What made Seattle Slew a great sire?

[ASB_Stars]

We all know that he was a helluva race horse.

BUT, he was by a horse who won less than 200k, with breathing problems, as well as some soundness issues. That sire died young, and Seattle Slew was, by any measure, the finest of his get.

He was the first foal of a non-remarkable mare, from a family that gets interesting back a couple of boxes…

We have been discussing why California Chrome has, allegedly, very little sire value. He is by a son of a fabulous sire.

So, on paper, please make your case as to why this horse excelled. Was it just the mares he got, based upon location, connections, and his record? Or was there more…

[cloudyandcallie]

Not a geneticist here, but the dam line of Seattle Slew was pretty good. (I had a mare sired by Poker, so I’m prejudiced.) The breeding of one bloodline to another can produce some seriously fantastic results. Slew was great. So I’d guess that the combination of his dam and his sire produced a stud who passed down his ability to his get.

About the same time, Spectacular Bid did very well on the track. However, not so well in the breeding shed. I did not like it that his owners sold him, as I thought he’d paid for his retirement on the track. But over the years, I saw the ads in the Chronicle Magazine for the Bid at stud, only $2500. I think he stood in NY state. The Bid lived until his mid 20s, so he had a good retirement despite not being the sire that everyone expected him to be. It was great to see that Slew and the Bid and Affirmed all lived to be in their mid 20s.

BTW The Slew’s dam had some seriously good bloodlines.

[DMK]

Seattle Slew made great racehorses and he made them right from the start (Landaluce and Slew o’Gold in his first crop). He also then made great sires. But mostly he made AP Indy, so that kept him and Secretariat firmly in the bloodline batch for a long time.

And I don’t think Seattle Slew was by nobody per se… who knows what his sire would have done with 8-10 more years. He wasn’t so well known that he was getting the best book in the two years he had, but he certainly was bred fine for his era. My Charmer ended up being a nice broodmare by any account, it wasn’t her fault SS was her first, LOL.

I think every HOTY/multiple G1 winner gets a good shot at a great first few books of mares, but only a few of them succeed like he did. The list of “meh” is far longer than the list of “wow”. And hot damn, if I (or anyone) knew the formula for “wow”, I sure wouldn’t be spilling my secrets on a public forum!

ETA - there is a lot more black type on the tail line of SS as well - his granddam was not black type, but she was a half sister to a lot of uppercase letters, so that counts)

[vineyridge]

Seattle Slew was a very inconsistent sire. I’ve read that he either sired very good foals or very bad ones–that there were no inbetweens. He got many hundreds of mares, and some were good and some were not. AFAIK, he didn’t really improve his mares much. He’s certainly not known for having been a great broodmare sire. I personally think that he will live in the TB world primarily through AP Indy, who did have a great dam.

[cloudyandcallie]

I friend of mine IRL (who owned race horses) told me way back when that his friend had a very good filly in training with D. Wayne Lucas, and that that filly, Landeluce, was going to win the Derby. Sadly, she died so young. Slew sired some very good horses.

There have been some great runners who did not sire a lot of winners. Anyone else remember Needles? And what about Secretariat?

[Shammy_Davis]

What made SS a great stallion?

Location, location, location! Three Chimneys.

[beowulf]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8093651]
Seattle Slew was a very inconsistent sire. I’ve read that he either sired very good foals or very bad ones–that there were no inbetweens. He got many hundreds of mares, and some were good and some were not. AFAIK, he didn’t really improve his mares much. He’s certainly not known for having been a great broodmare sire. I personally think that he will live in the TB world primarily through AP Indy, who did have a great dam.[/QUOTE]

I’ve read and heard the same BUT not that HE was inconsistent, but that he was paired with inconsistent types. The variety of mares he covered were so varied - some good, some terrible, some great – he was very consistent with what he passed on in terms of type/conformation/personality though.

[Texarkana]

[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8093312]
We all know that he was a helluva race horse.

BUT, he was by a horse who won less than 200k, with breathing problems, as well as some soundness issues. That sire died young, and Seattle Slew was, by any measure, the finest of his get.[/QUOTE]

Sometimes horses are better sires than they are racehorses, sometimes great racehorses are terrible sires. Bold Reasoning certainly had the credentials to stay a stallion and had an incredible number of stakes horses in just two crops!

