California Chrome

[Drvmb1ggl3]

[QUOTE=Texarkana;7575345]
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![/QUOTE]

The average price of a TB at sale has not changed that much. The median price has risen, but this is mostly a function of less available stock due to record low foal crops the last number of years after the economic crash.
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred-sales/state-of-the-market

It is not that dissimilar to the housing market. After an economic crash, both the average price of a house and the raw numbers of house being built both fall. As the economy picks up, the median price of a house starts to rise sharply as the available stock of houses is limited and it becomes a seller’s market. Construction then catches up with it as construction companies have increased confidence in the economy and housing prices start to level off due to more available stock.
People will start to breed more horses and median price was correct itself.

[PeteyPie]

I agree that it is not a good thing for people to think you can breed any old cheap mare to any old cheap stallion and end up with a champion. That is not a good idea to propagate.

Having said that, California Chrome’s sire and dam may not have cost much money, but that’s not to say they were low class. The owner did put a lot of thought into the dam and into his breeding choices. I think she has a lovely pedigree with the two crosses of Numbered Account and the boring but successful Mr. Prospector/Northern Dancer crosses through Not For Love and Polish Numbers. As for her ability, she was not a good runner but that may have been a training issue. The owners felt that she had great ability but they said she failed because she was terrified of the other horses and got worked up in the saddling enclosure.

California Chrome’s sire Lucky Pulpit is not some backyard project. His fee was low because all the fees are relatively low in California. In spite of not being in Kentucky he has done well and I’ll bet we will see some great results with his new fame.

I think California Chrome’s success is the story of a breeder who did some research and found a good bargain; it is not the story of a yahoo breeding two cheap horses and miraculously coming out a winner.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

Yes, people are overstating the whole “not regally bred” thing.
While CC may have cost a fraction of some of the high breds aimed at the Derby, neither his sire or dam are bottom of the barrel. They are exactly what you’d expect for a decent regional breeding program.
From a breeding perspective he’s a Camry/Passatt, not a Ford Fiesta/Chevy Spark.

[Texarkana]

[QUOTE=Drvmb1ggl3;7575704]
The average price of a TB at sale has not changed that much. The median price has risen, but this is mostly a function of less available stock due to record low foal crops the last number of years after the economic crash.
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred-sales/state-of-the-market

It is not that dissimilar to the housing market. After an economic crash, both the average price of a house and the raw numbers of house being built both fall. As the economy picks up, the median price of a house starts to rise sharply as the available stock of houses is limited and it becomes a seller’s market. Construction then catches up with it as construction companies have increased confidence in the economy and housing prices start to level off due to more available stock.
People will start to breed more horses and median price was correct itself.[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry that I was not clear. I was not referring to current market trends and recent sale results per se. But that is interesting data nonetheless.

What I was trying to convey that the cost has been over-inflated for a long time-- definitely decades, possibly centuries. But the lack of sustainability comes from the fact that the US economy and landscape are changing in such a manner that I can’t see how it won’t impact racing.

Loss of farms, loss of land, loss of “old money” in racing-- families of horsemen and fans, loss of racetracks… the rising cost of feed and hay, the rising cost of veterinary care, the rising cost of horse services-- it’s all a viscous cycle. If all of the costs associated with owning a racehorse continue to rise AND prices on racing stock stay high, the number of folks who can afford to become potential racehorse owners (which is already small) will continue to decrease.

No matter the price of the horse, it still costs more than many Americans’ salaries to keep a racehorse in training. Something has to give if the sport will survive. Cutting training costs is virtually impossible beyond a certain point-- trainers and horses alike still need to eat. But you can’t convince me the average value of racing stock in 2014 is truly worth $55K. The majority of horses will never recoup that in their entire lives!

