The worst pedigree wins the Derby

This pedigree analysis is slanted as well. If a horse that is not supposed to get the distance and does, then one goes back and reanalayzes and finds that a distant relative did fine at distance. Yea, thats the ticket, that explains it.

And if a horse that by whoevers method, is supposed to get distance and turns out to be a sprinter, some go back, and find a sprinter somewhere in the line... ahhh yes, there it is, his great grandmother.

The really good tools to analyze this stuff with some degree of certainty are not here yet.

Every advertisment I look at for breeding in the DRF boasts about Grade I winner. Then the foals run poorly and the "new" horse now advertised by the breeder(farm) is one that had progeny that are grade 1 winners. Nothing about how many broke down, % that never even made it to the track, just the success stories. Quite amazing and so inexact. On most of these horses we have no idea what the rest of their foals have done

For those of you who remember Alvin Robertson, a very good basketball player, defensive allstar, apparently often in trouble with the law. His daughter plays on my daughters HS basketball team. Alvin was 6'3", a fantastic athlete. His daughter is 5'5". My daughter is 5'7", taller than my wife and I. Alldistrict as a 10th and 11th grader. Alvins daughter has not made it to the varsity yet. Genetics is a crazy thing.

I have read Dr. Romans site and it is a very noble attempt to put some rigorous statistical data together to try and make sense of a very difficult thing. So climbing on each others pedigree experts seems like a tenuous duty.

I have beat this to death in the past so I will stop. I will go with Somer's breed the best with the best (and I will add hope they have as little genetic background in common as possible) and hope for the best. The trouble is determing the best.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by pgardn

This pedigree analysis is slanted as well. If a horse that is not supposed to get the distance and does, then one goes back and reanalayzes and finds that a distant relative did fine at distance. Yea, thats the ticket, that explains it.

That is not what is going on here at all. If someone had come on here BEFORE the Derby and said that Street Sense had the worst 10f pedigree in the field, I guarantee you there would have been people (myself included) that would have set that poster straight.
Looking at pedigrees isn't like looking at a crystal ball. Sure there are plenty of horses that run in a manner contrary to what their pedigree indicates is likely. But Street Sense simply does not have a likely sprinter's pedigree. We are explaining that NOW - instead of before the Derby - only because now is the first time we have heard such insanity.
If people came on here now and said....."Did you know that Street Sense is part donkey?" I would explain to them that he was not. I wouldn't have explained to them that he wasn't part donkey before the race, simply because it never would have occurred to me that anyone would possibly think he was. See my point?

Originally Posted by miraja2

That is not what is going on here at all. If someone had come on here BEFORE the Derby and said that Street Sense had the worst 10f pedigree in the field, I guarantee you there would have been people (myself included) that would have set that poster straight.
Looking at pedigrees isn't like looking at a crystal ball. Sure there are plenty of horses that run in a manner contrary to what their pedigree indicates is likely. But Street Sense simply does not have a likely sprinter's pedigree. We are explaining that NOW - instead of before the Derby - only because now is the first time we have heard such insanity.
If people came on here now and said....."Did you know that Street Sense is part donkey?" I would explain to them that he was not. I wouldn't have explained to them that he wasn't part donkey before the race, simply because it never would have occurred to me that anyone would possibly think he was. See my point?

Yes. thats why I am waiting for the analysis before the Preakness.

[Linny]

Pedigree profiling is too general to apply to the Preakness, specifically. The reason for the discussion before the Derby is that a CD you are asking these colts to do something entirely new, stretch to 10f. Most of the Preakness runners will be exiting the Derby, so they have some sort of indicator of routing ability already.
Profiling for distance capacity is a broad study and not likely to say, colt A is better at 10f, colt B is better at 9 1/2. If a horse can win at 10f in G1 company, he may be expected to also be effective at 9 1/2.
In most cases the "new shooters" in the Preakness have already been 9f, so they are only being asked to move on 1/16, not a huge jump.

Pedigree analysis can lead to to see a certain capacity in a horse, ie. run 10f, handle mud etc. It cannot assure you that the horse is good enough to do it in certain company. Any horse can get 10f if you wait long enough. Cowtown Cat ran 10f last Sat. He just did it in about 2:30. Was it because he wan't bred for it, or just not good enough? For ages everyone talked about dosage and how well it "picked Derby winners." What they never mentioned was the tens of thousands of colts with the right dosage to win the Derby who were toiling in maiden claiming races or unstarted all together. They were bred for 10f but too slow to get there.

[Pedigree Ann]

I usually do work-ups of the Derby contenders' pedigrees before the event - that is how I got the nickname 'Pedigree Ann' on the late lamented Road to the Roses message board. Didn't have time to do it this year because I was busy remodeling my kitchen. (The backsplash is up! All I have to do now is grout it, finish the new switchplates and get them up, and it's done!)

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Yes. thats why I am waiting for the analysis before the Preakness.

Okay. Which Preakness starter should we discuss?

[Linny]

SS was Mike's third choice despite having been rated low on his pedigree profile.

HOw in hell could any of this possibly matter when there are three sires that start the entire breed? Maybe if you were talking female families I could see maybe, because there you have like 40 choices but no one seems to put all their stock on female families either.

[Linny]

Mike's profiles focus mostly on the female line.

[blackthroatedwind]

Mike Veitch is OK by me. He was a teacher in the Saratoga Junior High when I was a kid and I used to spend lots of time talking to him about racing. He's just another racing fan who helped ruin my life.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Linny

Mike's profiles focus mostly on the female line.

That's what doesn't make sense to me...Street Sense's dam, Bedazzle has seven reines-de-courses in her 5 generation pedigree! Hard to see how anyone who focuses on the dam side and the female influence in general could devalue that pedigree!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by easy goer

HOw in hell could any of this possibly matter when there are three sires that start the entire breed? Maybe if you were talking female families I could see maybe, because there you have like 40 choices but no one seems to put all their stock on female families either.

Those three foundation sires lived a long long time ago...many folks believe that one sire and one dam started the human line and yet genetics are considered important!

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Those three foundation sires lived a long long time ago...many folks believe that one sire and one dam started the human line and yet genetics are considered important!

No one believes that, dude. It's now called a "bottleneck" population. They no longer do the "Eve hypothesis." See R. Cann et al.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by easy goer

No one believes that, dude. It's now called a "bottleneck" population. They no longer do the "Eve hypothesis." See R. Cann et al.

Didn't say I believed it dude!