[QUOTE=PeteyPie;8092510]
Are there any nice, easy-to-access stats which show the quality of mares bred to a stallion? In other words, can you look at a stallion’s book and see info on the mares which were bred to him? As Calamber pointed out, Lucky Pulpit’s mares were not the top black-type winners and producers of champions. If one compares the lower-quality mares bred to Pulpit, mares of a similar quality to those bred to Lucky Pulpit, what do the stats show?[/QUOTE]
Great question. Mare stats would be a valuable tool. Everything is so general. JMHO but the best attempt at this was the conduit mare profile but it is still a general valuation.
[QUOTE=PeteyPie;8092510]
Are there any nice, easy-to-access stats which show the quality of mares bred to a stallion? In other words, can you look at a stallion’s book and see info on the mares which were bred to him? As Calamber pointed out, Lucky Pulpit’s mares were not the top black-type winners and producers of champions. If one compares the lower-quality mares bred to Pulpit, mares of a similar quality to those bred to Lucky Pulpit, what do the stats show?[/QUOTE]
I think the most accessible free way is to look at the offspring on Pedigree Query. Although time consuming, you can clearly see the bulk of the mares who produced offspring by a stallion. Pedigree Query is not always 100% accurate since it is dependent on the users to update the database which can lead to errors or missing info, but you can always double check offspring through Equibase and Equineline.
Anyone will agree that Pulpit saw better quality mares. That is a fact. The point is that a record of 46% starters, 31% winners, and 1% blacktype is even unimpressive for a $2,500 stallion who has spent his whole career in California. Just look up some of the other stallions who stand in California for the same price range.
Lucky Pulpit’s owners live in Idaho and he spent time there. Nice article:
http://thisishorseracing.com/news/index.php/this-is-horse-racing/2644-california-chrome-s-idaho-connection
[QUOTE=JJ’sLuckyTrain;8092860]
Lucky Pulpit’s owners live in Idaho and he spent time there. Nice article:
http://thisishorseracing.com/news/index.php/this-is-horse-racing/2644-california-chrome-s-idaho-connection[/QUOTE]
Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification. I’m sorry, Calamber, for not knowing about his personal racing connections. On paper, he was not bred in Idaho, not raced in Idaho, and never bred any mares in Idaho, so I was very confused.
[QUOTE=Texarkana;8092767]
I think the most accessible free way is to look at the offspring on Pedigree Query. Although time consuming, you can clearly see the bulk of the mares who produced offspring by a stallion. Pedigree Query is not always 100% accurate since it is dependent on the users to update the database which can lead to errors or missing info, but you can always double check offspring through Equibase and Equineline.
Anyone will agree that Pulpit saw better quality mares. That is a fact. The point is that a record of 46% starters, 31% winners, and 1% blacktype is even unimpressive for a $2,500 stallion who has spent his whole career in California. Just look up some of the other stallions who stand in California for the same price range.[/QUOTE]
California stallions tend to be a bad bunch --especially lately–but the mares can be even worse and I know from experience that the homegrown ones like Lucky Pulpit should be evaluated differently than Kentucky rejects. Lucky Pulpit has a 2.24 AEI to a 1.25 CI which is outstanding. Of course Chrome skews the numbers but before him, LP had a Derby starter in Rousing Sermon and a very nice horse in Luckarack. LP was one of the most popular stallions in the state as determined by foal crop (61) when Chrome was a yearling and that jump up was entirely because his early foals were running. He is a very good regional sire --but no Pulpit or Tapit.
Stallion making is a very different task than managing a race horse. Part of it is that even the best runners by successful sires have a lot of competition for mares. Mare owners have a lot of choice and if you are looking for that sireline why wouldn’t you look at a son of Tapit before a son of Lucky Pulpit? Chrome is a very nice horse with a pretty so so pedigree and really the only way to overcome that and attract the best mares is to compromise on the price like the Tiznow people did in the early days. Perry Martin is making some interesting choices in campaigning his horse but from the standpoint of stallion making, I’m not sure it is going to get him where he wants to go.
[QUOTE=Texarkana;8092473]
I’m confused about the Idaho comment. He has zero record of ever racing or breeding any mares in Idaho. That is the first I’ve ever heard that.
