I was reading another post where someone had a mare with Seattle Slew in 3rd generation, and (of course) some people were ok with the influence and some poo-pooed it. Why is he not desirable for sport? I’m still trying to learn as much as I can about good bloodlines for sport, so please forgive my ignorance…
I second the question.
I love him as a sporthorse sire personally, however, the mare has a LOT of influence. The most desirable Slew cross would be Slew x a distance mare. My big (17.2++ hands) hunter was a Slew baby out of a big, tall distance mare and the combo was incredible. After I sold him, he went to an eventing home and is still sound and eventing at age 18. I recently saw an ad for an event mare who had Slew as a grandsire, really typical “Slew jump” - effortless and with little wasted motion.
I am another fan of Slew lines, especially with distance in the mare line 
I have two of these in my breeding program as hunter mares, and a gelding as my own A/O hunter.
I am not fond of Slew breeding for a few reasons:
I find that he often stamps a neck set that I find unappealing, even when he is several generations back
I have a tough time buying into the risk of potential c-spine issues
And, as stated by many here, he was an inconsistent sire who often produced horses with soundness issues
I’m sure there are a ton of very nice horses that trace back to Seattle Slew, but for the reasons above, he just doesn’t excite me in a pedigree.
Slew’s spinal issues and resulting basket procedures were not present from birth, nor did they result in him being retired. I believe that his spinal issues were a result of a long and complicated stud career where he was repeatedly injured during live-cover breedings. THe basket procedures were not to make him sound but rather to keep him comfortable for breeding.
Rood and Riddle here locally perfected the procedure and while it is used regularly to correct Wobbler’s, I certainly have not heard of Slew offspring having a higher number of Wobblers than another line.
I’ve known an inordinate number of horses that developed c-spine arthritis as adults that were Slew bred. Tough to say one way or the other if pedigree had anything to do with it, but Slew is easy enough to avoid, so I do.
Perhaps if I found a horse that I just loved and ticked all my other boxes, I’d consider it. But I’d probably image the neck, just to be sure and to have a baseline.
[QUOTE=Iron Horse Farm;6429687]
Slew’s spinal issues and resulting basket procedures were not present from birth, nor did they result in him being retired. I believe that his spinal issues were a result of a long and complicated stud career where he was repeatedly injured during live-cover breedings. THe basket procedures were not to make him sound but rather to keep him comfortable for breeding.
Rood and Riddle here locally perfected the procedure and while it is used regularly to correct Wobbler’s, I certainly have not heard of Slew offspring having a higher number of Wobblers than another line.[/QUOTE]
Right. He was a big and gangly youngster and he raced fairly early too, in reality that never may have shown up at all if they waited (not criticizing, just noting). He was so clumsy when a youngster, or at least, Karen Taylor thought he could not “get himself together” so she trained him initially in basic dressage so that he could and obviously did, “put it all together”. I love him for all sorts of reasons but do have to agree with the tying into the shoulder issue with the neck. It matters who the mare line is as is pointed out and a well put together youngster from that type of line is unbeatable in my experience. Wonderful temperaments, not snuggly but very intelligent and somewhat aloof, independent I guess you could say. I like that.
I do not like Slew in the pedigree, but obviously the further back the more dilute. I didn’t like the looks/conformation of the horse (but I admit to seeing him in his later years), and the Slew breds we’ve had were not world beaters. They were OK, average, not awful but not very good either. Probably not big enough sampling to be significant, but I have to go on what I’ve seen.
As I’ve said frequently, tho, we buy phenotype not genotype. We don’t look at pedigrees until we get them home - but I wouldn’t breed to him.
[QUOTE=secretariat;6429729]
I do not like Slew in the pedigree, but obviously the further back the more dilute. I didn’t like the looks/conformation of the horse (but I admit to seeing him in his later years), and the Slew breds we’ve had were not world beaters. They were OK, average, not awful but not very good either. Probably not big enough sampling to be significant, but I have to go on what I’ve seen.
As I’ve said frequently, tho, we buy phenotype not genotype. We don’t look at pedigrees until we get them home - but I wouldn’t breed to him.[/QUOTE]
You cannot breed to him as he no longer breathes. If he could be reproduced as the type of competition animal, and temperment with the exact right type of structure, there would be a world beater. He lived a long time and they loved to handle him at the farm. That says loads to me. That he may not have been prepotent for other matters relating to not breeding him in an outcross to the right lines to produce what I mentioned, that is a shame. He was a one in a million to me, and to those who purchased him as a not very handsome indivdual with that presence, those people knew how to pick a horse, that is all I can say. Right time, right horse, right people to put it all together. How he produces in the future if the right combo comes together again? Maybe we will, maybe we will not see another like him.
I LOVED my Seattle Slew line gelding. He was a huge gentle giant (passed away in 2010 due to leg injury in pasture) at 17.2 hands and he raced until he was 10 and retired sound! He was multiple stakes placed, won over a quarter million and had the funniest personality and would “groan” when he had to really work or got reprimanded. I retrained him to do dressage and trail. He used to dote on my young daughter and follow her everywhere and give her pony rides.
