Bloodstock & Breeding
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
There was an article in this months edition of the International Thoroughbred magazine that touched on Foal Ranks of Sires and their impact on racecourse performance. I found the article really interesting and may be worth checking out.
The following is an extract from the excellent blog section of this website: http://performancegenetics.com/
One of the data points that we have modeled that is important, but you won’t see on a catalog page is “foal rank of sire”.
To explain, If you took the career of Sadler’s Wells and you noted the first foal that was born in 1986 (his first crop) in the January of that year and noted it as foal number 1, and the next foal born was #2 (In The Wings incidentally) and you kept on with that process you would get to Montjeu (foal number 786) Galileo (989) and High Chaparral (1108). Now where it gets interesting is that once you get past 1350 foals in Sadler’s Wells’ career, which occurred when he was 18, his Gr1 winners to foals ratio drops from 4.66% to 1.1%. Basically in the first 60% of his career he was a great stallion and in the last 40% he was just a good stallion. As good a stallion as he was, he didn’t sire a Gr1 winner in his last 318 foals.
We looked at this phenomenon in 30 great stallions and the result is that on average 85% of their Gr1 and Gr2 winners are sired in the first 55% of their entire foal count. Depending on the number of mares that they covered this tipping point usually occurs somewhere between the ages of 16 to 18 years of age. Somewhat perversely this is usually when the stallion is at the height of his commercial powers. If a stallion normally retires at the age of four, covers his first mares at age five, and has his first runners at age eight, he is usually 10 before his quality is established. It is however at least another two seasons, with sustained results on the racetrack, that they get to their maximum service fee which invariably occurs at age 12. But within 4-6 years of this point in time, presuming they are serving large books of mares, they aren’t the same stallion that established their merit.
The following is an extract from the excellent blog section of this website: http://performancegenetics.com/
One of the data points that we have modeled that is important, but you won’t see on a catalog page is “foal rank of sire”.
To explain, If you took the career of Sadler’s Wells and you noted the first foal that was born in 1986 (his first crop) in the January of that year and noted it as foal number 1, and the next foal born was #2 (In The Wings incidentally) and you kept on with that process you would get to Montjeu (foal number 786) Galileo (989) and High Chaparral (1108). Now where it gets interesting is that once you get past 1350 foals in Sadler’s Wells’ career, which occurred when he was 18, his Gr1 winners to foals ratio drops from 4.66% to 1.1%. Basically in the first 60% of his career he was a great stallion and in the last 40% he was just a good stallion. As good a stallion as he was, he didn’t sire a Gr1 winner in his last 318 foals.
We looked at this phenomenon in 30 great stallions and the result is that on average 85% of their Gr1 and Gr2 winners are sired in the first 55% of their entire foal count. Depending on the number of mares that they covered this tipping point usually occurs somewhere between the ages of 16 to 18 years of age. Somewhat perversely this is usually when the stallion is at the height of his commercial powers. If a stallion normally retires at the age of four, covers his first mares at age five, and has his first runners at age eight, he is usually 10 before his quality is established. It is however at least another two seasons, with sustained results on the racetrack, that they get to their maximum service fee which invariably occurs at age 12. But within 4-6 years of this point in time, presuming they are serving large books of mares, they aren’t the same stallion that established their merit.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 22
|
By:
It would be interesting to have the current foal ranks from active sires. Off the top of my head the following must be coming close to 1300 foals:
Galileo Dansili Invincible Spirit Pivotal (well over possibly?) Cape Cross |
|
By:
I too enjoyed that article bert.
I don't think there is any relevance in where one's foal features in a numerical list of a sires progeny, but I always think it behoves us to keep a beady eye on the age of any stallion we consider using. |
|
By:
Great article. These are the type of stats that Coolmore don't want us to see.
|
|
By:
Or ...