The Jockey Club report from his first year at stud, listed as standing in CA:
http://www.thejockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=Resources&area=13&report=LF&reportyear=2007&letter=L
No mention of Idaho in his announcement of entering stud:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/36660/stakes-winner-lucky-pulpit-to-harris-farms
Wind problem or not, he has 8 crops of foals on the ground and 6 currently racing that could have proven him as a strong sire-- and they haven’t.
I totally agree that Pulpit saw better mares than Lucky Pulpit will ever see. But the thing is, regional sires can still be successful and prove themselves as good regional sires, even if they never make it to the big leagues. Not For Love, for example, has a wonderful pedigree but an even weaker race record than Lucky Pulpit’s. Yet he proved himself in the shed and had meteoric success in Maryland during a time when Maryland’s breeding scene was spiraling down the toilet uncontrollably. Though recently retired, Not For Love is currently sitting at 80% starters, 64% winners, and 8% blacktype winners. Yet Lucky Pulpit has 46% starters, 31% winners, and 1% blacktype winners. That’s a drastic difference in results between two regional stallions, neither of whom see top mares.[/QUOTE]
Lucky Pulpit was foaled in Kentucky but shipped to the owner’s ranch in Idaho as a weanling and was trained to race (although did not race in state) at the William’s Tree Top Ranch in Parma, Idaho. It is a gorgeous ranch. I hope this clears up the confusion.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/20/3192628/a-lucky-pedigree.html
It’s okay Texarkana, it just happened to be mentioned in the WIKI. Pretty interesting though. I might just have to go visit.
Oops, posted the second article before seeing that it had already been noted.
This is also worth noting as written in the “This is horse racing” website but do not know why it conflicts with earlier posted stats of Lucky Pulpit.
“He entered stud in 2007, and was the state’s leading freshman sire of 2010. That first crop included seven winners bred by the Williamses. His 172 foals include 74 percent winners from starters led by 2012 Derby starter and $700,000 earner Rousing Sermon, stakes winner of more than $500,000 Luckarack and now California Chrome. His once $2,500 stud fee is now listed as private. Kiser hopes Lucky Pulpit can stay in California, to help the state’s breeding industry but also hears the phone ringing.”
Maybe his foals will improve as he gets better mares now.
[QUOTE=Calamber;8093672]
Lucky Pulpit was foaled in Kentucky but shipped to the owner’s ranch in Idaho as a weanling and was trained to race (although did not race in state) at the William’s Tree Top Ranch in Parma, Idaho. It is a gorgeous ranch. I hope this clears up the confusion.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/20/3192628/a-lucky-pedigree.html
It’s okay Texarkana, it just happened to be mentioned in the WIKI. Pretty interesting though. I might just have to go visit.
Oops, posted the second article before seeing that it had already been noted.
This is also worth noting as written in the “This is horse racing” website but do not know why it conflicts with earlier posted stats of Lucky Pulpit.
“He entered stud in 2007, and was the state’s leading freshman sire of 2010. That first crop included seven winners bred by the Williamses. His 172 foals include 74 percent winners from starters led by 2012 Derby starter and $700,000 earner Rousing Sermon, stakes winner of more than $500,000 Luckarack and now California Chrome. His once $2,500 stud fee is now listed as private. Kiser hopes Lucky Pulpit can stay in California, to help the state’s breeding industry but also hears the phone ringing.”
Maybe his foals will improve as he gets better mares now.[/QUOTE]
Calamber, I’m not trying to argue with you. You’re allowed to love Lucky Pulpit.
But let’s keep our numbers straight.
“74% winners from starters” means of those 46% of foals that actually made it to race, 74% of them won (which still works out to about ~30% of his total foals winning).
Do you truly believe a GREAT race horse sire only has 46% of his foals making it to the track to do the job they were bred for?
The two horses you found in the linked article are the two other blacktype winners I referenced in an earlier post. He still has 1% blacktype winners from his foals.
