Conformation vs. Pedigree
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn
Interesting but there is more to the Lucas approach on conformation. "Buy on conformation and hope it has the page to match". Back in the 70's and early 80's you could sell a three-legged horse if it had enough black type. People who couldn't tell the difference in a horse and a cow were experts when it came to a catalog page.
Not sure I agree that some of these meet the definition of "unequivocal failures." Aptitude and Tiznow haven't been complete and utter failures. Call me crazy but if you're capable of siring G1 winners you have some merit--it's not like they're even that old. Plus they sired G1 winning juveniles (one, Great Hunter, is a BCJ hope and Tiznow's got a possible BCJ colt if he runs well today). As for others, Chief Seattle has a G3 winner running now, Doneraile Court has a G2 juvenile winner, Exploit had a champion 2yo in Canada (Knights Templar) and sired E Z Warrior who was a BC Juvie hopeful until Baffert pulled him, Greenwood Lake had a multiple Mexican G1 winner, High Yield had a foreign champion, Honour and Glory had Caressing (BCJ Fillies winner) and the ill-fated Blues and Royals, I could go on..Tiznow with Folklore and a Champagne runner today in Liquidity, Our Emblem did sire one of the meanest Derby winners of the last decade...these aren't nobodies...they're not Danzig or Mr. Prospector sure but they're not nobodys even if some got sold overseas. So was Sunday Silence.
When the final results came out in the weekly magazines, we identified 25 yearlings that met criteria similar to the 1997 study. For our study, we filtered yearlings that brought three times the sire’s average, rather than the median. And only yearlings sired by unequivocal failures were used. This last parameter creates the ultimate example of a buyer’s willingness to ignore a failed influence and pay handsomely for one of their offspring. Sires include:
Aptitude
Cat Thief
Chief Seattle
Doneraile Court
Exploit
Greenwood Lake
High Yield
Honour and Glory
Horse Chestnut
Mazel Trick
Monarchos
Our Emblem
Real Quiet
Richter Scale
Silver Charm
Siphon
Stormin’ Fever
Tiznow
Vision and Verse
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana"
totally agree here--what exactly are the criteria by which a stud can be judged a dismal failure?
Many of those have some very good runners, and without very many crops on the ground. Out of that list (19), 4 have only 2 crops and 5 have only 3.
I don't think the study they propose is particularly well thought-out. If they are trying to test the hypothesis 'placing too much emphasis on conformation as opposed to pedigree is not a good investment,' one would expect that they would make a better attempt to identify when a horse is purchased on conformational merits alone and COMPARE THIS TO THE ALTERNATIVE. At the very least, they should attempt to quantify the quality of conformation and pedigree, then use that as a guide to select their focus group, instead of pulling a list of 'unequivocal failures' out of nowhere and then filtering by price. They should also identify horses who are purchased on the merits of pedigree rather than conformation and compare which focus group makes the most money. If they did that I wouldn't be surprised if they find the opposite result.
Just a couple thoughts...
Many of those have some very good runners, and without very many crops on the ground. Out of that list (19), 4 have only 2 crops and 5 have only 3.
I don't think the study they propose is particularly well thought-out. If they are trying to test the hypothesis 'placing too much emphasis on conformation as opposed to pedigree is not a good investment,' one would expect that they would make a better attempt to identify when a horse is purchased on conformational merits alone and COMPARE THIS TO THE ALTERNATIVE. At the very least, they should attempt to quantify the quality of conformation and pedigree, then use that as a guide to select their focus group, instead of pulling a list of 'unequivocal failures' out of nowhere and then filtering by price. They should also identify horses who are purchased on the merits of pedigree rather than conformation and compare which focus group makes the most money. If they did that I wouldn't be surprised if they find the opposite result.
Just a couple thoughts...
-
magic code
- Starters Handicap
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:32 am
-
Playwithfire
- Maiden Special Weight
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:55 pm
- Location: California
looking at foals from mares that don't win stakes or have produced stakes winners doesn't mean that pedigree wasn't the motivation for the purchase. I bet the first foal of an unraced mare who was from a prominent female line or is half to a known bigtime stakes winner but from a "failed" sire could fall into their category rendering their hypothesis opaque at best.
