Does a Stallion's Performance Record Matter?

[GraceLikeRain]

I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on the importance of a stallions performance record. I am not a breeder and have no plans of breeding but I am slowly trying to learn more about lines and what traits are more likely to appear within lines or by a certain stallion.

In looking at stallion online I’ve encountered several that have successful progeny but the stallion himself does not have a significant record. In some cases there are videos of the stallion schooling at a certain level but no record. In others the stallion was shown in hand but there are no under saddle videos.

I know that it is not uncommon for breeders to retain a female for the sole purpose of using her as a broodmare. In those situations her bloodlines, structure, etc. are more valuable than her performance in the ring. Does the same hold true for stallions?

If a stallion does not have a record, are there other traits that you personally want to see?

Do you feel comfortable or have you bred a mare without a show record to a stallion without a show record because the lines?

As I said before, I have no plans on breeding but I’d love to learn more so that I can engage in higher quality conversations when the topic comes up.

[GrayMare]

My personal preference is for stallions with performance records. I will not breed to a stallion that doesn’t have one. My reasons:

1. It’s really easy to have a beautiful young horse that shows a lot of promise. But many of those young horses never really accomplish as much as hoped–soundness issues, temperament issues, and many young horses just never live up to their promise. Since you can only breed your mare to one stallion, why not pick one with proven performance?
2. Many breedings are done AI, long distance. Which means you can’t go see the stallion in person. It’s easy to put together beautiful photos and videos that hide a horse’s flaws. But if a horse competed to a fairly high level, that’s proof right there that the horse was a sound, mentally and physically useful animal. Sometimes what people consider a “stallion prospect” might just be a pretty horse that should have been gelded. Some people choose stallion prospects based on looks or sentimentality, or just plain barn-blindness.

I respect that it is a huge investment to get a stallion a performance record. I respect that showing stallions takes a lot of experience and logistical planning. But it costs a LOT of money to breed, so I feel that it’s perfectly reasonable for a mare owner to be very particular and demanding.

[stoicfish]

Once a stallion has successful offspring, it no longer matters. You can have a very successful competition stallion that can not pass on his talent or a stallion that never showed much that is an amazing sire. It is only when your using a stallion with no breeding stats that you might want to weigh in a show record as well as a solid pedigree. Probably more on the pedigree for breeding.

[Lord_Helpus]

In TB breeding, race record is everything. The best blooded horses might be sent to Puerto Rico or India to stand at stud, but even horses with little to recommend them on paper stand for huge bucks if they are multiple GI winners. (viz: American Pharoah.)

The problem with trying to establish a stallion with no/moderate competition record is that he will not get really good mares. So his chances of becoming a successful sire are limited by the mares he gets.

In general, if a horse is to become an exceptional sire, he needs to be an exceptional competitor.

[stoicfish]

In general, if a horse is to become an exceptional sire, he needs to be an exceptional competitor.

^^^ I would say the above is not true for Wb’s. Most great sire were not great competitors. They may have done well but they were seldom exceptional. Look at the top sire’s right now in jumping and dressage. I will say most are older and had a chance to prove themselves as a sire.

http://www.equineline.com/dotCommonTopSiresDisplay.cfm Just looked up the top Tb sires and it looks like not all of them were exceptional on the track. Thought I would learn about the Racing world, correct me if I am wrong.
Top 2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubawi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapit

[vineyridge]

Being a great breeder may have nothing to do with performance, even in racing TBs. Two example of this in TBs are Danzig, who had one two year old start which he won, and two three year old starts which he won. None were stakes. Then he broke down, so his stud career was based on Promise, not Performance. Yet Danzig is one of the greatest sires of sires in modern racing. Generations after him continue to produce quality.

Mr. Prospector did not have a sterling career on the track.

La Troienne had seven starts in France and never won a race. Yet she is one of the greatest broodmares in the history of racing, and her line is still treasured. Somethingroyal never won a race.

In fact, the great TB breeder, Tesio, was convinced that the best race mares didn’t make the best producers as a rule.

So it’s very possible that performance and breeding prowess do not necessarily go together, even in WBs.

[OBdB]

even if I follow the theories in TB breeding, and some of them I can understand, … you cannot compare TB breeding and WB breeding … IMHO

To use a international top performer is important for … marketing purposes - is important for those stallions that don’t have, yet, a good breeding career - is important for stallions without products - and is also important for those with a bad breeding career (the argument here would be : he didn’t get the mares who suited him, but he can’t be bad because of his own performances).