He was the first foal of a non-remarkable mare, from a family that gets interesting back a couple of boxes…

A dam line is assessed primarily by 3 things, in order of relative importance:

1. Production of winners, specifically blacktype stakes horses.
2. Race record of the dams
3. Pedigree of the dams

Obviously it’s not quite that simple… but those are the 3 major points to look for on paper.

My Charmer was a blacktype stakes winner herself. That is always a good thing. She produced FOUR blacktype stakes horses-- a triple crown winner and 2 other G1 performers. That is an incredible feat for any mare.

My Charmer’s dam (Fair Charmer) wasn’t much of a race horse on paper herself, but she did win a race. She then went on to outproduced herself with three stakes horses in her offspring. Again, that’s pretty darn good.

The third dam, Myrtle Charm, was another multiple stakes winner who succeeded in producing two blacktype stakes horses.

The dam line is solid for the first three generations. The two major traits of breeding- the ability to win races and the ability to produce horses that win races, rarely “skip” multiple generations. The 4th and 5th dam aren’t evaluated quite as stringently-- they are more “icing on the cake.”

We have been discussing why California Chrome has, allegedly, very little sire value. He is by a son of a fabulous sire.

So, on paper, please make your case as to why this horse excelled. Was it just the mares he got, based upon location, connections, and his record? Or was there more…

California Chrome has well above average value as a potential sire and I’m sorry that the discussion is being misconstrued. What he doesn’t have is the necessary combination of pedigree and race record for world record syndication prices. He is not going to be receiving any FuPeg or Smarty Jones type offers to stand at stud (who sold to stud for $60mil and $39mil, respectively due their race record and pedigrees).

His owners have indicated they are racing him in England because they’re trying to increase his worth as a stallion. Many people, myself included, strongly believe racing in England is unlikely increase his worth further, at least not in the US. As much as I hate to say it, US breeders aren’t swayed much by European racing. His pedigree is not strong enough to receive HUGE syndication offers here. Whatever they are being offered for him currently in the US is likely as good as it will get. Now, a European race record may attract more lucrative offers from other areas in the world, which is what I’m assuming his owners are trying to achieve.

[LaurieB]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8093651]
Seattle Slew was a very inconsistent sire. I’ve read that he either sired very good foals or very bad ones–that there were no inbetweens. He got many hundreds of mares, and some were good and some were not. AFAIK, he didn’t really improve his mares much. He’s certainly not known for having been a great broodmare sire. I personally think that he will live in the TB world primarily through AP Indy, who did have a great dam.[/QUOTE]

Seattle Slew’s stats as both a sire and a broodmare sire stack up very favorably against the top stallions of both today and of his era.

As a sire he had 71% starters, 49% winners, 10% stakes winners with total earnings of $84,000,000+. His AEI was 3.69. I don’t know his CI, but it’s hard for me to imagine that it would have been higher than that.

Broodmare sire stats: 77% starters, 54% winners, 6% stakes winners. earnings of 240,000,000+. AEI 1.64.

By comparision, broodmare sire stats for A.P. Indy: 68% starters, 46% winners, 5% stakes winners. AEI 1.73

Anne Peters lists Seattle Slew among the top broodmare sires born in the 1970s along with Mr. Prospector, Danzig, and Deputy Minister.

And of course he was a stand-out sire as well. :yes: (As for why, see Texarkana’s post above.)

[camohn]

[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8093312]
We all know that he was a helluva race horse.

BUT, he was by a horse who won less than 200k, with breathing problems, as well as some soundness issues. That sire died young, and Seattle Slew was, by any measure, the finest of his get.

He was the first foal of a non-remarkable mare, from a family that gets interesting back a couple of boxes…

We have been discussing why California Chrome has, allegedly, very little sire value. He is by a son of a fabulous sire.

So, on paper, please make your case as to why this horse excelled. Was it just the mares he got, based upon location, connections, and his record? Or was there more…[/QUOTE]
In regards to the comment on the sire line about CC: I actually think more of his dam line. Not For Love is a really good looking horse ( pensioned this year) who has been a very successful non KY sire .

