JB,
Sorry, but one more topic that is not TG related by horse racig in general.
Anybody have any theories as to what is happening to the quality of racing in the U.S.? Travers day, the four stakes races totaled about 22 starters. This weekend on one of the Belmont Fall Championships weekends, we got a 3 entry Woodward, a four horse turf race, a five horse turf race, a six horse Jerome and one true full field in the Man O\'War. The BC Classic looks awful this year, at least for now. is there really any interest in guessing if Roman Ruler or Flower Alley can get fast enough overnight to beat Saint Liam? Who here wouldn\'t love to see and wager on an Afleet Alex - Saint Liam match? Even Bellamy Road or Commentator in the race would add intrigue, even if you hate those horses as one dimensional speeds. The former is out and the latter will be out shortly, is my guess. Who are your top sprinters this year? Woke Up Dreaming will be the favorite off the 4 month layoff? Where is Extra Heat, Safely Kept, or some other interesting entries.
It just seems that the racing product in general this year is really lower quality than usual. I know that those in the industry probably believe that gamblers don\'t care about the product and will bet no matter who runs, and maybe that is true in some cases. But there are other things to gamble on. I, for one, will be spending more time and discretionary gambling on football than horses this fall as long as they continue to churn out inferior products.
Any theories as to why this is the case (assuming you agree that the product is not as good this year because of small fields)
1. I have heard theories about the way that we breed horses in the U.S. now (speed over speed with no thought to stamina or endurance) has adversely affected the fragility of the horses.
2. It also seems that the prices for yearlings and stud fees is going up. I think Class once said on this board that he felt that as long as the prices keep going up, it doesn\'t pay for owners to race their horses. Win one or two key races with a well bred colt and then it makes economical sense to retire them.
3. We don\'t see the same problems in Europe, at least according a few friends mine that bet in the U.K. They claim to have full fields and competitive races in most of their stakes offering, yet they also have a very healthy breeding industry. Any reason for this difference?
4. Is racing on dirt so much more stressful than turf, which is why all of our stars retire early with minor injuries?
Anyway, it is frustrating. At closing weekend at Saratoga, I was talking to Michael D. from this board after the Forego when Forest Danger ran a poor race. He thought he was a bet back in the next race, figuring he might not have been ready to run 7 furlongs, as he was originally pointed for a 6 furlong race. I said, \"probably true, but I bet we see the retirement announcement within a week\". Six days later it was on DRF.com. He was a very fast horse, won a few nice races, had one bad race and a minor injury and he is retired. That is the MO for racing right now.
Jim
jimbo,
I still think #2 is at least part of the problem (probably along with the other things you mentioned). Given the prevailing prices, it must make economic sense to retire any high level horse once there is a setback. Otherwise, they would try to bring them back. If I had to guess though, I think market forces will eventually correct any pricing excesses - at least to some degree. I know others have pointed out that owners don\'t care as much about losses as in other industries, but there has to be a point at which things are so out of balance the losses aren\'t as easily absorbed or sensible given the intangible benefits.
No matter how you slice, racing is going down hill when you have 3 betting interests in the Woodward and one of them is bugs bunny and his friend.
I have no problem with general discussions about the industry, especially intelligent ones. I have no problem with the occasional mention of other handicapping theories, especially the (unusual) intelligent ones. I have a problem with repetitive and self absorbed posts filling my board, especially when they involve handicapping theories built on assumptions we don\'t accept, that I then have to deal with, or let stand, in which case they multiply and become what this board is all about.
There are lots of reasons for smaller fields, especially in stakes. To name a few--
1-- Multiple choices of spots, combined with increasingly easy transportation. Shaniko scratches to go at Turfway this weekend, where he\'ll be favored, for a big purse.
2-- Major changes in training styles, involving more time between races, intended to get a higher percentage af big efforts. Zito and Dutrow are giving horses lots of time between races, skipping the obvious big money spots-- it would have been unheard of in the past to skip the Gold Cup with a horse that would be the favorite.
3-- Today\'s super horses are running so fast they are more susceptible to injuries. Forest Danger runs crazy fast, and gets laid up.
Some blame for the seemingly shorter fields this year may rest with the Mare Reproductive Loss Syndrome outbreak in Kentucky in 2001. I believe over 3,000 pregnancies were terminated due to this, and there were losses of weanlings as well.
