Bold Ruler sire line

[Pan Zareta]

Stan,

My concept of 'breed-shaping' is probably not typical of common usage of the term within the industry. I certainly don't disagree that Buckpasser and Bold Ruler may eventually attain 'breed-shaping' status, just don't think they're quite there yet. There are plenty of sires that I regard as 'breed-shaping' that have long since gone extinct in 'tail male'. And fwiw, the founder mare of family 1 (Buckpasser's clan) I regard as a major 'breed-shaper'.

[stancaris]

Pan Zareta: Several of your ideas are contrary to generally accepted viewpoints: You said:

1) Buckpasser and Bold Ruler are not quite breed shapers at this time.
This is not in agreement with noted breeding experts.


2) There is no such thing as a sire line because all "y" chromosomes are identical. However it was found that parts of the y chromosome can be different and may account for differences in sire lines.

3) In another discussion I believe you said the X chromosome is no more important than any other chromosome. That is very contradictive to the the generally accepted view of why broodmare sires like Buckpasser, Nureyev, Dr. Fager, etc. became so successful in fathering outstanding fillies.

Do you really believe that sire lines do not exist? That Bold Ruler and Buckpasser are not yet breed shapers. That the X chromosome is no more important than any other chromosome.

Or do you just enjoy stirring the proverbial pot?

[Linda_d]

Pan Zareta: Several of your ideas are contrary to generally accepted viewpoints: You said:

1) Buckpasser and Bold Ruler are not quite breed shapers at this time.
This is not in agreement with noted breeding experts.


2) There is no such thing as a sire line because all "y" chromosomes are identical. However it was found that parts of the y chromosome can be different and may account for differences in sire lines.

3) In another discussion I believe you said the X chromosome is no more important than any other chromosome. That is very contradictive to the the generally accepted view of why broodmare sires like Buckpasser, Nureyev, Dr. Fager, etc. became so successful in fathering outstanding fillies.

Do you really believe that sire lines do not exist? That Bold Ruler and Buckpasser are not yet breed shapers. That the X chromosome is no more important than any other chromosome.

Or do you just enjoy stirring the proverbial pot?

I'm with DDT in thinking that you argue just to argue, and it seems to me that you now are trying to bait Pan Zareta.

You're the one who started this thread based on the premise that the Bold Ruler "sire line" had become "unfashionable" (reminds me of Louis' "fashion bred" nonsense but that's neither here nor there). When you couldn't get anybody to agree with you, you changed your argument to include broodmare sires as well. Now, you've shifted the argument to X vs Y chromosome to continue the "argument".

If these "twists and turns" off topic were coming from other thread participants, that could be ascribed to "that's the way discussions go", but when you, as the OP, keeping turning off topic to keep "the argument" going, it seems that "you just enjoy stirring the proverbial pot".

[DDT]

Stan

I do not want to stir the pot here, but if the Y is so important and carries the "sire line" how do so many exceptional females accomplish the feat without a Y chromosome?

DDT

[Pan Zareta]

Several of your ideas are contrary to generally accepted viewpoints: You said:
1) Buckpasser and Bold Ruler are not quite breed shapers at this time.
This is not in agreement with noted breeding experts.

Haven't I previously conceded that point?

2) There is no such thing as a sire line because all "y" chromosomes are identical. However it was found that parts of the y chromosome can be different and may account for differences in sire lines.

(Please read the paragraph below carefully and if you want to dispute my remarks read the actual report before you do.)

The only difference recently documented by Wallner et al. in the male-specific portion of the TB Y chromosome is a single base pair deletion found only in tail male descendants of Whalebone and the report made no mention of functional variation related to this deletion. It may well be functionally neutral but if you'd like to argue that it's the reason why, in the contemporary TB, Whalebone's sireline descendants are more proliferative than the Godolphin's, the Byerley's, and the Darley's via King Fergus combined, be my guest. Note that this implies no difference in the male specific portion of the Y in horses such as Bold Ruler, Buckpasser, Northern Dancer, and Raise A Native, all of whom you regard as separate sire lines, and all of whom trace in tail male to Whalebone.

Do you really believe that sire lines do not exist?

If defined by functional variation on the male specific portion of the Y chromosome that is a primary mitigator of succesful performance on the track and/or in the stud, I know they don't exist.

Do they exist on paper? Certainly. Is it useful and appropriate in many cases to study the breed from the standpoint of tail male descendancies? Absolutely.

