Champions Who Failed As Stallions

Originally Posted by Bold Reasoning

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.

[Downthestretch55]

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.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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.

So we agree.

Originally Posted by Bold Reasoning

So we agree.

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

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

The list is "absurd" you say ... but ...

... of the nearly 70 horses on it ... you cite only 5 possible exceptions ... and provide no data ... none whatsoever ... to support your insipid ... as always ... assertions.

Hey Annie-Phonie ... why don't you cite their Lifetime AEI's ... or their SW% ... or their Broodmare CI's ... or their lists of successful sons at stud?

Huh ... huh ... huh? Or could it be .. once again .. that you're full of crap ... and haven't the slightest idea of what you're saying?

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 ...

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Maybe try and calm down. It's a horse racing board. This isn't life and death. She disagreed. Who cares? Why waste so much time on someone that you obviously don't care for? Shown up and exposed? What is this 60 minutes?

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

[Cajungator26]

Question...

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

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

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.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

How are they failures?

None of them even remotely came close to establishing a successful male line ... nor did any of them sire a long string of successful graded stakes winners ... that's how.

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.

[repent]

Originally Posted by Dixie Porter

If you're gonna bet horses because of their breeding you're gonna go broke sooner rather than later.

I spent 50 years, hands on, around MANY of the best horses that ever set foot on a race track. Never knew the breeding of even one of them.

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

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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..

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.

[repent]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

How are they failures?

None of them even remotely came close to establishing a successful male line ... nor did any of them sire a long string of successful graded stakes winners ... that's how.

Siring allowance winners that you cashed a bet on is not the measure of a succcessful stallion.

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

[sham]

What is AP Indy's AEI and CI?

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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

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.

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

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.

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

Originally Posted by miraja2

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.

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.

[Linny]

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.

Originally Posted by Linny

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.