What makes a better sire?

[Derby2004]

Hi all. I found the articles and conversations about which mares make better broodmares, the ones with racing success or better families. I have not seen it discussed about stallions though. Although we know that the ones that raced better will get the better mares and in turn produce better runners. Take a MGSW stallion that doesn't have much of a female family. Will he be as good as one that does have a good family?

[Johar]

My personal feeling is to rank them this way:

1st: The high quality racehorse with a strong pedigree (obviously)

2nd: The high quality racehorse with an unfashionable family (Tiznow, for example). There is a real risk associated with breeding to these individuals, in my opinion. The freakish horse that outperforms his pedigree is, if anything, less likely to reproduce himself, than the horse with the strong pedigree. This is the basic premise of "regression to the mean" in genetic terminology. However, all other things being equal, I'd rather breed to a racehorse, than to a family. Of course, this is coming from the "breed-to-race" angle.

3rd: The average or disappointing racehorse from a strong family (Freud, for example). If you can assume that Freud was given every opportunity to perform well, but just didn't have 'it', I'd stay away. The chances are he represents a very different genetic "mix" to his full brother, Giant's Causeway. It's highly unlikely (but impossible to say for sure) that the superior genetics will "reappear" in his progeny if they were lost in him.

So, I think you maximise your chances if you have option #1, but personally I'd give a slight preference to option #2 than #3. I'd be interested to see if anyone agrees/disagrees.

Of course, if you're breeding to sell.........pedigree sells - so the better commercial sire might come from category #3, than #2.

JMO.

[Roguelet]

Well, I agree with Johar on the first point, but I don't think you'll find anyone to really disagree with that. If you have a stallion with awesome family and proven talent, it's hard to pass that up. However, we all know that even that isn't a guarantee for success.

My sort of generic answer to the question would be to really know the stallion personally, which can be hard to do in some cases. For instance, if a stallion showed so much potential on the racetrack and was sound and fast and had a ton of heart but the owners decided to cut the race career short and send him to stud because they were afraid of hurting him or something, then it's not the stallion's fault that he doesn't have an illustrious race career.

If a stallion is injured prior to racing and the injury is not a soundess issue, such as a paddock accident or something like that, then it's not the stallion's fault that he doesn't have an illustrious race career.

I, personally, would rather breed to a sound talented horse with a decent but maybe not really fashionable pedigree than a broken down, unsound, crooked ugly thing just because of his family.

Here's why: I breed to sell and to race, but even my breeding to sell is to sell privately, not in the big sales. I want my customers to get a sound, sane, athlete. I want that horse to be a marketable animal whether it makes it as a racehorse or not. I want the ones who do succeed as racehorses to be able to race until they're 15 years old if they're still competitive, and not be a 2YO wonder and washed up at 3. If I can give my customers that, they're happy and they come back.

For those that I keep and race myself... same thing. If they don't race as 2YOs, no biggie, I'd trade that in a heartbeat for one who can race for 10 years and be sound and then retire and go on to do something else! It seems to me that my view is pretty much the exact polar opposite of what the big sales are all about, which is one reason why I'm not there!

All of that said, I don't want to breed to an unsound horse, period... no matter what their pedigree is. Of the sound horses that are left, I want bloodlines that I like (which may or may not be what anyone else likes.) On top of that I would LOVE to have a triple crown winning champion racehorse, but I don't have the budget to include all of the above, so I have to pick and choose.

Because people are so quick to discount no race record, that is the easiest one for those on a budget like mine to take advantage of. However, there are two types of non-race record type stallions: the ones who don't have the race record because they were too unsound to handle it (huge black mark in my opinion) and the ones who don't have the race record due to no fault of their own (human error is the biggest cause for this group, but true accidents also fit here.)

OK, you all knew this example was coming: Indy Mood. I LOVE his pedigree, both top and bottom. There's nothing about it that I would change. I LOVE his looks, build and conformation. I LOVE his personality. I LOVE his athleticism, and I LOVE the type of babies he throws. I LOVE the fact that from what I've been told, he showed HUGE promise on the track and was very fast and talented with a lot of "want to." Now for the race record... non-existant. However, that is due to a bandage bow (100% human error) before he ever got to race. That has nothing to do with his conformation or his soundess or his ability, just some moron who probably at least lost their job and got a huge cussing out over it. I think he's a gem, and I'll breed mares to him all day long. If he had the race record that I believe he could've had, he would most definitely be out of my price range and not an option for me, so I feel blessed that I have the opportunity to breed to him.

