MarketWatch Blog - All Comments

re: Leading Sires Capitalize on Strong Books

sceptre — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:37:54 GMT

Noticed that the SW/foals % for this group as a whole is fairly high-and isn't much off that attained by elite sires of yesteryear. But a similar comparison of the former and latter using AEIs would reveal a much different (comparative) outcome. Also, my guess is that CIs for yesteryear's elite stallions were nearly the same at today's (elites). Yes, it's true that today's elite stallions service far larger books, but why should this, in itself, cause the AEI disparity?

re: Finding Value in Young Sires at Keeneland September

sceptre — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:51:18 GMT

Very nice study...For openers, it's interesting to note that G-III SW mares outproduced both G-I and G-II SW mares; and that SW mares outproduced G-II SW mares for crops 1-V. For 3rd crop alone yearlings, the G-I and G-II SW mares fell very low. So, why should this be? The most obvious (but not necessarily correct) answer is that the sample size is too small. But, there's a more profound potential reason, i.e. the highly graded SW mares are, perhaps, given less latitude in the choice of their mates. A too restricted pool from which to choose may somewhat inhibit their opportunity to be mated to a more ideal pedigree cross or, even perhaps, a more suitable conformation cross. If there's merit to this notion, a larger sample (encompassing more years) might enlighten, and if same/similar holds true, could lead to large changes in breeding practices.

re: Buyers Reward Quick Breeze Times

sceptre — Tue, 19 Aug 2014 01:24:05 GMT

Pedigree Ann:

And they're not "abused" thereafter?

re: Buyers Reward Quick Breeze Times

Pedigree Ann — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 11:02:41 GMT

I agree with AnneM. These young horses are being abused to make more money for the consigners (many of whom are pinhookers, not breeders, so its future racing career is not as critical to them) at the expense of the future owners, who may not be aware of the damage such works can cause.

re: Buyers Reward Quick Breeze Times

AnneM — Sun, 03 Aug 2014 22:17:17 GMT

I thinks that these breeze shows should be done away with. Too fast for too short a distance doesn't

measure anything - and can cause permanent injury to the young 2 year olds

re: Buyers Reward Quick Breeze Times

lisa123 — Sun, 03 Aug 2014 18:26:30 GMT

It would be interesting to see a follow-up article in a couple of years with updates about how the horses mentioned here do on the track.

re: Buyers Reward Quick Breeze Times

Sean Daly — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 18:10:10 GMT

GREAT RESEARCH

re: Buyers Reward Quick Breeze Times

sceptre — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:25:45 GMT

So much for gallop-out, and way of going; speed, measured by time, seems to win the day. Not a good situation, and difficult to change.

re: Leading Yearling Sales by Racing Performance

sceptre — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:56:48 GMT

none none:

Disagree with your points, as I feel the graphs are rather pristine in conveying the most relevant data. No bar graph can account for all variables, particularly in a business such as this where there are so many. Any attempt to do so would defeat its purpose-a relatively quick/easy thumbnail of the big picture. Those interested can explore further, with the exception that it's difficult to ascertain % of yearlings nationally that went unraced and then to compare this figure with that offered by the graphs.

The Saratoga Select vs Keeneland Select bar graph picture is interesting. Fasig's sale appears to win the day, but its numbers are very small in comparison to Keeneland's. Not certain what the take home message is here. Does it imply that there's so few truly select yearlings available at market? Doubt this is the case and, all else equal, a September yearling is more truly "exposed" than an August yearling. Does it say that Keeneland needs to do a better job at selection or, perhaps, a more IMPARTIAL job? Are Fasigs' inspectors merely better/more diligent? Or, are the numbers so small as to be meaningless? What are some other variables?

re: Leading Yearling Sales by Racing Performance

none none — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 22:05:16 GMT

Nice article. In order to show a more accurate picture, the number of horses who went through the ring vs. number of unraced, runners, SW, etc. should be shown. KEESEP sales alone probably offer more horses than some of the smaller shows combined. Also, the graph should be turned sideways with each "level of racing" per sale, like a histogram, for a better picture of performance. Overall, nice article.

