirmed who raced 29 times and was champion each of his 3 racing years again. Learn to love the Ghostzappers when you see them.
Regards,
Pete
There's always someone whose figured out what's ailing the breed and who needs to be beaten up to improve it (Mike Gatto).
There have always been stallions that had questionable credentials as there are today. It sounds as if Mike Gatto simply doesn't know the history of the breed. Stallions had smaller books (huge books is a very recent phenomenon) and they stood regionally when it was either difficult or impossible to send mares elsewhere.
There are problems today with the saturation breeding of certain sire line like the sons of Storm Cat, some that I feel lack strong qualifications to stand at stud, but they will either succeed or be culled.
Ultimus and Alibhai were less than mediocre runners since neither ran yet they are important sires that have left their mark on the breed. Danzig was fast but never even ran in a stakes race how would Mr. Gatto explain accepting his blood and risk losing his 19%SWs?
Mares can't be as hightly selected as stallions on race performance because so many more are sent to the breeding shed (> 10x). Do the math. I get a sense (here and elsewhere) that people would like a definitive champion. A change of perspective might help because it's not likely that we'll see an Affirmed who raced 29 times and was champion each of his 3 racing years again. Learn to love the Ghostzappers when you see them.
Regards,
Pete
Has a palomino jean that pop up some.
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
I'd probably take this Gatto person more seriously if I'd ever heard of him before and he demonstrated any real knowledge of the history of breeding. As it stands, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out "Whirlaway" is Gatto.
Like Pete just pointed out, racing ability very rarely has any real connection to breeding ability and as for "mediocre" ... I suppose you have to DEFINE mediocre first ... something neither Gatto or "Whirlaway" have done.
Like Pete just pointed out, racing ability very rarely has any real connection to breeding ability and as for "mediocre" ... I suppose you have to DEFINE mediocre first ... something neither Gatto or "Whirlaway" have done.
I would take a stab at defining it. Well I would first take a stab at defining exceptional. LEt's say there are 25,000 colts born in the USA every year, if a colt is in the top 25 of its crop then I guess that would make it in the top 0.1% of the breed.
How many wins or whatever would it take to be in the top 25? I dunno I'm thinking winning at least a couple of G IIs should bet you somewhere there. How many horses from a given crop win at least 2 GIIs? 25? Maybe?
Doing a quick look at this years top 20 entries in the Ky Dby as it stands now, I think there are at least 18 sires that are in the top 0.1% of their crop. ONe that isnt Old Trieste, won 1 GII and threee GIIIs. Okay so he's maybe in the top 0.2% of his crop.
So I think 19 of these sires were in the top 0.2% of their crop. That leaves Storm Treasure's sire: Storm Boot who apparently wasnt much of a runner. I am willing to concede STorm Boot was a mediocre runner.
ANd guess what? Storm Treasure is no way in hell going to win the derby. And my guess is Storm Boot does not go on to become a great sire. So there you have it. I guess.
How many wins or whatever would it take to be in the top 25? I dunno I'm thinking winning at least a couple of G IIs should bet you somewhere there. How many horses from a given crop win at least 2 GIIs? 25? Maybe?
Doing a quick look at this years top 20 entries in the Ky Dby as it stands now, I think there are at least 18 sires that are in the top 0.1% of their crop. ONe that isnt Old Trieste, won 1 GII and threee GIIIs. Okay so he's maybe in the top 0.2% of his crop.
So I think 19 of these sires were in the top 0.2% of their crop. That leaves Storm Treasure's sire: Storm Boot who apparently wasnt much of a runner. I am willing to concede STorm Boot was a mediocre runner.
ANd guess what? Storm Treasure is no way in hell going to win the derby. And my guess is Storm Boot does not go on to become a great sire. So there you have it. I guess.
Hi Sam,
I liked Distorted Humor when he entered stud but wasn't sold on him because Wild Rush took him apart in the Metropolitan. As soon as his foals hit the ground it was clear that he was something special and I wanted to breed everything possible to him. He’s giving every indication that he’ll be an impacting sire of the highest quality despite not being the best racehorse.