Certainly the roots of the problems of short fields and fragile horses run deeper than MLRS, but the fact is a not-insignificant number of potential racehorses were lost that year.
TGJB said
\"Today\'s super horses are running so fast they are more susceptible to injuries. Forest Danger runs crazy fast, and gets laid up\"
As usual, your opinion only.Horses break down jogging,walking, taking bad steps,etc. You think horses are running faster, so I quess if they were running \"slower\", they wouldn\'t break down as much.Not even CLOSE!!.
Miff Insane comment with the results of the horses that ran superhorse times and figures this year.
Rando,
You are clueless. There is no evidence that horses break because they ran big figs,PERIOD.
\"2-- Major changes in training styles, involving more time between races, intended to get a higher percentage af big efforts. Zito and Dutrow are giving horses lots of time between races, skipping the obvious big money spots-- it would have been unheard of in the past to skip the Gold Cup with a horse that would be the favorite.\"
Has anyone actually calculated whether you get a higher return on investment by producing a higher percentage of big efforts?
You would think that would be the important issue to owners.
Maybe a few extra bounces mixed in with a few extra 2nds and 3rds and an occasional extra win earns more money on average. I see no reason you couldn\'t sort of mix and match a campaign to both aim for a peak for a specific race and then run more often once the goal is met.
Plus, there\'s nothing in Zito\'s record to indicate to me that he gets more consistent performances or more even development from his horses. That\'s one of the things I dislike about him. Frankel/Pletcher, on the other hand, do seem to, but many attribute that to other factors.
I don\'t know, it seems the injuries that occur walking and jogging are many times likely to be from defects that occurred when running hard. Pretty sure Alex\'s injury was such and had they galloped or jogged him and he broke down badly they\'d say the gallop did it when it was just the final bit of stress.
Regarding Forest Danger, he\'s retired now. TGJB mentioned laid up. He's gone. Maybe he meant laid up in the past from running hard and that's probably true. His entire career was at Hallandale and Aqueduct. On old Hallandale he wasn\'t quite the speedball. On New Hallandale and the spring Aqueduct surface he was very fast. But those strips were other worldly the times he smoked them.
They resurfaced Hallandale and Medallist set a track record in the Deputy Minister. A few days later Forest Danger busted it by over a full second. Clearly a fast horse, but how much was horse and how much was new surface and perhaps even timing? Still don\'t believe that turf world record set by a second cut animal.
Medallist and Forest Danger were very closely matched animals. In the Carter, if Medallist doesn\'t have to chase Don Six, he may win. At the very least its much closer and it was close. When I was attending Thorograph seminars the impact of loose speed upon otherwise the fastest horse was stressed in each seminar. I think I still have my TGraph Videocassette here somewhere and I\'m about sure loose pace is discussed on it. Maybe they have gotten away from pace in the form of loose speed being a factor. Maybe thats why I dont understand the criticism of Classhandicapper. That said, this is TGraphs board and you certainly can understand them not wanting their principles to be relegated to lesser standing by domination of concepts their principles are set up to supervene. The Rags wouldn\'t allow talk upon their board that track speed changes race to race upon moisture vacillation. Their principle is, or at least was, the track is constant for variant but for two turns and observable natural phenomena. Think they\'d tolerate a debate upon that? Not likely.
So why are the Wood Day horses running bad since Wood Day? Is it because they ran too fast for their own good or is it because the track was concrete, or both? If Don Six goes down we won\'t have to discuss it any more, they\'ll all be gone.
But the issue is just how crazy fast he was? miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB said
>
> \"Today\'s super horses are running so fast they are
> more susceptible to injuries. Forest Danger runs
> crazy fast, and gets laid up\"
>
>
> As usual, your opinion only.Horses break down
> jogging,walking, taking bad steps,etc. You think
> horses are running faster, so I quess if they were
> running \"slower\", they wouldn\'t break down as
> much.Not even CLOSE!!.
>
Many of the horses recently retired/laid up were not that sound to begin with, as is the case with MOST horses. Of course it doesn\'t HELP a horse to run big time stressful figs, but I owned a few \"slow fig\" garbage cans that broke down running 10\'s.
