Talkin' 'Bout Shaft

re: Talkin' 'Bout Shaft

Ian Tapp — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:51:21 GMT

sceptre,

Good comments, and a very interesting point regarding Secretariat. If we could remove the commercial factor from breeding, and elect a breeding czar, perhaps such stockpiling on unproven stallions would be avoided?

Ian

re: Talkin' 'Bout Shaft

sceptre — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:38:45 GMT

Ian,

I take your points, and they have merit. Re-Mineshaft, I had considered what you now offered before submitting my first post. Mineshaft has sired some good ones (and of them, some not out of blue chip mares) so I don't consider him to be total dud. But, history tells us that even near duds can sire the occasional top horse, especially when offered top mares. Discreetly Mine is a very talented sprinter and it's possible that Mineshaft (and, for that matter, Forestry) suited Pretty Discreet better than stallions of far superior siring ability-similar has occurred before. Actually, to my mind, Mineshaft and Forestry have other obvious commonalities. Both received quality books well above what they deserved retrospectively. Forestry sired Discreet Cat who was probably an even more talented runner than Discreetly Mine, yet this horse, and a few other good ones weren't harbingers of later stallion success (nor was Chief Seattle's G-II SW. Had Chief Seattle continued to sire G-II SW's in abundance he would not have been banished to NY). I'm confident that same will hold true for Mineshaft-in view of his TOTAL record to date. IMO the Forestrys and Mineshafts of this world do not deserve high quality mares...The anecdote of Ribbon would carry more weight had Secretariat finally succeeded later in his career-but he didn't. At a time when we (the US) had collectively far more and better elite broodmares, Secretariat did probably far more damage to our gene pool than any other stallion (broodmare sire of A P Indy, Gone West, etc. notwithstanding). I know, easy for me to say and difficult to prove, but is said with care and conviction. Lastly, the stallion data is there for all to see and analyze. Problem is, far too many prefer to conclude through reading a synopsis such as that given in "Talkin''Bout Shaft". Not trying to win my point, but would like to offer to all a differing perspective. There's a lot more that could be said about all this, not least is the issue of journalistic motivation.

re: Talkin' 'Bout Shaft

Ian Tapp — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:09:13 GMT

sceptre,

Regarding your last point first: I agree with you, but "quality" is a very subjective term. I'm saying the "profile" of mare could be different at the lower fee. I know that's vague, but you can see where variables such as racing performance vs. pedigree; average winning distance and aptitudes; etc., could change with the fee, and such a change might suit the stallion differently than the group bred at a higher fee.

Also, I wasn't implying that any mares were being "wasted" (you were saying that). I'm saying that at a lower fee, Mineshaft might get more racy mares that go to him because of their own ability, rather than just the strength of their page. One quick example is Secretariat. Would Ribbon (dam of Risen Star) have gone to him in his first few seasons? Unlikely.

On the broader point, take Discreetly Mine. Out of an awesome producer and race mare, yes. But what a success that mating is. The mating succeeded in producing a top-class racehorse, brilliantly fast and talented, and now a G1 winner. What else could you ask for? Mating her to Mineshaft worked. It's easy to say "she could have produced an equally good horse with another stallion"--maybe. She did it with Forestry, and now Mineshaft, but give credit to the stallion, too.

Take Fly Down--his dam produced a good G2w/G1p filly by Chief Seattle, then with Mineshaft (same sire line) she produced an even better G2w/G1p in Fly Down.

Ian

re: Talkin' 'Bout Shaft

sceptre — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:04:50 GMT

Ian, my friend,

I worded my earlier post in such a way as to be non-confrontational, fearing it would not be published if otherwise. Yes, certainly, every stallion is unproven until later proven, and to be proven requires mates. It's also true that choice of matings is solely in the hands of individual breeders. These breeders, however, can often be swayed by the printed word-case in point: this article on Mineshaft. To say that "he's now one of the best values in Kentucky..." is begging the question as it relates to my earlier post. I don't grant that he's a "best value". Also, you may not fault him for succeeding occasionally with good mares, but I'd guess you'd think more of him if those successes were the produce of lesser quality mares. Incidentally, a look at the 2010 Keeneland Sept. Sale will demonstrate that he continued to receive high quality mares...You seem to be saying (to appease me)-Don't worry, since his fee was reduced he'll now have less opportunity to "waste" the quality mares. To be a bit more confrontational, I'm suggesting that this article's positive spin on Mineshaft might sway some to offer him better mares than he truly deserves...Lastly, I've never much bought the argument that some stallions can achieve more with a lesser rather than better quality book.

re: Talkin' 'Bout Shaft

Ian Tapp — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:47:36 GMT

sceptre,

You make a great point, but... (unfortunately) every stallion is unproven until he's proven. Some mares will have to go to unproven stallions; the quality of those mares is really up to the breeders.

In the case of Mineshaft, he's now one of the best values in Kentucky, and I wouldn't fault him for succeeding with good mares. With his change in fee, the profile of mare that he's getting will also change, and this may actually suit him better than the profile of mares he got in his initial books.

Ian

re: Talkin' 'Bout Shaft

sceptre — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 01:23:17 GMT

The creaming off of many of our better broodmares and broodmare prospects over the years, coupled with the demise of most of the elite breeders-racers, has weakened the US thoroughbed racing breed. To compensate, partially, we should endeavor to send our better broodmares (and broodmare prospects) to the best stallions here available. Potentially wasting too many of these broodmares to unproven stallions, or those of questionable siring performance, would seem counterproductive to the goal. Mineshaft, for one, initially received too many high quality mares. Had same mares been instead bred to proven stallions (of similar fee) it's rather likely our gene pool would have been better off. Now a few of his offsping (which, for the most part, are out of superior mares) are raising a few eyebrows. Some will now mistakenly embark on phase two of this road to mediocrity.

re: Talkin' 'Bout Shaft

DawnStorm — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:34:15 GMT

So I'm not the only one who is confused over a grandson of AP Indy is a top sprinter!?!

re: Talkin' 'Bout Shaft

Robert — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:43:02 GMT

I am seriously thinking about sending my clients Fly So Free mare to Mineshaft next spring. Fly Down dispelled any issue of stamina, and the mare we have is loaded with stamina on her bottom side. Excellent article as usual.