[Calamber]

Not for Love, yes a non-Kentucky sire, meaning a Maryland sire, you know that out of the way place that has the Preakness and has had racing for 300+ years. His stats are 83% runners, 66% winners, 9% stakes winners, and an AEI of 1.7. He was the nation’s leading sire in earnings in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. He was #1 in Maryland and #1 outside Kentucky in 2010. He is a bit better than a regional sire and I think he will have influence for a good long while. Besides which he is a beautifully conformed horse and in his prime was stunning.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/stallion-register/stallions/118676/not-for-love

[ASB_Stars]

First off, I think Not For Love is gorgeous. I had seen that picture of him before, and he is a wonderfully balanced individual. I like more angle in a horses hocks and stifles, but that is just me…:lol:

However, you guys are making my case, moreso than not; SS was by a sire who was a decent racehorse, with a respectable pedigree. SS was out of a mare who is, in the larger view of things, worth breeding (if you did not know who she ultimately produced) but not truly remarkable. In other words, the 17.5K that was paid for a crooked colt was a fair price. Hindsight, as we know, is 20/20, and taking the view that there must have been something is understandable.

Many moons ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I stood a TB stud for a syndicate. He was by Nashua, out of a Round Table mare. Pretty fancy breeding, on paper. He was also awful to deal with, but I always am more apt to blame the people who raised the horse, than the horse himself. I used to be a HUGE student of TB breeding, and was fascinated by dosage systems, etc.

Having said that, SS still appears, on paper, to be just OK. If he had not been the awesome racehorse that he was, I seriously doubt that we would have known what the hell he could really have thrown, because he would have been, unless gelded for his crooked limbs, a regional sire, outside of KY.

To juxtapose- Secretariat was bred in the purple; a magnificent son from a magical cross. Yes, I realize that Somethingroyal “could not outrun a fat man going uphill”, but, on paper, Princequillo and Sir Gaylord weren’t bad to see, right up front, and there must have been some respect amongst the Phipps and Meadow Stud to be into a deal on Bold Ruler.

In any event, while Saggy and Joppy got Carry Back, and he got, well, not much, I am always fascinated to see how greatness begins. Seabiscuit doesn’t look scintillating on paper, but not without merit, and he got nothing, either. And he was outside of KY.

I am a huge believer in the bottom line, as in the mares. SS had the opportunity to get great mares, and those foals had the chance to see the track because of where they were born, and who owned them.

That tend to skew the percentages in favor of even a horse of less than epic breeding, doesn’t it?

[Texarkana]

[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8094284]
\However, you guys are making my case, moreso than not; SS was by a sire who was a decent racehorse, with a respectable pedigree. SS was out of a mare who is, in the larger view of things, worth breeding (if you did not know who she ultimately produced) but not truly remarkable. In other words, the 17.5K that was paid for a crooked colt was a fair price. Hindsight, as we know, is 20/20, and taking the view that there must have been something is understandable. [/QUOTE]

Personal opinion-- I think you’re grossly undervaluing both his sire and dam. His sire was still an unknown quantity at SS’s time of consignment, but gave us 2 foal crops that were well above average. And to say a stakes winning dam from 3 generations of consistent blacktype producers is “not truly remarkable” is not giving credit where credit is due, even if she had no production record at the time SS was consigned.

SS may have not been bred from racing royalty, but he came from top tier breeding stock. I think people become hyperbolic and knock his pedigree because it makes for a better story.

Having said that, SS still appears, on paper, to be just OK. If he had not been the awesome racehorse that he was, I seriously doubt that we would have known what the hell he could really have thrown, because he would have been, unless gelded for his crooked limbs, a regional sire, outside of KY.

Well… that’s true of EVERYONE. Even the most regally bred horses who fail to perform on the track rarely stand for top dollars anywhere. If they do, it is because they worked their way up by proving themselves as exceptional through their offspring. For example, Malibu Moon never had a true racing career due to injury and began at stud for $3,500 in Maryland. After his get far exceeded expectations, he relocated to Kentucky and now stands for $95K.