[caffeinated]

[QUOTE=PeteyPie;7575778]
I think California Chrome’s success is the story of a breeder who did some research and found a good bargain; it is not the story of a yahoo breeding two cheap horses and miraculously coming out a winner.[/QUOTE]

Exactly this. I think “inexpensive” does not necessarily equal “low quality.” And it goes both ways. There are lots of horses out there with popular/expensive breeding that was perhaps not well thought out or likely to be hugely successful (though it will sell well!) Ultimately, I think in the end the horses most “at risk” in terms of their breeding alone are the horses who were bred by people who just grabbed whatever they could and bred to the biggest name they could afford. Those are often folks who care most about the sales and how much they can get rid of the yearling for. They’re not actually invested in the horse long-term, personally (I know, not all breeders are like that and I am making generalizations).

[Angelico]

[QUOTE=Drvmb1ggl3;7575694]
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.[/QUOTE]

The Green Monkey… Yes I think it is safe to say breeding is a crapshoot, haha.

Stallions with good numbers cost more. Generally. Getting those numbers is easier to do when they start out at a top farm, and draw in the good mares from the beginning. Even then, breeding the “best to the best” is debatable. The results of that we see every year: precocious one-hit wonders that don’t hold up and retire at two and three years of age. However, they will go to stud and their fees will be higher than those of stallions who stayed sound and produce sound, long term, usable horses.

It ends up coming back to what the breeder wants to achieve. Your best may be a horse that will be higher on the national ranking list, who throws precocious graded stakes winners that don’t hold up and whose fee is much heftier, meanwhile I’ll settle for a stud with better conformation and a track record for longevity. It really has little to do with the lower fee, that is just a bonus.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

@Angelico;7576119

The Green Monkey… Yes I think it is safe to say breeding is a crapshoot, haha.

Kind of hard to argue with this kind of logic.
Yeah, let’s throw statistical analysis out the window and use the few exceptions that prove the rule.

BTW, the guy that spent $16m on the Green Monkey is the most successful horse person (measured purely in financial terms)… ever. Of any kind of horse related business… ever. He has made a huge fortune on the back of breeding successful horses. He didn’t make his considerable fortune in a crapshoot. Why don’t you ask him if breeding to Northern Dancer, Sadlers Wells and Galileo was/is a crapshoot.

Yes there is luck involved.
Yes, there are no guarantees.
But it is not lottery/crapshoot. You are statistically more likely to breed a more successful racehorse by breeding to certain stallions. A crapshoot implies that you could breed anything to anything and have the same possibility of success as you would in breeding the best to the best. That is not the case.

[Beverley]

I think Paul Mellon summed it up nicely: You breed the best to the best, and hope for the best.

[ASB_Stars]

I’ve been reading this thread with great interest, but I’d like to offer an opinion that doesn’t seem to have appeared here. Bearing in mind that my experience in the TB industry is a lifetime ago, here goes…

Seattle Slew, used as an example here, was by a stud who only produced three crops, and, although he himself was a well bred horse, Seattle Slew was without a doubt, his best colt. He sold for $17,500, as we all know, and then went on to be an awesome racehorse, by anyone’s standards.

What is more interesting is that he was also a great sire. THAT, to me is the piece that makes it truly noteworthy. He was both a brilliant racehorse, AND a notable sire.

Carry Back, that amazing fellow, was by Saggy, out of Joppy. Nothing. He was a very good racehorse, and as a sire? Nothing. Seabiscuit was an awesome racehorse, and a meh sire. One generation back on his papers there was greatness- just like CC- but his sire wasn’t much. There are dozens we could mention- Citation, Whirlaway- average or less as sires.

So my point is that this guy could not only outrun his papers, or at least peoples opinions of them, but it is possible that he could outbreed them. It depends on so many variables- not the least of which is how he finishes out his career, and what opportunities he has at stud.

Only time will tell. But it isn’t about the price, it is about the value.

[SportArab]

[QUOTE=Angelico;7576119]
The Green Monkey… Yes I think it is safe to say breeding is a crapshoot, haha.

