Epsom Oaks winners = bad producers

[SemparQuel]

I examined the production of the Epsom Oaks winners in 50 years from 1950 to 1999.

I report the significant winners I found, in 1st or 2nd generation.

55 Meld -> CHARLOTTOWN
57 Carrozza -> Matahawk (2nd gen.)
58 Bella Paola -> POLA BELLA
62 Monade -> Sadeem (2), Too Chic (2)
64 Homeward Bound -> Super Concorde (2)
67 Pia -> Chief Singer (2)
70 Lupe -> Legend of France
82 Time Charter -> Zinaad (sire of Kazzia)
85 Oh so sharp -> Shantou (2)
86 Midway Lady -> Eswarah
87 Unite -> La Confederation
89 Snow Bride -> LAMMTARRA, Qais

Three champions, and some good horses, not more...
Can you explain this misery ?

[dublino]

Well the Oaks is over 1.5 miles and you breed these mares to stallions who won the Derby over a similar trip you are going to get 2 mile horses.

[kimberley mine]

Your list is not complete.

Moonshell--2nd dam of exceptional Aussie Champion Miss Finland

Salsabil--of dam Gr-3 winners Sahm, Alabaq, and Bint Salsabil. Died young.

Oh So Sharp--dam of French Gr-1 winner Rosefinch and Gr-2 Shaima

Diminuendo--Calando is a Gr-3 winner, Gr-1 placed

Midway Lady's--dam of Gr-3 winner Itnab

Circus Plume--dam of Gr-3 winner and juvenile highweight Scarlet Plume.

Sun Princess --Gr-1 winner Prince of Dance, Gr-2 winner Princely Virtue, and multiple stakes placed Ballet Prince. Granddam of a Gr-2 winner, a Japan Derby winner, two other listed winners and one listed place

Time Charter--dam of Gr-2 winner Time Allowed. TC's daughter By Charter produced 3 stakes winners, including a Gr-2 winner. Her daughter Time Saved produced Gr-2 winner

Fair Salinia--Gr 3 winner Perfect Vintage and listed winner Perfect Circle.

Bireme--Gr-3 winner Yawl, granddam of two listed winners

Snow Bride--Lammtara, Gr-3 Saytarra

Homeward Bound--Prime Abord and Test Stakes winner (now a Gr-1) Lucky Traveler.

Ramruma--dam of Gr-1 placed colt, daughters are just now starting to produce

The 2000 winner Love Divine produced millionaire Sixties Icon.

All in all, I would not classify this group as a failure or as blighted as producers.

[wallinga]

I have a theory that great racemares tend to leave alot on the track and it is generally (with some notable exceptions ie Dahlia) the daughters that go on. Two great examples here in Oz are Emancipation and Flight.

What are the forumites thoughts?

[dublino]

Miesque and Terligua are two who spring to mind.

[kimberley mine]

I have a theory that great racemares tend to leave alot on the track and it is generally (with some notable exceptions ie Dahlia) the daughters that go on. Two great examples here in Oz are Emancipation and Flight.

What are the forumites thoughts?

And then you have Rose of Kingston, Diamond Lover, Tristalove, Shadea, Personal Ensign, Vaindarra, Mariah's Storm, Urban Sea, Cosmah, Dance Smartly, etc.

Of the Epsom Oaks winners I looked into, 12 mares were the first dam of 19 graded stakes horses. Of BC Distaff winners from 1984-2000, 5 produced Gr-1 winners, an additional 3 produced at least one stakes winner, and 3 more had at least one stakes-placed foal--11 for 17, with two who died young and had five foals between them.

Thing is, stakes winners are about 8% of the breed and graded stakes winners about 3% of the breed. Although not every top racemare will be a top producer, the group of stakes and graded stakes winning racemares are far more likely statistically to be graded stakes producing mares than mares who don't win a stakes (and a lot more than mares who don't win). Part of this is that graded stakes winning mares are more likely to get to better stallions and part is that the mares themselves are more likely to pass on superior running ability.

[Tappiano]

I have a theory that great racemares tend to leave alot on the track and it is generally (with some notable exceptions ie Dahlia) the daughters that go on. Two great examples here in Oz are Emancipation and Flight.

What are the forumites thoughts?

Tesio believed that if you run a mare too long they expended their nervous energy and since they were not given a "sufficent" amount of time off before breeding they would conceive slower horses.

He also says that if you do not mix speed to stamina you won't have stayers because the speed influence gives them the nervous energy they need to get the distance (I am approximating what he said but it's close).

[parlo]

… Three champions, and some good horses, not more...
Can you explain this misery ?

Your list is not complete. … All in all, I would not classify this group as a failure or as blighted as producers.

… Tesio believed that if you run a mare too long they expended their nervous energy and since they were not given a "sufficent" amount of time off before breeding they would conceive slower horses.

He also says that if you do not mix speed to stamina you won't have stayers because the speed influence gives them the nervous energy they need to get the distance.