Yeah I think this is a case of having the answer to your hypothesis in your head and you want to set up the experiment to give you the info the way you want it. You don't pick the sires like that and use such dubious criteria. There has to be control groups and you have to quantify things. You look at yearlings by 'unequivocal failures' with a consistent definition of what that is but also those by horses who meet the definition of success. Some yearlings may look a little lackluster but have a good pedigree and it skews the result and here you are ignoring them entirely since they aren't by a "failed" sire. They had such a good pedigee but still the poor conformation hurt them and that's not why they were purchased.
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana"
Judging conformation actually takes quite a bit of experience especially nowadays when there is so much corrective work done. Recently I went to a sale with a bloodstock agent and a buyer and they were talking about some pretty subtle flaws that they could see as the horse walked toward them. I asked the buyer how they could see that. He laughed and told me that it starts with looking at 10,000 horses and after sheer careful repetition, things start to stand out.
Anyone can pick up a catalog page and see who has won races but the impression I've always gotten from that website is that the writer isn't on his 10,000th horse yet.
Anyone can pick up a catalog page and see who has won races but the impression I've always gotten from that website is that the writer isn't on his 10,000th horse yet.
-
CA Michael
- Grade II Winner
- Posts: 1258
- Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:32 pm
- Location: California
I agree Sysonby. I think it's fair to say that with every new horse comes an opportunity to learn something new.
I've always thought that it's important to know the family characteristics of an animal under inspection. For example, some stallions' better offspring may share a common trait with their sire that the others don't. I know that Vincent O'Brien looked for several key trademarks when buying Northern Dancer yearlings for Sangster. He seemed to have it down pretty well.
As surgical procedures grow in popularity, so may we see an increase in the number of 'correct' yearlings which, when sent off to the breeding shed, produce foals with defects resembling their pre-surgical ones.
I've always thought that it's important to know the family characteristics of an animal under inspection. For example, some stallions' better offspring may share a common trait with their sire that the others don't. I know that Vincent O'Brien looked for several key trademarks when buying Northern Dancer yearlings for Sangster. He seemed to have it down pretty well.
As surgical procedures grow in popularity, so may we see an increase in the number of 'correct' yearlings which, when sent off to the breeding shed, produce foals with defects resembling their pre-surgical ones.
hello Heidilady
We could debate if the words "unequivocal failures" were used too cavalierly or with too broad a stroke (if you will)...but (from my perspective) the list includes sires that are arguably NOT living up to expectations based on the opportunities afforded them...and are DISAPPOINTING at best.
To my way of thinking, the definition of failure (as it relates to a sire) should (among other things) take into account the quality and quantity of opportunity afforded the stallion.
That said...I submit that even horses (although some might not meet the criteria for addition to the author's list) that have sired Graded (including Grade 1) stakes winners (such as you pointed out) can still be categorized as failures at stud...wouldn't you agree? I submit that Artax (himself still relatively young and a sire of a Grade 1 winner) could be tagged a failure. And what about Storm Creek...he too sired a G1 winner (would you not categorize him as a failure). You mentioned Our Emblem and his exceptional dual classic winning son War Emblem. I must say, to my way of thinking Our Emblem could be tagged as a failure of huge proportion.
As I referenced Artax, Storm Creek and Our Emblem...it clicked that all three were associated (at one time or another) with Taylor Made...as is another horse on the list, Tiznow...hmmm. With that in mind, maybe a warning sign should be raised re Taylor Made's recent stallion addition, Officer.
For your consideration...I ask, is it unreasonable to suggest that any thoroughbred stallion with JC papers...even the teaser, might have it in him to sire a superstar G1 winning racehorse. If you believe that's a possibility (as I do), it might tend to temper the accolades, serve as a sobering reality and/or raise questions as to a sire's genuine worth and/or prowess (in relation to his opportunities)...as a sire.
Maybe this is a stretch, but you might consider this...the warning label on cigarette packages is not a guarantee that you'll become ill if you smoke...but, it does warn that there are harmful health effects related to cigarette smoking...and you should BEWARE. With that in mind, is it unreasonable to suggest that the use of (or ownership of any offspring by) any of the sires on the list referred to as "unequivocal failures" is not a guarantee of failure...but rather a warning of sorts to...BEWARE (in the opinion of the article's author).
The thoroughbred game can be tough and is sometimes (if not often) unforgiving. I suggest it could be beneficial to be critical and demanding re stallion/sire choices...and BEWARE of advertisements, hype and spin based on cherry-picked info, numbers and stats.
