why is Seattle Slew bad in sporthorse bloodlines?

[gumtree]

[QUOTE=Equilibrium;6430828]
I have a great granddaughter of SS through Humble. I did not choose this breeding. Humble did not do well as a NH stallion here and have heard quite a few stories of not good jumpers and horses having issues. Heidi has neck arthritis and not a good set. Does not come from mother as evident on the siblings of the mother and mother’s mother. It is also not evident in the siblings of Heidi who all have wonderful neck sets and flexibility. Heidi is a diamond and will do anything for you but is limited.

I got on many SS’s in my day. None were straight forward. You could almost guarantee they would end up the toughest horses in the barn to gallop as well. I got on a scant few that I loved. But the difficult and not great were much higher. I personally would stay away from the line. But I’ve had the dealings of many over the years. They just don’t appeal to me. But to each his own.

Terri[/QUOTE]

I tend to agree with all of Equilibrium’s posts. I have not worked directly, on their backs, with Slews but I do know they can be “difficult”. Been around enough. In this country there have been a some tried over jumps, Steeplechasing, one or two off the top of my head were pretty good. But very tough to work with. A bit scary I have been told. However I have worked with ones by his sons and like others have found them to be very willing and talented. They have had some minor issues but their talent more then made up for their short comings. IMO. I also agree that their head carriage is not always the best.

[columbus]

There are stallions who are so common in North American pedigree that to rule them out if they appear in a pedigree is pretty foolish. There is usually a single entry of SS as they do not tend to line breed him as is done with MP and ND and HtR appearing multiple times in modern pedigrees. I just would not do ANY rule outs based on pedigree. Conformation is another thing and many stallions who are the big names of the last generation have conformation that is not sport horse conformation for both soundness and sport horse movement but yet of the many many offspring they had some have exceptional sport horse conformation and should definately be considered when they are found. It is all well and good to sit on a dark night and ponder pedigrees but don’t get silly about it. I have known two SS grandsons very well…one was a wreck and one is an angel…and both were much loved. If they had a similarity it was they were exceptionally smart and that is why their owner loved them with all her heart. For her the experince with each of them was precious. PatO

[Merle]

[QUOTE=gumtree;6434550]
I tend to agree with all of Equilibrium’s posts. I have not worked directly, on their backs, with Slews but I do know they can be “difficult”. Been around enough. In this country there have been a some tried over jumps, Steeplechasing, one or two off the top of my head were pretty good. But very tough to work with. A bit scary I have been told. However I have worked with ones by his sons and like others have found them to be very willing and talented. They have had some minor issues but their talent more then made up for their short comings. IMO. I also agree that their head carriage is not always the best.[/QUOTE]

I evented a Seattle Slew grandson (through Houston on his dam’s side). He was a tough, tough ride. He could jump the moon and was so talented in dressage that I was told by dressage clinicians he could do straight dressage but if he didn’t want to do something, he made it clear. He was very spooky and extremely sensitive.

[Calamber]

[QUOTE=gumtree;6434438]
I understand your point but the comparative statistics you are using are “dated”.
All of the stallions used are from a different era when the average “book” of mares being bred each season would have been on average around 40 or so. Maybe wrong don’t have the reference book handy but I bet I am close. These stallions were closely held and the mares would have been in general of high caliber and more carefully selected. Slew went to stud at the dawn of the “new big book era”. By the mid 80’s popular stallions were covering around 100 mares. By the mid to late 90’s closer to 150. Now a stallion like Scat Daddy covers more then 200. And that’s just northern hemisphere. All of the sires you list were leading stallions in their day, Jet Master being more of a foot note. Some may say given the much smaller number of foals they had each year compared to modern stallion crops makes them that much better. Others conversely given the fact that there just aren’t that many really good mares that fully justify being sent to the top 10 stallions and the fees they command. Therefore diluting the “quality” of their crops. For years any stallion that got 10% stakes was considered a top stallion. Now it is generally accepted due to large books the number is more like 7-8%. Percentage of starters and starters to winners is a number to take into consideration and the higher the better but it is not nearly as important as stakes winners. People that breed and or own horses at the top of the game pay dearly for them. They are not interested in winning just any race. With out having the stats to back me up I would guess that Storm Cat had a rather low start to win percentage. They were either very good or moderate at best. So if you had a moderate one and paid the $500,000 stud fee would you bother to continue the paying training expenses to brake a maiden and win an allowance or two? An unraced stallion prospect is worth more then a non winner.
Sorry to be long winded, even though I kept it short, on something that is a bit off topic but I think it is important for people to understand that simple statistics are just that simple. One has to extrapolate more then what is presented on face value.[/QUOTE]

This is the real issue and gets at the matter of how we breed today.

To compare a stallion with 40 mares bred/year tops, and to better mares, to a stallion who had a wide open book is like comparing apples to oranges. They are both round, but that is the end of it. Statistics are like that, they can be skewed to allow your own particular prejudices to win an argument. Sophists trick.