You snivelling, slimy, dodging liar ...

... I cited 65 champions who were failures as stallions ... and you said my list was "totally absurd" ... and yet you're still dodging and dancing as you always do ... not producing a single fact or piece of relevant data ... not a blessed one ... to support your smear of me.

Yeah ... you're really a pedigree "expert" ... yet you can't back up your smear tactics with a single fact.

You're a phony and a creep ... and now it's evident to the entire membership of this forum. You know nothing ... you cheap poseur.

I provided three separate measures for evaluating a stallion's success ... sire of runners, sire of sires, and broodmare sire.

I provided the names of 65 stallions who failed to meet these criteria ... and you haven't provided a single piece of data on ANY of them ... not ONE

Please take the time to read all of my posts on this thread.

I identified three measures for evaluating the success of a stallion ... sire of runners, sire of sires, and broodmare sire.

For the "sire of runners" category ... there are several statistics which can be used to evaluate success ... the most important of which are Lifetime Average Earnings Index and %SWs.

For the "sire of sires" category ... it's fairly simple ... how many of the stallions sons meet the criteria for being successful sires of runners? There must ... of course ... be at least one son who is a successful stallion ... preferably three or four or more ... in order to conclude that a stallion was a successful sire of sires.

For the "broodmare sire" category ... there are also several statistics ... including Lifetime AEI of the daughters' runners ... Comparable Index (CI) which measures the earnings of the stallion's children relative to the offspring which the same mares produced with other stallions ... and %SWs from the daughters' children.

If you look up Affirmed's results in these categories ... you'll find that he had minimal success as a sire of runners, and virtually none as a sire of sires ... or as a sire of brodmares.

As much as we all love Affirmed for his brilliance and determination as a race horse ... (I made an Affirmed T-shirt which I wear every year at Saratoga) ... the cold, hard facts tell us beyond a doubt ... that he was unsuccessful as a stallion.

So if a stallion doesn't do ALL those things, he's failed? As PA mentioned, you seem to be expecting the other 99.5% of the breed to either live up to the elite stallions level or be subject to ridicule.
By your standard for success, only about .5% of the stallions out there should be allowed to breed. After all, why breed to a "failure?"

Many stallions who have lead sire lists have not established a male line, nor become star broodmare sires. Many great broodmare sires have not established a male line, Princequillo comes to mind. A precious few stallions ever establish their own "line."

Having spoken with some pretty high end breeders about stallions I can say BB that you have some extremely high standards. Higher than many who have actually been breeding champions for decades.

I've never said that a stallion must do ALL of those things.

For example ... Secretariat was NOT a failure as a stallion. As a sire of runners ... his Lifetime AEI was just a shade below 3.00 (successful) and his %SW was about 7% (reasonably successful). As a broodmare sire ... he had much greater success ... as his daughters produced many top runners and ... even more important ... several very successful stallions. As a sire of sires ... he was a complete disaster ... all of his sons were monumentally unsuccessful as stallions.

So ... on balance ... Secretariat was successful ... (very good sire of runners ... very, very good broodmare sire ... disastrous sire of sires) ... even though he didn't do well in every category.

I hope that addresses your concerns.

Let's take a look at the other end of the spectrum ... a stallion who was a total disaster ...

... sorrowfully ... that was Coaltown.

He did not sire a single stakes winner ... not a one ... and needless to say ... none of his sons was a successful stallion ... and none of his daughters was a successful broodmare ...

... despite the fact that he was a brilliant runner, very well bred, beautifully conformed ... and given every opportunity to succeed.

That ... of course ... was the very gist of this thread. I was pointing out to our young and unknowing colleague ... that there are no guarantees of success as a stallion ... regardless of the surface qualifications of the stallion prospect.

BB,

We had polite correspondence about what I expect here in terms of respectful interaction with others.

You can't comply obviously, and have invited this all day..

Take a break for a few days (72 hours). If you can't treat others with a modicum of decency, I don't want you here. Nor do others who, like I, find your badgering of Pedigree Ann reprehensible.

As I've stated before, I don't care what passed or passes for fair game or interaction anywhere previously.

I SIMPLY WON'T ALLOW PEOPLE TO TREAT OTHERS THIS WAY HERE.

I'm getting tired of making this clear...

IF ANYONE DOESN'T CARE FOR THE WAY I BELIEVE MEMBERS SHOULD TALK TO ONE ANOTHER, THEN FIND SOMEWHERE ELSE TO SPEW YOUR INVECTIVE. IT WON'T BE HERE.

Steve

Great sires or no different than great race horses. To borrow the words of Slew's own trainer Billy Turner...you can't buy'em, you can't breed'em...they just show up.

Bold Brooklynite is without a doubt one of my favorite posters on this board. He is a great writer, generally knows a lot, and is HIGHLY entertaining. If he leaves for good....I will miss him.

That being said....I think Steve was absolutely right to penalize him for comments like those I quoted. He and PA have a history of disagreeing....which is fine, but BB does not seem to see the difference between PA's criticism of his list, and his decision to resort to childish name-calling. That is unfortunate.

I find it hysterical when I read the breeding column by yet another of these pedigree "experts" in the DRF before a big race. They basically write how "well bred" the main contenders are. Its so funny to me because they will resort to anything to justify the breeding on the pedigrees. Whether its the mare, the sire, a 4x4 cross, or going back 75 years to a foundation mare way back in the pedigree. Gee, thats really "sharp".
Last year before the Remsen and Demoiselle, two grade twos run at Aqueduct on Thanksgiving weekend each year, one of the "all knowing pedigree columnists" wrote a column on these races. Because they are the first graded stakes run for two year olds on the dirt going a mile and an eigth each year, it was supposed to be riveting stuff. We were gonna be told who was gonna be a contender off the bloodlines.
So the "pedigree analysis" for the Demoiselle is written by this expert, and every horse in the field of 5 is written up as having justification to win the race except one. The one who received no write up of the 5 horses won easily. Her name was Wonder Lady Anne L. Gee, I guess a daughter of a sire beaten a nose for the triple crown had absolutely no right to wanna go two turns huh? She went on to win a grade one at a mile and a quarter as well.
I find it laughable, all of it.
Everyone can tell who is "bred" to go a route of ground. But those other "minor factors" like who trains them, their running style, how sharp they are in their CURRENT form, and the pace scenario for that particular race tend to decide outcomes, not pedigrees.

I agree with what Steve is doing here. Hes also helping us to expand our vocabulary and writing skills. Its ok for someone to berate what someone does, so long as you don't call them names.
We are know challenged to raise our argumentative and debating skills to reply without calling them a moron or an idiot. You have to express the same thing without using those words.

Why is there no mention of Seattle Slew and his best son at stud A.P. Indy? I don't get it.:confused:

According to my 2006 Blood Horse Stallion register, his AEI was 3.16 and his CI was 4.20, which means he is getting a lot of really good mares, ones who had already produced major winners by other stallions, or would in later seasons. When you start seeing CIs as high as 4,5,6, it is very hard for the stallion to improve the mare's offspring and the very best he can do is to keep pace with them.

Thanks for the reply. My favorite sire is Dynaformer. I wonder what he might have done with the high quality mares that were sent to AP Indy.

Dynaformer
Avg Earnings Index….. 2.19
Comparable Index ..…..1.72

interesting tread.

when is Leading The Parade entering stud?


Repent

Gee, I haven't had power for 3 days and look what I miss. Anything been going on? ;)

Um, how has Affirmed not been a successful sire of broodmares? That's one of the most preposterous opinions I've ever heard. Is being ranked consistently in the top 20-30 damsires by earnings not a successful broodmare sire? Serious question.