Certainly temperament affects trainability. And it is rather heritable. Ribot and Turn To ( thinking Hail To Reason and Sir Gaylord) fall into the talented and temperamental mold.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;7977546]
gumtree, you forget that in Europe the best chasers come from chaser families. Their recipe is to put miler type speed on top of NH female families. They’ve been doing it for horse generations. IMO, milers usually make the best stallions, as they will produce both short runners and routers. Maybe this is due to many of them being C/T or T/C for the speed gene and its SINE insertion, but who really knows. What we do know is the the SINE insertion 227 is only widely spread in the TB and QH and does affect propensity for distances.[/QUOTE]
Successful NH horses are almost always T/T at the MSTN Intron 1 SNP. A T/C would stand no chance there if either copy of ECA18 carried the stamina-sapping SINE insertion in the MSTN promoter region. The latter is in strong but by no means complete linkage disequilibrium with the Intron 1 ‘C’ variant.
[QUOTE=jadebe;7977673]
Successful NH horses are almost always T/T at the MSTN Intron 1 SNP. A T/C would stand no chance there if either copy of ECA18 carried the stamina-sapping SINE insertion in the MSTN promoter region. The latter is in strong but by no means complete linkage disequilibrium with the Intron 1 ‘C’ variant.[/QUOTE]
I had to look up linkage disequilibrium. What I found indicates that it means that a combination of genetic material occurs more frequently than would be the case if it occurred randomly.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;7977546]
gumtree, you forget that in Europe the best chasers come from chaser families. Their recipe is to put miler type speed on top of NH female families. They’ve been doing it for horse generations. IMO, milers usually make the best stallions, as they will produce both short runners and routers. Maybe this is due to many of them being C/T or T/C for the speed gene and its SINE insertion, but who really knows. What we do know is the the SINE insertion 227 is only widely spread in the TB and QH and does affect propensity for distances.[/QUOTE]
I don’t live in Europe and most of the people reading this and on the Forum are not in the position to buy from Europe. So I don’t bother with talking about what’s over there.
National Hunt is bigger than flat in Europe. Chasers bring big money. The big TB flat farms also have N-H divisions and or stand N-H stallions. Most if not all of which come from flat racing. A whole section of the TB breeding industry is devoted to breeding National Hunt horses.
Jump racing over here is not nearly big enough to support the same. I don’t live in Europe and don’t buy in Europe. Wouldn’t have the kind of money to buy a N-H prospect over there anyway. There are a couple of American Jumps owners that buy some proven horses and bring them here. $100-300,000. I know some trainers that talk their owners into buying the odd horse at the autumn horses in training sales. Very low level, $20-30,000. IMO too much of a crap shoot at that level. Most don’t make the transition to justify the exercise. By the time expenses and shipping costs are factored in a bit silly IMO. The cost of one horse, several IMO better prospects could be bought here. But it takes more work and is not as much fun as “working” Tattersalls and wining and dining.
This country produces plenty of horses of all types. IMO there is absolutely no reason to buy and support the European market. Granted it takes a lot more work and no bragging rights by saying I found this horse in Ohio. I am all for supporting our market, our breeders, our trainers, our riders. Regardless of breed.
[QUOTE=jadebe;7977673]
Successful NH horses are almost always T/T at the MSTN Intron 1 SNP. A T/C would stand no chance there if either copy of ECA18 carried the stamina-sapping SINE insertion in the MSTN promoter region. The latter is in strong but by no means complete linkage disequilibrium with the Intron 1 ‘C’ variant.[/QUOTE]
No disrespect intended. But I have been in the TB side of things for a long time. Have mentored under and talked to a lot of breeding “gurus”. Have read lots of “modern day” books and articles on the breeding of racehorses.
