I’m a bit of a pedigree enthusiast, trying to learn more. These may be silly questions but I’d love someone to edumacate (lol) me. I’ve always found Thoroughbreds fascinating and I’ve been honored to own 5 of my own. I was looking at the pedigree of one of mine, and he has Lost Code as Dam sire and Seattle Slew as sire’s sire(sure there’s a word for that). I did some research on their racing stats. Since Slew was a Triple Crown winner, it makes sense why he’d be popular as a sire, but Lost Code won more money, more races… placed in 22 out of 27 starts. He doesn’t seem to be as famous as a sire. Was he not a successful sire? If so…was it because his get couldn’t replicate his success? Did the fact that he died so much younger than his peers have anything to do with it? That got me looking at stats on other famous sires. I looked at Storm Cat. He only had 8 races…made nowhere near as much $$$$ and is known as one of (or THE) most succesful race horse sires Is this because his get were better race horses than he was?.. Inquiring minds want to know. TIA
Sire’s success is determined by how well their offspring do. That’s affected by how good the mares sent to them are (Seabiscuit was more or a less a dud as a sire but he stood only in California when they weren’t sending really good mares that far), and obviously a horse like Seattle Slew would get better mares earlier on-his wins are more impressive against overall better company in highly desirable races. Also KY > FL bred. 17: 14-2-0-1 lifetime is also a better record as Seattle Slew always finished in the top four and was undefeated up until the Swaps (which was only a month after the TC so figure a bounce) and was never worse than second again. Obviously that’s not a guarantee-Secretariat never even came close to reproducing himself, for example-but I don’t think there’s any reasonable argument that Lost Code should have been more popular to start than Slew. Looking at Lost Code, to be honest I’d mostly want him not for him in particular but because I like Ack Ack and Armageddon, and I’d really rather get them via Broad Brush.
The other way a sire is popular is when his get starts producing results. I doubt Storm Cat started out nearly as popular as he became, but his offspring make money at sales and on the racetrack. Birdstone’s standing as a sire jumped dramatically after he produced Summer Bird and Mine That Bird. Between being selected for Zenyatta’s next foal and some very impressive offspring (especially at Ascot) War Front’s stock is on the rise.
So basically: a sire may start popular because he was successful or at least stylish (Hansen’s probably going to be popular for a bit, for example, even though I personally am not big into horses who are mostly impressive at 2), he stays popular or becomes popular later as his offspring prove out. Some sires become notable not even for their own get but as broodmare sires–their daughters produce winners.
Success as a racehorse and success as a sire of racehorses can go hand in hand but it doesn’t always work that way. There are many examples of horses who didn’t do much on the track (for example, Danzig and Malibu Moon) but whose offspring way outperform them. And there are even more examples of successful runners who aren’t able to translate that success to the breeding shed (like Smarty Jones and Skipaway.)
Once a horse is proven at stud, his “popularity” has nothing to do with his race record, and everything to do with what he can produce.
Successful stallions quickly become a brand. A Malibu Moon is a Malibu Moon not a foal by a horse that never won a stakes. Distorted Humor was not the best son of Forty Niner nor was Tapit Pulpit’s best son, nor was War Front the best son of Danzig nor was Malibu Moon the best son of A P Indy on the track but no one cares once they establish themselves as sires.
looking at Lost Code’s get, wouldn’t he be considered a successful sire? His foals, collectively, have more winnings than him?
[QUOTE=beowulf;7181510]
looking at Lost Code’s get, wouldn’t he be considered a successful sire? His foals, collectively, have more winnings than him?[/QUOTE]
Lost Code was a successful sire. He didn’t have a lot of big stars, but quite a few solid stakes horses that made money. He is a good broodmare sire as well.
He never sired anything as good as himself though.
I know a lot has been said of Secretariats perceived failure in the breeding shed, but I always find it a bit ironic considering that without him there would be no Storm Cat or AP Indy. Broodmares really count for something in my book. Secretariats blood is still flowing through a whole lot of horses running today through his daughters, despite not replicating himself.
Terlingua, Seccretame and so many others. His line will continue through his amazing group of daughters as the above post notes.
