Chefs de Race

Hmmm. Galileo wouldn't appear too often in 3rd or 4th generations, but neither, as you suggest, would Montjeu. Personally I think it's meaningless bunkem. Giving a statistical 'value' to the frequency a stallion appears in pedigrees isn't exactly groundbreaking stuff and the majority of us would probably know this kind of thing already.

Montjeu winners: 4 Derby; 2 St Leger; 1 Ascot Gold Cup
Galileo winners: 2 Derby; 1 St Leger; 1 Oaks

It's just a matter of time before Galileo is on the list.

hi gentlemen, have I missed the reason to this thread?

Dosage, innit...all nonsense

just belatedly seen the article for Montjeu making the list. Considering this is a breeding forum there is very little talk about breeding strategies and theories.

truehoncho 28 Aug 13 17:48 Joined: 11 Dec 10 | Topic/replies: 439 | Blogger: truehoncho's blog
just belatedly seen the article for Montjeu making the list. Considering this is a breeding forum there is very little talk about breeding strategies and theories.

Very good point. More people are interested in the commerciality of a stallion and having profit as the main aim rather than its ability to produce a top class racehorse.

I'm interested in breeding theory, and working on ideas.  But why do loads of work and put the results up here?

I think it would be remiss of you not to share your theories.

my response wasn't meant to be any sort of criticism of the forum, it was just an observation, I am intrigued by your response Kincsem, does it mean you have a successful strategy or theory for producing better stock?

On your point Gotchee, do you consider that producing fast horses is not commercial or that commercial stallions cannot be used for improving the breed?

No. I am a punter.  My time studying, gathering date, reading pedigree books is at least fifty times the time I spend punting.
In a year I bet on about a dozen races, flat only, concentrating on a few.  I prefer 12f+ group races.

Kincsem,

I know that in the USA the dosage theory is used a lot by punters to identify the ideal trip for a horse and use that in their handicapping. Have you had any success with that?

Nick Mordin reduced the 1992 Derby field to five using dosage and form, and I backed Dr Devious.  I wrote a dosage program in 1993.
For any long distance race I glance at the dosage numbers.  Everyone does, including trainers, so fields don't have sprinters anymore (except Dawn Approach this year).
But sprinters like Owington can have low dosage numbers.  And dosage imo does little to identify quality.

Thanks Kincsem. For my part as a breeder (a very small one)I think the dosage system makes a lot of sense and can be  helpful. When looking at cheap stallions I want to make sure they have a faster pedigree than my mares. Its a bit academic most of the time because my small budget restricts my choices.

Delegator is an example, I would not use him as a third season stallion because his pedigree suggest his stock won't be sharp and they have to be to get plenty of 2yo winners, whereas Bated Breath, although not precocious has a speedy pedigree and could do relatively well in his first season.

Its all a bit of a guessing game and I agree that there is very little indication of class in this system, which is why some people may dismiss it.