Ef, with all due respect, cut the (horse manure) with Giant's Causeway foals improving with age - let's look at the numbers:
His lifetime AEI with 2 year olds is 1.78. His lifetime AEI all told is 2.10. That's compared with a CI of 3.64...so how much are they improving?
Giant's Causeway two year olds average $7,193 per start. His three and four year olds average $8,423 per start. Purses do increase for older horses as opposed to two year old races, so tell me...how does this stat tell you that they improve?
Giant's Causeway has had 202 two year old starters out of 575 foals of racing age. He has 337 total starters of racing age. So, he has 135 out of 373 foals that didn't start at two make a start at 3 - that's 36% (roughly 1/3)...so if you don't get a Giant's Causeway to the races early, chances are that you're not going to get it to the races at all.
I'm at a loss to understand how Oonagh MacCool improved with age - she wound up in the Pletcher infirmary pretty quickly, methinks. Aragorn got good on firm turf once shipped to Drysdale - he simply didn't like soft European turf, so it's hard to say if he improved with age or simply had talent all along and didn't show it until he got here. I don't suppose you want to use First Samurai as an example, either. Or Sharmardal, Europe's supposed "wonderhorse" - what ever did happen to him, anyway?
OK, here's a Jeopardy question - Awful Sires for $400, Alex:
Moderators: Roguelet, WaveMaster, madelyn
hi ef
EF...when I consider the incredible quality of opportunity that Giant's Causeway was offered...along with the HUGE HUGE HUGE quantity of opportunity he received...I am NOT by any Streeeeeeeetch of the imagination impressed.
Seems to me that you make a valiant effort to defend Giant's Causeway...problem is though, All Things Considered, Giant's Causeway makes a very weak case for himself.
Best to you.
Respectfully
ef wrote:Rokeby Forever wrote:Giant's Causeway seems to have found a niche in Europe. He's a busted balloon here in the US (even with First Samurai). Can you think of a Giant's Causeway that's gotten better with age and racing? I can't. .
I completely disagree with you- I think the Giant's Causeways have proven themselves to get better with age. ...
EF...when I consider the incredible quality of opportunity that Giant's Causeway was offered...along with the HUGE HUGE HUGE quantity of opportunity he received...I am NOT by any Streeeeeeeetch of the imagination impressed.
Seems to me that you make a valiant effort to defend Giant's Causeway...problem is though, All Things Considered, Giant's Causeway makes a very weak case for himself.
Best to you.
Respectfully
-
Rokeby Forever
- Darley line
- Posts: 6684
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:52 pm
- Location: Reno, NV
Rokeby Forever wrote:Hmmm....I feel as I'm running for office - some support my views and others don't. That's what I LOVE about racing, as opposed to any other sport...no sport generates as many diverse opinions as racing. Yes, I'm opinionated and definitely over-support stallions I like, but...what the heck?
ASB: (1) What I meant to say about My Charmer is that there isn't a top sire produced in her last 3 generations. If you want to go back to Frizette, I suppose I could go back to La Troienne and then claim that there are 1,000s of colts out there that have sire potential because La Troienne is in the 5th or 6th generation.
(2) I'm not a big fan of AP Indy myself (many are just too big and they're often very good or very unsound), and his sons (Aptitude, Stephen Got Even, Albert The Great....) have yet to show any kind of consistency. With that in mind, I wouldn't be so fast to shell out $100,000 for Bernardini. No doubt the commercial market will love Bernardini foals no matter what they look like, but my jury is out.
(3) Rahy is a small stallion (15.3, I believe), which has been a major turn-off through his career. I like him as a "breed to race" stallion, much as Cozzene, because they aren't going to sire the next big stallion, but you have a shot at having a top class racehorse every time you breed to one of them. Cozzene moves up almost every mare he's bred to, and Rahy is just a personal favorite.
Not many stallions that prove to be very useful can say they have another top stallion within 3 generations. The whole concept of "bluehen" is that the class of the family carries over generations and time.
To belittle the class of family of My Charmer is ludicrus. Its just a wrong statement. Its probably the only thing I really disliked about your post.
And actually, I like A.P. Indy as a sire of sires, but mostly (thus far), through his son Pulpit. I think Pulpit has a few promising sons who foals will just now be hitting the track. Look to him to be one to watch.
Furthermore, I dont think its Rahy's size thats going to affect how people think of his sons, but more that he is a Blushing Groom line stallion. Plain and simple. Many Northern Dancer's are small, as was he, but its their en vogue classification that made them popular and their genetic strength. Blushing Grom and his get have managed to build quite a niche for themselves without being supported any where near as well. My comment was to look for sons of Rahy and the likes to continue this.
