[QUOTE=Laurierace;7573858]
Actually the cheap mare, cheap stallion part if the only part I don’t like about the whole equation. We don’t need more cheaply bred horses just because one outran his price tag.[/QUOTE]
I do happen to agree with that. But for real horse people it’s proof that you don’t ride (or run) the papers.
When Seattle Slew won the T.C. much ado was made over the fact that he didn’t have much of a pedigree and had been purchased for $17k, or so. Afterwards, it was decided that his dam was a worthy broodmare.
And I agree, it is somehow comforting to know that pedigree won’t always win out and you don’t ride the papers. After all, who can forget Green Monkey?
I don’t have any problem whatsoever with the success of some folks who did their homework and studied conformation and pedigrees.
I don’t think we want this to be exclusively “The Sport of Kings.”
[QUOTE=Laurierace;7573858]
Actually the cheap mare, cheap stallion part if the only part I don’t like about the whole equation. We don’t need more cheaply bred horses just because one outran his price tag.[/QUOTE]
Actually by Calbred standards, Lucky Pulpit was a pretty nice stallion before California Chrome. I went to Harris to look at him in 2012 but physically he didn’t complement the mare I have. But he already had a Derby starter in Rousing Sermon and a really useful runner named Luckarack and he was getting close to 100 mares a year back then.
When I am looking at new stallions, I compile a spreadsheet of their named foals to see what is happening, who has them and how they are bred. It is the geek in me I guess. I looked at that spreadsheet the other day for Lucky Pulpit and Chrome was there but he wasn’t named yet.
I understand why they are emphasizing the “cheap” aspects of the story but I don’t think it’s as bad as it looks. California breeding is literally on life support. An unbred mare without a lot of black type is worth very little here. A friend of mine picked up an Awesome Again and a Candy Ride for what these guys paid for the Not For Love.
While we definitely do not need more “cheap” horses bred without consideration, racing is not going to survive on the model of an ultra-elitist sport with a dying fan base.
I fully support wisely-bred horses at a good value and increased accessibility to racing for those who aren’t in the 1%.
[QUOTE=Laurierace;7573858]
Actually the cheap mare, cheap stallion part if the only part I don’t like about the whole equation. We don’t need more cheaply bred horses just because one outran his price tag.[/QUOTE]
Or, maybe the industry needs to take a hard look at that pedigree and see what they can learn, beyond the sour grapes that some one got a bargain that wasn’t bred by the Big Boys. Nothing wrong with that breeding from my amateur point of view.
More expensive is not always the best. How many of the top sellers at the yearling sales have earned what they cost?
What we do need is a shot in the arm to this country overall that the bankster bastards with the billions don’t own this country. I am for well bred, nice horses, no matter the price, better if they are not hundreds of thousands of dollars and that Wall Street does not have a stake, but that’s just me.
You have to remember that the animals are ALWAYS the ones who end up paying the price. I have been saving horses out of the kill pen for decades and only once did we pull one that had what I would consider “good breeding.” That good breeding (and testicles) obviously didn’t stop him from ending up in the kill pen.
Breed whoever you want to whoever you want if you are prepared to care for them regardless of whether you beat the odds or not. I look at it like a lottery ticket. Do you want a ticket with a billion to one odds of being worth anything or of a 50/50 chance of at least getting you your dollar back?
It is silly to think this horse will really have any influence on breeding. The people that can afford it are still going to breed to the best stallions they can afford, and those that can’t will seek out stallions on a budget. Certain groups will still breed to flashy one-hit-derby-prep-wonders in order to get high auction prices and more flashy one-hit horses. Other guys will look towards horses like Einstein, Gio Ponti, Awesome Again, etc in hopes of getting a more long lasting, usable racehorse. Some will ignore shoddy conformation for big names in a pedigree. Then sadly there will always be those that breed just because they can and generally end up with a classic example of an unwanted horse. You can’t blame CC’s success for those kind.
Regardless of the success of one horse, everyone that breeds horses is generally already set in their ways, chasing their own vision of what they want in a horse. The funny thing is, when breeding to a local stallion vs a bigger name stallion, conformation, soundness, feet, and temperament are often taken into consideration more so than when breeding to a horse that would bring more money at auction and be considered of higher quality to the “paper crowd” as I refer to them. When breeding for state bred runners, the goal is more often a sturdy, middle distance horse that will last over time.
One hit wonders are of little use to most of us. For most regular bread and butter trainers, state bred horses, especially by local stallions, are easier to find races for. When claiming I generally try to avoid the flashy KY bred horses, as they end up being harder to find races for here in TX and LA.
[QUOTE=Laurierace;7574492]
You have to remember that the animals are ALWAYS the ones who end up paying the price. I have been saving horses out of the kill pen for decades and only once did we pull one that had what I would consider “good breeding.” That good breeding (and testicles) obviously didn’t stop him from ending up in the kill pen.