None of us use these terms, let alone give them much thought. At least the ones that are very successful that I have been around.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;7977817]
I had to look up linkage disequilibrium. What I found indicates that it means that a combination of genetic material occurs more frequently than would be the case if it occurred randomly.[/QUOTE]
It’s non-random because where the chromosomes ‘break’ during meiotic recombination isn’t purely random. The locus of the intron 1 SNP and the locus of the SINE insertion are less than 2K bp apart within the MSTN complex. The closer the loci, the more likely that they’ll not be separated during recombination. In the TB & QH, when there’s a ‘C’ at the intron 1 SNP the SINE insertion is also present ~75-90% of the time, depending on the source consulted. Ergo, a majority of T/C sires from those breeds are going to have at least one copy of the SINE insertion & transmit it to about half their progeny, not an optimal scenario for NH breeding.
I found this which is I think addressing USA chasers but similar to another such conclusion I remember reading about english steeplechase horses–that sprinters can be steeplechasers because of the pace and that the intermediate DI tended not to show up as steeplechasers while spritners and staminia DI did.
http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/review.htm
The DI of many steeplechase champions since 1972 exceeds the classic guideline figure of 4.00 despite the long distances associated with steeplechase racing. This result suggests that the pace of these races is well within the ability of speed-bred runners and that their quickness over the jumps can be a more important factor for success. The remainder of steeplechase champions have had a DI close to 1.00 or less, more typical of expectations for competitors at very long distances. Surprisingly, there are few steeplechase champions with a DI in the range of middle distance flat racers".
[QUOTE=gumtree;7977915]
None of us use these terms, let alone give them much thought. At least the ones that are very successful that I have been around.[/QUOTE]
I realize that (though I must say that there were quite a few industry ‘old-timers’ at the 2010 & 2011 TB Pedigree & Genetics symposia).
To many, this info is novel, dry as dust, and difficult to think of in terms of practical application. Certainly not yet something that everyone takes into consideration when making breeding and buying decisions. Several consulting firms here & abroad are trying hard to change that, though, and with some success. And eventually, genome-based information will replace the paper-based (pedigree analysis) component of the decision-making b/c the former can tell you what actually is there whereas the latter merely tells you what might be there.
Excellent post. You nailed it.
[QUOTE=gumtree;7977499]
From my Steeplechase experience and perspective. By and large no. Which is contrary to what flat people/trainers think is what we are looking for. We don’t want a horse that “can run all day”. The best seem to be 8 to 10 furlong types. That have some turn of foot in the last 2 furlongs or so. And we don’t care whether they ran on grass or dirt. Most ran on dirt. Have yet to find any horse that has problems/issues going from dirt to turf. Type of turf/going can make a big difference. Be it a Jumps horse or Eventer. I don’t put a lot stock in the school of thought that certain sire lines only produce grass horses. I think this happens because early on they come up with a “talking horse” when switched to grass. Other trainers take note and give one of theirs a try on the grass. And the band wagon starts rolling. American trainers by and large are biased against turf because by far the best races are on dirt. The turf season is short and problematic in most racing jurisdictions. In short IMO they are afraid to run on turf because the horse may not make the transition back to dirt when needed. Just a theory. The opposite happened with the mighty Cigar. Made his first 2 starts on dirt, broke his maiden in the second. His pedigree suggest turf and ran his next 7 starts on turf placing in 2 stakes. Transferred to Mott in the east made 4 starts on turf, placed several times. Tried on dirt which he won. Went undefeated in his next 16 starts, all stakes races.
Because I have made my living by and large as a Bloodstock agent I have studied a lot of pedigrees over the years to say the least. As a steeplechase guy also I have looked at a lot of the pedigrees of the sports best. Mostly Timber because that is what I prefer. I have yet to find anything in any pedigree/bloodlines that seems to “suggest” let alone an argument can be made for so as to breed for, look for. Not even race records by and large. Timber or Hurdle. Of course we all would like to have/see “something” on paper that suggests our efforts will have a higher chance of being rewarded. But in the end I think just about all of us will say “it’s the horse, type of horse”. There have been plenty of top horses over jumps that far exceeded their modest to no race record and from “sprinter” families.
