Dissident Ancestors
by Roger Lyons
The point of my last post was, in part, to suggest that certain dissident ancestors of broodmares pose special problems for stallion selection. They’re not carrying signs and throwing rocks, but the troublemakers assert themselves so forcefully that some seemingly well bred mares will have severely limited opportunity for a good match–or none at all.
I’ll just name three ancestors on my watch list: Graustark, Halo, and Nureyev. I’m not really sure about Nureyev. Let’s call him an ancestor of interest, but one can’t afford to be squeamish when rounding up suspected dissidents. You never know where a seemingly innocent association might lead. What these three have in common is that an unusually large proportion of stallions don’t like them very much. That’s enough to warrant indefinite detention on pedigree security grounds. If they’re innocent, let them prove it.
Never mind that in the right pedigree context those ancestors can have powerfully beneficial effects. Individual merit doesn’t count for much when a pedigree security interest is at stake.
According to eCompuSire, the online pedigree intelligence asset, six stakes winners worldwide are out of mares in descent of Graustark, Halo, and Nureyev within five generations. I’m afraid that’s not enough to establish their innocence. Even the most exculpatory evidence, such as a record of stakes production, readily turns against the perpetrators. Just watch.
The dam of Treasure (Anabaa ex Treasure Queen, by Kingmambo), winner of the Prix de la Vallee d’Auge in France, has Halo as the sire of her second dam, and she has Nureyev and Graustark by virtue of Kingmambo’s dam, Miesque.
The dam of Bottega (Mineshaft ex Sun Is Up, by Sunday Silence), winner of the Criterium du Languedoc in France, has Halo as the sire of Sunday Silence, and she has Nureyev and Graustark by virtue of her second dam, Miesque.
The dam of Sunday Sunrise (Lemon Drop Kid ex Sun Is Up [same dam as Bottega], by Sunday Silence), winner of the Veteran S. in New Mexico (must impose a travel ban), has Halo as the sire of Sunday Silence and has Nureyev and Graustark by virtue of her second dam, Miesque. Furthermore, Sunday Sunrise is by a son of Kingmambo, out of Miesque.
The dam of Indigo Cat (Storm Cat ex Bluemambo, by Kingmambo), winner of the Hampton Court S. in the UK, has Halo as the sire of her second dam and Nureyev and Graustark by virtue of Kingmambo’s dam, Miesque.
The dam of Air Zipangu (El Condor Pasa ex Air Passion, by Halo), winner of the Stayer S. in Japan, has Halo as her sire, Nureyev as her broodmare sire, and Graustark as the sire line of her second dam. Not incidentally, Air Zipangu is by a son of Kingmambo, whose dam is Miesque.
The dam of Link Man (Torreador ex Western Smoke, by Among Men), winner of the Gold Medallion (G1) and other group stakes in South Africa, is the only one among the dams of these six SWs whose contribution of Halo, Graustark, and Nureyev is not controlled in some fashion by Miesque–and in one case (Sunday Sunrise) inbreeding to Miesque. If you disqualify the five because they’re all mediated by one freakishly good broodmare, then what you have left is only one SW worldwide–a G1 winner, to be sure–to testify in defense of mares descending from all three of these ancestors.
By the way, eCompuSire is what you need when you haul an ancestor in for questioning. It’s the waterboard of enhanced pedigree interrogation techniques. See subscription details at the eNicks website–Products tab. Did I not mention that I have a personal stake in that product? Wouldn’t want to breach any ethical constraints.
Posted by Roger Lyons on Friday, March 18, 2011 at 4:38 am.
The Class Distribution
by Roger Lyons
Of the well over 15,000 winners of unrestricted North American stakes and blacktype-qualifying foreign stakes from 2001 through 2009, about 45% won a graded/group stakes during their careers. G1 stakes were won by about 13% of those stakes winners, and about 26% were G1 or G2 winners. Those three numbers–13%, 26%, and 45%–should be kept in mind when assessing breeding methods. That’s why the online eCompuSire facility, which is available by subscription at eNicks.com (after you sign in to eNicks), allows users to select lists of G1 winners, G1-2 winners, G1-3 winners, or all stakes winners when researching breeding methods. I don’t mind promoting mentioning that program because I designed it and benefit from subscriptions, just so you know.
Any stallion whose record of graded/group stakes production corresponds with those percentages is going to be very busy come breeding season. Stallions whose stakes production exceeds those numbers will bring in a lot more revenue for the effort while stallions that fall short will bring in less.
That’s obvious, but, just as these percentages indirectly determine the value of a stallion, they can and should be used directly in the assessment of breeding methods. I’ll go so far as to say that knowing how much opportunity a given breeding method has had pales by comparison with the importance of knowing the proportion of graded/group production among total stakes winners resulting from that method.
For example, the stallion Malibu Moon has had three-year-olds and older from 149 mares with Mr. Prospector in their ancestries, and only six of those mares produced SWs for him. It happens, though, that those SWs include three G1 winners–Declan’s Moon, Malibu Prayer, and Devil May Care–along with G3 winner Odysseus. That’s 50% G1 winners, 50% G1-2 winners, and 75% G1-3 winners. Class trumps opportunity every time.
Contrary to prevailing impressions, most methods of relatively close inbreeding yield graded/group distributions that fall well below the population norms of class. According to eCompuSire, 42 stakes winners to date have been inbred to Seattle Slew, including two G1 winners (Hollywood Starlet S. winner Turbulent Descent, by Congrats, the most recent), six G1-2 winners, and 12 G1-3 winners. That’s 4.8%, 14.0%, 28.6%–far below the 13%, 26%, 45% distribution in the stakes population as a whole. Does that mean inbreeding to Seattle Slew is a bad thing?
There are no absolutes. If you sort the list by “Pedigree” and look at individual sires, you’ll see that Tiznow accounts for four SWs inbred to Seattle Slew, two of them out of the same mare, including a G1 winner and two G2 winners. Hence, Tiznow’s class distribution is 25%, 75%, 75%. That’s very competitive with the 21%, 55%, 66% proportions for his overall stakes record, and Tiznow’s overall class distribution happens to be very close to that of Unbridled (29%, 46%, 61%), remembered as the consummate big-horse sire. That Tiznow can make a method of inbreeding look good doesn’t mean any stallion can.
Frankly, almost any breeding method you can think of will appear not very effective when assessed with indifference to the variety of pedigree contexts in which it has been applied; but, for almost all plausible breeding methods, conditions of possible effectiveness can be found. The norms of class I have described here provide a measure you can use, along with eCompuSire, to discover those conditions.
Posted by Roger Lyons on Monday, December 13, 2010 at 8:48 am.
• Permalink • Comments Off on The Class Distribution