FOS... Mr. Prospector, in my estimation, is the most important sire of the last 50 years in America... yes, even more than Northern Dancer. Even though Northern Dancer has been more important internationally, you cant argue with Mr. P's numbers and legacy state-side. As with any stallion, he didnt bat a 1000... but damn if he wasnt as close as possible.
hi ASB
Your comments above caught my attention...to the extent that I might suggest that we might be seeing more influence of Rahy (the dam's sire of Giant's Causeway)...in Giant's Causeway sons and daughters...than influence from Storm Cat and/or Northern Dancer.
I see many Giant's Causeways that seem (to me) to be more Rahy-like than anything Storm Cat and/or Northern Dancer-like.
You're preaching to the choir.
Best to you.
Respectfully
ASB wrote:Furthermore, I dont think its Rahy's size thats going to affect how people think of his sons, but more that he is a Blushing Groom line stallion. Plain and simple. Many Northern Dancer's are small, as was he, but its their en vogue classification that made them popular and their genetic strength. Blushing Grom and his get have managed to build quite a niche for themselves without being supported any where near as well. My comment was to look for sons of Rahy and the likes to continue this.
Your comments above caught my attention...to the extent that I might suggest that we might be seeing more influence of Rahy (the dam's sire of Giant's Causeway)...in Giant's Causeway sons and daughters...than influence from Storm Cat and/or Northern Dancer.
I see many Giant's Causeways that seem (to me) to be more Rahy-like than anything Storm Cat and/or Northern Dancer-like.
ASB wrote:FOS...Mr. Prospector, in my estimation, is the most important sire of the last 50 years in America... yes, even more than Northern Dancer.
You're preaching to the choir.
Best to you.
Respectfully
-
Rokeby Forever
- Darley line
- Posts: 6684
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:52 pm
- Location: Reno, NV
Hi, ASB - OK, we can agree to disagree. But I wouldn't ask Seattle Dancer if having My Charmer's family running in his veins helped with his stud career.
Kudos on the Rahy comments. However, when Northern Dancer stood stud in the late 60's and 70's, there weren't many studs around that approached 17 hands - now there are, so I think Rahy's small size is more of a factor today than it was with ND. Just my humble opinion...and I'll take 20 Rahy yearlings over 1 Storm Cat yearling (at the same cost) any day!!!
To me, Pulpit is fast becoming a "hit or miss" stallion. Yep, he can sire the big horse (if you want to call Sky Mesa "big"), but there are an awful lot of slowpokes with Pulpit as a sire.
Actually, if you want to consider importance over the last 25 years, Secretariat is much more important than just about anyone. Without his mares producing Storm Cat and AP Indy, the breeding world today would look a bit different, don't you think?
And, if you want to look at the Blushing Groom line, Runaway Groom has to be the ultimate Rodney Dangerfield in the breeding world. What does it take for a sire to be recognized?
Kudos on the Rahy comments. However, when Northern Dancer stood stud in the late 60's and 70's, there weren't many studs around that approached 17 hands - now there are, so I think Rahy's small size is more of a factor today than it was with ND. Just my humble opinion...and I'll take 20 Rahy yearlings over 1 Storm Cat yearling (at the same cost) any day!!!
To me, Pulpit is fast becoming a "hit or miss" stallion. Yep, he can sire the big horse (if you want to call Sky Mesa "big"), but there are an awful lot of slowpokes with Pulpit as a sire.
Actually, if you want to consider importance over the last 25 years, Secretariat is much more important than just about anyone. Without his mares producing Storm Cat and AP Indy, the breeding world today would look a bit different, don't you think?
And, if you want to look at the Blushing Groom line, Runaway Groom has to be the ultimate Rodney Dangerfield in the breeding world. What does it take for a sire to be recognized?
I've seen Candy Ride and yes he does have small feet. AND...I had heard his main soundness problem was his ankles....well NO WONDER!!!! They were very weird looking. I've never heard of a "bowed pastern", but I swear that's what one of them looked like. Other than his legs, he wasn't bad 
, but I wouldn't take a chance on him. Even if I had the money and a well conformed mare.
, but I wouldn't take a chance on him. Even if I had the money and a well conformed mare."Most people hate the taste of beer to begin with. It is, however, a prejudice that many people have been able to overcome."-Winston Churchill
-
angelsprite
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:11 pm
- Location: waller, Texas
- Contact:
This is kind of a cool topic for me. I really like this thread.