Ecton Park has a very similar pedigree to Distorted Humor and that made him very interesting but I didn't like his race profile of a dedicated router when the other successful sons of Forty Niner were sprinters. A friend told me that Ecton Park was, when he was racing, one of the most body sore horses that he could remember. The point being that we rarely know the whole story that might prevent a horse from proving completely at the track.
Certainly Danzig had a story that was known, a thunderbolt with bad knees yet he wasn't fully supported until his epochal first crop hit the track (and what a crop it was!). People research the heck out of pedigrees with a capricious disregard for the real story behind the stallion that they may be paying many thousands of dollars for.
Racing is the best standard of performance that we have but it needs to be viewed in light of the environment that the horse raced. It’s all too easy to say that a horse was mediocre and leave it at that. By sheer numbers most mares will seem mediocre in comparison to the stallions that are offered at stud. On the face of it, either by modest race records or pedigree (or both) they may seem to be less qualified but its’ incumbent on any breeder that uses these mares to leverage their qualities to produce the best horse possible.
There’s only a small difference (perhaps 4% percent) in the abilities of a $10k claimer and a stakes horse and that most horses will fall into an average range indicates that it’s possible to get results from mares that aren’t held in high esteem.
With all the best eyes, advice, pedigrees and race records available it’s still a fact that 7 of the last 14 KY Derby winners sold at public auction for $40,000 or less. It’s interesting to see the commentary on a mare that produces a stakes winner who was previously felt to be inferior because everyone suddenly seems to see why she succeeded.
Consider that if all the mediocre and less mares were removed from the breeding pool and there were sufficient horses to fill all the races (and this would be a concern of course) that the better mares would then become mediocre. You make the important point, what is mediocre? I’ll say this much, that as a whole mares that produce poorly have their opportunities reduced and that’s as close to natural selection as we get in the thoroughbred business.
Regards,
Pete
I liked Distorted Humor when he entered stud but wasn't sold on him because Wild Rush took him apart in the Metropolitan. As soon as his foals hit the ground it was clear that he was something special and I wanted to breed everything possible to him. He’s giving every indication that he’ll be an impacting sire of the highest quality despite not being the best racehorse.
Ecton Park has a very similar pedigree to Distorted Humor and that made him very interesting but I didn't like his race profile of a dedicated router when the other successful sons of Forty Niner were sprinters. A friend told me that Ecton Park was, when he was racing, one of the most body sore horses that he could remember. The point being that we rarely know the whole story that might prevent a horse from proving completely at the track.
Certainly Danzig had a story that was known, a thunderbolt with bad knees yet he wasn't fully supported until his epochal first crop hit the track (and what a crop it was!). People research the heck out of pedigrees with a capricious disregard for the real story behind the stallion that they may be paying many thousands of dollars for.
Racing is the best standard of performance that we have but it needs to be viewed in light of the environment that the horse raced. It’s all too easy to say that a horse was mediocre and leave it at that. By sheer numbers most mares will seem mediocre in comparison to the stallions that are offered at stud. On the face of it, either by modest race records or pedigree (or both) they may seem to be less qualified but its’ incumbent on any breeder that uses these mares to leverage their qualities to produce the best horse possible.
There’s only a small difference (perhaps 4% percent) in the abilities of a $10k claimer and a stakes horse and that most horses will fall into an average range indicates that it’s possible to get results from mares that aren’t held in high esteem.
With all the best eyes, advice, pedigrees and race records available it’s still a fact that 7 of the last 14 KY Derby winners sold at public auction for $40,000 or less. It’s interesting to see the commentary on a mare that produces a stakes winner who was previously felt to be inferior because everyone suddenly seems to see why she succeeded.
Consider that if all the mediocre and less mares were removed from the breeding pool and there were sufficient horses to fill all the races (and this would be a concern of course) that the better mares would then become mediocre. You make the important point, what is mediocre? I’ll say this much, that as a whole mares that produce poorly have their opportunities reduced and that’s as close to natural selection as we get in the thoroughbred business.
Regards,
Pete
Has a palomino jean that pop up some.
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
Hi Easygoer,
There are about 38,000 registered thoroughbreds born each year but I’ll use your figure of 25,000 colts and thus 25,000 mares.
