re: Freshman Sires on Display at OBS

sceptre — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 04:37:39 GMT

No question, First Defence is the best bred of this lot, and among the best bred stallions to come along in years. He hasn't been that well received, which had somewhat surprised me-I think that years ago one like him would have been a hot commodity. His intital stud fee was reasonable, and it's gone down ever since. Ok, he's on the smallish side and a bit atypical, physically, from his sire. His sire, though, hasn't been the rage as a sire of sires, perhaps owing in part to the fact that many of his sire sons are less than well bred. First Defence is an atypical Unbridled's Song both in physique and pedigree-this might just be a +. As a racehorse, First Defence exhibited true quality up to 7f-1M. Today, that's what they're looking for, so this shoudn't be seen as a negative. Ok, he's a bit strange looking-both strange- and strange +. Yes, the best bred and best performing runner can still turn out to be a flop at stud, and that includes a First Defence. But, needless to say, this warning applies to all these unprovens. Why, for example, should a Midnight Lute be perceived more optimistically? Yes, he peformed slightly better, and he has a fine producing dam, but his pedigree, taken as a whole, is far inferior to that of First Defence. Midlight Lute's yearlings were also much better received, mainly due to size. I, myself, preferred the type First Defence has sired. So, we'll see, but I fear the spectre of self fulfilling prophecy may derail First Defence's chances-for staters, his books haven't been particularly large. I mention the example of First Defence, not to promote this particular stallion, but as a means to raise more fundamental issues. Yes, breeders' perceptions can often help make or, more usually break a stallion, but this observation is old news. I think the more important question relates to degrees of performance and pedigree (and, perhaps, conformation) as it relates to predictablity for stallion success. Within this, is the more elusive question/concept (at least for me) as it relates to the relative predominance of pedigree portions (difficult to artfully phrase this). I'll use First Defence as example. Yes, he's very well bred, and there are several rather eye-popping influences within his immediate pedigree. He was also a very talented runner, and most would attribute that talent to those same influences. But, what if his talent mainly derived not from those more obvious influences, but rather from others within his pedigree (i.e. what if he didn't receive a relative goodly amount of those better genes from the "eye-popping" influences, but instead a relative lion's share of the better genes from those less noteworthy in his pedigree?) Let's say (which would be true) that in either event he was phenotypically the same animal. But, would he still be the same sire? I think the answer is no, and for much the same reason as a lesser bred stallion of say identical phenotype to a better bred stallion is less likely to succeed (absent the issue of opportunity) than the one better bred. I can go on more, there's more depth to this than space allows, and my earlier conclusion lacks certainty, but I think it's an issue worth exploring. Fundamentally, it's about Cause of (relative) greatness, and how this manifests on stallion success and future generations.