"Do We Need a Sturdier Racehorse?"

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The thing that always baffles me is how the period of the 70's when there was an unprecedented jump in the number of horses produced always seems to escape people when they talk about the "weakening" of the breed. You dont have to be an expert to understand that the average horse in a foal crop of 60000 is "weaker" than the average horse in a foal crop of 25000. This is even more pronounced when you remember that the breed is selected, not naturally occurring. Lesser breeding stock was allowed into the gene pool in order to increase the numbers so dramatically.

This doesn't make sense at all to me.

The more breeding you do - the better your population should get over time.

Speed wins horse races - and early developing horses are always attractive to owners - that's what the market wants.

Lets say there's no purse money for winning or order of finish at all - and horses are simply asked to race 30 times a year with limited medication for three straight years under the same training program . If you use the 5% of males who best stand up to this type of program - and keep breeding them to a hundred mares each ... I doubt you'd see a weakening breed.

Horses, however slowly they run, who can simply answer the bell over and over without much medication aren't the ones rewarded to stand stud.

The ones rewarded to stud are the ones who are simply the standout performers and can run the fastest six or seven times a year - and do so with the aid of medication that is helpful to their performance.

Winning matters. If the sport was Commie run - the breed would be a whole lot tougher even if you're letting every single female who wasn't euthanized from racing into the gene pool.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

This doesn't make sense at all to me.

The more breeding you do - the better your population should get over time.

Not really, which is why Chuck used the word "average." In order to produce more foals, stock that was once considered unworthy of being bred was introduced. Once those inferior influences made their way in, the breed as a whole was weakened.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Not really, which is why Chuck used the word "average." In order to produce more foals, stock that was once considered unworthy of being bred was introduced. Once those inferior influences made their way in, the breed as a whole was weakened.

This makes no sense at all to me.

Maybe I'm in way over my head with a goofy subject like this - If these inferior influences that made their way in, were truly inferior influences, their offspring would still have no lasting impact on the breed going forward. They'd die out in all lines save the tail female line.

You're more apt to get better from a pool of 50,000 than 5,000 - and the best of the best will continue being bred to each other all the time.

The size of the foal crops have been trimmed significantly since 1986 - has this resulted in a better racing product and less weakened horses?

[Riot]

This doesn't make sense at all to me. The more breeding you do - the better your population should get over time.

That's a measurable quantity, the breeding boom has been looked at, and Chuck's right: If you breed 20,000 horses, and have 10,000 end up "race quality", breeding 35,000 horses doesn't get you any more race quality, it just gets you more crap on the bottom, because it's an increase in breeding lesser-quality animals, not best-quality. Weird but genetically true. Breed more = less quality (unless you go to genetic cloning)

[reese]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's a measurable quantity, the breeding boom has been looked at, and Chuck's right: If you breed 20,000 horses, and have 10,000 end up "race quality", breeding 35,000 horses doesn't get you any more race quality, it just gets you more crap on the bottom, because it's an increase in breeding lesser-quality animals, not best-quality. Weird but genetically true. Breed more = less quality (unless you go to genetic cloning)

I heard Bob Baffert radio interview some years ago (WE era)and he was asked to elaborate on this similiar issue.

Baffert's take was 50-75 years ago top pedigreed horses raced against each other a few times while the rest of while of the fields they competed against were inferior via a vis breeding. In those days, there were more inferior pedigreed horses racing against top horses THAN today.

Baffert stated that the breeding industry expanded...and your horse today(circa 2001) is racing against similarly pedigreed horses...a level playing field if you will. In the past, the top horses raced against a field of "inferior" bred horses more so than today's racer who faces competition of the same caliber.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by reese

I heard Bob Baffert radio interview some years ago (WE era)and he was asked to elaborate on this similiar issue.

Baffert's take was 50-75 years ago top pedigreed horses raced against each other a few times while the rest of while of the fields they competed against were inferior via a vis breeding. In those days, there were more inferior pedigreed horses racing against top horses THAN today.

Baffert stated that the breeding industry expanded...and your horse today(circa 2001) is racing against similarly pedigreed horses...a level playing field if you will. In the past, the top horses raced against a field of "inferior" bred horses more so than today's racer who faces competition of the same caliber.

I dont know how this could be determined since horses were bred and raced in such a different manner than they are now. There may be some truth to what he is saying but I have never heard this theory before. Stakes horses were far more likely to tune up in allowance races which may be wht he is referring to.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

This doesn't make sense at all to me.

The more breeding you do - the better your population should get over time.

Speed wins horse races - and early developing horses are always attractive to owners - that's what the market wants.

Lets say there's no purse money for winning or order of finish at all - and horses are simply asked to race 30 times a year with limited medication for three straight years under the same training program . If you use the 5% of males who best stand up to this type of program - and keep breeding them to a hundred mares each ... I doubt you'd see a weakening breed.

Horses, however slowly they run, who can simply answer the bell over and over without much medication aren't the ones rewarded to stand stud.