A little less than half of all fillies born will enter the breeding shed; say 12,000 given your numbers. If the top .1% of racing colts (we’ll assume that none are gelded) enter stud with this many mares needed to support the number of race horses needed to fill race cards across the country then you have 12,000 mares for 25 stallions or about 480 each. The comparisons don’t change whether using the actual figures or yours.
It would take at least 10x the number of stallions you mention to handle this number of mares so it’s necessary to look at the top 1% of colts in a given crop (1 in 100). This top 1% ignores the issues of conformation that can’t be underestimated, the huge commercial demand for pedigree and the possibility of geldings. Still every stallion would, on average, have a book of nearly 50 mares although it might be the top 1.3% of the colts (about 1 in 80).
Sires of the Derby contenders that wouldn’t have passed your muster include: Saint Ballado (leading sire in 2005), Notebook (sire of several G1 winners), Jules (sire of Peace Rules), Sweetwouthernsaint and Storm Boot (who you previously mentioned) while Broken Vow, Dynaformer, Old Trieste and Distorted Humor would be marginal.
None of the above mentioned stallions was a consistently top flight race horse throughout their careers and none won better than a G2 race. You’re qualifications would have certainly have excluded Mr. Prospector, Danzig, Nureyev and many other impacting sires.
Lemon Drop Kid was a G1 winner each of the three years that he ran and perhaps one of the top 3 in his generation yet he’s struggling at stud. Behrens won 3-G1 and 4-G2 stakes and is failing completely. Where do you account for all the top race horses that didn’t succeed at stud?
I said (Sam warned about quoting):
Do the math. I get a sense (here and elsewhere) that people would like a definitive champion.
Racing has changed from the era of Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Affirmed and Spectacular Bid. It will take a better eye and understanding of racing to understand the qualities of the best horses because it won’t be so apparent. A definitive champion makes it easy.
Regards,
Pete
There are about 38,000 registered thoroughbreds born each year but I’ll use your figure of 25,000 colts and thus 25,000 mares.
A little less than half of all fillies born will enter the breeding shed; say 12,000 given your numbers. If the top .1% of racing colts (we’ll assume that none are gelded) enter stud with this many mares needed to support the number of race horses needed to fill race cards across the country then you have 12,000 mares for 25 stallions or about 480 each. The comparisons don’t change whether using the actual figures or yours.
It would take at least 10x the number of stallions you mention to handle this number of mares so it’s necessary to look at the top 1% of colts in a given crop (1 in 100). This top 1% ignores the issues of conformation that can’t be underestimated, the huge commercial demand for pedigree and the possibility of geldings. Still every stallion would, on average, have a book of nearly 50 mares although it might be the top 1.3% of the colts (about 1 in 80).
Sires of the Derby contenders that wouldn’t have passed your muster include: Saint Ballado (leading sire in 2005), Notebook (sire of several G1 winners), Jules (sire of Peace Rules), Sweetwouthernsaint and Storm Boot (who you previously mentioned) while Broken Vow, Dynaformer, Old Trieste and Distorted Humor would be marginal.
None of the above mentioned stallions was a consistently top flight race horse throughout their careers and none won better than a G2 race. You’re qualifications would have certainly have excluded Mr. Prospector, Danzig, Nureyev and many other impacting sires.
Lemon Drop Kid was a G1 winner each of the three years that he ran and perhaps one of the top 3 in his generation yet he’s struggling at stud. Behrens won 3-G1 and 4-G2 stakes and is failing completely. Where do you account for all the top race horses that didn’t succeed at stud?
I said (Sam warned about quoting):
Do the math. I get a sense (here and elsewhere) that people would like a definitive champion.
Racing has changed from the era of Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Affirmed and Spectacular Bid. It will take a better eye and understanding of racing to understand the qualities of the best horses because it won’t be so apparent. A definitive champion makes it easy.
Regards,
Pete
Has a palomino jean that pop up some.
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
This stallion is DNA ... all foal can be MBNA inrolled.
Horses like their credit cards. - Four Forty Farms
Umm, I think the way I worded it may have been confusing. I would say if the colt was in the top 25 (0.1%) of it's crop, it certainly is exceptional.