Stallions with good numbers cost more. Generally. Getting those numbers is easier to do when they start out at a top farm, and draw in the good mares from the beginning. Even then, breeding the “best to the best” is debatable. The results of that we see every year: precocious one-hit wonders that don’t hold up and retire at two and three years of age. However, they will go to stud and their fees will be higher than those of stallions who stayed sound and produce sound, long term, usable horses.

It ends up coming back to what the breeder wants to achieve. Your best may be a horse that will be higher on the national ranking list, who throws precocious graded stakes winners that don’t hold up and whose fee is much heftier, meanwhile I’ll settle for a stud with better conformation and a track record for longevity. It really has little to do with the lower fee, that is just a bonus.[/QUOTE]

I’ve always had issue with the old adage “breed the best to the best …”

It’s such simpleminded advice. And it makes breeding sound like a simple equation to those who know little about it.

Breeding should be treated like a science - something that requires much study before you bring a mare and stallion together to make a foal.

[Texarkana]

I think the term “the best” is widely open for interpretation.

It’s obvious that a crooked, unraced horse from a long line of “Who” out of “What” probably isn’t the best.

But beyond that, it becomes less easy to define and much more subjective…

[Angelico]

[QUOTE=Drvmb1ggl3;7576239]
Kind of hard to argue with this kind of logic.
Yeah, let’s throw statistical analysis out the window and use the few exceptions that prove the rule.

BTW, the guy that spent $16m on the Green Monkey is the most successful horse person (measured purely in financial terms)… ever. Of any kind of horse related business… ever. He has made a huge fortune on the back of breeding successful horses. He didn’t make his considerable fortune in a crapshoot. Why don’t you ask him if breeding to Northern Dancer, Sadlers Wells and Galileo was/is a crapshoot.

Yes there is luck involved.
Yes, there are no guarantees.
But it is not lottery/crapshoot. You are statistically more likely to breed a more successful racehorse by breeding to certain stallions. A crapshoot implies that you could breed anything to anything and have the same possibility of success as you would in breeding the best to the best. That is not the case.[/QUOTE]

The Green Monkey was a just a very handy example of the nature of the game. There are plenty more out there. Surely you realize the odds of producing a winner are against you? The whole game is a crapshoot all the way around. You can breed to th statistical best, do everything right, spare no expense, send it off to the statistically best trainer, and still you stand a very good chance of being beaten by a cheaply bred, half-groomed rat.

The breeding the “best to the best” sounds great. Heck, I’m all for it. Now you tell me what makes a horse the “best”? . Good marketing and good mares pad the statistics. Tapit has been a leading sire, but you couldn’t pay me to own one of offspring no matter who the mare. I dislike a lot about him and I really do not like how he is built. Statistically, you could say he was is “best” though. Northern Dancer was a similar horse, statistically the “best”, yet many of us have come to regret his influence. Here is where breeding becomes subjective.

The stallions I would choose are at this time, much cheaper than Tapit, farther down the rankings list, and some are probably off most people’s radar. If I breed a mare to one of them, someone like you would say that I am not exclusively breeding the “best to the best”, despite not being privy to the factors that went into choosing the pairing.

I’ll bet when CC’s owners paired that mare and stallion, had it been mentioned on COTH, we’d have had an absurd amount of condescending posts berating the owners for “ruining the breed” and surely contributing to the unwanted horse population. I credit the owner with knowing his mare and being able to see past the superficial flash of the overpriced horses back east. The man knew what he liked and wanted and stuck with his plan.

Like I said before, no matter what CC does, it will not change the current style and mentality of people that breed. Everyone is stuck in their own way, from the paper crowd, to the the uterus = clown car crowd, and all the thinkers in between.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

[QUOTE=Angelico;7576448]
The Green Monkey was a just a very handy example of the nature of the game. There are plenty more out there. Surely you realize the odds of producing a winner are against you? The whole game is a crapshoot all the way around. You can breed to th statistical best, do everything right, spare no expense, send it off to the statistically best trainer, and still you stand a very good chance of being beaten by a cheaply bred, half-groomed rat.

