Pedigree analysis: Nicks

always wondered why noble mission was so different to frankel.....

Full siblings share about 50% of their genes.

In addition, it is generally accepted that only about 35% of a horses ability results from its breeding. The rest is due to environmental factors such as diet and training methods.

I Agree, try the Bloodstock & breeding forum with that , you sureto get some really good replies.

I will but there's very little activity on there and I can't recall a thread about nicking.

There seem to be a lot of "purists" on B & B. By that I mean those with an interest in breeding for breeding's sake rather than coming from a punter's point of view.

They are very helpful and always try to assist if possible .

In addition, it is generally accepted that only about 35% of a horses ability results from its breeding. The rest is due to environmental factors such as diet and training methods.

must be other factors

maybe urban sea had a really good morning before she got it on with galileo?
next time round she had "a headache"..?

I don't follow you. Do you mean Sadlers Wells?

always wondered why noble mission was so different to frankel.....

There is also a theory, apparently backed up by research, that a broodmare produces her best runner in her first three or four foals.

Iirc, Frankel was Kind's second foal. Noble Mission her fifth.

I think that together with the genetic differences and environmental factors goes a long way to answering your question.

had a fkn "mare" there....got em mixed up

I'm actually more interested in the methods, theories and impact of linebreeding but that's a far bigger, more technical and complex subject.

birds and the bees for you then iawn

I wish I'd have taken an interest in the subject years ago because tbh, that's about the level I'm at.

i research pedigree nicks almost daily

Offspring with sire (A) and dam by sire (B) have 5 of 8 great-grandparent the same.  Stating it another way 3/8 of their pedigrees are different.
What comes through to the foal in the 5/8 of the pedigrees will differ.  And what comes through in the 3/8 will differ.

I have the info to do comparisons.
A few moments ago I wrote a program to list offspring with the same sire and dam and the offspring ratings.
It would take a little longer to do the same for offspring with the same sire and damsire.

My opinion is that if sires who produce lowly rated horses are mated with dams by damsires who produce lowly rated horses you get low rated horses.
And vice versa with highly rated sires and damsires, but always regressing to the mean i.e 130 rated sires and 130 rated damsires will produce lower rated offspring.
I doubt you are going to find a magical combination of low rated sire and low rated damsire that will produce dozens of highly rated offspring.

The problem with nicks is the sample size is usually low.  Drawing conclusions from low sample sizes is not wise.
The Blood-Horse produce a Nicks annual.  I bought it a few times.

A good read on the subject is chapter 8, Nicking by Rommy Faversham (pages 125 to 172) in the book, Racehorse Breeding Theories by Frank J Mitchell, published by The Russell Meerdink Company, Ltd in 2004.

He does mention some modern combinations that "represent ongoing examples of broad-based affinities certainly worth being aware of".
Sadler's Wells line/Never Bend line.  Northern Dancer line/Blushing Groom line.  Mr Prospector line/Seattle Slew line.
Others:  Deputy Minister-Prince John; Gone West-The Minstrel; Holy Bull-Green Dancer; Jade |Hunter-Nijinsky; Lear Fan-Nureyev; Mt Livermore-Great Above; Storm Cat-Ribot
He said he got most of the above from The Blood-Horse Nicks 2004.  But the best nicks of 2004 from small numbers probably were not the best nicks of 2005.