Home

Since Kelso was gelded to try and calm him down...and it didn't calm him down...we lost a good one at stud.  However, if he went to stud, he wouldn't have raced so many years and become HOY 5 times...I loved Kelso...and life does balance out.

Wow, no wonder there were so many good horses in the 1960's and 1970's...Bold Ruler and Round Table had 22 and 21% stakes winners!

Ian,

The lists you compiled should offer a wonderful history lesson for many. I don't wish to downplay their relevance, but allow me to offer a slightly different perspective from what many may derive from this list:

To my mind/memory, one would be mistaken to evaluate the relative "breeding quality" of these (listed) stallions only by their % stakes winners/foals. For example, it was (back then) quite clear to me (as I'm sure it was for many others) that Tom Fool was the far more superior sire to a Round Table, Native Dancer, or Nashua. Some might also derive from this list that Bold Ruler and Round Table were on a near par when it came to stallion power, but the reality was quite otherwise. For that matter, while I admired Nashua and liked him as a stallion, I considered Swaps to be the slightly better of the two stallion-wise. Native Dancer was a very good, but far from great stallion. It just goes to show-at least to me- just how deceptive some stats can be. This comes from one who experienced the entire stud careers of those mentioned. Trust me (I'm sure you can't) when I say that, for example, Round Table was far from an elite stallion, despite all the opportunity he received. Know also that many of their stud careers occured before the advent of stakes "gradings", so it may well prove more difficult for those now to get a "paper" sense of what I'm trying to convey. AEIs did exist then (and certainly can be calculated now), and while they are another imperfect gauge, were more relevant then vs today. While all this may seem rather unimportant, think again. Most of these "names" exist in today's pedigrees within 4-5 generations. Keying on the wrong horses could well prove quite counterproductive.      

Ian,

In my zeal to opine that, for example, a Tom Fool was the better sire than a Native Dancer or a Nashua, I fear I have overstated my case and may have led some down the wrong path. I'm referencing the last two sentences from my previous post. My re-read caused me to cringe, and your post brought it home all the more. What I'm alluding to-to now give an example- is that while a Tom Fool may have been the superior sire, to say a Native Dancer, or a Nashua, finding a Native Dancer in a pedigree THROUGH a Natalma or Raise A Native, or finding a Nashua THROUGH a Gold Digger (Mr. P.) or a Bramalea (Roberto) should, all else equal, connote greater genetic "strength" than would a Tom Fool say through a Dunce. So, for again example, since the vast majority of Native Dancer is found today through Raise A Native and Natalma, all else equal, THESE Native Dancer genes (or the total "package") may indeed be "better" genes than those decended from stallions who were then the better sires than a Native Dancer. The last two sentences of my previous post may have directed wrongly your readers.