However, in answer to the real question, even though in my personal opinion a stallion like Indy Mood could be a very big success, he won't be because the big-time folks with the money and the really good mares will never come to him... they'll go to the hottest new thing in Kentucky who could run, regardless of whether he can walk without crutches or not. And the big-wigs will also see that these foals bring astronomical prices in the sales ring, and they will get the best trainers and everything money can buy, and probably a few will succeed in this environment... and the cycle will repeat itself. So IMO the biggest successes will be the best racers because that's what the market will support. Those without the race record may or may not actually be better, but the market won't allow anyone to ever really find out.

[judi]

Roguelet,
Couldn't agree with you more.
I really like Indy Mood very much, and his babies had a lot of success last year. Hopefully, this year will be even better.
I never heard of a bandage bow, but I'm assuming that someone applied a bandage incorrectly.
Best of luck this year!!!
Judi

[Roguelet]

Yeah, basically they wrapped the bandage too tight, put too much pressure on the tendon, and caused a breakdown in the tendon.

Thanks for the well-wishes... he's already had his first winner of 2005 which is nice since nobody's really even racing around here yet!

[freddymo]

Roguelet,I don't necessarily agree that a stallion can't buck the "system". St Ballado stood for peanuts intially, so did Northern Afleet, he was pretty cheap in Florida. The 1st book of mares NA saw where suspect to say the least. I don't know how great St Ballado's first couple of books where either. St B. became a 1st class sire! I think if a stallion has it in him he gets it done. If your boy has it in him, we will here about him for a long time.

BEST OF LUCK

FM

[madelyn]

Isn't that how Mr. Prospector started? Covering ordinary mares for cheap in Florida and got results? Look at his early babies, his stud fee was pretty low.

I believe my new horse Rocking Trick will be able to do something like that, because of his breeding coupled with his race record... but we are getting some "nice" mares for him. His fee is dirt cheap for the horse that he is, starting at $3500 NOT $35,000 like they probably would if someone like Coolmore had him...

In this forum, people often talk about a stallion's ability to "move his mares up" meaning, I think, that the offspring was better than the mare herself. I think this is an important quality to look for, probably pretty hard to predict, but if a stallion has proven that he CAN'T do that, well a story is told there too.

Regardless, it is all a crapshoot, anyhow, or a jellybean jar depending on how you look at it.

[freddymo]

well put Madelyn...It is tougher when you just have the pedigree but its not impossible. Look at Yes it True another reasonable example of a Stallion that moved himself from Florida to KY. They move to the promised land and away.....

[bcassidy]

I like the stallions that produce runners and improve the off spring of the mares they cover. Unfortunately, racing success is not a good indicator of which stallion will outproduce another. In our current system, the best racing stallions have the best opportunity to prove they are good stallions but in no way are they linked. It does appear logical to most humans that a stallion that made a lot of money should be a good stallion candidate, I just don't think they are as closely related as some people like to think they are. Stallions that produce come from both sides of the fence just as is the case with the mares they cover. A great athelete doesn't make a great coach, Great singers don't always produce offspring that acheive their level of success, neither do great athletes reproduce their level of greatness in their offspring. The real test is to find a stallion which out produces the mare's produce record on a regular basis regardless if the stallion made a lot of money.

[Derby2004]

well say you have a stallion that ran his butt off at 2 and 3, winning graded stakes one after another. his sire was hot, but female line is not. Then you had another that did run good but not as good, his sire was hot and his female line is better though. Which would you choose?

[secretariat]

can anyone list stallions that are known for moving their mares up

[llbean]

My personal feeling is to rank them this way:

1st: The high quality racehorse with a strong pedigree (obviously)

2nd: The high quality racehorse with an unfashionable family (Tiznow, for example). There is a real risk associated with breeding to these individuals, in my opinion. The freakish horse that outperforms his pedigree is, if anything, less likely to reproduce himself, than the horse with the strong pedigree. This is the basic premise of "regression to the mean" in genetic terminology. However, all other things being equal, I'd rather breed to a racehorse, than to a family. Of course, this is coming from the "breed-to-race" angle.

3rd: The average or disappointing racehorse from a strong family (Freud, for example). If you can assume that Freud was given every opportunity to perform well, but just didn't have 'it', I'd stay away. The chances are he represents a very different genetic "mix" to his full brother, Giant's Causeway. It's highly unlikely (but impossible to say for sure) that the superior genetics will "reappear" in his progeny if they were lost in him.

