The Best Nick in the Belmont
by Roger Lyons
Master of Hounds (Kingmambo-Silk and Scarlet, by Sadler’s Wells) makes his third start of the year in the Belmont on Saturday, following his fifth-place finish in the Kentuck Derby, so he’s a relatively fresh horse, and he apparently travels well. So does his breeding.
His sire, Kingmambo, has at least one foal from each of 65 mares by Sadler’s Wells, and eight of those mares produced superior runners by him. It’s a simple nick to be sure, but it’s also very special. Besides Master of Hounds, that cross has yielded six G1 winners, including El Condor Pasa, Divine Proportions, Virginia Waters, Henrythenavigator, Thewayyouare, and Campanologist.
An actual cross is never quite as simple as its simple nick, which is why I like to consider a sire’s record with all of the potentially effective influences–for better or worse–that comprise a mare’s ancestry. That means compiling the sire’s superior-runner strike rates with all individual ancestors within six generations of the dam. On that basis, appropriate applications of the nick can be separated from those that are not.
With respect to Kingmambo’s record, the ancestry of Master of Hounds’ dam is all good. Through his 2008 crop Kingmambo has sired foals out of 48 mares with Lyphard in their ancestries–that’s her broodmare sire–and six of those mares produced stakes winners. The sire of her second dam is Irish River, with which Kingmambo has a strike rate of 2/20, one of those two being the dam of Master of Hounds. The other one was Sequoyah, also by Sadler’s Wells and the dam of both Henrythenavigator (G1) and Queen Cleopatra (G3).
That strike rate of 2/20 doesn’t seem encouraging until you consider the bigger picture. Kingmambo has sired foals out of only four mares that had both Sadler’s Wells and Irish River in their ancestries. Two of those mares account for Master of Hounds and two graded stakes winners, including the best one that’s come from the cross–Henrythenavigator. Thus, the strike rate of 2/20 can be reduced to 2/4.
Master of Hounds’ breeding doesn’t say definitively that he can handle the Belmont distance of 12 furlongs, but it’s not beyond the cross. El Condor Pasa and Companologist both won G1 races at that distance. He may not win, but Jackie and I aren’t going to let him take down our Belmont super.
Posted by Roger Lyons on Thursday, June 9, 2011 at 10:37 am.
• Permalink • Comments Off on The Best Nick in the Belmont
High Upside, High Downside Risk
by Roger Lyons
What do Lyphard, Fappiano, and Nureyev have in common? As ancestors of dams, each of these sires passes on respective traits that rub a lot of stallions the wrong way, but that contribute in favorable ways to the offspring of a lot of other stallions. We know this because of the high approval and high disapproval rates shown in the table of ancestor preferences for these three ancestors. In that respect, they represent a distinctive category of ancestors–a category for which stallion selection is faced with very high upside and very high downside risk.
Based on that table, there’s a 29% chance that a stallion whose name you pick out of a hat will have a higher-than-average strike rate with mares in descent of Lyphard; but there’s a 27% chance that a stallion chosen at random will have a lower-than-average strike rate with those mares.
Just a cursory look at the table suggests what a distinctive profile that is for an ancestor. Fappiano is similar, with a 27.5% approval rate and a 31% disapproval rate, and Nureyev has a 28% approval rate and a 26% disapproval rate. You can find other stallions with a similar profile. It’s not particularly rare, but it’s rarely this extreme.
In order for the stallion population to respond the way it does, the distinctive traits these three ancestors contribute–along with other ancestors of this statistical profile–would have to pass through to foals on a very consistent basis. Furthermore, in order to complement the contributions of a lot of stallions, but clash with the contributions of many others, those traits would have to be distinctive in character, but without being particularly idiosyncratic, as in the case of Graustark.
That much can be inferred from the numbers. As a numbers cruncher, I have no idea what traits are at issue in the contributions of Lyphard, Fappiano, and Nureyev and wouldn’t have the eye to discern them if they were pointed out to me. Still, the numbers say it’s something to consider.
Posted by Roger Lyons on Monday, March 7, 2011 at 7:48 am.