... the stallion establishes his credentials after careful vetting by the stallion owners of the quality of mares sent to him in his early years ... ... then everyone with an inferior mare pays the big fee thinking they too can have Group 1 winners. |
|
By:
Nearctic (1954) sired by Nearco (1935)
Sadler’s Wells (1981) sired by Northern Dancer (1961) Pretty Polly (1901) sired by Gallinule (1884) If you like I will prepare an extensive list during the week. |
|
By:
Kincsem:
You have missed the point entirely. All they are saying is the frequency of Sires producing Group performers decreases after a certain number of foals. They think the tipping point is about 1300. Of course older sires can produce G1 winners. Also if you are going to give examples to disparage research maybe Nearco (1935) and Gallinule (1884) are not the best to choose. They would not have sired 1300 foals lifetime. |
|
By:
There are few sires with the numbers in the thousands, mostly American sires. It is a know problem with AEI that sires do not produce crops of high earners later in life as stallion owners cash in on reputation earned with earlier crops.
I think this is non-science. |
|
By:
It is not science. It is inputting data into an excel sheet and seeing what results come out. That is stats. Also it seems they came up with the same conclusion as you. There are plenty of Sires who have sired more than 1000 foals.
|
|
By:
The “research” says -
“Once you get past 1350 foals in Sadler’s Wells’ career, which occurred when he was 18, his Gr1 winners to foals ratio drops from 4.66% to 1.1%. Basically in the first 60% of his career he was a great stallion and in the last 40% he was just a good stallion. As good a stallion as he was, he didn’t sire a Gr1 winner in his last 318 foals.” ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ That “research” says Sadler’s Wells ability to sire Group 1 winners declined at age 18 (year 1999 stud year = racing year 2001 and beyond). But he had 6% G1 winners in 2001, and 5% in 2002. In fact, he had his HIGHEST numbers of individual winners in 2001 (9) and 2002 (10). This is in direct contradiction of the “research” findings. Now I have not listed his number of foals. What I listed (taken from the Racing Post website) is his Group 1 winners, and Group 1 runners, and the total number of runners each year. The Racing Post website does have statistics before 1988. Sadler’s Wells was born in 1981, ran in 1983 (2yo)and 1983 (3yo). He went to stud in 1984, and would have had his first runners in 1986. You will see that he has 12% Group 1 winners in 1988; 5% in 1999; 8% in 1990. He had 465 runners in the year 2005, a very large number, possibly many earlier crops now running as 3yo, 4yo, 5yo, 6yo, and possibly older. Now the number of Group 1 races each year is relatively fixed. It is not possible for all 465 of these runners in 2005 to win a Group 1. Of course his percentage of Gr1 winners dropped later in life. He sired more foals, and had more runners. Does that mean Sadler’s Wells was less of a sire as his Group 1 percentage dropped to 1% ? To me it is obvious that his owners cashed in on his reputation by breeding him to a large number of lesser broodmares. Year - G1 winrs/runrs [ All runrs ] 1988 ----- 2/2 ----------- [ 17 ] 12 % 1989 ----- 2/14 ----------- [ 44 ] 5 % 1990 ----- 5/13 ----------- [ 66 ] 8 % 1991 ----- 1/8 ----------- [ 70 ] 1 % 1992 ----- 4/15 ----------- [ 74 ] 5 % 1993 ----- 5/19 ----------- [ 65 ] 8 % 1994 ----- 4/20 ----------- [ 80 ] 5 % 1995 ----- 4/18 ----------- [ 89 ] 4 % 1996 ----- 3/25 ----------- [ 118 ] 3 % 1997 ----- 5/27 ----------- [ 101 ] 5 % 1998 ----- 5/22 ----------- [ 82 ] 6 % 1999 ----- 5/28 ----------- [ 109 ] 5 % 2000 ----- 6/32 ----------- [ 139 ] 4 % 2001 ----- 9/42 ----------- [ 162 ] 6 % 2002 ----- 10/36 ----------- [ 193 ] 5 % 2003 ----- 7/35 ----------- [ 191 ] 4 % 2004 ----- 6/39 ----------- [ 219 ] 3 % 2005 ----- 3/30 ----------- [ 465 ] 1 % 2006 ----- 2/23 ----------- [ 184 ] 1 % 2007 ----- 3/22 ----------- [ 196 ] 2 % 2008 ----- 3/29 ----------- [ 171 ] 2 % 2009 ----- 2/23 ----------- [ 154 ] 1 % 2010 ----- 0/14 ----------- [ 131 ] 0 % 2011 ----- 0/5 ----------- [ 84 ] 0 % 2012 ----- 0/3 ----------- [ 63 ] 0 % 2013 ----- 0/1 ----------- [ 32 ] 0 % |
|
By:
Kincsem,
I first come across this article/research a few weeks ago. It was put together by a company called Performance Genetics. I know nothing about them except they are one of a myriad of organisations that make money through advising people on bloodstock selection. Personally I think they just looked for information to support the theory that the older the stallion the less his effectiveness and just packaged it to look academic and clever and promote themselves. I don't know how accurate it is but it is not an impartial academic statistical analysis. |
|
By:
Truehoncho: Another person who misses the point. They are not talking about a Stallions age, they are talking about Sire foal numbers. A subtle difference. I think your post shows an underlying bias. It is therefor quite ironic that you are accusing them of bias. There is no danger of you coming across as academic and clever.