Best to you.
Respectfully
Heidilady wrote: Not sure I agree that some of these (sires) meet the definition of "unequivocal failures."
We could debate if the words "unequivocal failures" were used too cavalierly or with too broad a stroke (if you will)...but (from my perspective) the list includes sires that are arguably NOT living up to expectations based on the opportunities afforded them...and are DISAPPOINTING at best.
Heidilady wrote:Call me crazy but if you're capable of siring G1 winners you have some merit--it's not like they're even that old.
To my way of thinking, the definition of failure (as it relates to a sire) should (among other things) take into account the quality and quantity of opportunity afforded the stallion.
That said...I submit that even horses (although some might not meet the criteria for addition to the author's list) that have sired Graded (including Grade 1) stakes winners (such as you pointed out) can still be categorized as failures at stud...wouldn't you agree? I submit that Artax (himself still relatively young and a sire of a Grade 1 winner) could be tagged a failure. And what about Storm Creek...he too sired a G1 winner (would you not categorize him as a failure). You mentioned Our Emblem and his exceptional dual classic winning son War Emblem. I must say, to my way of thinking Our Emblem could be tagged as a failure of huge proportion.
As I referenced Artax, Storm Creek and Our Emblem...it clicked that all three were associated (at one time or another) with Taylor Made...as is another horse on the list, Tiznow...hmmm. With that in mind, maybe a warning sign should be raised re Taylor Made's recent stallion addition, Officer.
For your consideration...I ask, is it unreasonable to suggest that any thoroughbred stallion with JC papers...even the teaser, might have it in him to sire a superstar G1 winning racehorse. If you believe that's a possibility (as I do), it might tend to temper the accolades, serve as a sobering reality and/or raise questions as to a sire's genuine worth and/or prowess (in relation to his opportunities)...as a sire.
Maybe this is a stretch, but you might consider this...the warning label on cigarette packages is not a guarantee that you'll become ill if you smoke...but, it does warn that there are harmful health effects related to cigarette smoking...and you should BEWARE. With that in mind, is it unreasonable to suggest that the use of (or ownership of any offspring by) any of the sires on the list referred to as "unequivocal failures" is not a guarantee of failure...but rather a warning of sorts to...BEWARE (in the opinion of the article's author).
The thoroughbred game can be tough and is sometimes (if not often) unforgiving. I suggest it could be beneficial to be critical and demanding re stallion/sire choices...and BEWARE of advertisements, hype and spin based on cherry-picked info, numbers and stats.
Best to you.
Respectfully
My argument is there's a difference between "disappointing" and "unequivocal failure." Unequivocal means clear, unambiguous, and something you can't really go 'yeah, but..' and I don't think you can say that without at least a slight qualification on many of these stallions mentioned ergo it's a misuse of the term. Our Emblem was disappointing but he sired a Derby winner..he is no failure. Secretariat was disappointing too if you talk opportunity and expectation. He currently has no sons at stud for over $2500.
You do realize Real Quiet got a G3 winner this weekend. His daughter Wonder Lady Anne L. won the Coaching Club American Oaks and was 2nd in the Bonnie Miss. Pussycat Doll took the Humana Distaff, another G1. Oh yeah, huge failure. Sure very disappointing for a Derby winner to get where he has thus far if you wanted another Derby winner/contender but no failure. I've heard remarks from some that they look forward to him as a broodmare sire and given his mares are just now getting around to that we won't know for awhile. Given that Bernardini and AP Warrior are the result of AP Indy over Quiet American mares (the only 2 ever QAs even tried up to that point with AP Indy) I say give him a chance. Cara Rafaela has had at least 2 matings with Storm Cat that I'm aware of at racing age (+ a 2006 foal), a 2yo filly--give her time--and Ile de France a G1 placer. If Real Quiet's future lies as a broodmare sire then is he still a failure?
I doubt your run of the mill teaser stallion, short of being bred to Toussaud or Hasili, would achieve multiple G1 winners in one year. If you'd like to try to convince top mare owners to either submit their mares to a teaser or send her to Real Quiet, most people would stake money on the mare going to Real Quiet--complete shocker I realize so you can see how much faith they have in the logic that you might as well go to a teaser for the same quality. I notice when bred to a G1 winner he sired a G1 winner and that same mare Hookedonafeelin has an unraced Deputy Minister filly and a 2yo (apparently still unraced) Unbridled's Song colt. Those two stallions are much more "successful" and look who got results--the "failure."