I am a bit confused why at this point you still can’t see the difference between a horse with a pedigree like California Chrome’s and the pedigrees of the top sires standing in Kentucky. But you are entitled to your opinions. And I’ll happily eat crow if California Chrome becomes the next Northern Dancer. Stranger things have happened. I’ve been working in the thoroughbred business long enough to know that horses love to prove people wrong. 
^^Are there cases where a racehorse not only outran his pedigree but did the same in the breeding shed?
[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8094209]
^^Are there cases where a racehorse not only outran his pedigree but did the same in the breeding shed?[/QUOTE]
Slew would be the most obvious example.
Tiznow would probably qualify on both counts.
[QUOTE=Drvmb1ggl3;8094230]
Slew would be the most obvious example.
Tiznow would probably qualify on both counts.[/QUOTE]
Slew I’d disagree with, and actually there is a whole other thread on that discussion. He definitely exceeded expectations. Yet he was out of a strong dam line and by a sire whose brief career was well above average.
Tiznow is a better and more recent example. But he was out of a dam who ended up proving to be a PHENOMENAL producer.
Maybe Love the Chase will become another Cee’s Song… who knows. Anything is possible.
I was debating whether or not to add Candy Ride to the list. He was out of a good producer as well… but I think it’s hard to fairly assess both his sire and female family when the majority of their breeding was done in Argentina. South American blacktype sometimes translates into the North American success, other times it doesn’t. In Candy Ride’s case, it certainly worked out! :yes:
[QUOTE=Texarkana;8094154]
Calamber, I’m not trying to argue with you. You’re allowed to love Lucky Pulpit.
But let’s keep our numbers straight.
“74% winners from starters” means of those 46% of foals that actually made it to race, 74% of them won (which still works out to about ~30% of his total foals winning).
Do you truly believe a GREAT race horse sire only has 46% of his foals making it to the track to do the job they were bred for?
The two horses you found in the linked article are the two other blacktype winners I referenced in an earlier post. He still has 1% blacktype winners from his foals.
I am a bit confused why at this point you still can’t see the difference between a horse with a pedigree like California Chrome’s and the pedigrees of the top sires standing in Kentucky. But you are entitled to your opinions. And I’ll happily eat crow if California Chrome becomes the next Northern Dancer. Stranger things have happened. I’ve been working in the thoroughbred business long enough to know that horses love to prove people wrong. :)[/QUOTE]
Thanks for allowing me to love Lucky Pulpit.
[QUOTE=Calamber;8096046]
Thanks for allowing me to love Lucky Pulpit.[/QUOTE]
Anytime. :lol:
And I hope you can realize I didn’t mean it in “that” way. 
Last year (tour of Harris Ranch instead of games for a baby shower :yes:) we got to visit LuckyPulpit, and he’s quite the charmer. I swear he was posing for the camera when people asked to have their pictures taken with him. He’s very calm, and didn’t mind people in his paddock.
So I love LuckyPulpit, too.
[QUOTE=Hermein;8096065]
Last year (tour of Harris Ranch instead of games for a baby shower :yes:) we got to visit LuckyPulpit, and he’s quite the charmer. I swear he was posing for the camera when people asked to have their pictures taken with him. He’s very calm, and didn’t mind people in his paddock.
So I love LuckyPulpit, too.[/QUOTE]
Several years ago, I visited Claiborne Farm. Pulpit was one of the stallions they brought out for people to pet and take pictures. He seemed calm and kind.
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned CC’s conformation issues with his front end. Would high -$$ breeders want to breed to that when other stallions that are more correct are available? To me, he looks very crooked in any photos that show him head-on. Maybe it doesn’t matter?
Everyone has a different opinion on the subject. Came across this article printed before the Belmont Stakes.
Not familiar with the analyst interviewed. Would be interesting is someone like Ann Peters did an analysis.
http://eventingnation.com/home/california-chrome-as-a-sport-horse-prospect/
Texarkana posted a very good explanation related to differences in viewing pedigrees (which is related inheritance and conformation) on another racing thread about Seattle Slew. It might be of interest on this thread, especially if you haven’t checked out the other thread.
[I]I think a lot of the miscommunication and misunderstanding in these pedigree discussions lately stem from the fact that sport horse pedigrees and thoroughbred race horse pedigrees are evaluated somewhat differently.
