An "F" True Nick---Nureyev over Sadler's Wells!

[Barcaldine]

I'm considering breeding one of my three fillies by PERFECT SOUL (Sadlers Wells) to SHAKESPEARE (Theatrical>>>Nureyev) because this has proven a very powerful crossing irrespective of which position these stallions appear in a pedigree.

So, using the Blood-Horse Stallion Register, I plugged in the name of one of my fillies to Shakespeare:

http://truenicks.com/free-reports/hypot ... andperfect

Result? An "F" grade...with NO variant!

I found this news rather entertaining because several well-known Nicksters--primarily Alan Porter--have advocated in print the Sadlers Wells/Nureyev cross. I strongly agree with this conclusion.

So why the "F" grade?

It's all in the methodology. Practically none of the racehorses used as the control group are U.S. bred. Of the top 15 horses bred on this nick only one--a Royal Anthem gelding--was conceived in America. The rest were relatively obscurely bred foreign horses by stallions such as PLAYAPART, ROB'S SPIRIT, THEATRE SUZUKA, MARCHAND DE SABLE, etc. Not much chance of high quality horses emanating from this stock under any conditions.

And, more to the point, is that True Nicks's "F" grade did not take into account the strong affinity between Sadlers Wells and his 3/4 brother Nureyev when they appear in positions other than tail-male.

This is a gaping hole in Nicking products. They report only on a single relationship. And even that is tentative because often times they reach back three or four generations to find a "nickable" ancestor.

IMO, anyone who utilizes Nicking Products as a "tool" should realize that they are about as reliable as a Lexington weatherman.

[ratherrapid]

i'd have to agree with true nicks on this one that this is about as screwed up a pedigree combo as might be found. best of luck with it though

[Tappiano]

I believe I asked a question just like this in one of the other threads ... although they were not your mares, it asked about European based horses who have El Prado in the pedigree but no other american based influences compared to use based El Prado's who do.

In that thread you can find the answers. You could probably just search on Galileo or El Prado to find it.

I refuse to believe that Galileo would not be the ultimate date for my mare regardless of the D rating it gets.

[casallc]

If people would be more concerned with conformation, feeding and conditioning than with nicks, dosage and pedigree they would be much better off. Any charlatan can come up with a theory that if marketed well enough, can get enough subscribers to profit them. Race horses will always outrun or not run up to their pedigree - that is the one constant factor in breeding. If nicks and theories worked the developers of such would be winning all the races instead of selling their propaganda. Those who can, do...

I'd rather have luck on my side than the best pedigree ever written. Pedigree is a very subjective thing. What I might like in a pedigree is influenced by my own preferences, bias and experiences. I have long contended that a real racehorse is a freak and the only reason black type "breeds" black type is because the offspring get a better chance. The people that own them can better afford to give them greater opportunities.

Give me a well conformed, well fed colt that has been allowed to develop in large pastures like a horse, over an imprinted, carrot fed, stall raised pedigree pet any day.

[DDT]

Barcaldine

In my opinion, Unusual Heat is the top active son of Nureyev in the U.S.A. When you run that stallion with your mare the cross utilized is Unusual Heat with sons and grandsons of Northern Dancer, not Nureyev/Sadlers Wells. If she were my filly and the physical match was good I would use a good son of Danzig, however, the Danzig cross is calculated using Danehill/Sadlers Wells and it is really hot right now according to Porter. I like her with Langfhur on paper. I did a little looking and I also like her with Bellamy Road, TrueNicks gives it an A++, based on a small sample of Bellamy Road/Northern Dancer and his sons, which shows 2 non-graded stakes winners from 22 foals, 9 to race. Not very much information to produce such a high rating, dubious at best. I like the pedigree and ran a TrueNicks just to see what they had to say.

DDT

[Patuxet]

Barcaldine:

TrueNicks be damned! IMO you've made a very solid mating choice, at least on paper. In addition to the obvious advantage of the Nureyev/Sadler's Wells cross the coupling of Strike The Gold and Canonization provides other strong reinforcements. Despite a lack of enthusiasm for the mating by TrueNicks I've bred to Shakespeare with a duplication of Northern Dancer and like what it's produced. Good luck!

[Barcaldine]

I agree with much of what's been said here. Especially the comments about conformation and a healthy environment. After all many of us are trying to breed athletes, although there are a lot of breeders who are breeding for the sales ring. A lot of these fancy paper matings, "A" nicks or not, result in horses who can't outrun their shadows because they haven't been raised like athletes should. They've become "cissies!"

[ratherrapid]

but we still want a good pedigree, right? In Casalc's terms the trainer of the foal is more important than the pedigree of the foal, if i'm reading it correctly. as long as ur breeding, however, we want to optimize the pedigree, and so, I avoid poo poo of pedigree studies. these I'd think involve some statistical analysis, and also those of us that have looked at pedigrees for a good long time have a feel for what seems to go together. you start to recognize patters and things that work and things that you never see. unknown exactly but what I'm seeing in the pedigree posted I've never seen in a stakes horse, and so, I am skeptical. possibly what's striking to me, though I've avoided studying it, is the lack of speed in the combo, and any lack of something that I'd consider in combo a spark. generally u see that in winning pedigrees. arguable maybe but that's my opinion that I agree with true nicks this time.

[Joltman]

Let me put in the word that Byron might - nicks are one tool among many. I would say that it is more effective in certain situatons than others due to the limits of any statistical tool. It can give a statistical edge. BUt many variables remain.