You do realize Real Quiet got a G3 winner this weekend. His daughter Wonder Lady Anne L. won the Coaching Club American Oaks and was 2nd in the Bonnie Miss. Pussycat Doll took the Humana Distaff, another G1. Oh yeah, huge failure. Sure very disappointing for a Derby winner to get where he has thus far if you wanted another Derby winner/contender but no failure. I've heard remarks from some that they look forward to him as a broodmare sire and given his mares are just now getting around to that we won't know for awhile. Given that Bernardini and AP Warrior are the result of AP Indy over Quiet American mares (the only 2 ever QAs even tried up to that point with AP Indy) I say give him a chance. Cara Rafaela has had at least 2 matings with Storm Cat that I'm aware of at racing age (+ a 2006 foal), a 2yo filly--give her time--and Ile de France a G1 placer. If Real Quiet's future lies as a broodmare sire then is he still a failure?
I doubt your run of the mill teaser stallion, short of being bred to Toussaud or Hasili, would achieve multiple G1 winners in one year. If you'd like to try to convince top mare owners to either submit their mares to a teaser or send her to Real Quiet, most people would stake money on the mare going to Real Quiet--complete shocker I realize so you can see how much faith they have in the logic that you might as well go to a teaser for the same quality. I notice when bred to a G1 winner he sired a G1 winner and that same mare Hookedonafeelin has an unraced Deputy Minister filly and a 2yo (apparently still unraced) Unbridled's Song colt. Those two stallions are much more "successful" and look who got results--the "failure."
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana"
hello Heidilady
Fair enough...and I support that argument...but, arguably the author needed a hook to ignite some interest and/or passion re the article. By choosing to describe the sires selected as unequivocal failures...he apparently did (in your case) ignite something.
Yes unequivocal means having only one possible meaning or interpretation...
...but, I (for one), whether in 100% agreement with the words unequivocal failure or not, do view the list as interesting and arguably comprehensive (as it relates to the article).
I understand that he sired a Derby/dual classic winner, but ALL things considered (not the least of which is quality and quantity of opportunity), I submit that a strong case could likely be argued that Our Emblem is a failure.
Disappointing (as a racehorse sire) might (All Things Considered) be a gross understatement. Secretariat, as a broodmare-sire though, is another matter all together.
He might still be considered a failure as a racehorse sire...but, if he proves to be a broodmare-sire of consequence, he would certainly be credited accordingly. Alysheba might be a good example of a failed racehorse sire, that is recognized (by many) as a VERY good broodmare-sire.
As for the teaser siring one or more G1 winners in one year...I too have my doubts...but, arguably it could be possible.
Regardless, if an average JC papered Thoroughbred teaser was offered the same opportunities (on average) that the sires on the unequivocal failures list received...I'd likely support the notion that the teaser might (at least) accomplish what one or more on the list accomplished (as sires).
Most teasers are NOT (for obvious reasons) offered much in the way of opportunity to become racehorse sires...but (on the flip side), you might agree that many stallions that have earned an initial opportunity to stand at stud...prove unworthy of the continued quality and quantity of support they received initially. Some of the sires on the unequivocal failures list might even be relegated to teaser duty ultimately...but, still be available to cover older and/or problem mares etc.
Maybe the words unequivocal failure would have been more acceptable (to you and others) if the author had offered specific criteria that a sire had to meet to be included on the list of unequivocal failures.
I agree that the words unequivocal failure might seem a bit harsh, unforgiving and final etc...but, I am willing to accept the authors premise for the purpose of the article.
Reality is, many apparently still paid serious money for some offspring sired by the author's unequivocal failures. That in and of itself seems to support your premise that some (if not many) of the sires on the list must not be unequivocal fauilures...at least in the eyes of some.
Best to you.
Respectfully
Heidilady wrote: My argument is there's a difference between "disappointing" and "unequivocal failure."
Fair enough...and I support that argument...but, arguably the author needed a hook to ignite some interest and/or passion re the article. By choosing to describe the sires selected as unequivocal failures...he apparently did (in your case) ignite something.
Heidilady wrote: Unequivocal means clear, unambiguous, and something you can't really go 'yeah, but..'...
Yes unequivocal means having only one possible meaning or interpretation...
