I really enjoy reading the opinions of many breeders and owners on this board. I would like to pose a question, and open this for discussion.......
In your opinions/experiences, how much does pedigree influence (a) dirt or turf preference of a racehorse, and (b) stamina?
In other words, can you breed grass runners and get a dirt horse? Or is the grass preference set in stone? Can you breed 6f sprinters and get a miler? A 10 f horse?
I look forward to the discussion.......
A Question to the Board
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
That, with no offense to you, is a somewhat loaded question. It's a very good question, however. The answer is both yes and no, and not to be funny either. Horses are managed sometimes in a way, "If it's not broke, don't fix it". If a horse is a Grade I winner on dirt, don't try turf. In that aspect, many stallions who never ran on turf can be very sucessful turf sires. The same is true on the opposite, sometimes a horse is switched to Turf early in his career and does so well he is never returned to dirt at a later age.
Lear Fan is a great example of a horse who woulden't cross over. He sired great turf horses that were no better than cheap claimers on the dirt.
You've got to throw the mare into the mix also.
Being from the North East, we want dirt horses, they run all year. We usually only try them on the turf if they get sore. The bigger stables have the luxury of having "turf only" horses.
Case in point, I bred to a stallion who never won at more than 7F. He never ran a race farther than that, he won $600K sprinting. His young are stretching out fine. He probably would have also, but was real good at 6-7F and they never tried it, it wasn't broke.
There are numerous examples, Marquetry is one, he was a stone cold champion sprinter, but can sire one who go longer and turf.
Lear Fan is a great example of a horse who woulden't cross over. He sired great turf horses that were no better than cheap claimers on the dirt.
You've got to throw the mare into the mix also.
Being from the North East, we want dirt horses, they run all year. We usually only try them on the turf if they get sore. The bigger stables have the luxury of having "turf only" horses.
Case in point, I bred to a stallion who never won at more than 7F. He never ran a race farther than that, he won $600K sprinting. His young are stretching out fine. He probably would have also, but was real good at 6-7F and they never tried it, it wasn't broke.
There are numerous examples, Marquetry is one, he was a stone cold champion sprinter, but can sire one who go longer and turf.
Marquetry? Sure you're not thinking of his son Artax or some other horse, Joe? Marquetry never won at sprint distances in the USA; all of his big wins were at 8.5-10f. He's an oddball going the other way: a proven dirt distance runner getting two sprint champions in Artax and Squirtle Squirt. Good point about horses not being tried at some things if they are already doing well at what they tried first, though.
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher...You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse." C. S. Lewis
-
George William Smith
- Restricted Stakes Winner
- Posts: 756
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:48 pm
- Location: Edmonton, Alberta
- Contact:
marquetry
Cathy:
Mahubah is correct. While Marquetry did win once at sprint distances, it was 1:11 4/5 on the downhill grass course at SA. at age 4....4 ticks off the track record and not an unusually fast time for a good horse on the course. Contrast that with the course record on dirt of 1:13 3/5, now that is seriously fast.
Marquetry covered 1 1/16 miles in 1:40 4/5; 9 furlongs in 1:47 1/5 and 10 furlongs on dirt in 1:59 4/5. Those of very fast times.
Mahubah is correct. While Marquetry did win once at sprint distances, it was 1:11 4/5 on the downhill grass course at SA. at age 4....4 ticks off the track record and not an unusually fast time for a good horse on the course. Contrast that with the course record on dirt of 1:13 3/5, now that is seriously fast.
Marquetry covered 1 1/16 miles in 1:40 4/5; 9 furlongs in 1:47 1/5 and 10 furlongs on dirt in 1:59 4/5. Those of very fast times.
I appreciate everybody's input. In particular, I agree with Joe, that the surface bias of a racehorse might be due to the horse's connections only trying the horse on the surface that 'fits' its pedigree. Certainly, history is full of grass running horses that sired great dirt horses and vice versa. Some stallions like Gone West, Kingmambo etc. seem to effectively sire runners on both surfaces [although there are likely better examples].