Seattle Slew was his “grandsire”
[QUOTE=Simkie;6429589]
I am not fond of Slew breeding for a few reasons:
I find that he often stamps a neck set that I find unappealing, even when he is several generations back
I have a tough time buying into the risk of potential c-spine issues
And, as stated by many here, he was an inconsistent sire who often produced horses with soundness issues
I’m sure there are a ton of very nice horses that trace back to Seattle Slew, but for the reasons above, he just doesn’t excite me in a pedigree.[/QUOTE]
Inconsistent sire? In producing sport horses, I’m assuming? Because he wasn’t inconsistent when it came to producing race horses.
He WAS inconsistent in his racehorse production. He got the very best mares for decades, and the consensus of the TB race breeding experts that I have read–and this includes, I believe, Anne Peters–was that if you a got a good Slew, you got a very good racehorse, but if you got a bad Slew, you got a terrible horse, period.
There is a long article about this on one of the TB Pedigree websites, the name of which I have temporarily forgotten–Pedigree Post, perhaps.
Oh? Let’s examine the produce records of the sires in his pedigree for comparison.
Seattle Slew:
71% starters
69% winners from starters
14% blacktype winners from starters
Bold Reasoning:
80% starters
94% winners from starters
20% blacktype winners from starters
Poker:
84% starters
72% winners from starters
5% blacktype winners from starters
Boldnesian:
85% starters
81% winners from starters
13% blacktype winners from starters
Bold Ruler:
78% starters
84% winners from starters
29% blacktype winners from starters
Hail to Reason:
85% starters
80% winners from starters
16% blacktype winners from starters
Round Table:
89% starters
76% winners from starters
23% blacktype winners from starters
Jet Action:
87% starters
85% winners from starters
7% blacktype winners from starters
Looks like his get had trouble getting to the track and also had trouble winning, in comparison to the sires in his pedigree. If they ran, they ran well, but there were a lot that didn’t run. I think that makes him inconsistent, don’t you?
I had a 16.3 slew grandson. Horse had a loose screw but could jump the moon and had amazing movement when he was being normal. He walked most places on hind legs. His neck looked like it belonged on a stallion as it was thick and cresty but he was well put together besides that.
He squealed like a pig when he did not want to do something and he was athletic like crazy. Sweet personality on the ground but a jerk to ride. I was not impressed due to the fact that was athletic but could not keep it together.
I personally knew of two Slew grandsons that were neurological, one was mine. A huge, gorgeous sweetheart, it was heartbreaking. Of course I don’t know it was Slew related at all, but it did make me wonder.
I have a Slew great grand daughter now with no such symptoms. Who knows.
Well, several people I know (and whose opinions I trust) would disagree. Looking at his stats, he was hardly inconsistent, IMO. What would you consider a consistent sire? Northern Dancer (64% winners, 23% SW), Bold Ruler (66% winners, 22% SW), Danzig (63% winners, 18% SW), Danehill (64% winners, 14% SW)? So, sure, maybe you’re right. Maybe Seattle Slew wasn’t as good as that group (after all, he “only” produced 49% winners and 10% SW), but he was still pretty darn good. Giant’s Causeway, a very nice sire in his own right, has produced 41% winners and 6% SW in a total of 1796 foals (693 more than Slew produced in his entire career).
Plus, Slew produced A.P. Indy, prolific sire of sires. Nuff for me. 
And the quote (“if you got a good Slew, you got a very good racehorse…”) seems like it could go for any stallion. The best sires in the world all throw a considerable amount of clunkers.
Okay, let’s compare apples to apples with the sires you cite:
Northern Dancer:
79% starters
80% winners from starters
29% blacktype winners from starters
Bold Ruler is above
Danzig:
77% starters
81% winners from starters
23% blacktype winners from starters
Danehill:
84% starters
77% winners from starters
17% blacktype winners from starters
Giant’s Causeway:
64% starters
64% winners from starters
10% blacktype winners from starters
Yeah, I think I’ll still hold that Slew was inconsistent I don’t mind the you don’t agree. You can have all the Slew bred horses that I’m not interested in, and I hope they do beautifully for you
What is the neck that you don’t like? Most of the “grand” kids that I’ve known have had very nice necks and top lines. But again…SS was just a grandsire and there were other mixes. Most I’ve known had good shoulders and nice movement but i haven’t noticed a particularly strong stamp—unlike a horse like Mr. Prospector who even several generations back, I can see the hind end (a good thing) that he tends to pass on.
I have a Seattle Slew granddaughter (by Turkey Shoot) that is as grounded as they come and a wonderful mover. I’ve only used her as a broodmare but all of her foals have been stellar. Her last foal is by Just The Best and he can jump the moon.
Height will be NO problem.