There is a school of thought (which I tend to agree with) that holds that sires are bred. By that, I mean that stallions from good families are more likely to breed on their quality than those of lesser breeding. When Skip Away was retired, he was among the most successful horses of recent vintage. He was fast, he had stamina, he won a ton of money and many big races. He beat the best of his and other generations. He was, however NOT regarded by most as a hot sire prospect. Why? He was modestly bred. Skippy had outraced his own pedigree was but was unlikely to outbreed it. OTOH, Pulpit, was a hot young sire prospect from day one. He was obviously a good horse, zipping through conditions and winning a couple of stakes on the way to a fourth in the Derby. He was hurt in the Derby and never raced again. Skip Away did far more on the track but as a son of AP Indy and hailing from a strong female family, Pulpit looked like the far better prospect.
The funny thing about the OPs example is that many breeders were not high on Slew when he retired. They thought he was a freak that had outrun his pedigree and wouldn’t do much at stud. After his initial crops hit the tracks they flocked to him though. Slew was pretty much the exception to every rule, though in his defense, his sire only had one or two crops so he is hard to gauge.
ETA: In the racing world, " we’ll bred" doesn’t mean by a good race horse or out of a good racehorse. It means by a top sire and/or out of a top producing mare.
Secretariat was not a failure at stud. He sired his share of stakes winner, 8% or 9%, and was still commanding a stud fee of $80k when he died. He may not have replicated himself and lived up to the (perhaps unrealistic) expectations of some, but he was probably a better stud that 99% of sires that have stood at stud. He was also an exemplary broodmare sire making his daughters very valuable.
A failure is a horse like Spectacular Bid who commanded a $250k stud fee a one point and ended up siring sport horses for a couple of grand a pop.
Generally that is true but there are always exceptions. Tiznow comes immediately to mind. Seattle Slew isn’t far behind.
[QUOTE=Linny;7181953]
There is a school of thought (which I tend to agree with) that holds that sires are bred. By that, I mean that stallions from good families are more likely to breed on their quality than those of lesser breeding. When Skip Away was retired, he was among the most successful horses of recent vintage. He was fast, he had stamina, he won a ton of money and many big races. He beat the best of his and other generations. He was, however NOT regarded by most as a hot sire prospect. Why? He was modestly bred. Skippy had outraced his own pedigree was but was unlikely to outbreed it. OTOH, Pulpit, was a hot young sire prospect from day one. He was obviously a good horse, zipping through conditions and winning a couple of stakes on the way to a fourth in the Derby. He was hurt in the Derby and never raced again. Skip Away did far more on the track but as a son of AP Indy and hailing from a strong female family, Pulpit looked like the far better prospect.
The funny thing about the OPs example is that many breeders were not high on Slew when he retired. They thought he was a freak that had outrun his pedigree and wouldn’t do much at stud. After his initial crops hit the tracks they flocked to him though. Slew was pretty much the exception to every rule, though in his defense, his sire only had one or two crops so he is hard to gauge.
ETA: In the racing world, " we’ll bred" doesn’t mean by a good race horse or out of a good racehorse. It means by a top sire and/or out of a top producing mare.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=twelvebelles;7181856]
I know a lot has been said of Secretariats perceived failure in the breeding shed, but I always find it a bit ironic considering that without him there would be no Storm Cat or AP Indy. Broodmares really count for something in my book. Secretariats blood is still flowing through a whole lot of horses running today through his daughters, despite not replicating himself.[/QUOTE]
As a RACE sire, he wasn’t really exceptional. But he obviously is influential, just not the way people might have expected/hoped. Same thing happened a few decades earlier with War Admiral-nothing notable in the male line but a critical broodmare sire. I think people expect an awful lot–they want the really exceptional stallions to produce offspring that race like them, but they rarely do.
With mares is actually seems worse, really–how many great race mares have actually produced truly exceptional foals?