Even if a colt is merely in the top 1% of it's crop it is still better than mediocre. This was my intended meaning but I can see from what I typed that it may be misinterpreted. For instance: :
See, I didnt really mean to imply they were marginal. Hell if they win a single Gr II race, they are still way above average runners. Far better than mediocre.
Again:
This is not what I intended to suggest. If I recall Mr. P was still a pretty decent miler/sprinter type. I would not in any way exclude him or consider him "mediocre." Far from it.
Here's another:
You have this part misconstrued. I am not accounting for top horses that didnt succeed. This is well known phenomenon: Citation for instance.
What I was working on the original hypo. that the good/great sires were coming from mediocre runners. That is far different question than great runners as mediocre sires.
Again this was due mainly to the way I wrote the post. I am trying to say that nearly ever sire out there must have been in the top 1% of his crop as a runner.
Other than those that got injured early; Raise a Native, etc. But even those likely would have made excellent runners.
Even if a colt is merely in the top 1% of it's crop it is still better than mediocre. This was my intended meaning but I can see from what I typed that it may be misinterpreted. For instance: :
Pete wrote:
It would take at least 10x the number of stallions you mention to handle this number of mares so it’s necessary to look at the top 1% of colts in a given crop (1 in 100). ...Sires of the Derby contenders that wouldn’t have passed your muster include: Saint Ballado (leading sire in 2005), Notebook (sire of several G1 winners), Jules (sire of Peace Rules), Sweetwouthernsaint and Storm Boot (who you previously mentioned) while Broken Vow, Dynaformer, Old Trieste and Distorted Humor would be marginal.
Pete
See, I didnt really mean to imply they were marginal. Hell if they win a single Gr II race, they are still way above average runners. Far better than mediocre.
Again:
Pete wrote:
You’re qualifications would have certainly have excluded Mr. Prospector, Danzig, Nureyev and many other impacting sires.
This is not what I intended to suggest. If I recall Mr. P was still a pretty decent miler/sprinter type. I would not in any way exclude him or consider him "mediocre." Far from it.
Here's another:
Pete wrote:
Lemon Drop Kid was a G1 winner each of the three years that he ran and perhaps one of the top 3 in his generation yet he’s struggling at stud. Behrens won 3-G1 and 4-G2 stakes and is failing completely.
Where do you account for all the top race horses that didn’t succeed at stud?
You have this part misconstrued. I am not accounting for top horses that didnt succeed. This is well known phenomenon: Citation for instance.
What I was working on the original hypo. that the good/great sires were coming from mediocre runners. That is far different question than great runners as mediocre sires.
Again this was due mainly to the way I wrote the post. I am trying to say that nearly ever sire out there must have been in the top 1% of his crop as a runner.
Other than those that got injured early; Raise a Native, etc. But even those likely would have made excellent runners.
Okay, I'll take this thread in a totally different direction
Hate to be the one to point this out, but the "energy" producing (mitochondrial) DNA comes exclusively from the MARES, not the stallions. Ergo, a mediocre, or lesser stallion (as a runner) begatting a Gr. 1 winner has far more to do with the dam's side than the, er, sperm donor.
I've never understood why the girls don't get the credit they deserve in these discussions.
I've never understood why the girls don't get the credit they deserve in these discussions.
Okay, I'll take this thread in a totally different direction
Hate to be the one to point this out, but the "energy" producing (mitochondrial) DNA comes exclusively from the MARES, not the stallions. Ergo, a mediocre, or lesser stallion (as a runner) begatting a Gr. 1 winner has far more to do with the dam's family than the, er, sperm donor's.
I've never understood why the girls don't get the credit they deserve in these discussions.
I've never understood why the girls don't get the credit they deserve in these discussions.
Okay, I'll take this thread in a totally different direction
Something I have to point out: the "energy" producing (mitochondrial) DNA comes exclusively from the MARES, not the stallions. Ergo, a mediocre, or lesser stallion (as a runner) siring Gr. 1 winners has far more to do with the dam's family than the, er, sperm donor's.
I've never understood why the girls don't get the credit they deserve in these discussions.
I've never understood why the girls don't get the credit they deserve in these discussions.
Re: Okay, I'll take this thread in a totally different direc
Denise wrote:
I've never understood why the girls don't get the credit they deserve in these discussions.
Maybe because they repeat everything they say.
