Pedigree Query

I am just testing the water to see what everyone thinks. I have a nice, maiden mare with a decent pedigree to back her up. What does everyone think...breed her to an aged, proven stallion that has already shown he can throw G1 winners or to a new, unproven one with a nice pedigree and race record? I'm breeding to race, but who knows, I might end up having to sell the baby...My question doesn't necessarily have to deal with my mare but just the overall opinion of what everyone on this board thinks. Proven, aged stud or young, unproven stud????

With a maiden mare I think its a nobrainer to go with an older proven stud. You will at least halfway know what to expect & you can start to evaluate your mare.

For breed to race, go with a proven stallion. About 19 out of 20 freshman stallions are going to bomb, so if you go to one of them, you are potentially breeding to a bad stallion unless you guess right on which freshman will hit.

i think you should go to a proven sire that has some commercial appeal just in case you need to sell the foal

I think this advice is good - what if you went with an unproved stallion and the produce was a flop? Was it the mare or the stallion? How do you evaluate the mare with all of those other unknown factors?

Hip #2611 in the Keeneland November sale was the Lyphard mare Lakme. Here is her page: http://www.keeneland.com/sales/Nov05/pdfs/2611.pdf Although she didn't do much on the track, she is from a good family and should be a useful producer. But her first four foals, in order, were by Silver Charm (winner), Luhuk (unplaced), Point Given (unraced), and Stormin Fever (yearling). She was sold in foal to Tapit. Except for Luhuk, she never saw a proven sire, and he was not proven in North America.

Now, Silver Charm is in Japan, Luhuk is back in Argentina, and Point Given has only 2 winners total. Is her current produce record marginal because of the mare, or the stallions she visited?

The moral of this story is prove your mare, then she can prove young stallions.