Do you take pedigree into account?

And another thing that is not looked at closely is a lot of these stallions may produce graded winners, but how many donkey's? If you got a horse that puts off a very high % of good runners (not necessarily graded winners) v. donkeys (and a large number of total offspring), with many diff. mares including mares that are not highly reguarded... Then I am more apt to say there is clearly many genetic components that this sire has to put out good runners.

All I can say is I am glad people put so much emphasis on pedigree.

Pedigree is more important than any handicapping factor other than current form. I cannot imagine not taking it into account. BBB

[King Glorious]

Pedigree is the most overrated thing in racing if u ask me. Like, there are some that say that Smarty Jones got beat in the Belmont because of his pedigree. I think that's crazy. Pedigree is good as a HINT of something a horse might be able to do before they try it. But once they step on the track and show their abilities, the pedigree is useless. And it's especially silly, IMO, to not try certain horses at certain things simply because their pedigree suggests they may not like it. I say that u let the horses themselves show what they can and can't do before deciding. Pedigree is extremely overrated, IMO, and is NEVER a factor in my handicapping a race.

[pmayjr]

I agree with paisjpg-
It should be taken into account for first turf, and somewhat for maiden races.

But even in Maiden races, look at trainer stats with maidens, first-time starters, 2nd starts, etc etc more than the pedigree.

[sumitas]

Pedigree rules for first timers. For 3 year olds it says a lot about whether they can get a distance. Especially the Belmont.

Instead of just breeding the best with the best and getting a lot of crap, a serious mating produces a much higher rate of success. By serious I mean at least the first 5 gens and the linebreeding chart for 9 gens. A good student of pedigree can separate the wheat from the chaff in a lot of instances.

[Thunder Gulch]

Pedigree figures in my handicapping prominently for lightly raced horses and surface/ distance changes. Other than those specific situations, I give it only a glance.

I know too much about genetics to see the horrible fallacies associated with pedigree handicapping. If someday the horse genome is mapped and we got genes associated with particular traits that we know aid running ability in someway, then I would be more comfortable. Otherwise, crapshoot. You got to look at a horse doing what they are supposed to do, RUN. You dont need to know what granmammy did on the track unless you are desperate.

Again I believe this is a British Royality hold over pile o crap. My daddy was a Duke. So what.

I obviously love all things Slew, so I pay attention to just that line in terms of pedigree. Beyond that, I look at what the horse has actually done. It just so happens that two of the top horses are Slews, so it is rewarding for me personally; it is not rewarding financially, however. What can I collect on Bernardini and Lava Man!

[sumitas]

Originally Posted by Dixie Porter

HOGWASH and HOGWASH................

LOL, so you probably play the jockeys...to that i say BULLCRAP, LOL.

[Thunder Gulch]

The best thing about pedigree as a factor is that it is not used by the masses, so spot plays can bring better prices.

[2Hot4TV]

Now that polytrack is in your future you better learn how to spot good turf pedigree. I love it when the betters say they don't consider Pedigree, Jockey or Weights when they handicap a race.