I am a huge believer in the bottom line, as in the mares. SS had the opportunity to get great mares, and those foals had the chance to see the track because of where they were born, and who owned them.

That tend to skew the percentages in favor of even a horse of less than epic breeding, doesn’t it?

Absolutely, but it can skew results both ways. Expensively bred horses will be more likely to make it to the track because of course you want a return on your investment and their owners are generally well connected to excellent horsemen and have no financial limitations. At the same time, you’re less likely to risk losing an expensively-bred horse by dropping it in class and running it where it belongs. You tend to see a number of unraced/lightly raced fillies by elite stallions because no one is going to put a six-figure filly in a maiden claiming race where she could be claimed for considerably less than she’s worth as a broodmare.

Personal opinion again: stallions who don’t have the “it” factor can still bomb even with the best of mares. Just look at Smarty Jones. Seattle Slew received good mares by merit of his exceptional accomplishments on the racetrack and he delivered.

[gumtree]

[QUOTE=Shammy Davis;8093760]
What made SS a great stallion?

Location, location, location! Three Chimneys.[/QUOTE]

Need to give credit where credit is due. Slew was syndicated and stood at Leslie Comb’s Spendthrift farm after he was retired from racing. In the early 80’s Mr. Comb’s was talked into “taking” Spendthrift “public” and shares in the operation were sold and traded on the NYSE. If I remember correctly the IPO valued the company around $40 million. The financial recession of the late 80s along with the sudden Regan tax law changes which had a huge effect on the TB industry brought about the collapse of Spendthrift and not long after Calumet. With the closing of Spendthrift several farms courted the majority shareholders in Slew to stand the horse. Three Chimneys got the horse. But at that time Slew was WELL on his way as a much respected stallion.

So IMO it not entirely correct to say that Three Chimneys “made” the horse they just capitalized on the work of Spendthrift. Slew put Three Chimneys on the map. Not the other way around. In fact the only top stallion IMO that opened and closed his stallion career at Three Chimneys was Rahy. Yes It’s True IMO a very good “second tier” stallion has stood his entire career there also. Yes, the top stallion Dynaformer stood at Three Chimneys but just like Slew he was acquired after he was well on his way at Nathan Fox’s farm Wayfair (sp) who bought and syndicated him after racing.

With Seattle Slew in his twilight years along with Rahy and Dynaformer not far behind. A number of horses they had acquired not doing much “talking” other than Sky Mesa (by Pulpit by Slew) a stallion I think is very over rated Three Chimney was very aggressive in the early 2000s acquiring “talking” horses off the track. Point Given, a top race horse, disappointing at stud. Smarty Jones, who just missed taking the Triple Crown and might have had a better chance of “making it” if they had stood him at a realistic fee. He was a tough sell at $100,000. Big Brown, another tough sell at $85,000. Both of these horses now stand in other states, Smarty in PA and Big Brown in NY. Both at a fraction of their “opening” fee and a huge loss to shareholders.

The world economic collapse that came shortly after the farm paid huge bucks for those horses took its toll on the farm. A majority interest in the farm was sold to South American interests a few years ago. The Clay family own very little of it and have little to nothing to do with its day to day operations.

[Shammy_Davis]

[QUOTE=gumtree;8094425]
Need to give credit where credit is due. Slew was syndicated and stood at Leslie Comb’s Spendthrift farm after he was retired from racing. In the early 80’s Mr. Comb’s was talked into “taking” Spendthrift “public” and shares in the operation were sold and traded on the NYSE. If I remember correctly the IPO valued the company around $40 million. The financial recession of the late 80s along with the sudden Regan tax law changes which had a huge effect on the TB industry brought about the collapse of Spendthrift and not long after Calumet. With the closing of Spendthrift several farms courted the majority shareholders in Slew to stand the horse. Three Chimneys got the horse. But at that time Slew was WELL on his way as a much respected stallion.