So, I think you maximise your chances if you have option #1, but personally I'd give a slight preference to option #2 than #3. I'd be interested to see if anyone agrees/disagrees.

Of course, if you're breeding to sell.........pedigree sells - so the better commercial sire might come from category #3, than #2.

JMO.

Hi Johar,

I disagree that a disapointing or average racehorse from a strong family is preferable to a outstanding racehorse from an unfashionable family in even a commercial sense.

At least going by your operative definitions (Tiznow vs. Freud), I don't think the market would prefer Freud's foals to Tiznow's.

Incidently, Danzig is an example of a major stallion from a female line significantly weaker than Tiznow's (of course, Danzig was by Northern Dancer...).

And we must remember that Freud is only a full brother to a proven Champion racehorse (Giant's Causeway), who is too early in his stud career to say how good he is in that capacity. Eavesdropper or Tiger Ridge are much stronger examples of non Graded Stakes Winners as stallion prospects.

A better comparision is probably Freud vs. Tizbud (where Freud comes out on top).

It's important for there to be exploitable affinities in a stallions pedigree; and of course the stronger pedigree is preferable, but without a strong race record of some sort there's no way to know if the stallion got something significant you'd want from the pedigree. Yes, the genes will just get reshuffled and recombined when you breed to the stallion; but it's easier to make out a garbled message if the message made sense in the first place.

BTW, if Indy Mood really had talent; then that combined with his excellent pedigree could help explain him having success with mediocre mares. This is the sort of thing where investigation is essential for someone looking for a stallion prospect of this sort.

Interestingly (and importantly), it's very rare for a truely major runner to actually have a bad pedigree; and, in contrast, it's quite common for a bad racehorse to have a "Good" pedigree. Therefore, it's easier to get nothing in the racing skills catagory than in the pedigree catagory. Buyer Beware.

-llbean

[llbean]

can anyone list stallions that are known for moving their mares up

Hi Secretariat,

Some other dude on some other forum compiled this list (which is in no particular order):

Horse AEI/CI
1. SUCCESSFUL APPEAL -- 4.92/1.29 (Small Sample Size, but still...)
2. GENERAL MEETING -- 2.26/1.77
3. DYNAFORMER -- 2.08/1.72
4. BROAD BRUSH -- 2.74/2.24
5. ELUSIVE QUALITY -- 3.34/1.88 (Note that this inflated by the Smarty bonus, which were insanely included in the figures.)
6. GRAND SLAM -- 2.14/1.96 (Very impressive given his massive books.)
7. WILD AGAIN -- 2.47/2.00
8. DISTORTED HUMOR -- 2.68/1.57 (John Prather knows what he's doing.)
9. NOT FOR LOVE -- 1.98/1.49
10. VALID EXPECTATIONS -- 1.87/1.44

The AEI/CI is a comparision between the foals of a stallion and their Maternal Half-Siblings. If a stallion is bred to better producers, he has a better CI.

-llbean

[Sysonby]

This is getting a little afield of your exact question Derby but if we are talking about stallion selection and unproven stallions -- and I usually wouldn't go to an unproven stallion-- I would look first for a superior individual, then his race record, then his pedigree. I personally would not breed to an unraced and unproven horse because historically so few of them make it as stallions, you're really bucking the odds.

As for proven stallions, in a budget of less than $10,000, I don't look at the top or the bottom of what he sired. If he is in my budget and has a flashy SW on top, chances are really good that is the only good horse he's sired and who wants odds like that? What I want to see is a strong middle--a good representative sampling of horses performing well in small stakes, allowance races and claiming races worth more at least $25,000. These horses fly enough below the radar to keep the lid on fees (and sales as well frankly) but I wouldn't kick a genuine $25,000 claimer out of my barn because those horses can be like an ATM machine and soar past 6 figures in earnings if they stay halfway sound. Even if you sell, that's good for your mare's page. Another thing: these are the stallions whose offspring bank enough money normally that the pots always simmering. If he comes up with a good one, it can seem like the pot exploded--like Alphabet Soup last year for example.

After you figure out who those stallions are I'd look at the individuals for physical compatibility with the mare and her strengths and weaknesses and look at a representative sampling of the stallions offspring. I'd look at their pedigrees for gross compatibility. Race record doesn't really matter anymore. Then I pray a lot