Breeding is intended to produce horses that are capable of producing athletically. I don't care what you feed and how you train a horse that is not genetically capable of athleticism it will not be a high level runner. Conversely, countless well bred and athletic horses can be ruined by poor horesemanship and training.

Both and/ not either or.

[Barcaldine]

Joltman,

You've hit upon the central issue, at least in my mind. When are nicking products a tool, and when are they counter-productive?

The marketing idea behind them is that the end-user can easily note the probability a particular crossing will produce a superior horse. Take a look at ads for nicking products, especially at sale time. They usually are used by sellers to convince buyers that their offering is more prone to run than its competitors. Yet, as I and others have pointed out, nicking ratings are so problematic, so erratic, so unreliable that in many cases quite the opposite is true.

The mating I proposed here is a good example. True Nicks gives it an F grade with no variant (which is as absolute as they can come), yet it bases this judgement on historical matings from inferior stallions from obscure countries. It has no relevance to most U.S. breeders.

And, more noteworthy, is that it completely ignores the highly successful Sadlers Wells/Nureyev nick--which, IMO, reflects the superior inbreeding to these two icons.

So how is the casual patron of Nicking products to discern when to take the letter grades seriously? The truth is NO ONE can.

Nicking services are unreliable and, often times, misleading. If they are a tool, they are very definitely a broken tool. But the directions that come in the box don't explain that they won't work most of the time.

[casallc]

but we still want a good pedigree, right? In Casalc's terms the trainer of the foal is more important than the pedigree of the foal, if i'm reading it correctly. as long as ur breeding, however, we want to optimize the pedigree, and so, I avoid poo poo of pedigree studies. these I'd think involve some statistical analysis, and also those of us that have looked at pedigrees for a good long time have a feel for what seems to go together. you start to recognize patters and things that work and things that you never see. unknown exactly but what I'm seeing in the pedigree posted I've never seen in a stakes horse, and so, I am skeptical. possibly what's striking to me, though I've avoided studying it, is the lack of speed in the combo, and any lack of something that I'd consider in combo a spark. generally u see that in winning pedigrees. arguable maybe but that's my opinion that I agree with true nicks this time.

That's not quite what I am saying. There are just as many charlatan trainers as there are pedigree prophets. Most "good" trainers only deserve credit for not screwing up a horse that naturally wants to run. While my theory will never be proven, anymore than anyone else's, it would be a fun (but expensive) experiment.

I contend that if you had two groups of thoroughbred weanlings or yearlings, both groups having been cared for in identical ways, with one group chosen by conformation and behavior in the pasture and the other strictly by pedigree only. There would probably be more runners from the conformation group than the pedigree group, or less likely no difference. Again that would be assuming that both had the same training and opportunities. It would be a difficult experiment to control because of the virtual impossibility of finding objective people to do the study.

Good horses are the foundation of good pedigrees not the other way around. This is not a chicken or the egg scenario - you start with a good horse.

[ratherrapid]

i'd primarily agree with that theory Casalc but also confess that when i was breeding i paid a lot of attention to pedigree. Q--when u're breeding a mare should u look at both pedigree and conformation. Back in the day there were so many stallions available u could mix and match pretty easily. I once went to Millenium Ranch in TX to select a stallion for a couple of mares and they paraded about 20 of them out there for me. One of the best lookers who was also the most successful on the race track turned out to have one of the lowest stud fees. I think it was $1000 at the time.

[brogers]

I'm considering breeding one of my three fillies by PERFECT SOUL (Sadlers Wells) to SHAKESPEARE (Theatrical>>>Nureyev) because this has proven a very powerful crossing irrespective of which position these stallions appear in a pedigree.

The very first statement you make just shows that you have not a clue what you are talking about

If you look at the report you have generated you will see that there are 44 runners by Theatrical and his sons out of Sadler's Wells line mares and NONE are stakes winners. So the combination of Nureyev and Sadler's Wells is NOT a powerful nick 'irrespective of which positions these stallions appear in the pedigree.' The data is there. It has been tried 153 times and 44 of them have raced with ZERO becoming stakes winners. The data is telling you that in this case it is NOT a powerful cross.

Go back to trying to shuck horses for $60,000 that you bought for $5,000.

[Barcaldine]

It sounds like Mr. Rogers' neighborhood is not such a happy place.

It also sounds like Mr. Rogers and fellow Nickster Mr. Porter disagree on the Sadlers Wells/Nureyev nick. Maybe Mr. Rogers should read one of Mr. Porter's paid endorsements of such a nick in which he refers to it as "powerful."

You are so stuck on the tail-male connection you are willing to make yourself look like a fool to others who recognize that this view is overly simplistic and easily disputable. For example, your "data" uses the offspring of fourth-rate NUREYEV line stallions (such as PLAYAPART, ROB'S SPIRIT, THEATRE SUZUKA, MARCHAND DE SABLE, etc.) bred to SADLERS WELLS line mares to determine your prized letter grades. For the most part THESE STALLIONS HAVEN'T PERFORMED WELL WITH ANY MARES!!! Your sample sizes do not include enough matings with quality sires/dams to make your final decision believable.

I've received numerous emails in recent days from the good folks at True Nicks announcing their Valentine's Day SPECIAL OFFERS. They've contrived all sorts of nicking products using these same laughable research techniques. No doubt there are still some naive horsemen who don't mind throwing away hundreds of dollars for information that is, by and large, worthless.

I suggest Mr. Rogers and his pals recycle their offer on April Fool's Day. Then they can really laugh their way to the bank.

[Jeff]

As a small breeder with a limited budget, I'm going to take good nicking patterns into consideration when plannimg a mating, seems just foolish to ignore them.