There is a stallion here who has less than 2% winners from starters. He himself earned half a million dollars and can't get a racehorse. He's certainly beautiful, well conformed.
The trouble for him is that his managers bred him to every mare that would come, without regard to selection. Now, someone would figure, eventually, there would have to be an accident. A good foal, right? Not if you have a horse that is very very heavy on Nearco and a lot of even older lines that the majority of mares have only far back and in small percentages.
If they would put this horse with some mares that had some of those older lines and some of the newer lines as well, breeding carefully for a balance between speed and distance, they would get a racehorse, but unfortunately for this horse, his pedigree leans toward races they don't write anymore. He would probably be a great stud if they wrote mile and a half to 2 mile races regularly.
I think many stallions suffer from this same trouble. Trainers preferences and the trends in races that are being written can have a huge impact on a stallion's success, and for that reason, the breeding manager has got to select carefully if a stallion doesn't have a very versatile pedigree. They have to breed in ways that move toward the trends and that way, they stay ahead of the racing secretaries and the trainers.
Just my thoughts.
There is a stallion here who has less than 2% winners from starters. He himself earned half a million dollars and can't get a racehorse. He's certainly beautiful, well conformed.
The trouble for him is that his managers bred him to every mare that would come, without regard to selection. Now, someone would figure, eventually, there would have to be an accident. A good foal, right? Not if you have a horse that is very very heavy on Nearco and a lot of even older lines that the majority of mares have only far back and in small percentages.
If they would put this horse with some mares that had some of those older lines and some of the newer lines as well, breeding carefully for a balance between speed and distance, they would get a racehorse, but unfortunately for this horse, his pedigree leans toward races they don't write anymore. He would probably be a great stud if they wrote mile and a half to 2 mile races regularly.
I think many stallions suffer from this same trouble. Trainers preferences and the trends in races that are being written can have a huge impact on a stallion's success, and for that reason, the breeding manager has got to select carefully if a stallion doesn't have a very versatile pedigree. They have to breed in ways that move toward the trends and that way, they stay ahead of the racing secretaries and the trainers.
Just my thoughts.
-
Nighthenge
- Suckling
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:01 pm
Re: Pleasant Tap
pokeyman wrote:ratherrapid wrote:and how can you possibly say pleasant colony is a flop.
Um...how can you NOT say he is a flop at siring sons who are world class??? Let's see 620 foals and only one stallion that is EVER on the leading Sire list (who BTW didn't have to earn his stripes the hard way because he has always been supported with a strong book of mares and has always resided at a top KY farm).
Actually, Pleasant Tap spend his first few years at stud alongside his sire at Buckland Farm. I visited them both there in the late 90s before the farm was sold and they were moved to Lane's End.
-
Rokeby Forever
- Darley line
- Posts: 6684
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:52 pm
- Location: Reno, NV
I wouldn't give you 10 cents for Behrens....and people paying $40,000 for Pleasantly Perfect are really rolling the dice, don't you think?
Buddha is still my favorite worst of the worst. OK, he got a big book in his first year with no mare selection, but only 5 winners and 0 SWs from over 110 foals? $713 median earnings and an AEI of 0.27? Um....if there's something out there worse, please let me know.
Buddha is still my favorite worst of the worst. OK, he got a big book in his first year with no mare selection, but only 5 winners and 0 SWs from over 110 foals? $713 median earnings and an AEI of 0.27? Um....if there's something out there worse, please let me know.
hi Rokeby Forever
Worst of the worst (your words) is quite an embarrassing and harsh description for any sire...but, in the case of Buddha, the shoe seems to fit (at least right now). He'll likely come up with a quality runner, possibly more (it's my contention that just about any thoroughbred stallion, even the teaser, might)...but for now, Buddha (by Unbridled's Song) seems to be defining himself as a thoroughbred sire-version of the plague.
Buddha aside...another son of Unbridled's Song that also has first 2-year-olds 2006, and that also has (to this point) NOT impressed me by any stretch of the imagination, is Unbridled Time.
Based on what I've seen thus far...cheap is the first word that comes to mind when I consider Unbridled Time as a sire.
Best to you.
Respectfully
Rokeby Forever wrote:Buddha is still my favorite worst of the worst. OK, he got a big book in his first year with no mare selection, but only 5 winners and 0 SWs from over 110 foals? $713 median earnings and an AEI of 0.27? Um....if there's something out there worse, please let me know.