One reason for posing this question is in relation to the stallion Johar. I think he has an excellent chance of success at stud based on his pedigree, conformation and racing ability. However, I hope that his distance and turf preferences don't count against him in breeders' minds. Personally, I am inclined to think that pedigree has less of an influence on surface preference and optimal racing distance (within reason) than many horsemen seem to believe.
One reason for posing this question is in relation to the stallion Johar. I think he has an excellent chance of success at stud based on his pedigree, conformation and racing ability. However, I hope that his distance and turf preferences don't count against him in breeders' minds. Personally, I am inclined to think that pedigree has less of an influence on surface preference and optimal racing distance (within reason) than many horsemen seem to believe.
Another question, a bit off topic......
Occasionally I have read posts where people have said a certain horse's pedigree contains a specific "percentage of blood" of certain ancestors. For example, "horse A has 4.52% Bold Ruler blood."
Can anybody give me the source from which these numbers are derived?
Thanks!
Occasionally I have read posts where people have said a certain horse's pedigree contains a specific "percentage of blood" of certain ancestors. For example, "horse A has 4.52% Bold Ruler blood."
Can anybody give me the source from which these numbers are derived?
Thanks!
Hi Johar,
I really like Johar myself: http://www.pedigreepost.com/archives/Go ... entura.htm , tremendous turn of foot and I like the way he takes after his sire in the conformational department. El Prado is the key broodmare sire for if you ask me; perhaps the offspring of that cross could go on both surfaces, but I'm sure. The female family of the El Prado mare would have an effect of this. Elusive Quality could sure run on Turf (though he also ran a fast time on the dirt) and has still become a major dirt sire.
I tend to associate Gone West with major surface versatility and Lear Fan/Sharpen Up with Turf giving them an advantage; so it might be a case where it could go either way.
Did they ever give Johar a shot on the dirt or did they just assume on account of his mare that turf was the only way to go?
BTW, I think they get that figure fromt the "Inbreeding Report" thing on this database; personaly, I think it's probably a mistake to look at a figure like that which desiccates the crosses of the ancestor by estranging them from the context in which they appear.
-llbean
I really like Johar myself: http://www.pedigreepost.com/archives/Go ... entura.htm , tremendous turn of foot and I like the way he takes after his sire in the conformational department. El Prado is the key broodmare sire for if you ask me; perhaps the offspring of that cross could go on both surfaces, but I'm sure. The female family of the El Prado mare would have an effect of this. Elusive Quality could sure run on Turf (though he also ran a fast time on the dirt) and has still become a major dirt sire.
I tend to associate Gone West with major surface versatility and Lear Fan/Sharpen Up with Turf giving them an advantage; so it might be a case where it could go either way.
Did they ever give Johar a shot on the dirt or did they just assume on account of his mare that turf was the only way to go?
BTW, I think they get that figure fromt the "Inbreeding Report" thing on this database; personaly, I think it's probably a mistake to look at a figure like that which desiccates the crosses of the ancestor by estranging them from the context in which they appear.
-llbean
Hi all,
Mahubah and George are correct about Marquetry. He sprinted only once on the dirt (ran second). Primarily he was a router and his best get have been dead sprinters: Artax and Squirtle Squirt.
Sons of Northern Dancer and Mr. Prospector have become top sires whether they were sprinters, routers or grass runners.
Forty Niner's most impacting sons, Distorted Humor and End Sweep were at their best sprinting. Jules and Roar have had success at stud and both sprinted and routed but won most of their money going long. Editor's Note won 2 of 6 sprints but made 97% of his money routing and is not a successful sire.
Ecton Park is similarly bred to Distorted Humor (out of a Danzig mare), but his race profile is all distance (even more than Editor's Note). It should be interesting to follow his stud career to see if the racing aptitude or pedigree is key in him.
Sadler's Wells hasn't had a lot of top sons try North America but I believe that El Prado's precocity and speed made him more successful here in North America.