IMO and experience just about all horses can be trained/conditioned to run several miles effectively. Especially Eventers. IMO TBs have inherent ability to “go the distance”. For over 100 plus years this is what they were bred for. IMO and experience the reason most TBs don’t get “the distance” is not because of physical, breeding limitations but far more so because of “mental, emotional” issues. Anxiety, nervousness zaps strength and wind. Human athletes or horse.
But that is not to say a horse that is constantly on it “toes” should be pegged as a “nervous type” and discounted. Plenty of top horses go to the post “breathing fire”. But once the race is underway they “settle in” and go about their business. A lot don’t not even the ones that stroll into the gate pretty as you please. They get “worked up” once the race is under way.
IMO way too many “ammy” riders/buyers, no disrespect intended, discount what might be a really good horse based on their first impression of a horse’s demeanor. Contrary to popular belief a lot of top Sport horses are not easy riders from what I am told by the people who buy, train and ride them. These people are such good riders they make it look easy. To the horse also.
So, that’s the long of it IMO. In short, a pedigree is nice to look at and “hold”. I put no stock in dosage numbers by and large. In the end as it has been said a number of times. It’s all about the “type” the horse in front of you and between your legs. And just as much if not more in the rider/trainer’s ability.[/QUOTE]
A lot of interesting information! Thank you all for sharing your knowledge. And please feel free to share more of it :yes::).
[QUOTE=jadebe;7978153]
I realize that (though I must say that there were quite a few industry ‘old-timers’ at the 2010 & 2011 TB Pedigree & Genetics symposia).
To many, this info is novel, dry as dust, and difficult to think of in terms of practical application. Certainly not yet something that everyone takes into consideration when making breeding and buying decisions. Several consulting firms here & abroad are trying hard to change that, though, and with some success. And eventually, genome-based information will replace the paper-based (pedigree analysis) component of the decision-making b/c the former can tell you what actually is there whereas the latter merely tells you what might be there.[/QUOTE]
I don’t dismiss this “science” nor the theories behind it and have more than a basic understanding of it. Unfortunately it will be very expensive to “prove out”. Unless the researchers are willing to put up their money and time or find a TB “benefactor”. Personally I think it will be near impossible to “prove out” because there are just WAY too many variables from the time a horse is born until until it gets in the gate. In some ways the same as cloning.
I’ve seen it said time and again, “Michael Jordon’s mother had 9 kids but only one Michael”.
Do you know some of the names of the “industry old times”? I know or know of most that have any credibility. In my eyes at least. I ask out of interest not to be snarky.
[QUOTE=omare;7978084]
I found this which is I think addressing USA chasers but similar to another such conclusion I remember reading about english steeplechase horses–that sprinters can be steeplechasers because of the pace and that the intermediate DI tended not to show up as steeplechasers while spritners and staminia DI did.
http://www.chef-de-race.com/dosage/review.htm
The DI of many steeplechase champions since 1972 exceeds the classic guideline figure of 4.00 despite the long distances associated with steeplechase racing. This result suggests that the pace of these races is well within the ability of speed-bred runners and that their quickness over the jumps can be a more important factor for success. The remainder of steeplechase champions have had a DI close to 1.00 or less, more typical of expectations for competitors at very long distances. Surprisingly, there are few steeplechase champions with a DI in the range of middle distance flat racers".[/QUOTE]
It’s all about “the jump” they have. The ones that can run to the jump and come over running on the other side are the ones who are going to get their picture taken. They can’t “show jump” it. If they lose any forward momentum they will end up being “also rans” more times than not.
As I said in my one of my other posts, I put no stock in dosage numbers. Not many serious breeders/trainers do anymore.
[QUOTE=SEPowell;7978453]
Excellent post. You nailed it.[/QUOTE]
Thanks!
Just my feelings, way of looking at things. I have found very little is absolute when it comes to horses.