[QUOTE=Pronzini;7181501]
Successful stallions quickly become a brand. A Malibu Moon is a Malibu Moon not a foal by a horse that never won a stakes. Distorted Humor was not the best son of Forty Niner nor was Tapit Pulpit’s best son, nor was War Front the best son of Danzig nor was Malibu Moon the best son of A P Indy on the track but no one cares once they establish themselves as sires.[/QUOTE]
A real disappointment would be Alysheba. He had the pedigree in terms of a successful sire line and he certainly had the performance on the track.
Native Dancer - Raise A Native - Alydar was certainly a potent sire line for 3 generations. None of Alydar’s sons even approached the level of success he had in the shed. I mean, it abruptly stopped with him.
Secretariat, like War Admiral will live on via the breeding prowess of his daughters. I tend to think that in the early years, breeders were choosing for Secretariat, mare of the highest quality but from long winded families and breeding the speed right out of them.
[QUOTE=danceronice;7182414]
…With mares is actually seems worse, really–how many great race mares have actually produced truly exceptional foals?[/QUOTE]
Personal Ensign was one of the few.
[QUOTE=danceronice;7182414]
With mares is actually seems worse, really–how many great race mares have actually produced truly exceptional foals?[/QUOTE]
I’ve often thought this - because so many successful racehorses have come from mediocre dams. (Look at Ramseys!) Believe it’s not a bad idea that they’ve had at least moderate talent - perhaps enough to at least get to the races, and place on the board on some of the better tracks.
Have thought that maybe very successful mares are not good nurturers. Came up with this hypothesis years ago when I had to deal with a woman who was a professional runner. She was probably the biggest b*tch I’ve ever had to deal with professionally. I thought, ‘well - guess she’s competitive!’ Felt sorry for her kids, and then wondered how well that characteristic works well with nurturing foals. Oh, and the runner lived in Saratoga by the way. :lol:
Of course another exception is Take Charge Lady, dam of Will Take Charge & Take Charge Indy.
A few very good race mares/producers, quick list off the top of my head:
Dahlia (multi champion, dam of several G1 winners)
Glorious Song (champion, dam of Singspiel ch multi G1 SW, Rahy G2, etc)
Hollywood Wildcat (champion, dam of War Chant G1, 3 other SWs)
Flanders (champion 2yof, dam of champion Surfside [G1] and a G2 SW)
Better Than Honour (G2 SW, G1 pl, Broodmare of the Year, dam of Belmont S winners Rags to Riches and Jazil, etc)
Blush With Pride (Kentucky Oaks, etc, dam of Better Than Honour G2, Smolensk G2, etc)
Shared Interest (G1 SW, dam of BC Fillies G1 winner Cash Run and Forestry [G1])
Heavenly Prize (champion, dam of Good Reward G1 SW, Pure Prize G2 SW, etc)
MarketWatch actually quantified racing prowess in the dam with earning potential in the foals. It was a pretty straight line corollary and the graded SWing dams won the day.
Of course they get bred to the best stallions, their foals are raised by some of the finest farms in the world and then they are given to accomplished trainers. You’d expect a higher degree of success if any of that means anything.
[QUOTE=ejm;7190710]
A few very good race mares/producers, quick list off the top of my head:
Dahlia (multi champion, dam of several G1 winners)
Glorious Song (champion, dam of Singspiel ch multi G1 SW, Rahy G2, etc)
Hollywood Wildcat (champion, dam of War Chant G1, 3 other SWs)
Flanders (champion 2yof, dam of champion Surfside [G1] and a G2 SW)
Better Than Honour (G2 SW, G1 pl, Broodmare of the Year, dam of Belmont S winners Rags to Riches and Jazil, etc)
Blush With Pride (Kentucky Oaks, etc, dam of Better Than Honour G2, Smolensk G2, etc)
Shared Interest (G1 SW, dam of BC Fillies G1 winner Cash Run and Forestry [G1])
Heavenly Prize (champion, dam of Good Reward G1 SW, Pure Prize G2 SW, etc)[/QUOTE]
The greatest of them all… Urban Sea… http://thevaulthorseracing.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/urban-sea_baby-sea-the-stars.jpg
She won the Arc herself and then gave the world Gallileo and Sea The Stars.