Of course it doesn\'t HELP a horse to run big time stressful figs, I agree with this comment. Also most of Mike Gill bunch which jumped 6 to 12 point under his ownership and \'HELP\" now are strugling to compete whether it was the help that is now gone or the stress of over exertion we \'ll never know.
Rando and Miff:
Part of the relation of high TGs and Beyers to the rate of attrition is that the assignment of these spectacular #s (ie Bellamy Road\'s Wood-- Negative 5 TG, 120 Beyer) contributes to the overvaluation of these phenoms as potential stallions. Once overvalued, they are more likely to be retired prematurely. (Here I go again Miff) When BR retires to stud, he will be advertised as the fastest 3YO ever based on his Wood #s. As JB has said in the past, its all about perception.
One of the most imaginative solutions regarding the attrition in the handicap/ stakes races was presented in DRF or Blood Horse a few months ago. The proposal was that syndicates be formed (and this is where it got convoluted because racetrack ownership would be involved) to buy expensive colts and geld them immediately, looking for the next Kelso, Forego or John Henry.
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rando and Miff:
>
> Part of the relation of high TGs and Beyers to
> the rate of attrition is that the assignment of
> the these spectacular #s (ie Bellamy Road\'s Wood--
> Negative 5 TG, 120 Beyer) contributes to the
> overvaluation of these phenoms as potential
> stallions. Once overvalued, they are more likely
> to be retired prematurely. (Here I go again Miff)
> When BR retires to stud, he will be advertised as
> the fastest 3YO ever based on his Wood #s. As JB
> has said in the past, its all about perception.
Thats pretty funny Richie. I recall reading Beyers Figure making book and how he didn\'t fully appreciate Secretariat\'s Belmont number until the night he sat down with his Scotch and made the speed figure. It came out to either 124 or 128 is my recollection.
Agree that theres been some monster figure horses recently that are far overvalued upon the speed figure perception. Ghostzapper most recently.
I think TGJB has too much integrity to play an assign top figure and endorsement for season game, but not as sure about the other guys.
> One of the most imaginative solutions regarding
> the attrition in the handicap/ stakes races was
> presented in DRF or Blood Horse a few months ago.
> The proposal was that syndicates be formed (and
> this is where it got convoluted because racetrack
> ownership would be involved) to buy expensive
> colts and geld them mmediately, looking for the
> next Kelso, Forego or John Henry.
Got to think the foregoing was tongue in cheek...lol
Have you noticed the yearling prices at Keeneland? They are obscene. Theres no end to this. The breeding industry is alive and well. On second thought Jerry.
Just can\'t see paying that kind of money. Biggests sale horses before that were:
Seattle Dancer 13.1 million, earned 152K on track. Very Well bred and has sired a good number of stakes winners including Pike Place Dancer (Won Kentucky Oaks) Stands in Germany now.
Snaafi Dancer 10.1 million, unraced, sired four total foals that accomplished nothing.
Storm Cat-Welcome Surprise 8 million yearling of 2004, purchased by FuPeg FuSham Fusaichi. Unraced, unheard of
FuSham himself for 4.5 million (Guess FuShams owner thinks every 4 million FuPeg purchase is gonna turn out as lucky) Maiden win, allowance loss, vanished. Still, think he made 45 million on the FuPeg deal so hes got some in the black to burn.
And Now,
Storm Cat-Tranquility Lake 9.7 million
and
Storm Cat-Secret Status 6.3 million
The Storm Cats are going like hotcakes. Man, hes a fiery sire granted. But if you\'re trying to race a Triple Crown Classic or Breeders Cup Classic horse you can get 20 times the chance for less than one twentieth the money.
He did get Tabasco Cat
Cat Thief was a decent horse, made of iron, still think bias carried him to his Classic Victory at Hallandeale
Then theres Giant\'s Causeway. Still not sold on that one. Has to suspect hes way overvalued as far as a U.S. Influence.