IMO, re jumps racers: almost any TB can run hurdles, chasers require more jump, but timber racers seem to require more of a sport horse type jump. JMHO.
[QUOTE
As I said in my one of my other posts, I put no stock in dosage numbers. Not many serious breeders/trainers do anymore.[/QUOTE]
It depends to me if by stayer you mean a horse that can/ had actually run 8f+ or a dosage number. I do see a difference in the confo of a non sprinter and the whole form/ function thing. If it looks like a QH it usually runs like a QH and has the undesirable downhill build… If it can ONLY run at 6f or less. I don’t look a dosages .
Interesting pov from an interview with John Gosden: Is there a particular physical type of horses that will be better suited to racing on dirt than turf?
“There are different bloodlines, of course, but also different conformation. Dirt horses are a lot more loaded in the shoulder, and often straighter in the shoulder. They have a shorter stride; a lot of them don’t have the great stretch of an exceptional turf horse, since that is not suitable for a dirt surface. And they often have shorter cannon bones, shorter pasterns, a smaller hoof, and they have huge muscle bulk.”
[QUOTE=camohn;7981637]
Interesting pov from an interview with John Gosden: Is there a particular physical type of horses that will be better suited to racing on dirt than turf?
“There are different bloodlines, of course, but also different conformation. Dirt horses are a lot more loaded in the shoulder, and often straighter in the shoulder. They have a shorter stride; a lot of them don’t have the great stretch of an exceptional turf horse, since that is not suitable for a dirt surface. And they often have shorter cannon bones, shorter pasterns, a smaller hoof, and they have huge muscle bulk.”[/QUOTE]
What he describes sounds to me more like modern dirt sprinters than classic horses.
What he calls a " dirt horse" I would agree I would more specifically call a " dirt sprinter". Simply " dirt horse " is too general.
@gumtree
i truly enjoy your post even though i had to read it a few times for reasons of language issues. adding american terms in technical language (racing) on top of it makes it even harder for a non native speaker to understand (not complaining, just trying to keep up). reason i still might have misunderstood this or that in the big picture, but we will see.
i think i got it and just love your different perspective and point of view. it is rare to find a contributor of your specific “practic oriented” tb background in a wb breeding forum and i truly appreciate it!
my background is not tb but warmblood breeding, mainly dressage. however, in order to breed good dressage horses, today you need to understand jumper genetics, too, as i consider those a relevant issue in breeding dressage horses. same is true for tb influence, no matter if direct or consolidated tb influence.
thus, i used to breed a tb mare (most crazy challenge if you consider yourself a “serious european sport horse breeder”) of german origin as german tb lines are the only background&understanding i can gain. my demand is to understand where certain features in a horse come from and what they do to any given horse, so i need to get out and s e e horses in flesh rather than study pedigrees. i understand, that is your perspective, too.
the individual horse, not pedigree.
therefore, german tb is the least i can work on to understand the individual horse.
having come further over the years of course the critical question of stayer vs sprinter has become relevant. if any, european wb breeders favour stayers and that is the first you are being tought once you tip a toe in tb breeding culture.
i have always questioned “why?” and found it hard to get a valid answer.
of course, the first you come across is the classic example of quarter horses vs long distant stayers and look what that did to their conformation.
however, those are quarter horses.
my very simple understanding of race horse world is:
<2000 meters vs >2000 meters. the latter being the more promoted overhere and i guess that it what it used to be all the time. european tradition still seems to favour >2000 while it is different in the US with an evenly high or even higher focus on shorter distances&money.
commerce.
money is only made in longer distances overhere, i guess.
however, today’s tb breed (global as much as european) has become a melting pot of short distance and long distant pedigrees&genetics and if you look at some of the current champions (long or short distance) they truly run in all shapes.
last year i went to schlenderhan (alegretta, schwarzgold, oleander - you know them) who some years ago bred walzerkoenigin to dynaformer in the US, the result was her german derby winning son wiener walzer.
