Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
What people seem to forget is that racetrack success doesnt always translate into stallion success. It is one of the things that the 'medication is ruining the breed' types seem to forget. Just look at the 70's. Secretariat, Affirmed, and Spectacular Bid who all rank in the top 20 all time (maybe better) all were disappointments at stud .
|
I'm tired of hearing this. Secretariat was a darn good stallion; he sired 1) a Horse of the Year (Lady's Secret) 2) a Preakness/Belmont winner (Risen Star) 3) a Travers/Hopeful/Vosburg winner (General Assembly), 4) a Melbourne Cup winner (Kingston Rule), plus a good number of graded/group winners. As this recital indicates, Big Red was a stamina sire, however during his early stud career Claibourne and partners mated him as though he were a typical Bold Ruler son, with stamina mares. Only after his first 2yos got to the track did they realize their mistake and start to give him mares with a bit more speed (like Great Lady M.).
Affirmed was never expected to excell at stud by the Blood Grass elite breeders; he was by Exclusive Native, who was okay but not top drawer, while the damside was distinctly blue-collar. He was never given the top level mares, yet he still sired 1) a multiple US champion (Flawlessly), 2) a Canadian Triple Crown winner (Peteski), 3) classic winners (Trusted Partner, Bint Pasha), and numerous group/graded winners, including everyone's favorite, The Tin Dude. He, too, tended to produce horses who didn't excell at 2 on dirt tracks - most were better at 3 or older and on turf. That was a truly strange breeding result - a horse who never ran on turf and whose parents and grandparents never ran on turf should become an excellent sire of turf horses. Who can figure that one out?