Kinscam: You seem to be arguing with someone who you agree with. I too think Stallions productiveness goes down over time. So does this bit of research. |
|
By:
Bert,
sorry if I offended you, I simply pointed out where the research came from. In reality foal numbers are closely linked to age but if I have missed the point please forgive me. |
|
By:
Apologies, reading back I came across as quite blunt. Best of luck to you.
|
|
By:
Coolmore is in the stallion business.
They have, as far as I know, hundreds of high class broodmares at Coolmore, some owned by Coolmore, some owned by others but boarded-in. Perhaps the boarded-in broodmares were owned by people who had an interest in Sadler's Wells? That is how the stallion business worked in the old days: 40 stallion shares; 40 matings a year, one mare from each shareholder. They probably sent their best mare to the stallion to (1) breed a top class racehorse (2) establish the stallion. If they wanted they could sell their nomination outside (possibly). My guess is Coolmore took great care establishing Sadler's Wells as a top stallion, giving him a flying start mating him with the best of the broodmares located at Coolmore. He would be bred in the early days to classic winning fillies who had already produced classic winners. Then he would move down a rung to Group 1 winning fillies, preferably those who had also produced Group 1 winners. Later he would make babies with the Group 2, Group3, and listed broodmares. Perhaps in the early days there were tight criteria for broodmares visiting Sadler's Wells. Would paying the fee be enough? Proven class was probably needed. So what happens when Sadler's Wells' reputation is established? You could open up access to other owners of lesser mares at high stud fees. You could set up your own in-house advertising agency to promote the stallion to outsiders. And while your top stallion is getting older, but making big money in outside fees, you use your high quality home broodmares for something else. You use your high quality home broodmares to "make" the next stallion, your successor to the mighty Sadler's Wells. You change from 40 coverings a year to unlimited coverings. You could lobby for and get favourable income tax treatment for stallion fee income. You could lobby for and get better Value Added Tax treatment for sale of bloodstock. You decide that a breeding season running from 15th February to the end of May is restricting your earnings. You ship your best sprinter/miler stallions to Australia and double your income. I can see how statistics could suggest a well-managed stallion like Sadler's Wells would have a lesser late career. It makes sense if you look at Coolmore as a stallion business. I would need a bit of proof of the 1350 coverings barrier. What if he had 1350 coverings in his first five years at stud? Many National Hunt stallions cover hundred of mares a year. Are they finished before the age of 10 years? Who took over the Sadler's Wells mantle? Danehill, Galileo. Look at the list below of number one sires year by year - all Coolmore sires except Blushing Groom in 1989. Sadler's Wells had built Coolmore. Then other sires were promoted to take over. Top Flat racing sires (Racing Post) Galileo (2013; 2012; 2011; 2010; 2008; Danehill Dancer (2009; Danehill (2007; 2006; 2005; 1997 Sadler's Wells (2004; 2003; 2002; 2001; 2000; 1999; 1998; 1996; 1995; 1994; 1993; 1992; 1990) Caerleon (1991; 1988) Blushing Groom (1989) I'm still missing the point. Where is the proof? Causality not proven imo. Causality is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect). There is a good Wiki page titled: Correlation does not imply causation. |
|
By:
I have no idea if these foals were before 1350 foals or after 1350 foals but they did ok for old sires.