asking apelt (stud director at schlenderhan) about “why?” they would have bred to dynaformer, opened a whole new perspective to my understanding of current tb breeding for two reasons:
- free of northern dancer and
- adding sprint to stayer blood consciously in order to speed up classic stayers within their first meters.
forget about the northern dancer issue as it is irrelevant, but the second part of the answer is relevant to me. basically, that told me a lot about the current mixture of stayer&speeder blood in tb and why it is so hard to distinguish.
they can’t be distinguished anymore.
they do run in all shapes and it is always the indvidual horse that makes the difference for all the reasons you have mentioned in your post (human attitude, bias and prejudice being relevant factors, i couldn’t agree more with you).
yet, there has to be a reason european sport horse breeding culture has become “superior” making use of only very selective tb influence in the past.
if “any” tb would do, the US would be the place to shop for wb sport horses today as the US brought up most of the tb in the world (numbers speaking).
it is not.
so what is it that makes specific tb relevant for wb breeding?
the key used to be:
form follows function.
the longer the distances, the more “lineal” the horses became.
in the old days, that is.
classic example is lauries crusador, who was the last tb of major influence to the wb breed.
taller, longer (rectangle), truly “refined” in his bones.
the obvious opposite of downhill built (and move - they say. they do move downhill, though, but that is a different chapter).
so far, so good.
but what about jumping?
and here comes your second post:
“It’s all about “the jump” they have. The ones that can run to the jump and come over running on the other side are the ones who are going to get their picture taken. They can’t “show jump” it. If they lose any forward momentum they will end up being “also rans” more times than not.”
i am not quite sure if i got you right, so this is my understanding and i would appreciate your input (positive or negative):
i read about hurdlers, steeplechasers (no difference for me, excuse my ignorance, they all are “race jumping” tb’s in my understanding) and follow those theories about making use of steeplers/hurdlers in wb jumper breeding.
common reasoning:
“these tb’s have proved to be able to jump!
thus, they can make for a jumper in wb.”
bullshit.
any jumping tb is miles away from what wb breeding considers a jumper.
not a single “jumping tb” (hurdler, steeplchaser) ever left a genetic influence of value in wb jumper breeding.
and i always questioned myself:
how come?
recently i came across a book by chales de beaulieu, who was a key person in german racing in the early part of the last century (between WWI&II).
his observations about “jumping tb” (steeplers/hurdlers in general) sound very reasonable to me, evenmoreso since horse racing in the first half of the last century was much more popular overhere and wider spresd in any disciplince than it is today, so the man’s observations are based on a much higher densitiy of horses&races than any analysis today could provide.
his theorie is threefold:
a) he backs what thesio says, that “jumping” in a tb is not an issue of heredity (i totally agree), and
b) he argues that succesfull jumping tb’s (steeplers/hurdlers) always descend from long distance runners and
c) they are “end products” (reason for that is given under a): jumping in tb is not an issue of heredity)
i consider this the most reaosnable explanation i ever came across in this context.
he also provides for explanations why this is the case, and endurance is only part of the package, soft factors (as you have mentioned them, too) are another major part and explain why this cannot be an issue of heridtity.
i do understand, that back than, such observation was easier to make than today since back than, the specific tb “shape” was much more distinguished
and individual horses p l u s pedigrees could be broken down in “stayers” vs “speeders” easier and more obvious.
so regarding your last post “…The ones that can run to the jump and come over running on the other side are the ones who are going to get their picture taken… …” is it that, what you are saying? they become hurdler/steeple chase champions by chance, not by heredity?
would you agree to the chales de beaulieu theorie or am i completely mistaken?
Maybe DIs dont mean anything but it is an observed statistical pattern.
And certainly the speed causes the lack of show jumper bascule…but they better have quick foreleg reflexes, quick reflexes being an element needed for the modern showjumper. When you see one take off at the wing and get to the other side no problem–I do wonder what they would look like over a fence all packaged up in a showjumper canter.