The basic premise is always the same: good sires and good dams beget good horses. But thoroughbred racing has the benefit of centuries of data about breeding for a single purpose. The data just continues to become more detailed and more accessible.
The pattern has been well established for eons that the production and race records of the dam line or female family are some of the most important factors in predicting success. Specifically, you’re looking for a consistent record of mares along the bottom line outproducing themselves or producing stakes winners. Horses bred from successful producers are more likely to be successful. When thoroughbreds are sold, 3/4 of the entire catalog page is dedicated to the female family. Sires get a blurb about their race record and their offspring. Everyone else just gets their name printed on the pedigree chart; not because they are unimportant, but because history has shown that they are not as beneficial individually when predicting the success of the foal. (also, because it is assumed that their accomplishments are already known) Breeders consider the entire pedigree, but it is the combination of the sire and the production record of the female family that are the best indicators about how the horse might perform. Horses that look like they have a high chance of performing at top levels will be more highly regarded.
Sport horse breeders just don’t have the same volumes of data available about the dam line, regardless of the breed. It’s not because sport horse breeders feel the dam line is unimportant, but because the different disciplines are so diverse. The data is just harder to compile in the same manner for so many reasons that I’m not even going to attempt to name them all. It’s chiefly the stallions that end up leaving behind traceable legacies, so the pedigree on paper is evaluated primarily based on the stallions. You have to infer a lot more information about mares based on who they are sired by.
When many sport horse breeders look at racing pedigrees, I’ve noticed their eyes immediately jump to the sire, grandsire, and broodmare sire. After that, they consider the sires further back. Sometimes they investigate the race records of the dams, but they rarely consider the dams’ production records for what they are worth.
To form a more accurate assessment, you need to include evaluation the production record of the female family, specifically the first three generations. No matter how many well-known sires are seen on paper, the female family is going to make or break the overall value of the horse.
And I hope my (ridiculously long) post does not offend any of the breeding gurus we have here: both for sport and racing. We just seem to be having a lot of circular discussions that go nowhere.
Last edited by Texarkana; Apr. 10, 2015 at 01:16 AM. Reason: typo[/I]
http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?464215-What-made-Seattle-Slew-a-great-sire/page3
I don’t recall a great deal of discussion about CC’s forelimbs. Not to the extent that Mind That Bird’s received.
Interestingly, Bull Lea, the Calumet stallion I mentioned earlier also had four white feet. And, of course, there were all the naysayers quoting the old adage (one white foot … )
Apparently those white feet didn’t get in the way of his turning Calumet into a dynasty.
[QUOTE=frehley;8098085]
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned CC’s conformation issues with his front end. Would high -$$ breeders want to breed to that when other stallions that are more correct are available? To me, he looks very crooked in any photos that show him head-on. Maybe it doesn’t matter?[/QUOTE]
Considering he won the Kentucky Derby and Preakness and has only been out of the money once since and has won on three surfaces, I’m going with no one cares, especially has he so far has never even been moderately lame except when stepped on, and came back without issue from it. He’s sound, and in racehorses pretty doesn’t count particularly if the horse isn’t lame and is getting race results. Meanwhile more ‘correct’ looking horses are dropping like flies from this year’s Derby trail. He’s not the first G1 winning stallion with conformation that would not do well in PH’s Conformation Clinic but whose results suggest that’s not a particularly important consideration.
[QUOTE=frehley;8098085]
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned CC’s conformation issues with his front end. Would high -$$ breeders want to breed to that when other stallions that are more correct are available? To me, he looks very crooked in any photos that show him head-on. Maybe it doesn’t matter?[/QUOTE]
Without having evaluated CC in person-- which is really the best way to do it-- I haven’t seen anything that looked all that bad. In fact, before surgeries on young horses became so common, a plentiful number of successful runners looked like him (and some much, much worse).
In 2015, there are plenty of correct stallions and mares out there who weren’t born correct.
Forelimb conformation is also considered the least heritable of conformational traits, as it can be influenced by external factors such as position in-utero, improper hoof balance as a foal, or corrected surgically in some cases as Beaver Breeze mentioned.
And Shammy, thanks for the re-post!