Name______________[Dob] [Age Diff]_by_Sire (Sdob) _____out of_Dam (Ddob) Lermontov_________[1997] [ 23 ]___by_Alleged (1974) ___out of_Prospect Dalia (1990) Salford Express___[1996] [ 22 ]___by_Be My Guest (1974) ___out of_Summer Fashion (1985) Red Cadeaux_______[2006] [ 21 ]___by_Cadeaux Genereux (1985) ___out of_Artisia (2000) Ad Valorem________[2002] [ 25 ]___by_Danzig (1977) ___out of_Classy Women (1988) Antonius Pius_____[2001] [ 24 ]___by_Danzig (1977) ___out of_Catchascatchcan (1995) Astronomer Royal__[2004] [ 27 ]___by_Danzig (1977) ___out of_Sheepscot (1994) Della Francesca___[1999] [ 22 ]___by_Danzig (1977) ___out of_La Affirmed (1983) Haatef____________[2004] [ 27 ]___by_Danzig (1977) ___out of_Sayedat Alhadh (1994) Ishiguru__________[1998] [ 21 ]___by_Danzig (1977) ___out of_Strategic Maneuver (1991) Librettist________[2002] [ 25 ]___by_Danzig (1977) ___out of_Mysterial (1994) Modigliani________[1998] [ 21 ]___by_Danzig (1977) ___out of_Hot Princess (1980) Three Valleys_____[2001] [ 21 ]___by_Diesis (1980) ___out of_Skiable (1990) Lochnager_________[1972] [ 23 ]___by_Dumbarnie (1949) ___out of_Miss Barbara (1961) Kris Kin__________[2000] [ 23 ]___by_Kris S (1977) ___out of_Angel In My Heart (1992) Lucky Story_______[2001] [ 24 ]___by_Kris S (1977) ___out of_Spring Flight (1987) Bachelor Duke_____[2001] [ 23 ]___by_Miswaki (1978) ___out of_Gossamer (1991) Chester House_____[1995] [ 25 ]___by_Mr Prospector (1970) ___out of_Toussaud (1989) Cosmonaut_________[1991] [ 21 ]___by_Mr Prospector (1970) ___out of_Sonic Lady (1983) Distant View______[1991] [ 21 ]___by_Mr Prospector (1970) ___out of_Seven Springs (1982) Fusaichi Pegasus__[1997] [ 27 ]___by_Mr Prospector (1970) ___out of_Angel Fever (1990) Miesque'S Son_____[1992] [ 22 ]___by_Mr Prospector (1970) ___out of_Miesque (1984) Smart Strike______[1992] [ 22 ]___by_Mr Prospector (1970) ___out of_Classy 'N Smart (1981) Traditionally_____[1997] [ 27 ]___by_Mr Prospector (1970) ___out of_Personal Ensign (1984) Azamour___________[2001] [ 21 ]___by_Night Shift (1980) ___out of_Asmara (1993) Lammtarra_________[1992] [ 25 ]___by_Nijinsky (1967) ___out of_Snow Bride (1986) Mashaallah________[1988] [ 21 ]___by_Nijinsky (1967) ___out of_Homespun (1969) Fools Holme_______[1982] [ 26 ]___by_Noholme (1956) ___out of_Fancifool (1972) General Holme_____[1979] [ 23 ]___by_Noholme (1956) ___out of_General'S Sister (1960) Ajdal_____________[1984] [ 23 ]___by_Northern Dancer (1961) ___out of_Native Partner (1966) Fairy King________[1982] [ 21 ]___by_Northern Dancer (1961) ___out of_Fairy Bridge (1975) Jareer____________[1983] [ 22 ]___by_Northern Dancer (1961) ___out of_Fabuleux Jane (1974) Rambo Dancer______[1984] [ 23 ]___by_Northern Dancer (1961) ___out of_Fair Arabella (1968) Tate Gallery______[1983] [ 22 ]___by_Northern Dancer (1961) ___out of_Fairy Bridge (1975) Unfuwain__________[1985] [ 24 ]___by_Northern Dancer (1961) ___out of_Height Of Fashion (1979) Arakan____________[2000] [ 23 ]___by_Nureyev (1977) ___out of_Far Across (1996) King Charlemagne__[1998] [ 21 ]___by_Nureyev (1977) ___out of_Race The Wild Wind (1989) Crowded House_____[2006] [ 25 ]___by_Rainbow Quest (1981) ___out of_Wiener Wald (1992) Bahri_____________[1992] [ 23 ]___by_Riverman (1969) ___out of_Wasnah (1987) Loup Sauvage______[1994] [ 25 ]___by_Riverman (1969) ___out of_Louveterie (1986) Ask_______________[2003] [ 22 ]___by_Sadler'S Wells (1981) ___out of_Request (1997) Dragon Dancer_____[2003] [ 22 ]___by_Sadler'S Wells (1981) ___out of_Alakananda (1998) Mores Wells_______[2004] [ 23 ]___by_Sadler'S Wells (1981) ___out of_Endorsement (1996) Septimus__________[2003] [ 22 ]___by_Sadler'S Wells (1981) ___out of_Caladira (1991) |
|
By:
The report was not solely on Sadlers Wells. It was the aggregation of 30 top Sires, of which Sadlers Wells was one. They found that...