This looks like a typical amateur-discussion on tb-breeding (“Oh, I know something / I discovered something, I must tell you …”).

The introducing list was not complete (in Louis’s thread we call this well-chosen / preselected examples to fit into a weird theory, but do not prove it) and from that a not well-based “theory” was derived.

Nobody asked how good the breeding-record of other samples of mares has been (of Arc-winners, of French / Irish Oaks or Guineas-winners, of G1- / G2- / G3-winning mares in general). But this is important to give valid evidence on the breeding-success of Epsom-Oaks-winners, which looks to me at first sight far beyond average.

Well, it’s Tesio’s honour of being one of few great breeders to leave some personal notes on his work and considerations. But Tesio was not a scientist and he never proved his theories in a scientific way.

Surprisingly few to none people tried to prove Tesio’s thesis later on. They are holy axioms in tb-breeding.

[xfactor fan]

Everything that Tesio is quoted as having said must be taken in the context of both the time, and language of his times. And of course his original lauguage, which was not English.

When reading Tesio--in English--I see a man who has a keen and intuitive take on breeding, trying to fit his observations into the framework of modern (his time) science. Sometimes he's correct, or at least on the right track, other times he's really off base.

There's a whole section on color and races of horses that in light of modern understanding of genetics is just sad.

Most quoted are his observations on AI. He didn't think it worked for race horses. He believed that race mares expended to much energy on the track and couldn't produce good offspring. This however didn't seem to apply to stallions.

Tesio needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Bast]

I have a theory that great racemares tend to leave alot on the track and it is generally (with some notable exceptions ie Dahlia) the daughters that go on. Two great examples here in Oz are Emancipation and Flight.

What are the forumites thoughts?

Genetically, there is NO mechanism to explain "leaving" anything behind on the racetrack.

Most stallions are failures. Why are the expectations of broodmares any higher?

[Linda_d]

I have a theory that great racemares tend to leave alot on the track and it is generally (with some notable exceptions ie Dahlia) the daughters that go on. Two great examples here in Oz are Emancipation and Flight.

What are the forumites thoughts?

Genetically, there is NO mechanism to explain "leaving" anything behind on the racetrack.

Most stallions are failures. Why are the expectations of broodmares any higher?

Even successful stallions have hundreds of chances, sometimes thousands, and get only a small number of real successes.

[Patuxet]

Linda_d wrote: "Even successful stallions have hundreds of chances, sometimes thousands, and get only a small number of real successes."

A good point which was made rather graphically some 35 or 40 years ago in a piece published in either The Blood-Horse or Thoroughbred Times, using the stud records of two or three prominent stallions.

As I remember it a stallion's total foals plus breedings that resulted in no foal were added up and then divided by the average number of fertile years for a mare. The result represented the total number of "broodmares". Then the foals and foal-less years were allotted one by one to each "broodmare" to arrive at an individual produce record.

Back then top stallions covered books of only about 50 select mares. Imagine what a similar exercise would look like with today's outsized books.

Unfortunately I didn't save the piece.

Allison

[Gallop58]

Breeders, like pedigree commentators, should be judged on what their foals do, not what they write.
What I find interesting is that I have never read any plausible modern explanation for Tesio's success.
Correlation is not causation....
I'd take an Oaks winner off your hands all day long

[parlo]

Another point which shows the methodological und intellectual weakness of many tb-experts:

The initial thesis was "Epsom Oaks winners = bad producers".

But what's about the breeding-record of mares being placed / ran unplaced / didn't race in the Epsom Oaks or any other race of comparable merit?

Few to none of those "great tb-experts" is able to deliver "complete" research and results and draws his conclusions there after. Almost everybody is cultivating his own bullshit, because "they are pedigree-researchers and no scientists".

What this means, you can see in the rubbish delivered by Louis in his famous weird thread, which only gains quality by the links and postings of all the other posters.

[kimberley mine]

But what's about the breeding-record of mares being placed / ran unplaced / didn't race in the Epsom Oaks or any other race of comparable merit?

I submit that mares who did not win the Epsom Oaks, but were placed, probably also have a pretty good aggregate record as broodmares.

The key in that statement is aggregate. Some mares will be bad producers, some will be good producers, some will be exceptional producers, and a very few will produce horses who will forever change the breed.

If you use the example of BC Distaff winners from 1984-2000--chosen as a group solely because wikipedia has a page of the top 3 from each race, making the research easy--then in 17 years of the sample set you have:

--43 individual mares (some ran in more than one year), of whom five died very young, after producing 5 foals between them;
--who are the first dams of at least 12 Gr-1 winners
--and the dams of at least 7 additional graded winners;
--and the dams of at least 14 additional black-type horses

In the aggregate, this group of mares did so much better than average it's not even funny. Individual results varied widely, with no particular pattern. If anything, the only thing this sample proves is do not race your good Argentine mare in the BC Distaff if you want her to have a long and happy broodmare career! Re Toss died after 2 foals, Different none, Paseana only one, and Bayakoa the longest-lived of the lot with five.