But the most important argument is the first one !

[kcmel]

[QUOTE=stoicfish;8402679]

http://www.equineline.com/dotCommonTopSiresDisplay.cfm Just looked up the top Tb sires and it looks like not all of them were exceptional on the track. Thought I would learn about the Racing world, correct me if I am wrong.
Top 2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubawi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapit[/QUOTE]

No, of course not all of them are going to be exceptional, but 6 of the top 10 I would classify as exceptional runners, and Tapit and Pioneerof the Nile were Grade 1 winners. So really only Dubawi (unraced) and Cape Cross did not have an excellent performance record. I wonder what kept Dubawi from racing?

ETA: Never mind, Dubawi was a Grade 1 winner as well. His record was not showing up in Equibase.

[vineyridge]

[QUOTE=kcmel;8402821]
No, of course not all of them are going to be exceptional, but 6 of the top 10 I would classify as exceptional runners, and Tapit and Pioneerof the Nile were Grade 1 winners. So really only Dubawi (unraced) and Cape Cross did not have an excellent performance record. I wonder what kept Dubawi from racing?

ETA: Never mind, Dubawi was a Grade 1 winner as well. His record was not showing up in Equibase.[/QUOTE]

One reason the top TB sires are high class race horses is because that’s generally been what gets a stallion a chance in the breeding shed. Sires who are not great performers either don’t get to stand at all or they get lousy mares.

But sires like Danzig and Mr. P proved themselves as sires when given the chance, and their mare books got better and better the longer they stood because their offspring were great performers. And their sons sired great performers.

Cee’s Tizzy’s best run was a third place in the Grade 1 Super Derby at Louisiana Downs. That was his 6th race, and he was immediately retire afterwards. His only other stakes start was in a restricted turf stakes at Del Mar, the Oceanside Stakes, where he finished 7th. He did not have much of a performance career, and yet he was a more than decent California sire who sired damned tough horses.

For WBs, a great deal depends on whether they stand for a verband or the National Stud or not. For initially getting mares, a private stallion probably needs a performance career to get mares in the first place. Stallions owned or standing at the Verbands are going to find opportunity from the outset, performance career or not. Once their foals come and especially after they go under saddle, the performance career means little or nothing.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

[QUOTE=kcmel;8402821]
No, of course not all of them are going to be exceptional, but 6 of the top 10 I would classify as exceptional runners, and Tapit and Pioneerof the Nile were Grade 1 winners. So really only Dubawi (unraced) and Cape Cross did not have an excellent performance record. I wonder what kept Dubawi from racing?

ETA: Never mind, Dubawi was a Grade 1 winner as well. His record was not showing up in Equibase.[/QUOTE]

Both Cape Cross and Dubawi were G1 winning Milers. Dubawi was also 3rd in the Derby, and given he was from the last and only crop of his famous sire, Dubai Millenium, he was rushed off the stud at the end of his 3yo year.

[Drvmb1ggl3]

Master Imp is arguably the best, or at least top 5, eventing sires of the last 20 years. He never competed in any sport, as he was bred solely to be a stallion replacement for his successful sire, Imperius.
http://www.horsemagazine.com/thm/2014/10/master-imp-xx/

[Home_Again_Farm]

A stallion can be a topnotch producing stallion without having a performance record. However, a stallion cannot be a topnotch producing stallion without having exceptionally performing offspring.

[GraceLikeRain]

[QUOTE=Home Again Farm;8403880]
A stallion can be a topnotch producing stallion without having a performance record. However, a stallion cannot be a topnotch producing stallion without having exceptionally performing offspring.[/QUOTE]

So what makes people decide to take the risk and be the initial ones to “test” a stallion before he has proven offspring?

Is it bloodlines alone, structure, disposition evaluated in person, schooling videos?

[JB]

I’ve personally bred 1 horse, and my choice of stallions was based entirely on what his kids were doing. As mentioned several times, it doesn’t matter a bit how good a performance career a stallion has, if he cannot produce kids who perform.

If you choose a stallion without a performance career, as I did, then you still need to look beyond him to see what his pedigree produced as far as performers go. Well, you should do that anyway If the stallion is not a fluke, then he’ll have a very good performance pedigree. If he’s a performance fluke, he won’t.