We looked at this phenomenon in 30 great stallions and the result is that on average 85% of their Gr1 and Gr2 winners are sired in the first 55% of their entire foal count. Which part of this do you not agree with? You ask 'where is the proof?' Proof of what exactly? All they have done is crunched some numbers and told people the result. You could easily do it yourself (although it could take some time I would have thought). Please let me know if you come up with a different result. Listing decent horses Sired by older Sires does not add anything to the discussion They offered no explanation as to why this is although it could well be, like you say, that Sires got greater support at the start of their careers. Might be something in this. You also list a number of other reasons as to the drop off, there might be something in them also. I don't know the answer. This research would be enough to put me off breeding to a Stallion that was coming towards the end of his career but still had a high fee. |
|
By:
On the same site they also posted this:
Other Factors of Selection ◾Sex – Several studies haves shown that the sex of the horse plays a major role in racing performance (Mota et al., 1998, 2005; Svobodova et al., 2005; Ekiz et al., 2005). Stallions have better racing performance, as measured by earnings and log of earnings (Ekiz et al., 2005; Svobodova et al., 2005) and by handicap weight (More O’Ferrall and Cunningham, 1974) than mares. This is not surprising, but it is another reason why colts outsell fillies at a sale. ◾Foal Rank – The age of the mare and the foal rank of the foal are statistically significant discriminators. This most likely comes down to something like the quality of the endometrial wall, but statistically, even when normalizing for sire quality of the foal, the first 6 foals out of a mare are their best efforts. ◾Month of Birth – Langlois and Blouin (1997, 1998) observed that the horse’s month of birth had a significant effect on annual earnings and earnings per start. They recommended that the effect of horse’s months of birth should definitely be taken into account for selection. ◾Stallion Age -Private studies by Bill Oppenheim, ourselves and another private breeder as well as published studies by Velie et al. 2013, have also shown that stallions will sire anywhere between 75-85% of their graded/group stakes winners in their first 10 crops, regardless of the increasing quality of the mares that they are bred to. Once an elite stallion has reached this 11th crop, in terms of price point it is more profitable to purchase a yearling by his best son than try to buy one by him. So for example, it was a significantly better play to buy a yearling out of the first few crops of Redoute’s Choice than it was to go out and buy a yearling by Danehill at the same time. This seems counterintuitive to most but the ego of owning a yearling by the premier sire combined with the diminishing output make this a significant market misallocation. ◾Repeat Matings – As a counter to the above point however, if a mare produces a graded/group stakes winner in her first two foals, she is actually statistically more likely to produce one again in a subsequent foal. Maybe putting this altogether with the foal rank stuff will provide a good way to select superior yearlings. If anybody wants to change their Fantasy Yearling selections let me know!!! |
|
By:
truehoncho
On the same site they also posted this: Other Factors of Selection ◾Sex – Several studies haves shown that the sex of the horse plays a major role in racing performance (Mota et al., 1998, 2005; Svobodova et al., 2005; Ekiz et al., 2005). Stallions have better racing performance, as measured by earnings and log of earnings (Ekiz et al., 2005; Svobodova et al., 2005) and by handicap weight (More O’Ferrall and Cunningham, 1974) than mares. This is not surprising, but it is another reason why colts outsell fillies at a sale. Of course. Less that the top 1% or males go to stud. About 70% of females go to stud, good and bad performers. This comment “the sex of a horse plays a major roles in racing performance (stallions have better performance) is childish. In the recent 2912 General Stud Book there are 8,959+13,153 = 22,112 mares and about 300 sires. If you look at the 2012 Statistical record about 160 sires have ten or more winners. Who would pay for this “research”? ◾Foal Rank – The age of the mare and the foal rank of the foal are statistically significant discriminators. This most likely comes down to something like the quality of the endometrial wall, but statistically, even when normalizing for sire quality of the foal, the first 6 foals out of a mare are their best efforts. How many foals do mares produce before they are put out of stud? Is