Regards,
Pete
Mahubah and George are correct about Marquetry. He sprinted only once on the dirt (ran second). Primarily he was a router and his best get have been dead sprinters: Artax and Squirtle Squirt.
Sons of Northern Dancer and Mr. Prospector have become top sires whether they were sprinters, routers or grass runners.
Forty Niner's most impacting sons, Distorted Humor and End Sweep were at their best sprinting. Jules and Roar have had success at stud and both sprinted and routed but won most of their money going long. Editor's Note won 2 of 6 sprints but made 97% of his money routing and is not a successful sire.
Ecton Park is similarly bred to Distorted Humor (out of a Danzig mare), but his race profile is all distance (even more than Editor's Note). It should be interesting to follow his stud career to see if the racing aptitude or pedigree is key in him.
Sadler's Wells hasn't had a lot of top sons try North America but I believe that El Prado's precocity and speed made him more successful here in North America.
Regards,
Pete
Johar, if you remember Cigar, he was brought along on the turf because that was expected to be his forte, and he was okay at it, making about $100,000. They decided to at least try him on dirt, and the rest is history: nearly 10 million dollars in earnings. Aren't we glad they did at least TRY him on the dirt?
You just have to realize that every horse is an individual personality and a variable mixture of his parents' strengths and weaknesses. One can expect similarities and some differences, just like among human families.
But some parents are more prepotent than others in passing on their traits.
You just have to realize that every horse is an individual personality and a variable mixture of his parents' strengths and weaknesses. One can expect similarities and some differences, just like among human families.
But some parents are more prepotent than others in passing on their traits.
Rocking H
llbean wrote:BTW, I think they get that figure fromt the "Inbreeding Report" thing on this database; personaly, I think it's probably a mistake to look at a figure like that which desiccates the crosses of the ancestor by estranging them from the context in which they appear.
-llbean
Thanks llbean, as always. And I agree with the above point wholeheartedly.
El Prado is a very interesting potential BM sire for Johar. Nice suggestion. I am unsure if Johar was ever tried on the dirt. From memory (always dangerous) I think he ran behind Sunday Break early in his 3yo year. If so, that race would have been on dirt. But all I could confirm was that at least 14 of his starts were on turf.
henthorn, Cigar certainly is a prime example of why it might be unwise to 'assume' a horse's surface preference based on pedigree.........
Thanks again, all.
Johar: Regards your question about the percent of blood found in a stallion or mare in a pedigree. Its simple to calculate as follows:
The sire contributes 50% of its genes to any son or daughter. The same is true of the dam.
The grandsire or grandam (second generation) contributes 25% of its blood to its sons and daughters (the same is true for the broodmare sire and grand dam in the second generation).
3rd generation stallions and mares ina pedigee contribute 12.5% of their blood to the horse in question.
4th generation stallions and dams contribute 6.25% of their blood to the horse in question.
5th generation stallions and dams give 3.12% of their blood to the horse in question.
The only time this changes is when a horse is inbred. If a horse has Bold Ruler top and bottom in its pedigree (lets say in the 3rd generation) then that horse inherits 12.5 plus 12.5 or 25% of the blood of Bold Ruler. However, he may not get that full 25% because some of the genes may be the same ones top and bottom.
The sire contributes 50% of its genes to any son or daughter. The same is true of the dam.
The grandsire or grandam (second generation) contributes 25% of its blood to its sons and daughters (the same is true for the broodmare sire and grand dam in the second generation).
3rd generation stallions and mares ina pedigee contribute 12.5% of their blood to the horse in question.
4th generation stallions and dams contribute 6.25% of their blood to the horse in question.
5th generation stallions and dams give 3.12% of their blood to the horse in question.
The only time this changes is when a horse is inbred. If a horse has Bold Ruler top and bottom in its pedigree (lets say in the 3rd generation) then that horse inherits 12.5 plus 12.5 or 25% of the blood of Bold Ruler. However, he may not get that full 25% because some of the genes may be the same ones top and bottom.