Its the rackiest of rackets
Jerry,
Points 1 and 2 make sense. Point 3 doesn\'t make sense to me. Let me explain. I don\'t want to re-write what you already wrote about all the reasons that horses are getting faster here, but let me cover a couple. I think you said it was evolution, similar to the fact that humans are getting faster, if you look at the human records for running, swimming, jumping, lifting, etc.etc. They are all broken all the time, as we have advances in training, nutrition,etc. Horse generations \"turn over\" faster than we do, so there have been more generations of horses in the past 30 years, than say humans. So this evolution would be more rapid. You also mentioned advances in medicine. All of these advances shouldn\'t make horses more brittle. You say they are running so fast, they are more likely to get hurt. Why? The \"norm\" for horses is now faster than it was 30 years ago for mostly natural reasons, like those previously mentioned (nutrition, training methods, medicine, evolution). So, all classes of horses are getting faster. Not just the super horses, but I would guess that the 20 claimers now are much faster than 30 years ago, the allowance horses, etc.etc.
My point is that if it is natural that horses are getting faster, than it should not have a negative impact that they are more easily hurt. Are humans more brittle now that we run sub 4:00 miles or sub 10 second 100 m dashes? No, the breed is just faster.
CTC:
No implication on my part that fig makers are willing participants in the overvaluation of breeding stock, or that they receive any quid pro quo for the assignment of high #s.
Rich,
I may be wrong but the Sheiks do not buy perception,they buy bloodlines, conformation and race record.
Miff
...all of which they will conveniently disregard if they see a 2YO who works an eighth of a mile in less than 11 seconds at a 2YO in training sale..
Between driving up the price of racehorses, and then bringing the ones they buy for the most part to Europe and Dubai, I think its fair to identify the \"Dubai Brothers\" as a part of the problem when it comes to the lack of quality racehorses at the upper levels of the sport in this country.
Speaking of the \"Shifty Sheiks\", I am looking forward to to taking a pretty strong stand AGAINST Godolphin\'s Ruler\'s Court in Belmont\'s feature Wednesday. He will be largely overbet due to the presence of JD Bailey and his tour de force performance (TG # 0, Beyer 102) in the Norfolk Stakes, a race which was run nearly 2 years ago. One of my stabs will be with Marylou Whitney/ D Wayne runner Storm Legacy who was eased in his last at Spa, but has run to a \"1\" twice, once at Belmont.
Richie, you are on top of the entries.
I tend to agree with your assessment of the shieks. I think that they are just as prone to being influenced as everyone else. Perhaps more so, because they have the deep pockets.
This particular sale they seem to be after Storm Cats. For the life of me I can\'t recall any Cats that have run recently as classic threats. Storm Cat is beginning to get a little long in the tooth and his earnings have fallen off a bit the last couple years as well as a drop in his percentage of stakes winners.
if I\'m not mistaken. (which admittedly are both still high)
He\'s a fabulous speed sire. No one can contest that. Whether his are sound and really want ground is another issue. The only one I can recall running on was Cat Thief. He must have been made of Titanium.
Heres a list of the sire and grandsire winners of the Derby for as far back as I can recall without a reference. You can do the same for the Preakness and Belmont and what you\'ll find is Classic horses can come from anywhere, but that they rarely come from Storm Cat.
Mr. Prospector got a winner in each of the Classics. He however had much greater impact in pedigrees where his distance limitations and unsoundness were crossed with horses to offset those liabilities. Don\'t grill me about FuPeg. I still can\'t figure that one out.
Holy Bull/Great Above
Elusive Quality/Gone West
Distorted Humor/49er
Our Emblem/Mr Prospector
Maria's Mon/Wavering Monarch
Mr Prospector/Raise a Native
Summer Squall/Storm Bird
Quiet American/Fappiano
Silver Buck/Buckpasser
Unbridled/Fappiano
Gulch/Mr. Prospector
Cormorant/His Majesty
Polish Navy/Danzig
At the Threshold/Norcliffe
Alydar/Raise a Native
Fappiano/Mr. Prospector
Halo/Hail to Reason
Caro/Fortino
Alydar/Raise a Native
Nijinsky II/Northern Dancer
Buckaroo/Buckpasser
Oh No..then why are Rag#\'s assigned to Thorogbred Times Stallion Directory Books?
Just curious about that..since we are talking about it.
NC Tony
Not so sure the analogies make much sense in that while you chose track stars for you purpose, what about footbal players or baseball players who seem to be injured more often than their predecessors due to increased speed and stregnth?