The ones rewarded to stud are the ones who are simply the standout performers and can run the fastest six or seven times a year - and do so with the aid of medication that is helpful to their performance.

Winning matters. If the sport was Commie run - the breed would be a whole lot tougher even if you're letting every single female who wasn't euthanized from racing into the gene pool.

Obviously breeding isnt an exact science but in trying to breed the best horses, mares and stallions were selectively chosen, matched and culled. Mares that had the credentials to breed but failed to have good foals were taken out of the population. Stallions that did not cut it stopped breeding.

When you stop being particular about not only the paper aspects of breeding but the physical aspects then you get an inferior product.

Obviously in the 70's there was a boom in both the racetrack business as winter racing in the North expanded and more and more trakcs were open and more races were run. As the population expanded, the overall quality declined. If the NFL expanded to 90 teams, don't you think the quality of the average player would decline?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Obviously breeding isnt an exact science but in trying to breed the best horses, mares and stallions were selectively chosen, matched and culled. Mares that had the credentials to breed but failed to have good foals were taken out of the population. Stallions that did not cut it stopped breeding.

When you stop being particular about not only the paper aspects of breeding but the physical aspects then you get an inferior product.

So - in theory - if they just took the 25 best stallions in the country and bred them among the 2,500 best and most qualified mares in the country ... breeding this pool of about maybe just 1,200 future horses to start in a race after careful culling and what not ... is going to lead to a stronger breed over time?

Of the 1,200 well bred suitable looking horses - you'll probably still get 1,197 complete turtles. All but maybe one or two of the males will be completely useless in breeding going forward. Breed 50,000 instead of 2,500 - and you'll be hitting a lot of unexpected touchdowns and hail marys all over the place... but for the most part, the same 25 most fashionable sires will still be getting the same pack of most choicy mares.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

So - in theory - if they just took the 25 best stallions in the country and bred them among the 2,500 best and most qualified mares in the country ... breeding this pool of about maybe just 1,200 future horses to start in a race after careful culling and what not ... is going to lead to a stronger breed over time?

On a simple basis without considering the long term inbreeding complications of only having 25 stallions, absolutely you would have a better and stronger breed.

And there would be a much higher % to race than 1200. You would be taking out of the population the mares that have trouble foaling or foal weaker babies or old mares which have trouble doing both.

I don't understand why you are having a hard time understanding that breeding flawed horses leads to more flawed horses.

During this time sure the top horses are still top horses but the better horses are now spread thin because there is so much more racing than there used to be. So the lesser horses are now mixing into the higher class tracks horse populations as the good ones are further spread out. It is similar to the average baseball pitchers becoming much lower in ability as the leagues expanded. When there was 16 teams and 4 man rotations were the norm you had approx. 64 major league starters. Now that there are 32 teams and because so many lesser pitchers are needed to fill out the rosters 5 man rotations are the norm. That means there are 160 pitchers who call themselves major league starters. Does that mean Roy Halladay is not as good as he should be? No. Does that mean we might have discovered a guy who may have never gotten a chance in prior years? Probably. But the average major league starter is absolutely not as good in 2010 as they were in 1960. The guy who would be considered ML avg is ranked 80th. In 1960 the average ML SP would be ranked 32. In other words the average guy now wouldnt have even been a starter in 1960.

[Sightseek]

If you pull up the TDN Magazine and look at the graphs, the stallions that one would consider the "best" are nowhere to be found on the list of stallions with progeny with the greatest amount of starts. So does the theory of allowing "flawed" horses in the gene pool really hold up? How does one define "flawed?"

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

If you pull up the TDN Magazine and look at the graphs, the stallions that one would consider the "best" are nowhere to be found on the list of stallions with progeny with the greatest amount of starts. So does the theory of allowing "flawed" horses in the gene pool really hold up? How does one define "flawed?"

One of the problems with stats is that the vast amount of context that must be considered is often not.

The current roster of stallions is not really relevant in discussing the rapid and large expansion of foal crops in the 70's. However to try to answer your question we have to point out several factors that make the raw numbers less than telling.

1. Fillies by expensive (best) stallions are almost never found running in the groups that likely produce the most starts, bottom level claimers. Because virtually every mare bred to a top stallion has residual value as a mare, they wont ever have a large number of starts as compared to lesser options. If you have a filly by AP Indy who has proven not to be stakes quality why would you continue to run her? If you have a filly by a $5000 stallion, high on the list, you dont have many other options and wont breed her until she can't earn on the track anymore. That doesnt prove that horse A is less hardy or durable than horse B despite horse b having many more starts.

2. Horses by those same stallions will generally have fewer options/fewer tracks to run at. A horse who is a 10 claimer can find that race at everytrack in the country. A horse who is a nw3 allowance horse will have far fewer opportunities, especially if they run long on the dirt.