So IMO it not entirely correct to say that Three Chimneys “made” the horse they just capitalized on the work of Spendthrift. Slew put Three Chimneys on the map. Not the other way around. In fact the only top stallion IMO that opened and closed his stallion career at Three Chimneys was Rahy. Yes It’s True IMO a very good “second tier” stallion has stood his entire career there also. Yes, the top stallion Dynaformer stood at Three Chimneys but just like Slew he was acquired after he was well on his way at Nathan Fox’s farm Wayfair (sp) who bought and syndicated him after racing.

With Seattle Slew in his twilight years along with Rahy and Dynaformer not far behind. A number of horses they had acquired not doing much “talking” other than Sky Mesa (by Pulpit by Slew) a stallion I think is very over rated Three Chimney was very aggressive in the early 2000s acquiring “talking” horses off the track. Point Given, a top race horse, disappointing at stud. Smarty Jones, who just missed taking the Triple Crown and might have had a better chance of “making it” if they had stood him at a realistic fee. He was a tough sell at $100,000. Big Brown, another tough sell at $85,000. Both of these horses now stand in other states, Smarty in PA and Big Brown in NY. Both at a fraction of their “opening” fee and a huge loss to shareholders.

The world economic collapse that came shortly after the farm paid huge bucks for those horses took its toll on the farm. A majority interest in the farm was sold to South American interests a few years ago. The Clay family own very little of it and have little to nothing to do with its day to day operations.[/QUOTE]

Point well taken.

[gumtree]

[QUOTE=LaurieB;8093879]
Seattle Slew’s stats as both a sire and a broodmare sire stack up very favorably against the top stallions of both today and of his era.

As a sire he had 71% starters, 49% winners, 10% stakes winners with total earnings of $84,000,000+. His AEI was 3.69. I don’t know his CI, but it’s hard for me to imagine that it would have been higher than that.

Broodmare sire stats: 77% starters, 54% winners, 6% stakes winners. earnings of 240,000,000+. AEI 1.64.

By comparision, broodmare sire stats for A.P. Indy: 68% starters, 46% winners, 5% stakes winners. AEI 1.73

Anne Peters lists Seattle Slew among the top broodmare sires born in the 1970s along with Mr. Prospector, Danzig, and Deputy Minister.

And of course he was a stand-out sire as well. :yes: (As for why, see Texarkana’s post above.)[/QUOTE]

10% stakes winners needs to be put into perspective. Slew stood pretty much his entire career pre “big book”. The normal book of mares for a popular stallion in those years was around 75-100. For the last 15-20 years the “normal book” has grown to 150-200. 10% stakes horses put any stallion in the top tier of that era. In the era of “big books” the number has been dropped to 7% by the statisticians.

His progeny earnings would be significantly higher when “adjusted” for “stakes purse inflation”. $1 million dollar races were very rare for the majority of his career.

[gumtree]

[QUOTE=Calamber;8094090]
Not for Love, yes a non-Kentucky sire, meaning a Maryland sire, you know that out of the way place that has the Preakness and has had racing for 300+ years. His stats are 83% runners, 66% winners, 9% stakes winners, and an AEI of 1.7. He was the nation’s leading sire in earnings in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. He was #1 in Maryland and #1 outside Kentucky in 2010. He is a bit better than a regional sire and I think he will have influence for a good long while. Besides which he is a beautifully conformed horse and in his prime was stunning.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/stallion-register/stallions/118676/not-for-love[/QUOTE]

Being a native Marylander I always enjoyed pointing out to my KY friends when I lived there that we were breeding and racing horses when KY was still a wilderness. Not sure if we go back 300 years. At least not in the “formal” sense.

Not for Love is a very well regarded stallion as you point out. In fact KY farms went after him a number of times. North View maintained controlling interest and he was their “flag ship” horse and had no interest in selling. I am sure the minority shareholders felt differently.

A bit of trivia he almost ended up in Argentina. He raced for 4 years and was only a minor stakes placed winner of $170,000+. He was out of a top Phipps family and a full brother to the 2 year old Champion Rhythm. The stallion market was still in “recession” in the early 90s. Rhythm was sold to Japanese interest, later brought back to this country by Coolmore ended his career in NZ. A moderate stallion at best.