I think we need to keep this to horses. Harness Horses are not facing the same fate as TBred\'s and they most certainly have gotten faster than Tbreds over similar periods (can be proven by on track speed and records broken over past 10 years). I think it\'s the breddeing of speed over speed, and lack of overall endurance conditioning. We are training them to go fast for a shorter period of time. (Back to Human analogies) Sprinters are hurt much more often than endurance runners. I thought Tim Ritchie bringing back some old school training was on track to maybe change things, but even Alex got hurt, thus his detractors remain with amunition.
Anyway This year edition of the Classics will be or rather poor quality excpet Distaff, Sprint, and Turf. Classic will be won by the one who is coming into the race in best shape/condition. Everyone else is hurt or on the DL.
Bottom line, it\'s a business and economics will always win. ROI and CASH FLOW is KING.
NC Tony
Here\'s some of the latest prices.
http://www.drf.com/news/article/68536.html
I would love to see Sheikh Mohammed al-Maktoum\'s operating results from his thoroughbred purchases. I\'d be willing to bet he is getting buried in a very deep sea of red ink.
This has been my point. If someone is willing to pay these kinds of prices for yearlings, then naturally those prices will help support higher prices for stallions. That in turn helps tilt the economics of racing vs. retirement towards retirement.
Setting aside the intangible benefits of horse ownership that make normal business principles (like an adequate return on invested capital) only partially applicable, there will have to point where even guys like this conclude that they are overpaying. Perhaps that\'s not true of the sheiks because they have more dollars than God without the \"sense\" to match. But at the margin, IMO other bidders will back off when the losses pile up past a certain point.
Mohammed rode to heaven on a horse. None of what they do has anything to do with economics. HP
Did Mohammed ride a slow New York Bred Rat to heaven or a horse running negative figs? If the NY bred slow rat, he may not be there yet.
I don\'t think they bought too many New York Breds back then either. HP
Jimbo-- evolution isn\'t really accurate. If it were only that, the species (both human and equine) would evolve in a lot of ways, and the bones, tendons etc. would evolve along with the muscles. But what is happening is that market forces are driving the advances in just one area (ability, or speed), while ignoring soundness. Weight training, supplements, etc are generally designed to just increase muscle mass (and other performance aspects) in humans, and the equivalents in horses. When you get muscles too strong for the support system you get (from my era) Koufax and Mantle. And really fast, unsound horses.
My own opinion, and it comes in part from dealing with a lot of horses and top trainers over the years, is that many injuries are caused by the stress of running too fast, but it\'s not always a simple, direct cause and effect. Sometimes a big effort can cause a horse to feel pain (minor injury, muscle soreness etc.) and alter his stride in subsequent works or races. Given the huge amounts of weight loads landing on small areas and the complex mechanics of the racehorse, a slight change can have disastrous effects-- the same thing happens when pitchers alter their deliveries because of an injury.
One of the things Jon Forbes told me is when you find an injury, look elswhere to see if it happened because the horse was trying to \"get off\" (not put weight) somewhere else. That guy is a very good trainer, by the way-- one of the very best, if not the best, horsemen I ever dealt with. The Maryland guys in general are really good pure horsemen.
Thanks Jerry.
Is that the same John Forbes who trained a lot at Monmouth and had Tale of the Cat?
Yes. Back when I was running Dennis Heard\'s stable (back at Ragozin) we had had success with Leatherbury, and asked him for recommendations of a young Maryland guy for a Jersey trainer. He gave us 3 names, we met John at the Meadowlands one night and were impressed. He moved to Jersey went on to win about 15 training titles, and became head of the HPBA there, I think.
Miff I don\'t think you can find a better statement than this post by Jerry ,interested in your comments.
Rando,
For the most part I agree with what Jerry says especially that horses sometimes try to compensate for \"ouchiness\" by changing leads to try to get \"off\" the pain or they may bear(in or out) or become rough gaited.Another example is that habitual bad breakers are frequently \"off behind\".Their are many anatomical issues which come in to play when horses run their eyeballs out.
I differ that horses who run \"very fast\" are more prone to these problems than say a hard trying ouchy/lame one who is slower but lays is all on the line each time.Just remember that 90%(or more) of all horses have some soundness issue even if the connections do not admit it.Jerry sort of said it but more to the point, race horse were NOT made/created to have someone on their back banging, slashing, and urging them to their limits.It\'s amazing to me that many more do not break down whether they run negatives or 10\'s.