...but, I (for one), whether in 100% agreement with the words unequivocal failure or not, do view the list as interesting and arguably comprehensive (as it relates to the article).
Heidilady wrote:Our Emblem was disappointing but he sired a Derby winner..he is no failure.
I understand that he sired a Derby/dual classic winner, but ALL things considered (not the least of which is quality and quantity of opportunity), I submit that a strong case could likely be argued that Our Emblem is a failure.
Heidilady wrote: Secretariat was disappointing too if you talk opportunity and expectation.
Disappointing (as a racehorse sire) might (All Things Considered) be a gross understatement. Secretariat, as a broodmare-sire though, is another matter all together.
Heidilady wrote:If Real Quiet's future lies as a broodmare sire then is he still a failure?
He might still be considered a failure as a racehorse sire...but, if he proves to be a broodmare-sire of consequence, he would certainly be credited accordingly. Alysheba might be a good example of a failed racehorse sire, that is recognized (by many) as a VERY good broodmare-sire.
Heidilady wrote:I doubt your run of the mill teaser stallion, short of being bred to Toussaud or Hasili, would achieve multiple G1 winners in one year.
As for the teaser siring one or more G1 winners in one year...I too have my doubts...but, arguably it could be possible.
Regardless, if an average JC papered Thoroughbred teaser was offered the same opportunities (on average) that the sires on the unequivocal failures list received...I'd likely support the notion that the teaser might (at least) accomplish what one or more on the list accomplished (as sires).
Most teasers are NOT (for obvious reasons) offered much in the way of opportunity to become racehorse sires...but (on the flip side), you might agree that many stallions that have earned an initial opportunity to stand at stud...prove unworthy of the continued quality and quantity of support they received initially. Some of the sires on the unequivocal failures list might even be relegated to teaser duty ultimately...but, still be available to cover older and/or problem mares etc.
Maybe the words unequivocal failure would have been more acceptable (to you and others) if the author had offered specific criteria that a sire had to meet to be included on the list of unequivocal failures.
I agree that the words unequivocal failure might seem a bit harsh, unforgiving and final etc...but, I am willing to accept the authors premise for the purpose of the article.
Reality is, many apparently still paid serious money for some offspring sired by the author's unequivocal failures. That in and of itself seems to support your premise that some (if not many) of the sires on the list must not be unequivocal fauilures...at least in the eyes of some.
Best to you.
Respectfully
I knew there was something familiar about the mare in question's name, Essence of Success. She is a full sister to my mare Vivid Dreams' dam, Vivalita.
Why the authors would think this was a foal with a poor pedigree is beyond me. There is more bold-face type on that page than probably ninety-five percent of auction yearlings at Keeneland. The author is superimposing his opinion of "poor pedigree" on the market. Most buyers see the obvious parts of the catalog page, not the "between the lines" info. And some horses stand out from the crowd with their appearance and demeanor; apparently this Silver Charm filly was one of them.
Essence of Success' 2003 yearling by Kris S. sold for $400,000. My mare's dam who is unraced had a Grand Slam colt sell for $150,000 last year. And since when does the name of a multi-millionaire Triple Crown contender look like "poor pedigree"? Buyers don't know he has been a failure at stud, just that he was a great racehorse. He may put out one sterling individual, and this filly may be it!
Keeneland yearling auctions are places where hopefully every buyer and seller can be satisfied that the best opportunity is available for inspection and purchase. The elitist sentiment of the author is far removed from most buyers' reality.
Why the authors would think this was a foal with a poor pedigree is beyond me. There is more bold-face type on that page than probably ninety-five percent of auction yearlings at Keeneland. The author is superimposing his opinion of "poor pedigree" on the market. Most buyers see the obvious parts of the catalog page, not the "between the lines" info. And some horses stand out from the crowd with their appearance and demeanor; apparently this Silver Charm filly was one of them.
Essence of Success' 2003 yearling by Kris S. sold for $400,000. My mare's dam who is unraced had a Grand Slam colt sell for $150,000 last year. And since when does the name of a multi-millionaire Triple Crown contender look like "poor pedigree"? Buyers don't know he has been a failure at stud, just that he was a great racehorse. He may put out one sterling individual, and this filly may be it!
Keeneland yearling auctions are places where hopefully every buyer and seller can be satisfied that the best opportunity is available for inspection and purchase. The elitist sentiment of the author is far removed from most buyers' reality.
Rocking H