The breeding the “best to the best” sounds great. Heck, I’m all for it. Now you tell me what makes a horse the “best”? . Good marketing and good mares pad the statistics. Tapit has been a leading sire, but you couldn’t pay me to own one of offspring no matter who the mare. I dislike a lot about him and I really do not like how he is built. Statistically, you could say he was is “best” though. Northern Dancer was a similar horse, statistically the “best”, yet many of us have come to regret his influence. Here is where breeding becomes subjective.

The stallions I would choose are at this time, much cheaper than Tapit, farther down the rankings list, and some are probably off most people’s radar. If I breed a mare to one of them, someone like you would say that I am not exclusively breeding the “best to the best”, despite not being privy to the factors that went into choosing the pairing.

I’ll bet when CC’s owners paired that mare and stallion, had it been mentioned on COTH, we’d have had an absurd amount of condescending posts berating the owners for “ruining the breed” and surely contributing to the unwanted horse population. I credit the owner with knowing his mare and being able to see past the superficial flash of the overpriced horses back east. The man knew what he liked and wanted and stuck with his plan.

Like I said before, no matter what CC does, it will not change the current style and mentality of people that breed. Everyone is stuck in their own way, from the paper crowd, to the the uterus = clown car crowd, and all the thinkers in between.[/QUOTE]

I doubt many people would have had a problem with the mating that produced CC. The dam has black type close up, given her grand dam was graded stakes placed and produced another black type daughter who in turn produced two Graded stakes horses. It was a reasonable mating for a regional breeding program that you could have reasonable expectations that the offspring would stand the chance of winning a race or two. He obviously has exceeded those expectations.

Crapshoot by definition means that it is entirely down to luck, that there is no skill or study required. You keep insisting that breeding race horses is a crapshoot. Then you go on to contradict yourself by saying you would breed to stallion X or stallion Y. If it is a crapshoot, as you keep on insisting, then you could throw a dart at a wall and have the same expectations.
It is not a crapshoot.

[Angelico]

[QUOTE=Drvmb1ggl3;7576575]
I doubt many people would have had a problem with the mating that produced CC. The dam has black type close up, given her grand dam was graded stakes placed and produced another black type daughter who in turn produced two Graded stakes horses. It was a reasonable mating for a regional breeding program that you could have reasonable expectations that the offspring would stand the chance of winning a race or two. He obviously has exceeded those expectations.

I am explaining WHY I would be inclined to breed a mare to a certain stallion, one that I doubt anyone like you would consider the “best”, but by no means am I foolish enough to think that I will end up with exactly the horse I want. I’d be lucky for it to even be born, considering all the factors. The dart board comparison is funny to me, because you say I could throw a dart at the wall and have the same expectations. Expectations are dreamkillers in horse racing.

Crapshoot by definition means that it is entirely down to luck, that there is no skill or study required. You keep insisting that breeding race horses is a crapshoot. Then you go on to contradict yourself by saying you would breed to stallion X or stallion Y. If it is a crapshoot, as you keep on insisting, then you could throw a dart at a wall and have the same expectations.
It is not a crapshoot.[/QUOTE]

Horse racing is a crapshoot in itself. Anyone that thinks they have it figured out is a fool. We all have our own ideas, hopes, etc. and when things do work out, they make us look smart, but most of us respect the nature of the game well enough not to be over zealous and think that our horse’s success is truly due to our “skill” at breeding or training.

Breeding the best to the best sounds good, and I’d imagine we all (excluding the clown-car-uterus folks) are trying to do that. However what many people here do not understand is that not everyone breeds for a Kentucky Derby horse. Some of us would be happy to produce a usable horse in a state bred program that was eligible for a few stallion stakes. Some breeders will breed short and middle distance horses, which makes people on here scream, but those horses are much more usable than a horse that is supposed to run a classic distance. Many of you would accuse those breeders of not making an effort to breed the best to the best.