this more pseudo-science? I will believe the conclusions when I see a very large data sample. Data is king, not percentages, or conclusions with no information revealed. Sir Charles Leicester in his book Bloodstock Breeding deals with old wives tales like this one. He gives examples of mares with poor stud records until they then had success late in life: Octaviana (1815): bred nothing of note until twenty-two years old when she foaled the 2000 Guineas, 1000 Guineas and Oaks winner Crucifix (dam of the Derby and St Leger winner Surplice). Mare by Comus (1816): bred nothing of note until twenty-two years of age when she produced Miss Lydia, ancestress of Fair Play, Star Shoot, Cyllene, Asterus who were all great sires. The only good racer this mare foaled was Nutwith (St Leger) when she was twenty-four). Lacerta (1816): the Little Wonder (Derby) when she was 21. Flying Duchess (1853): bred nothing of merit until 19 when she bred Derby winner and Champion sire Galopin. Anonyma (1859): no racer of worth until 23 when she foaled Lonely (Oaks). St Angela (1865): at 16 she foaled St Simon, possibly the greatest horse of all time. Kizil Kourgan (1893): at 19 foaled Ksar (French Derby and a first class stallion). Hammerkop (1900): the one and only winner she produced was Spion Kop (Derby) at 17. Pearl Cap (1928): nothing of note until at 16 Pearl Diver (Derby). Mercia (1931): nothing of note until 20 when foaled Le Petit France (French Derby). ◾Month of Birth – Langlois and Blouin (1997, 1998) observed that the horse’s month of birth had a significant effect on annual earnings and earnings per start. They recommended that the effect of horse’s months of birth should definitely be taken into account for selection. This is another old chestnut that is rubbish. Nick Mordin demolished this years ago. The gestation period of the thoroughbred is eleven months. The breeding season starts on 15th February. This ensures a mating on 15th February produces, on average, a foal on the following 15th January. Thoroughbreds all have a 1st January birthday, regardless of when they are actually born. So the wealthy owners have the pick of the dates when they can send their expensive, classy mare to the stallion. They will send it on 15th February or close to that date. This ensures their foal will be older than other foals. Classier foals are older foals, a double advantage of more maturity and advantage in class when they get to the racecourse. Who would pay for this “research”? ◾Stallion Age -Private studies by Bill Oppenheim, ourselves and another private breeder as well as published studies by Velie et al. 2013, have also shown that stallions will sire anywhere between 75-85% of their graded/group stakes winners in their first 10 crops, regardless of the increasing quality of the mares that they are bred to. Once an elite stallion has reached this 11th crop, in terms of price point it is more profitable to purchase a yearling by his best son than try to buy one by him. So for example, it was a significantly better play to buy a yearling out of the first few crops of Redoute’s Choice than it was to go out and buy a yearling by Danehill at the same time. This seems counterintuitive to most but the ego of owning a yearling by the premier sire combined with the diminishing output make this a significant market misallocation. I won’t believe this until I see data of all the mares bred to the stallion graded by Group1, Group2, Group3, Listed achievements. Conclusions might be mixing correlation with causation. You do know that Bill Oppenheim is a consultant to Coolmore. Does he have a vested interest in pushing mare owners towards new un-established stallions? Is this Coolmore policy? ◾Repeat Matings – As a counter to the above point however, if a mare produces a graded/group stakes winner in her first two foals, she is actually statistically more likely to produce one again in a subsequent foal. Maybe putting this altogether with the foal rank stuff will provide a good way to select superior yearlings. If anybody wants to change their Fantasy Yearling selections let me know!!! Yes. Better sires and broodmares produce better offspring. This was new info 2000 years ago. |
|
By:
On reflection, it is to my advantage if people believe this "research".
 |
|
By:
Kincsem you're awfully angry about this - its a study with some information take or leave the conclusions. Similarly the use of pre-war examples of old mares producing classic horses hasnt much relevance either. Neither is the suggestion that 'elite mares' go to stud in Feb (other than first go) and classy foals are early ones, simply not the case...look at the DOB of the last ten guineas / derby winners.
|
|
By:
I would suggest the month of birth does have some merit.