Do you really believe that...Bold Ruler and Buckpasser are not yet breed shapers.

Already answered.

3) In another discussion I believe you said the X chromosome is no more important than any other chromosome. That is very contradictive to the the generally accepted view of why broodmare sires like Buckpasser, Nureyev, Dr. Fager, etc. became so successful in fathering outstanding fillies.

Do you really believe that.....the X chromosome is no more important than any other chromosome.

As I'm sure you recall, the X chromosome topic has been thoroughly discussed here in the past. Never mind what I have to say about it, you were also told by one of the leading TB genetic consultants that the X chromsome is not more important than any other chromosome and, in fact, is far less important than some others.

Or do you just enjoy stirring the proverbial pot?

No I just have a low tolerance for clinging to cherished hypotheses of the past that have turned out to have no basis in genomic fact. However simple, tempting, and seemingly plausible it may have once been to point to the X and Y chromosomes to explain sire and broodmare sire success, the answers just aren't there.

[Patuxet]

By coincidence pedigree statistician David Dinks noted on his blog that Orb and Revolutionary were the only two Derby starters with Bold Ruler duplicated within five generations. Dink wondered how significant that duplication might be and ran an analysis of sales foals of 2003-2007, about 11% of which had duplications of Bold Ruler between sire and dam. Dink's analysis concluded that the duplication of Bold Ruler, at least among these sales foals, was more of a negative than a positive "influence." http://ddink55.wordpress.com/2013/05/11 ... old-ruler/

I've always considered a "breed shaper" to be by definition a horse that possessed a lasting and consistent genetic prepotency, i.e.Figure, sire of the original Morgan horse, and Hambletonian, foundation sire of the Standardbred.

Bold Ruler certainly imparted quality and precosity to his immediate genetic heirs but like super sires before him, i.e.Man o'War and Hyperion, by the fifth generation such qualities have been dispersed and diluted into the genetic soup.

[Barcaldine]

According to several posters the test for a 'breed-shaping' stallion is whether his sons, grandsons, etc., became leading sires.

If memory serves, neither BULL LEA (1935-1964) or *PRINCEQUILLO (1940-1965) left a son who became a leading sire. HIS MAJESTY (1968-1997) was *RIBOT's only son to lead the sires' list--a feat *RIBOT (1952-1972) never came close to achieving in the U. S.

Yet can anyone deny that the contributions of BULL LEA, *PRINCEQUILLO and *RIBOT were anything less than breed-shaping?

BOLD RULER (1954-1971) not only led the sires list more times than BULL LEA but his sprinting son WHAT A PLEASURE (1965-1980) also led it in two consecutive years.

If BOLD RULER--who as I said earlier permanently redefined "classic speed" in American racing--and whose short and long term influences far surpasses these other greats, is not a breed-shaping sire, then who is?

[DDT]

Barc

Round Table, a son of Princequillo, was the leading sire in 1972. I said it before and I will say it again, we all have our opinions, that is what makes the game so good.

DDT

[Linda_d]

According to several posters the test for a 'breed-shaping' stallion is whether his sons, grandsons, etc., became leading sires.

If memory serves, neither BULL LEA (1935-1964) or *PRINCEQUILLO (1940-1965) left a son who became a leading sire. HIS MAJESTY (1968-1997) was *RIBOT's only son to lead the sires' list--a feat *RIBOT (1952-1972) never came close to achieving in the U. S.

Yet can anyone deny that the contributions of BULL LEA, *PRINCEQUILLO and *RIBOT were anything less than breed-shaping?

BOLD RULER (1954-1971) not only led the sires list more times than BULL LEA but his sprinting son WHAT A PLEASURE (1965-1980) also led it in two consecutive years.

If BOLD RULER--who as I said earlier permanently redefined "classic speed" in American racing--and whose short and long term influences far surpasses these other greats, is not a breed-shaping sire, then who is?

I'd say Bold Ruler's grandsire, Nearco, qualifies. There are at least four distinct tale-male strains from Nearco that have significant influence on the modern TB: two strains through Nasrullah (AP Indy to Bold Ruler and Rahy and Rainbow Quest through Red God); Sunday Silence and Devil His Due through Halo/Hail To Reason/Turn-to/Royal Charger), and the biggie, one through Nearctic (Northern Dancer). That's not including Nearco's influence through all the broodmares from his descendents.

I would also say that Northern Dancer has had and continues to have a greater influence on the breed than Bold Ruler, primarily because his influence comes from multiple strains rather through a single one.