Home

I honestly believe that Medallist is going to be be the next Mr. Prospector....(1) excellent miler...(2)very good pedigree (3)he`s hansome...he certainly was the best miler at three in his crop, and just to remind all these readers...."SMARTY JONES" was in his crop.

Kent, some interesting comments. I will try my best to answer.

Just a little question on True Nicks: Has anyone ever adjusted the database with data that reflected the specific eras and then inputted horses like Northern Dancer, In Reality, Terlingua, Seattle Slew, or Mr. Prospector to see what the True Nick of that time may have been?

• Byron’s Reply: We have a “Historical TrueNick Report” in the works. The programming is not as easy as it sounds but we have thought about it and would like to have something, if only for reference sake. I will say that there are a lot of other things in front in the “development list” so it could take some time before you see it in application. It is a worthy idea.

I know that True Nick’s has a business plan, but could it be that one of the mares on "The List We Can't Publish" from your Keeneland Nick Review is actually carrying a breed shaper like one of those listed above.

• Byron’s Reply: Yes it could, but statistically speaking it is a much smaller chance. It is more likely that a B+ or better mating will result in a top class runner.

In your list you refer to individual breeder's horses as if they are infected with a virus.  You state, "The final list is one that we can’t – or, more accurately, shouldn’t – publish."

You make it sound as if these mares by Carson City, Dixieland Band, Saint Ballado, and Silver Hawk are untouchables.  Sure the breeder didn't use your marketing program; but, really, should he/she be penalized at the sale for breeding the mare based on factors that could complement the outcome.

• Byron’s Reply: Not to be smart but if we didn’t publish the list, how on earth are they “penalized at the sale”? Nobody saw the list in the first place so I am not sure how you can decry that these mares were somehow label in a certain way.

As in other posts: if by chance, one of these matings should yield results, True Nicks will be the first to herald the fact that an emerging nick is potentially surfacing.

In your article, you asked a question as if to call the breeder's of some very nice stock, stupid.  You say, "What were they thinking?!?"  Maybe they were thinking the same thing E.P. Taylor was thinking when he crossed Nearctic with Natalma to produce Northern Dancer without the assistance of True Nicks.

• Byron’s Reply:  The comment you refer to is slightly taken out of context and I certainly don’t think that we implied that those breeders were in fact stupid (in my opinion very few people actually are).  

You left the 11 mares nameless to protect the breeders but you might as well have just posted your insults with the conditions of the sale.  You posted them on Bloodhorse!!  I think you were right, you shouldn’t have published your bias on these 11 mares at all.

I am sure I could skew data and find 11 mares that have never had an “A” True Nick baby and all of them would be stakes producers.  

Finally, you state that, "their fortunes can be turned around for the commercial market"... "but with some judicious matings."

My question:  are all "judicious matings" rated highly on True Nicks?  

• Byron’s Reply: I thought that this started as a “Little Question on TrueNicks”? I guess your question can be summarized as – why mention those 11 mares at all? Well in my opinion it was worth referencing this extreme list at a minimum because it gets breeders at least thinking about what the catalogue page represents in front of them and how to discriminate against certain mares for various reasons. If you use TrueNicks, Enicks or any other pedigree analysis program to grade the genetic strength of the foals that the mare has already had, it serves as a great starting point, or filter, for the mares that you have on your shortlist for inspection. This was the purpose of the list of 11, and indeed the purpose of the whitepaper overall:  have breeders think about what the mare has in front of her and ask the question “what are the chances of her previous foals and carried foal becoming stakes winners”. You could use any pedigree rating program you like to create the filter, or any other method, we used TrueNicks.

There are a host of examples that don’t get you the grade and still get the money; I present one that recently has had some press:  First Defense is a "D" on your own TrueNicks program.  Is he a "fluke" or was he the real deal based on Juddmonte's own version of what a "judicious mating" is?

• Byron’s Reply:  First Defence is indeed a relatively poorly rated horse at a “D” which meant that he had about an 8% chance of being a stakes winner. I am going to hesitate a guess that you would concur that the racing quality of his sire and dam probably helped him overcome the apparent lack of genetic affinity. I reckon he is a great shot at stud at Juddmonte given his relations. What do you think?

I understand if this doesn’t get posted to the blog; True Nicks certainly must protect its business model.  However, in my opinion, the company should let the buyers make their own decisions at the sale based on the analysis of the available data.

When True Nick’s opts to criticize and pick favorites based on untested data, the company is crossing a fine line that starts to resemble more that of a fortune teller than that of a pedigree analysis service.

• Byron’s Reply: It got posted….so there you go….When we created TrueNicks we did it by looking at 100,000 horses to see if nicking affinity existed in the first place and when we found it did we created a product that would withstand intense scrutiny because we knew it would get it from all different angles, believers and non-believers. We have translated this across to everything we do and our approach has always been to hold ourselves to the highest possible scrutiny and examination and answer any question that arises as best we can. Funnily enough it actually makes the product better and tends to make us work harder. Thus, comments like yours, while differing in our take on things, are welcome and we appreciate the feedback. What ever happened to Storm in May?

This reference to First Defence, in this context, is rather interesting.  He may have a relatively reduced expectation of success per your model but I'd like to highlight that he's standing a Juddmonte who will provide him with mares of a calibre that's on another level to sires in his price range.  He's got a reasonable race record but is in blunt terms, he under achieved but his pedigree is to die for and I'd envisage him doing well.  

Juddmonte don't make to many errors of judgement and he wouldn't be on the farm unless they thought he could cut it.  The very close nature of his pedigree won't do any harm when Empire Maker hits it really big sometime very soon.  He's my idea of the next generation top sire.        

this is a game of chance, we can disect it all we want, and make the best, educationally fueled guess on what stallions to breed our mares to, that in our opinion are the best matches and will hopefully produce a decent racehorse, but at the end of the day it is still a game of chance, and more chances than not, will end up with us being unsatisfied with the outcome. Some of the best bred horses in the world have failed to be able to put one foot in front of the other, the same with some of the most expensive. Then again, some of the worst bred horses, in the majority's opinion, have turned into classic winners, failing to bring a big price at the sale or failing to have the "perfect" conformation that seems to be what most people believe makes a brillant racehorse, which in my opinion is not always true. Think Real Quiet. All we can really do is repeat crosses that have worked before, like Indy//Deputy Minister or Unbridled//Deputy Minister as an example, and hope they work again, while always trying new crosses at the same time that seem appealing or hopeful, and always remembering the age old bluegrass saying, "never say never." Good luck everyone on your breeding ventures.