Miff I agree with your post. One area that hasn\'t been fully explored is the condition of AQU. and Gulfsteam track that produced these stratospherfic figs. I was in the stakes barn after the Preakness and was told by an employee of Frankel that he was going to Fairgrounds not Florida next spring. I asked why and the answer was the surface. I guess now we will never know about that statement
Jerry\'s post hit on the salient issues.
Speed has been stressed in Breeding. Danzig, Mr. Prospector, Storm Cat. (Many others of course) These were phenomenal quick footed horses, but they were unsound horses as well.
The unsound speed bred horses have been further advantaged by cutting the traditional distance of races back and increasing the spacing between them to allow their weaker constitutions to prevail and to recover.
Add to that drugs have come into play that allow unsound horses to run when they wouldn\'t have been able to run in the past. (Lasix, Bute) Then add to that equation the performance enhancing drugs that push stamina challenged horses a little further than their constitutions would otherwise allow them to go.
Lastly, the weakly bred but precocious horses that achieve in this scenario are rewarded with a large chunk of the genetic influence of the breed through the breeding farms. (Storm Cat for instance)
Its a recipe for weakening the breed. All you have to do is look at the average number of starts for the sires and how much time is needed between efforts now to recover.
When I hear people arguing for increasing the spacing of the Triple Crown races I chuckle. Sure they can do that, but what will they be left with?
The best way to fight off the destruction of the animal is to race long. That will require that the breeders breed long and horses that are bad for the breed like Mr. Prospector and Storm Cat will have less influence because they will get fewer mares and command lower prices. Point Given, Easy Goer, Afleet Alex...they won their Belmonts by large margins because the small edge a superior horse has at 9 marks is accentuated at 12. This is how you fix the breed.
Also stringent drug testing is critical to making sure its genetics and horsemen that win races. Not medications and trainers.
the breed changed. horses are designed to run much quicker than they used to. they have lower legs with no muscle. they put more pressure on their spring like, but fragile tendons. exceptionally fast horses just put too much pressure on their legs to stay sound for an extended period of time. spacing between races, along with medicine, is the only thing keeping these animals going.
Has anyone actually done any comparison studies on the breed in terms of conformation, size, weight, etc.... ?
When I watch the races from the 40s etc... it seems to me the best horses don\'t stride out as well as some of the horses I see today but I can\'t say I see much difference between what I see now and what I saw in the late 70s through the 80s.
you can go to pedigreequery.com and look at conformational pictures that trace the breed back to the three foundational arabians and see little to no difference between the standouts from the breed now and then. (I know conformation, don\'t purport to be the best at it.)
Additionally, you can view photos, paintings and some film at the Hall of Fame
.
http://www.racingmuseum.org/Hall/fame.asp
You can\'t see them stride out. Obviously to run faster you have to incorporate more recoil in the surface, increase the the number of quick steps, increase the power of the jump and/or stride or a combination of those factors. Even today different horses do it differently. Hard to say how they did it way back when. I\'ve seen movies of Native Dancer and don\'t believe he did it any differently.
Horses may be a bit taller today, though I\'m not even certain regarding that. I don\'t think Michael meant to imply the modern horse doesn\'t have muscle in its lower leg NOW. They obviously never did.
Hate to think time and medicine is the future of racing. Theres different paths to take. Its a question of who will be most influential and what the end result will be.
Distorted Humor:
Heres a link to a horse at the Keeneland sale by Distorted Humor thought Tgraph would be interested in. He sold for a big bid and they think hes gonna be fast. Hes got good rump and shoulder on him, though yearlings all look funny to me. Stunted.
Anyway, would guess that this one does more than the two top priced Storm Cats even though its hard to be wild about the pedigree.
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=30025
These two comments in the same post:
\"I know conformation\" & \"yearlings all look funny to me.\"
Clown, indeed.
well, if you think you can ascertain how a yearling will fill and lengthen out precisely you need to apply to Coolmore because they have a fella there buying horses for them that really doesnt know.