Worst of the worst (your words) is quite an embarrassing and harsh description for any sire...but, in the case of Buddha, the shoe seems to fit (at least right now). He'll likely come up with a quality runner, possibly more (it's my contention that just about any thoroughbred stallion, even the teaser, might)...but for now, Buddha (by Unbridled's Song) seems to be defining himself as a thoroughbred sire-version of the plague.
Buddha aside...another son of Unbridled's Song that also has first 2-year-olds 2006, and that also has (to this point) NOT impressed me by any stretch of the imagination, is Unbridled Time.
Based on what I've seen thus far...cheap is the first word that comes to mind when I consider Unbridled Time as a sire.
Best to you.
Respectfully
-
Rokeby Forever
- Darley line
- Posts: 6684
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:52 pm
- Location: Reno, NV
Hi FOS. You're absolutely right about the Unbridled's Song line - can you say "rotten feet?" Look at these horses: Buddha, Eurosilver, Rockport Harbor. What did they all have in common? Rotten feet! What are they likely to pass along? Yep, you guessed it!
Buddha, it seems, is just devoid of any genetic material. Is that a nicer way of saying he's the "worst of the worst"? LOL!
Buddha, it seems, is just devoid of any genetic material. Is that a nicer way of saying he's the "worst of the worst"? LOL!
How to lie with statistics... it's really an artform.
In my humble opinion, an animal who has achieved more at 4 than at 3, or at 3 than 2, is one who has improved. To say that the horse had that talent at 2, didn't get to show it, and thus didn't improve, is utter conjecture.
Fact is, if you look at Giant's Causeway's first crop stakes winners, all but 1 achieved more as 3 year olds and up:
1. Shamardal- Champion at 2, DUAL CLASSIC WINNER AT 3.
2. Maids Causeway- GSW at 2; G1SW at 3.
3. Footstepsinthesand- GSW @ 2; CLASSIC WINNER at 3.
4. My Typhoon- W @ 2; GSW @ 3; multiple GSW and G1SP at 4.
5. Mona Lisa- SP @ 2; SW and multiple G1SP at 3.
6. Naissance Royale- W @ 2; GSW @ 3; GSW and G1SP @ 4.
7. Aragorn- P @ 2; GSW @ 3; multiple G1SW @ 4.
8. Oblique- R @ 2; SW @ 3.
9. Oonagh Maccool: U @ 2; W @ 3; GSW @ 4.
10. Bastet: R @ 2; SP @ 3; SW and GSP @ 4.
11. Aischa: LSW @ 2; no record since
The majority of his Second Crop, minus First Sam and Diamond Omi, all have been better 3 yos than 2 yos:
1. Frost Giant: GSW @ 2; GSW @ 3
2. Harriett Lane: W @ 2; SW @ 3
3. Primary: W @ 2; GSW @ 3
4. Heaven’s Cause: W @ 2; SW @ 3
5. Chetten County: R @ 2; SW @ 3
6. Scholastic Giant: W @ 2; SW @ 3
7. Win McCool: W @ 2; GSW @ 3
8. Diamond Omi: GSW @ 2; dead 11/05
9. First Samurai: G1SW @ 2; GSW @ 3; last start mid-Spring
GC is overpriced at 300,000. No doubt about it. His stats look unremarkable, courtesy of large books and Southern Hemisphere crops, where he has been a flop so far. Regardless, he is certainly the most talented young stallion today. Name me one other stallion (other than his sire!) than can sire two classic winners, champion or near champion juveniles on dirt and turf, potentially a champion turf horse, a top older dirt mare, etc. I think that he and his sire are the most versatile sires in the world. Just my opinion, of course.
In my humble opinion, an animal who has achieved more at 4 than at 3, or at 3 than 2, is one who has improved. To say that the horse had that talent at 2, didn't get to show it, and thus didn't improve, is utter conjecture.
Fact is, if you look at Giant's Causeway's first crop stakes winners, all but 1 achieved more as 3 year olds and up:
1. Shamardal- Champion at 2, DUAL CLASSIC WINNER AT 3.
2. Maids Causeway- GSW at 2; G1SW at 3.
3. Footstepsinthesand- GSW @ 2; CLASSIC WINNER at 3.
4. My Typhoon- W @ 2; GSW @ 3; multiple GSW and G1SP at 4.
5. Mona Lisa- SP @ 2; SW and multiple G1SP at 3.
6. Naissance Royale- W @ 2; GSW @ 3; GSW and G1SP @ 4.
7. Aragorn- P @ 2; GSW @ 3; multiple G1SW @ 4.
8. Oblique- R @ 2; SW @ 3.
9. Oonagh Maccool: U @ 2; W @ 3; GSW @ 4.
10. Bastet: R @ 2; SP @ 3; SW and GSP @ 4.
11. Aischa: LSW @ 2; no record since
The majority of his Second Crop, minus First Sam and Diamond Omi, all have been better 3 yos than 2 yos:
1. Frost Giant: GSW @ 2; GSW @ 3
2. Harriett Lane: W @ 2; SW @ 3
3. Primary: W @ 2; GSW @ 3
4. Heaven’s Cause: W @ 2; SW @ 3
5. Chetten County: R @ 2; SW @ 3
6. Scholastic Giant: W @ 2; SW @ 3
7. Win McCool: W @ 2; GSW @ 3
8. Diamond Omi: GSW @ 2; dead 11/05
9. First Samurai: G1SW @ 2; GSW @ 3; last start mid-Spring
GC is overpriced at 300,000. No doubt about it. His stats look unremarkable, courtesy of large books and Southern Hemisphere crops, where he has been a flop so far. Regardless, he is certainly the most talented young stallion today. Name me one other stallion (other than his sire!) than can sire two classic winners, champion or near champion juveniles on dirt and turf, potentially a champion turf horse, a top older dirt mare, etc. I think that he and his sire are the most versatile sires in the world. Just my opinion, of course.
Rokeby Forever wrote:Ef, with all due respect, cut the (horse manure) with Giant's Causeway foals improving with age - let's look at the numbers:
His lifetime AEI with 2 year olds is 1.78. His lifetime AEI all told is 2.10. That's compared with a CI of 3.64...so how much are they improving?
Giant's Causeway two year olds average $7,193 per start. His three and four year olds average $8,423 per start. Purses do increase for older horses as opposed to two year old races, so tell me...how does this stat tell you that they improve?
Giant's Causeway has had 202 two year old starters out of 575 foals of racing age. He has 337 total starters of racing age. So, he has 135 out of 373 foals that didn't start at two make a start at 3 - that's 36% (roughly 1/3)...so if you don't get a Giant's Causeway to the races early, chances are that you're not going to get it to the races at all.
I'm at a loss to understand how Oonagh MacCool improved with age - she wound up in the Pletcher infirmary pretty quickly, methinks. Aragorn got good on firm turf once shipped to Drysdale - he simply didn't like soft European turf, so it's hard to say if he improved with age or simply had talent all along and didn't show it until he got here. I don't suppose you want to use First Samurai as an example, either. Or Sharmardal, Europe's supposed "wonderhorse" - what ever did happen to him, anyway?
-
Rokeby Forever
- Darley line
- Posts: 6684
- Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:52 pm
- Location: Reno, NV
29% winners with one of the finest books of mares in the world? I don't know about versatile - sounds more like "hit or miss."
I won't argue with your stats listed below...you did a fine job. But GC has 390 foals aged 3 or 4.... 20 out of 390 you listed is what....roughly 5%? Please keep going...the analysis is fascinating! I'm sure, as stats "lie," you wouldn't want to base an analysis on 5%, would you?
All these horses you listed (unless I missed one or two) started at 2...and as I said, if a GC doesn't race at two, there's a good chance it won't race at all and develop into anything. I think your excellent analysis proves that point.
Is he overpriced and overbooked? Absolutely. Everyone's feelings about Coolmore/Ashford are well known. Would he be a great Stallion at $50,000 with better mare selection? Absolutely! The problem is....neither will ever happen, and as such, he can't be considered a success by any stretch of the imagination. Does GC do the best he can? Yup...but at the stud fee and/or foal sales average, no thanks!
I won't argue with your stats listed below...you did a fine job. But GC has 390 foals aged 3 or 4.... 20 out of 390 you listed is what....roughly 5%? Please keep going...the analysis is fascinating! I'm sure, as stats "lie," you wouldn't want to base an analysis on 5%, would you?
All these horses you listed (unless I missed one or two) started at 2...and as I said, if a GC doesn't race at two, there's a good chance it won't race at all and develop into anything. I think your excellent analysis proves that point.
Is he overpriced and overbooked? Absolutely. Everyone's feelings about Coolmore/Ashford are well known. Would he be a great Stallion at $50,000 with better mare selection? Absolutely! The problem is....neither will ever happen, and as such, he can't be considered a success by any stretch of the imagination. Does GC do the best he can? Yup...but at the stud fee and/or foal sales average, no thanks!