If he’s got a great performing pedigree but he himself was a flop in the ring (different from not having competed), then I wouldn’t breed to him.

Schooling videos help - you need to see how he moves. You’d like to see what he’s like to deal with on the ground. One reason that made me settle on the stallion I did was not only his own puppy-dog personality, but the reliability with which he passes that personality along.

[EventerAJ]

[QUOTE=GraceLikeRain;8404754]
So what makes people decide to take the risk and be the initial ones to “test” a stallion before he has proven offspring?

Is it bloodlines alone, structure, disposition evaluated in person, schooling videos?[/QUOTE]

Conformation and pedigree. Specifically, demonstrated heritable traits from within that pedigree. Does the stallion’s damline have a history of success? Is the sireline potent and predictable? Are there other half-siblings who have competed and produced to desirable levels? I gather as much information as I can.

In judging a stallion-- even one with a great performance record-- I want to see consistency from what he throws, or at least what his sire/dam produces. He may be (yet) unproven in sport and offspring, but I might take the chance if I have a good idea of what will end up on the ground (from my type of mare). I would be more likely to gamble on a young stallion with a few crops on the ground, but not under saddle yet. A totally new, unproven stallion in his first season? Not likely to attract me, unless something is really special on paper or in potential talent, and I have a perfect, proven mare to match with him.

I have taken that gamble before-- I bred my upper level event mare to a TB racing stallion in 2012. The stallion was “proven” on the track, from a blue-blood racing family, but completely unproven as a sport horse sire. However, I did a ton of research, looked at lots of foals/yearlings/2yos and found he (and his sireline) was quite consistent in the type of horse produced, from TB mares, like mine. I really liked that conformation and athleticism and felt it would suit my mare and my goals.

My colt turned out much more like his mother than his sire-- not quite as typical as most of the sire’s offspring-- but I am happy with him. If you start with a great mare, and end up with a copy of her…in my mind, that’s not a bad thing.

[stoicfish]

[QUOTE=GraceLikeRain;8404754]
So what makes people decide to take the risk and be the initial ones to “test” a stallion before he has proven offspring?

Is it bloodlines alone, structure, disposition evaluated in person, schooling videos?[/QUOTE]

Traditionally they chose what they thought were the best and then tested them on mares in the area. If the stallion improved on those mares, he got better mares.
The short of it was, they tried them out. And really, that is the only way to find out. There is a ton of marketing now that directs breeders towards a few young stallions, so unless these stallions are the real deal, they tend to detract from breeders using the other young stallions that may be of better quality but marketed less well. They will eventually get their day when the offspring do well.

[ladyj79]

Almost without exception yes. People aren’t throwing money away trying to get coronet obolensky foals and paying super high totilas stud fees because they are pretty colors. I think at the upper levels of sport the sires must be exceptional competitors.

[andy.smaga]

Each horse sport is having desired traits that are needed to succeed and that are, more or less, transmissible.
I will therefor address what I know, being Show-jumpers.
In this case the answer is very clear and simple: today all the top 10 producing stallions (WBFSH ranking) are/were exceptional performers. period.
This trend started about 50 years ago when breeding stallions started being competed, before the breeding stallions where approved and go directly to the breeding shed, with no way to know if they were UL performers.
Please note also that some of the best stallions were not approved and only because of their high performance allowed to breed and prove the high quality of their genes. (I think everybody knows the names of those stallions)

[Dressagelvr]

Performance matters a lot to me, on both sides of the pedigree. There are far too many average, unproven horses being bred. This is especially common with people breeding for color and/or hair.

[butiwantedapony]

I’ll chime in…

I bred a mare with no notable performance record to a stallion with no notable performance record. Why? Well, I think the mare is just lovely, I think the stallion is lovely, and I like the bloodlines on both sides, and I think he will complement my mare very nicely.

The real thing here though is - what are you breeding for? For me - I’m breeding for a horse for myself for the future. I have no aspirations of upper level anything anymore, instead I want a nice moving horse with a good brain that can do a little of everything, and I don’t want to be limited to the very lowest levels in case I actually find the time to get more serious

If you are breeding for something that will be aimed at upper level competition, well you better choose a stallion already producing that. A performance record on the stallion alone does NOT indicate his ability to produce performers. F