I applaud CC’s owner for choosing the stallion he did, rather than caving to pressure to breed to a flashy stud from back east. He could have afforded it. You know he was advised to; look at everyone here, insisting that the “best” are the higher priced horses. It should go without saying that million things could have gone wrong and we’d have never even heard of California Chrome.

[PeteyPie]

[QUOTE=Drvmb1ggl3;7576239]
Kind of hard to argue with this kind of logic.
Yeah, let’s throw statistical analysis out the window and use the few exceptions that prove the rule.

BTW, the guy that spent $16m on the Green Monkey is the most successful horse person (measured purely in financial terms)… ever. Of any kind of horse related business… ever. He has made a huge fortune on the back of breeding successful horses. He didn’t make his considerable fortune in a crapshoot. Why don’t you ask him if breeding to Northern Dancer, Sadlers Wells and Galileo was/is a crapshoot.

Yes there is luck involved.
Yes, there are no guarantees.
But it is not lottery/crapshoot. You are statistically more likely to breed a more successful racehorse by breeding to certain stallions. A crapshoot implies that you could breed anything to anything and have the same possibility of success as you would in breeding the best to the best. That is not the case.[/QUOTE]

Taking us totally off topic, I think using the Green Monkey’s record-breaking sales price is a poor example for either argument because his value and price were the result of a knock-down-drag-out egofest by those two unimaginably rich men. He was well bred and he also showed precocious ability in his pre-sale breezes but the high sale was not related to his ability or his breeding. All other bidders in that auction were finished at $3 million, so his record-breaking $16million price was just a competition.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/may/07/horseracing.features

The colt entered the sales ring on 28 February. Before long, his price had risen above $3m, leaving only two bidders: Demi O’Byrne, representing the Coolmore bloodstock empire of John Magnier, and John Ferguson, representing the Darley operation of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum. O’Byrne and Ferguson, seemingly entrusted with limitless budgets, slugged it out past the $5.2m record price for a two-year-old, past the $9.7m Sheikh Mohammed had paid for a yearling in autumn 2005 and past the 20-year-old thoroughbred auction record of $13.1m.

Spectators gasped as each mark was passed, swivelling in their seats to watch the protagonists. Ferguson signalled his bids with curt nods; O’Byrne, arms folded, responded to each raise instantly. At $14m, Ferguson raised to $15m. O’Byrne countered with $15.2m. Ferguson went to $15.5m…

…For the first time, O’Byrne hesitated slightly. Then he raised to $16m…

Okay, well $3 million is a lot, but I’m saying that many horses have sold for over $3 million with nothing to show for it AT ALL. At least the Green Monkey showed early ability. He had something. He was not a totally unproven yearling, for example.

He may well prove to be a good sire. He doesn’t have too many foals in his first crop but the stats look promising, I think:
foals
35

starters (%)
22 (63)

winners (%)
19 (54)

BW (%)
1 (3)

earnings
$782,564

aei
1.03

Oh Gawd. Somehow I’m painting myself into a corner of apologetics for The Green Monkey. How did I do that? Not a good place to be…

[showhorsegallery]

Just booked me and my husband a trip to the Belmont, hope CC wins the Preakness!

[ivy62]

Let’s go back a bit… I always heard that John Henry’s breeding was mediocre at best BUT look what he accomplished. It is not raw ability alone that wins races. There is something to the way a horse is trained…

[danceronice]

[QUOTE=ivy62;7577419]
Let’s go back a bit… I always heard that John Henry’s breeding was mediocre at best BUT look what he accomplished. It is not raw ability alone that wins races. There is something to the way a horse is trained…[/QUOTE]

All the training in the world wouldn’t have helped John Henry if he didn’t have some innate talent. You need both. But a million-dollar pedigree doesn’t guarantee the talent’s there.

[poniesinthenight]

ivy62 has the right idea. Many mediocre bred horses trained well have come to the fore on the racecourse.

[Laurierace]

There are always going to be horses who way out perform their pedigree. Those are the exceptions, not the rule however and should not be the basis of any breeding decisions.