Breed whoever you want to whoever you want if you are prepared to care for them regardless of whether you beat the odds or not. I look at it like a lottery ticket. Do you want a ticket with a billion to one odds of being worth anything or of a 50/50 chance of at least getting you your dollar back?[/QUOTE]
Oh, I don’t disagree with you at all on that, but sadly Ferdinand’s story showed us that ‘any’ race horse can end up in a bad way, even a Derby winner. The responsibility for the race horses has to be consistent from the cheapest claimer to the Eclipse award winners.
The flawed logic here is that people with bundles of cash are the best breeders.
And what might bring big bucks in the sales ring isn’t necessarily what will burn up the track. IMHO, breeding for the sales ring rather than the track is one of the factors that have led to the downfall of racing.
Genetics is a crap shoot. 1 in 10 offspring from an elite individual will carry on those genetics. Like any elite athlete (human or animal); each competition is up in the air. It will boil down to training, good day vs. bad day, weather conditions, stamina, heart, soundness, etc.
I haven’t looked into his pedigree but I assume his second dam was a nice mare as they bred her to Not For Love who stood for 25k at the time I believe.
Genetics is not a complete crapshoot. If you study your phenotypes and genotypes and pay attention to how various bloodlines cross you can improve your odds. There are no guarantees in life, especially in breeding, but some folks just do a better job at it.
[QUOTE=Beverley;7574705]
Oh, I don’t disagree with you at all on that, but sadly Ferdinand’s story showed us that ‘any’ race horse can end up in a bad way, even a Derby winner. The responsibility for the race horses has to be consistent from the cheapest claimer to the Eclipse award winners.[/QUOTE]
I have two horses, a “meh” bred one and a staggeringly well bred one. God knows what the latter would have gone for if his breeder had sold him. Guess which one retired sound (with fourteen starts in his last year and even rounded out a super in his only try on synthetic) and which one, if it weren’t for another COTHer willing to put in some serious shipping and put her money where her concern is, would probably have wound up on the wrong side of the Mexican border? Breeding “the best” does not always produce the best. What we need is neither gambles on super cheap mares nor only breeding the cream of the crop, we need people looking hard at what’s going to produce a solid working racehorse who’ll stay sound when he almost certainly slips out of graded stakes company (or never makes it there in the first place.)
[QUOTE=SportArab;7574936]
The flawed logic here is that people with bundles of cash are the best breeders.
And what might bring big bucks in the sales ring isn’t necessarily what will burn up the track. IMHO, breeding for the sales ring rather than the track is one of the factors that have led to the downfall of racing.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that anyone would assert that “people with bundles of cash are the best breeders.” 
It seems to me that this is a discussion of exactly the opposite.
[QUOTE=LaurieB;7575203]
I don’t think that anyone would assert that “people with bundles of cash are the best breeders.”
It seems to me that this is a discussion of exactly the opposite.[/QUOTE]
There was a comment that the downside of the California Chrome story was the emphasis on his inexpensive origins, which I happen to think is a good thing because it makes racing seem more accessible to folks who don’t belong to the 1 percent.
I know my opinion is not a popular one, but my hope for California Chrome and this year’s 3 year old crop is that they help drive prices down a bit. Not because I think everyone and their brother should own and breed racehorses, and definitely not because I think less thought or quality should go into breeding. I feel this way because I believe racehorse prices have always been over-inflated and will soon be unsustainable in today’s market.
The cost of actually caring for a horse and keeping him in training is only going to continue to rise. Things that have been a mainstay for racing over the centuries like “old money” and family stables are becoming less common. It’s going to become increasingly difficult to draw new blood into the sport if they are saddled with 5 or 6 figure purchase prices for a decent racing prospect AND thousands of dollars a month in care.
The excessively wealthy will always be able to pay whatever they want for a horse, but something needs to give in order to attract buy-in from the rest of the population. Otherwise we’re just going to run out of owners!
Oh my. So much to say. There are some salient points: 1 the cost of breeding best to best ; 2 thefailure of many well bred yearlings and two year olds, commanding top dollar, to pan out; the excitement of breeding a “cheap” mare who produced phenonoms. There are zero guarantees. It is a crap shoot.
[QUOTE=foundationmare;7575636]
Oh my. So much to say. There are some salient points: 1 the cost of breeding best to best ; 2 thefailure of many well bred yearlings and two year olds, commanding top dollar, to pan out; the excitement of breeding a “cheap” mare who produced phenonoms. There are zero guarantees. It is a crap shoot.[/QUOTE]
It’s not a crapshoot.
If it were a crapshoot then stallions wouldn’t command 6 figure stud fees.
Yes, there are no guarantees. Yes there is luck involved. But the best generally cost more because they are the best producers.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
