What was Affirmed's AEI and SW%?

Where are his successful sons at stud?

Which of his daughters have been successful broodmares?

Sorry ... Affirmed was a failure as a stallion.

So ... you're saying that the folowing horses weren't as good on the track ... or as well-bred as Bernardini ...

Citation ... Coaltown ... Hill Prince ... Tim Tam ... Nadir ... Sword Dancer ... Bald Eagle ... Jaipur ... Ridan ... Never Bend ... Bold Lad ... Successor ... Arts And Letters ... Personality ... Riva Ridge ... Sham ... Wajima ... Affirmed ... Spectacular Bid ... Devil's Bag ... Spend A Buck ... Alysheba ... Ferdinand ... Easy Goer ... Risen Star ... Criminal Type ... Holy Bull ... Cigar ... Skip Away ... Silver Charm ... Free House ... Real Quiet ... Victory Gallop ... Artax ...?

Is that what you're saying?

Affirmed was no more a failure than Alydar. Which sons of Alydar carry on the line? Few and far -between make it as racehorse and sire-of-sires. I see neither as failures because each give us some marvelous runners.

Alydar was a marvelous sire of runners ... one of the best ever ... and far better than Affirmed ... but ...

... his sons have not done particularly well at stud ... and the Alydar male line may not be with us very long.

Actally, Alydar was a better broodmare sire than Affirmed.
Spectacular Bid was a disappointment.
Ack-Ack...well plenty of success with his progeny.

Now, ask the "expert" which ones he's bred his broodmares to.

So we agree.:D

You've been around long enough to know ... that it's always wise to agree with me.

Still waiting for this to be backed up with some facts.

She's supposed to be a pedigree "expert" ... and she calls my post "totally absurd" ... yet she cites not a single fact ... not a single piece of data ... not a single Lifetime AEI, SW%, CI, or any other statistic ... to back up her claim that the 67 champions I cited weren't failures at stud.

This happens all the time, my friends ...

No ... it's 67 Stallions ...

Question...

What is everyone determining as a "long string" of stakes winners? How many before a stallion is considered a success?

The basic rule of thumb for measuring success of sires of runners is ... 10% stakes winners AND a Lifetime AEI of 3.00 or more.

That combination indicates both quantity and quality. Having one without the other makes the success more marginal.

The greatest stallions had 20% stakes winners AND 5.00+ AEI. Bold Ruler had the all-time best numbers of 24% and 7.78.

An AEI of less than 2.00 and less than 4% stakes winners ... means abject failure. In-between numbers are very disappointing for champion runners as stallions.

Pedigree Annie doesn't have the guts to tell us the numbers of the stallions she says weren't failures.

The successful stallions are those that establish a successful male line. Right. So that lets out many of the leading US sires of the 20th Century - horses like War Admiral, Count Fleet, Round Table, Bull Lea, Blenheim II, et. al.

Siring RUNNERS is the measure of success of a stallion, not this male line obsession you seem to have. And several of the horses on your list did sire many graded SWs, even if you didn't notice. I listed for you once before the G1 winners sired by Chief's Crown and you dismissed them as irrelevant to his success as a sire, a position I found peculiar at best.

You made a great sweeping statement without a scintilla of proof - "these stallions were failures because I say they were." The burden is on you to demonstrate your assertions are true, not on me to refute them. Your audience here may not have the resources to check out what you write, but I do and felt it my responsibility to point out that your statement was your personal assertion and not a statement of the opinion held by most members of the breeding industry.

never said i bet horses BECAUSE of their pedigree.
just dont have a problem betting a VGallop horse.
they seem to be runners and competitive.


Repent

Aaah. Finally, you defined what you term successful, aside from that male line thing. So you are talking about elite stallions, the top 0.5% of the breed. The Northern Dancers, Storm Cats and Mr. Prospectors. Most people define successful more leniently - since the breed average for SWs is just under 3%, the accepted figure for a good sire is 6% SWs, anything above is doing well.

I find AEI without the inclusion of a measure of the mares' quality can be deceiving. For instance, from a 2006 stallion register, Grindstone has an AEI of 1.53 but a CI (Comparable Index for his mares produce from other matings) of 1.90, while Indian Charlie has an AEI of 1.86 and a CI of 1.46. Indian Charlie's offspring from his mares are generally better than their other produce, while for Grindstone it is the other way around. Storm Cat's figures are identical - his AEI and CI are both 3.72; his mares' offspring from other matings are just as good as their Storm Cats. This to me is eye-opening.

and siring a few stakes winners a year and nothing else is not the measure of a successful sire either.

and how the hell do you want VGallop, Free House or Holy Bull to establish a successful male line?
they have been at stud for less than a decade or are now dead.

Repent

What is AP Indy's AEI and CI?

I guess I just have a problem with the way you apply the term "failure." I admire the fact that you are attempting such a comprehensive list and are willing to take the time to argue against those that disagree with you on various points, and like I said in my original response I don't have a big problem with most of the sires you have on your list.
But how many of those other horses on your list sired seven multiple-G1 winners like Affirmed? There simply are not that many multiple-G1 winners out there, and I just don't feel that designating a horse that sires seven of them as a "failure" is exactly fair.
And it isn't like those were his only good runners either. He also sired graded stakes winniners Charley Barley, Buy the Firm, Mossflower, One From Heaven, I Thee Wed, etc. You seem to be saying that there are ONLY two options for a sire:
1) Establishes a dominant male sire line.
2) Failure.

To me it is a bit more complicated than that.
A horse that sires a considerable number of graded stakes winners is.....to me..... NOT a failure.