Champions Who Failed As Stallions

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

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.

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

[sham]

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.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

You snivelling, slimy, dodging liar ...
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.

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.

Originally Posted by miraja2

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 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.

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.

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

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by sham

What is AP Indy's AEI and CI?

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.

[sham]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

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

[repent]

interesting tread.

when is Leading The Parade entering stud?


Repent

[zippyneedsawin]

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

[slotdirt]

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.