I made a very good offer all things being equal for N-F-L on par or above what was being offered by others. I seem to remember the number being around $300,000 but don’t quote me. The owners wanted to keep him in this country. And the rest as they is history. He WAY out shined his full brother in the breeding shed. If he had gone to Argentina and made the “noise” down there that he did here he would have be bought for considerable money and ended up in KY. I would have made out very well. Part of my compensation included breeding rights that “traveled” with the horse.

[DMK]

[QUOTE=ASB Stars;8094284]
However, you guys are making my case, moreso than not; SS was by a sire who was a decent racehorse, with a respectable pedigree. SS was out of a mare who is, in the larger view of things, worth breeding (if you did not know who she ultimately produced) but not truly remarkable. In other words, the 17.5K that was paid for a crooked colt was a fair price. Hindsight, as we know, is 20/20, and taking the view that there must have been something is understandable.[/QUOTE]

I guess I’m not understanding your point, because it sure sounded like you were saying “why did SS attract more interest/$$$ as an untested stallion prospect than CC”?

Aside from the obvious Triple Crown bragging rights, what people said is that all things being equal, SS tail line looked like it was a hell of a lot more repeatable, not just a one off. There are three generations of black type down there. CC just can’t compete with that. When any stallion is unproven, it’s all a big fat guess as to what the offspring will do. Obviously race record doesn’t ultimately change whether that stallion will succeed (ask Danzig) and even the pedigree of a proven sibling is no guarantee of success (ask Cahill Road). But if it was YOUR money, wouldn’t you want to hedge your bets as much as possible?

In a land of Big Bets (or Bet Big, if you follow your race horses), the odds come in just a slight bit more favorably for SS.

[Shammy_Davis]

Just my imagination running away with me and maybe my nose to deep in TB history books, but SS was the only TC winning stallion that made a significant impact on the breed. AP Indy won the Belmont. Pulpit, Dynaformer, Hail to Reason, Mr Prospector, just to name a few since the 60’s didn’t win a TC race. The most significant, Bold Ruler, with seven or eight leading sire titles only won the Preakness. Some of you might recall others, but seems to me that winning the TC is not a plus in stud barn.

What was with Danzig? As mentioned previously by DMK. Like Mr Prospector, no one but their owners thought they were worth breeding. Both ended up at Claiborne and that was push come to shove. Look what impact they’ve made. I got to laugh but neither Mr P’s trainer, Jimmy Croll, or his owner, Butch Savin, the owner, could agree on where to place Mr P when he was racing. It was Woody Stevens who practically twisted Seth’s arm to stand Danzig. Suspect that Seth and Dell are glad they suffered the pain of that.

GT’s previous comments are well taken by me as my memory is going south along with arthritis in my joints. Spendthrift certainly put SS on the map and often that is simply good marketing which brings quality mares and the like to the studs. But we know that even poor racing specimens can become top notch brood mares. Somethingroyal and Hildene come to mind. Also as previously said, the shame is that the mare owner doesn’t have (nor never has) a good broadly indexed reference at hand to help decision making. The fact is that the nicking software is only good for sire and dam lines that are frequently introduced.

It could be as simple as SS’s legacy is built on Bold Ruler or more likely Nasrullah. Along with the broodmare sire theory, there is the “grandsire influence” theory. Geez, poor Raise A Native took all the blame for unsoundness which lives today in the progeny of Unbridled Song, but you have to discount US’s AEI and production record.

Well enough. Time for my afternoon geriatric nap. I’m not saying anything you all don’t already know.

[ASB_Stars]

[QUOTE=DMK;8095006]
I guess I’m not understanding your point, because it sure sounded like you were saying “why did SS attract more interest/$$$ as an untested stallion prospect than CC”?[/QUOTE]

My point is that if you just looked at both on paper, SS who was obviously a superstar on the track and very successful as a sire are not incredibly impressive. I agree with the posters who have pointed out the black type on SS’s dams side, but it isn’t a history of mares producing multiple Grade 1 winners, or being blue hens, or coming from families that pull in the big $$ at the yearling sales.

And the point has been made that SS being the fabulous race horse that he was doesn’t portend greatness in the shed, but it did get him the opportunities with super quality mares, at one the finest breeding farms in the industry.