The Aga Khan aims for his foals to be born March - 2nd week of April. Born to early cold weather can have a negative effect on development to late then to weak for the sport of flat racing. |
|
By:
yer ma
Kincsem you're awfully angry about this - its a study with some information take or leave the conclusions. Similarly the use of pre-war examples of old mares producing classic horses hasnt much relevance either. Neither is the suggestion that 'elite mares' go to stud in Feb (other than first go) and classy foals are early ones, simply not the case...look at the DOB of the last ten guineas / derby winners. I was away for a few days. What I want to see is data, not conclusions that do not give any indication of the data source, and no indication of the data sample size. When you put up a post and make statements please list the data you are using, and the sample size. You say "look at the date of birth of the last ten Guineas / Derby winners." Why did you not look at them and post the information here so we could have a look. People might assume you did the work because you made the statement. They might conclude that you were right, and I was wrong about something. I said success of "early birth date" horses is as much a product of wealthy owners getting their quality mares bred early, as it is to do with the extra age. I looked at the date of birth of the last 25 English Derby winners: Jan(2); Feb(8); Mar(10); Apr(3); May(2). My point is/was that an earlier date of birth gives a maturity advantage. Saying an early date of birth is the reason for success may be due as much to more wealthy breeders having a choice of dates. The high quality of their mares is probably as much a factor as the date of birth. The "Birth Rank and Success" study in Chapter 10 of Racehorse Breeding Theories by Frank Mitchell might or might not be the study referred to above (How can I tell, as no source quoted?) The study by Dr E J Finocchio was on 689 winners of US awards or US top races. His conclusion was the first 5 foals have a better probability of success (strangely he does not say how much greater). The 680 dams produced 5901 foals. I did the math. They produced an average of 8.68 foals. He said the best were in the first 5 foals. The percents were 1(16.9%); 2(21.5%); 3 (18.6%); 4 (15.3%); 5 (10.7%); 6 (8.1%); 7 (6.4%); tailing off to 1.5% for the 13th foal. This conclusion was from his 1995 study of 689 winners. The book also lists a 1985 study of 1641 foals. It is unclear in the book if this is another Finocchio study. It does say David Dink chose a much larger and much less select group to study (the 1641 foals?) so this might be Dink's data. The percents were 1(16.9%); 2(19.4%); 3 (20.5%); 4 (19.3%); 5 (19.5%); 6 (15.5%); 6 (14.2%); 8 (12.8%); 9 (11.0%), tailing off to 3.7% for the 16th foal. I am unsatisfied with the conclusions of these studies. Finocchio concludes from his study "mares should be bred to quality stallions from the beginning of their stud careers, giving the resulting foals the best opportunity for success". What amazes me is there is no mention in his study of the quality of stallions used in his study. They might already be sending their mares to the best stallions early in their careers, and to lesser stallions later. David Dink said "The best broodmares, however, did not show an inclination to discontinue producing good foals as they aged. Secretariat, for instance, was produced out of sync with these conclusions on birth rank. Frank Mitchell, in his conclusion tellingly says "Among the factors that contribute to the decline of a mare's foals, the quality of stallions is also a significant contributing element. Typically, a mare is sent to the best stallions she will visit in the first three of four years of her producing life. If she hasn't produced foals that give her owner encouragement of if she hasn't produced a stakes winner among this early group, a mare is probably going to be traded on, and her opportunities will diminish". He then says "birth rank makes it a fascinating component of the selection process". The comment by yer ma "Similarly the use of pre-war examples of old mares producing classic horses hasnt much relevance either." It shows older mares, if given the opportunity, have produced quality winners. Secretariat's sire was 26, his dam 18, when he was foaled. Lammtarra's sire was 25 when he was foaled. Am I angry? I am not pleased to see advice given that doesn't give people a chance to assess the quality of the research. |