Laurie Ross

re: Leading Yearling Sales by Racing Performance

Giddyup — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 14:38:05 GMT

Nicely colored graphs but the data really doesn't support any significant conclusions. This is like making an assessment of the value of a company based on the performance of the financial sector it belongs to.

re: Leading Yearling Sales by Racing Performance

sceptre — Wed, 18 Jun 2014 17:04:37 GMT

For me, the most eye-opening piece of information is found in the first table- Notice the % of unraced horses found in the "All" category, as it compared with the other listed (gross $3M +) sales. My initial thought was that this should direct us to buy at those larger grossing sales, and to avoid the others. But, on second thought, the bar graphs don't tell us $ sales prices for the categories. Secondly, even should those $ averages still signal the benefits of those "listed" sales ( i.e. even you have to pay slightly more, training/racing expenses don't vary much from region to region), there's the variable of the regional, etc. buyer- the "hands" that ultimately manage the horses' career (this may factor into the % that go unraced).

re: Belmont Stakes Slowing Down, Epsom Derby Speeding Up

Pedigree Ann — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:30:38 GMT

High Echelon ran in deep mud, the kind we don't get anymore with tracks being sealed at the first raindrop. Secretariat's record was helped by the fact that Belmont was quite fast that year - several track records were set over that spring/summer meet.

The 2:30+ Belmonts in general can have one of several causes - no real stayers in the field; no horses trained properly to go 12f; no jocks sufficiently familiar with riding the distance so they are tentative with their horses' speed (This by the way was the cause of truly glacial early paces at Keeneland the first meeting with Polytrack); track conditions (see High Echelon); and you can probably come up with some more.

re: Belmont Stakes Slowing Down, Epsom Derby Speeding Up

chucky — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 04:15:02 GMT

Racing media sales headlines ---

Four tie for fastest furlong at Saturday’s OBS June breeze show

Eight turn in fastest furlong during Thursday’s OBS June breeze show

Benny the Bull Colt Tops Furlong Works at OBS

Five Tie for Fastest Furlong at OBS Show

Saratoga is nothing more than endless parade of sprint races.

There is NO mystery but we still pretend. It's going to be very difficult to change this practice since the demand is for quick ROI at the breeding shed.

re: Belmont Stakes Slowing Down, Epsom Derby Speeding Up

sceptre — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 03:47:39 GMT

Brontexx:

The thoroughbred is a BREED among the species which we label as horse (not the scientific term). It is a breed because it was created by human selection. It did not evolve through "natural" selection/survival of the fittest mechanisms. So, yes, it exists due to "human intervention" (your term) and, perhaps, more to your remarks, it is in constant state of change due to ongoing human intervention. We are its "designers" but, almost needless to say, we are neither in complete control of the design's outcome, nor are we perfect forecasters of those efforts' consequences-for much the same reason. On top of all this, there is no collective "we", in that each breeder is, to some extent, his own designer, affecting to greater and lesser degrees the direction of the breed. But, this all said, the breed today is largely a result of the tastes and desires of the vast majority of breeders that came before, tweaked (according to desire) by them through time until present. If today's result isn't to our collective liking (and that's not a given), some of the cause is outlined above.

re: Belmont Stakes Slowing Down, Epsom Derby Speeding Up

Brontexx — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 17:36:32 GMT

The theory that Darwin created which for laymen can be described as survival of the fittest has not proven true for the American Thoroughbred of the last generation.There is no need to elaborate with pretty words its the truth.A breed such as the thoroughbred should improve and not decline after all they are bred for this to be true.

I am not going to try to explain except to say that human intervention is behind the secline in the breed.

re: Belmont Stakes Slowing Down, Epsom Derby Speeding Up

sceptre — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:35:58 GMT

UncleStosh:

Some of your comments caused me to reflect, but, first off, when I said "...know how to train accordingly" referred only to his referenced implication that trainers train all horses as if they'll be racing year around-unlike what had been in years past. Noting your remarks about human athletic high-tech training methods, I doubt that you'd agree that old-time trainers trained more in accord with such techniques. This aside, you're not the first to argue that racehorse trainers are missing the boat by ignoring modern human training practices. It's my sense, though, that this (re- the horses) has been explored at the academic level for quite a while without resulting in much change. What exactly were their conclusions, and whether or not they have been ignored is beyond my knowledge. Well, for one, it would seem that high velocity training would increase fast twitch fiber proportion (and thus cause a net decrease in slow-twitch) causing a lessened ability to excel at longer distances. I don't know if this has application for racehorses over the limited range of distances they compete, but it's my impression that trainers somewhat apply this principle (being aware of the "science" or not) in their training practices. Alan Porter may be one to comment about this, as he has on occasion referenced the human high profile runners in relation to racehorses.