3. By far the "flaw" mostly comes in the mare since they make up a huge percentage of breeding stock versus stallions. Mares that are really crooked. Mares that bleed. Mares that produce weak foals. Mares with poor breathing apparatus. Mares that dont have good pedigrees. Mares that are proven poor producers. Mares light on pedigree with poor race records. Mares with poor feet. Mares that are unusally small. Mares that are unusally large. Mares with mental issues. These are all examples of flaws. Obviously there are varying degrees for each issue.

Of course a mare with flaws can produce good horse. But the vast majority don't. But they do continue to pass on their physical and/or mental issues which isn't a good thing. The great breeders of yesteryear who's exploits have lived on were all adamant about culling their herds agressively. That just stopped happening in the 70's as the numbers exploded.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

3. By far the "flaw" mostly comes in the mare since they make up a huge percentage of breeding stock versus stallions. Mares that are really crooked. Mares that bleed. Mares that produce weak foals. Mares with poor breathing apparatus. Mares that dont have good pedigrees. Mares that are proven poor producers. Mares light on pedigree with poor race records. Mares with poor feet. Mares that are unusally small. Mares that are unusally large. Mares with mental issues. These are all examples of flaws. Obviously there are varying degrees for each issue.

Of course a mare with flaws can produce good horse. But the vast majority don't. But they do continue to pass on their physical and/or mental issues which isn't a good thing. The great breeders of yesteryear who's exploits have lived on were all adamant about culling their herds agressively. That just stopped happening in the 70's as the numbers exploded.

Yet everyone panics that the amount of mares bred in the last few years has gone down. (Understanding of course, that they are more considred with getting stud fees paid than the long term picture)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The great breeders of yesteryear who's exploits have lived on were all adamant about culling their herds agressively. That just stopped happening in the 70's as the numbers exploded.

Absolutely true, and something nobody talks about.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The great breeders of yesteryear who's exploits have lived on were all adamant about culling their herds agressively.

Like the Phippses did with Supercharger.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

On a simple basis without considering the long term inbreeding complications of only having 25 stallions, absolutely you would have a better and stronger breed.

And there would be a much higher % to race than 1200. You would be taking out of the population the mares that have trouble foaling or foal weaker babies or old mares which have trouble doing both.

I don't understand why you are having a hard time understanding that breeding flawed horses leads to more flawed horses.

During this time sure the top horses are still top horses but the better horses are now spread thin because there is so much more racing than there used to be. So the lesser horses are now mixing into the higher class tracks horse populations as the good ones are further spread out. It is similar to the average baseball pitchers becoming much lower in ability as the leagues expanded. When there was 16 teams and 4 man rotations were the norm you had approx. 64 major league starters. Now that there are 32 teams and because so many lesser pitchers are needed to fill out the rosters 5 man rotations are the norm. That means there are 160 pitchers who call themselves major league starters. Does that mean Roy Halladay is not as good as he should be? No. Does that mean we might have discovered a guy who may have never gotten a chance in prior years? Probably. But the average major league starter is absolutely not as good in 2010 as they were in 1960. The guy who would be considered ML avg is ranked 80th. In 1960 the average ML SP would be ranked 32. In other words the average guy now wouldnt have even been a starter in 1960.

You're still not making a lot of sense to me - at least not enough for a lightbulb moment.... but I will admit that this is a subject where I don't know much and a subject i have no feel for.

Still, the two most dominant stallions of the last 20 years are unquestionably Mr. Prospector and Storm Cat. It's getting to the point where you see their name somewhere in the pedigree of almost every promising horse.

Mr. Prospector was a speed-sprinter who would need to hail a cab to get 9 furlongs - let alone 1 1/4 miles.



He couldn't even get 8.5 furlongs in the Lexington on a loose and uncontested lead at Keeneland as a 2/5 favorite. His Derby Trial defeat at 3/5 going a mile - was a race where he pretty much stopped to a jog in the stretch.

Storm Cat was a very brilliant 2-year-old for one of the last trainers you'd ever expect to have a quick and early 2yo. He was a fragile horse and also one lacking in stamina.

I think the breed might be going where the market is taking it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You're still not making a lot of sense to me - at least not enough for a lightbulb moment.... but I will admit that this is a subject where I don't know much and a subject i have no feel for.

Still, the two most dominant stallions of the last 20 years are unquestionably Mr. Prospector and Storm Cat. It's getting to the point where you see their name somewhere in the pedigree of almost every promising horse.

Mr. Prospector was a speed-sprinter who would need to hail a cab to get 9 furlongs - let alone 1 1/4 miles.



He couldn't even get 8.5 furlongs in the Lexington on a loose and uncontested lead at Keeneland as a 2/5 favorite. His Derby Trial defeat at 3/5 going a mile - was a race where he pretty much stopped to a jog in the stretch.

Storm Cat was a very brilliant 2-year-old for one of the last trainers you'd ever expect to have a quick and early 2yo. He was a fragile horse and also one lacking in stamina.

I think the breed might be going where the market is taking it.

You are talking about particulars of a larger subject. This is like chapter 4.