Manning, there was a prediction in that thread. The two expensive Storm Cats won\'t amount to as much as the 900K Distorted Humor. Come back in two years, we\'ll miss ya.
lol
I found a conformation article I read a couple years ago. Note it is for the very sale going on now. The pictures are troubling because there are few leaves on the trees and I dont know with certainty when the photos were taken. The grass is green though, so I\'m assuming Spring and that the photos were from applictions to be in the sale. Spring makes yearlings look even stuntier so thats probably why the sample horses look even more like weanlings.
http://breeding.bloodhorse.com/yearling_conformation_pt_one.asp
Its a good article all things considered. I\'d prefer to post some info from books but I don\'t have a scanner.
Note how they discuss the change some of these horses undergo from yearlings to two year olds. For the life of me, I don\'t know how these buyers open their wallets for horses in physical flux.
Your prediction is noted, but if you\'re gonna go on & on about conformation, and then tell us that \"yearlings all look funny\" to you, just save that stuff for your Dear Diary entry...
The point being that conformation cannot be ascertained until maturity. We got on this topic because another poster was implying there were may be conformational difference between the stars of yesteryear and today. Other than a quarter hand or half hand from 1680 I don\'t think theres any proof of that. The conformation issue meshed with the Keeneland sale is all.
But, when you go down to the paddock to look at and bet on maiden two or three year olds its releveant.
When you\'re buying a \"mature\" horse or want a stallion for your Stud Farm its relevant.
When you look at yearlings you\'re gonna be able to tell which have clear flaws or acceptable flaws, (though even those may change), but beyound that its a crapshoot.
For every Seattle Dancer or Snaafi Dancer that didn\'t win a derby, or even race, theres a good number of Seattle Slews (17K), Real Quiets (17K), and Silver Charms (70K) that did.
Dear Diary: I dont think Manning bothers to look at the horses, though its hard with computer betting. I also suspect he can\'t tell a lead change from a changed lead and that he just wants to bet.
Good Lord...I think it\'s fairly obvious that these guys are laying out the big numbers for horses with pedigree, assuming the conformation doesn\'t look too \"funny.\" The fact is, Seattle Dancer was a 1/2 to Seattle Slew...that\'s right, the $17k yearling. I would suggest that even if his unaccomplished brother was a perfect specimen, he would have gone for around $17k himself if \'Slew turned out to be a $17k claimer.
Tell you what, we can revive this discussion as soon as a colt by
Silver Buck or Quiet American goes for $9 mil.
clown,
no conformational differences other than a small change in size? are you aware of the soundness issues with storm cat and mr prospector offspring? aware of the turned out and offset knees? do you realize how much of an influence those two sires and their soundness issues have had on this game? are you aware that breeders and buyers alike have chosen to ignore the soundness problems and go with the speed. the breed is less sound than it used to be, best you learn that now. and sorry you had a tough time understanding my complex statement from earlier, but - since horses have lower legs with no muscle, much of the added stress of running faster is absorbed by still fragile tendons. horses are much quicker than they used to be, but their leg strength has not evolved to offset that change.
Jim,
i don\'t think economics is the main issue here. people have always liked money. the recent decrease in lifetime starts is the same for gelding as it is for the rest.
Michael D said:
\"the breed changed. horses are designed to run much quicker than they used to. they have lower legs with no muscle. they put more pressure on their spring like, but fragile tendons. exceptionally fast horses just put too much pressure on their legs to stay sound for an extended period of time. spacing between races, along with medicine, is the only thing keeping these animals going\"
TGJB,
I did not know that horses have \"lower legs\" these days.How do you factor in leg size when making comparisons to the figs run by the champions of 20-30 years ago?
Surely these \'modern\' lower legs would make horses slower overall since they would not be able to stride out as well as their longer legged brothers and sisters of years past.Michael D\'s revelation proves you are WRONG about horses being faster, and it\'s time for you to ADMIT it.Slow day, unbelievable!
Michael,
\"i don\'t think economics is the main issue here. people have always liked money. the recent decrease in lifetime starts is the same for gelding as it is for the rest.\"
I\'ve never seen any stats on whether there has been a decrease in starts for geldings also, but assuming you are correct, I still think economics is playing a big role in the early retirements. Retiring/racing vs. number of starts while you are active are two separate issues. One is related to economics and the other is related to training styles and soundness issues.
People have always liked money, but the relationship between what you can make racing vs. retirement has apparently been changed dramatically. So what used to be a marginal decision in the past screams retirement now.