It's also my impression that dirt track surfaces have become quicker-most specifically on very high profile race days (as compared to the past). I could be mistaken due to the fact that other variables have been in play, i.e.: 1) high-profile days have, more recently, been over loaded with stakes races, 2) we may be now breeding a faster horse at the common 6f-1M distances. But, long-time track supers. should know the answer...Your mention of "run-ups" doesn't ring true. I believe the mechanical starting gate was employed at Epsom during the past 50 years.

re: Belmont Stakes Slowing Down, Epsom Derby Speeding Up

English Pete — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:02:36 GMT

I think you'll find that comparing times between Epsom Derbys from different years is interesting without being useful. Others have mentioned ground conditions - Teenoso won in a bog and Workforce's Derby was like a road - and pace differing, but in addition I'm pretty sure the rail is not necessarily always in the same place. Certainly on Derby day this year the rail was moved from Friday's meeting in order to provide fresh ground, and the race was won by a very good colt off a true pace on firming ground in a mini-heatwave. That won't happen every year!

re: Belmont Stakes Slowing Down, Epsom Derby Speeding Up

UncleStosh — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 22:57:33 GMT

sceptre- your wrong about training methods. The way horses are trained to run 10-12f is counter to everything known to sports science which is a pretty sophisticated science at this point in time with billions sent on it by governments for a 100 years to out do each other in the cold war that as the olympics. Horse trainers could learn a lot by going out and seeking this information and applying it to their sport.

Lamattara is silly because he thinks 50 events and the last 4 in particular are enough to draw confusions. If the next three Belmonts are won in 2:27 to 2:29, his theory dies.

The idea of co paring times across the last 50 years also make no sense with run-ups, hand timing, track changes(souped up in the 1960's, thru approx 2008-ish) It seems obvious dirt tracks have slowed since the threat of Artificial surfaces has emerged. Safety has stopped the hard pan highways from making their appearances.

re: Belmont Stakes Slowing Down, Epsom Derby Speeding Up

sceptre — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:55:40 GMT

Lammtarra's Arc:

Byron's piece, nor his method of presentation (The Belmont and the Epsom Derby) isn't at all "laughable". What's laughable to me is your tagging it as laughable. You obviously are missing his message-and, trust me, what he has conveyed will be (accurately) instructive for many.

Joltman:

You're also off mark. The Europeans are now buying less of our yearlings-and paying bigger bucks for those selling over there. We breed and sell in far greater numbers, so it's still worthwhile to come over here and cherry -pick. And, Sadler's Wells never stood at stud in the U.S., so who are you to criticize?

TK Lawless:

Year around racing has nothing to do with 3 yr. olds on the Triple Crown trail-and their trainers know how to train accordingly.

re: Belmont Stakes Slowing Down, Epsom Derby Speeding Up

Lammtarra's Arc — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 16:45:50 GMT

The fact that ONE horse ran a sub 2:30 on a fast course in 4-5 years should worry you. Not to mention the removal of the Breeders Cup Marathon, and the shortening of all the historical Handicap races. Most cards on a daly basis are 6-7f sprints. Look at the Prestigious Saratoga meet, where the daily racing cards were loaded with sprints. It is getting worse and worse and worse. New owners want fast 2 year olds for quick returns, and then when those fast 2 year olds can't run past 9f, they go to the shed to be bred.

re: Belmont Stakes Slowing Down, Epsom Derby Speeding Up

TK Lawless — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:01:06 GMT

Year round racing should be #1 on the "cause" list....as well as a 'cause' for MANY of the other 'causes'....as it could very well be to blame for the change in training styles, the preponderance of 'drugs' (legal & illegal) & the fact that 75% of America's races are carded at 6F or less....Does it REALLY take a'rocket surgeon' to figure out why breeder's are not interested in 12F pedigrees?

re: Belmont Stakes Slowing Down, Epsom Derby Speeding Up

Joltman — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:56:03 GMT

If US bred horses were so inferior, then why do Euro buyers keep showing up here and paying big bucks for our best stock? Take them to Europe and race. A few come back here (Giants Causeway, Sadlers Wells) as studs. The American blood is just fine. I think its more a matter of training and opportunity.

re: Belmont Stakes Slowing Down, Epsom Derby Speeding Up

Giddyup — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 22:38:59 GMT

That last paragraph is right on the money. Even those with only a vague concept of statistical analysis understand that nothing meaningful can be extracted from a data pool as small as 50 events.

re: Belmont Stakes Slowing Down, Epsom Derby Speeding Up

Lammtarra's Arc — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 21:44:58 GMT

This article should be thrown out. The fact you are even trying to look and compare times is borderline laughable. 12f of undulations, vs 12f flat fast oval.. time gaps whether they're growing or shrinking means absolutely NOTHING. Epsom derby winners would run laps around these US horses simply because they are better bred, and MUCH better trained. You are comparing Tonalist to Australia?. terrible. What do you have to say about California Chrome not winning the Triple crown after 3 races in 5-6 week period?...Cirrus Des Aigles at age EIGHT won three HUGE G1's in two countries in the same time period. Why don't you reflect more on your diminishing breed in the USA, and how your breeders breed milers who can LAST 10f, forget 12.