Ghostzapper's Excellent Weekend

re: Ghostzapper's Excellent Weekend

sceptre — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:46:34 GMT

Alan,

All that you posited about Secretariat may indeed be correct (reality), but there's also some evidence for an alternative position which suggests that Secretariat was/is a weaker influence as a broodmare sire than many might imagine. Somethingroyal mostly owes her claim to fame to two offspring, Secretariat and Sir Gaylord. Yes, no small accomplishment, but despite being a prolific producer she managed relatively little else (immediately, or later down the line). She's considered a true "blue hen" (and outstanding influence), and her son, Secretariat, an outstanding broodmare sire (and, perhaps, quite positive influence) largely due to the outstanding sire (and sire-line) credentials of three stallions; A P Indy, Storm Cat, and Gone West. But, let's take a look at their Secretariat dams. Each was exceptionally well-bred (truly elite pedigrees), and each was, by far, the best female racing performer from their respective elite dams. Yes, it could be argued (in circles) that Secretariat's genes were relatively responsible for this racing prowess, but as his overall sire record was far from exemplary, it may be reasonable to hypothesize that their (these three females') prowess instead was largely caused by the somewhat fortuitous receipt of the better genetic "qualities" of, for example, their elite dams, i.e. Secretariat (and Somethingroyal) merely came along for the ride...And, somewhat separately, even if we grant that Somethingroyal was an outstanding producer, why should her genetic "strength" manifest more in the producing capabilities of Secretariat's daughters, and far less so in the racing abilities of Secretariat's daughters (and sons)?...Lastly, while I suppose it's possible that Secretariat might have passed on to his daughters something from his "outstanding producer" dam, Somethingroyal-which enabled them to be better producers than would otherwise have been the case- there are enough anecdotes to suggest that a sire with a blue hen dam may not increase that sire's chances for later broodmare sire success. Bimelech, for one, comes to mind. Bimelech was a near racing prowess equal of Secretariat, just a good sire (better than Secretariat), and was arguably one of the best bred stallions ever-Black Toney out of *La Troienne. I could be mistaken, but it's my recollection (past review) that he would be considered a good, but far from great, broodmare sire.

re: Ghostzapper's Excellent Weekend

Alan Porter — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:03:03 GMT

I think there were multiple problems with Secretariat as a stallion. He was bred like he was a speed influence, where he was really a long-striding stayer. He was also a very outcrossed horse - as outcrossed a good horse as you'll see - and he tended not to be a dominant influence (think how different Lady's Secret and Risen Star, perhaps his best daughter and son were physically).

As a broodmare sire, as Sceptre said, he did get a leg-up from the quality of mares bred to him. but I'd also say it's possible that he might have passed on to his daughters something from his dam, Somethingroyal, who was an outstanding producer (no, not the X-factor!!).

re: Ghostzapper's Excellent Weekend

sceptre — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 16:35:08 GMT

CCassandra.Says:

As I understand it-and I've discussed this very subject with several vets over the years- sire and dam size has no influence on the birth size of the offspring...As an aside- I wouldn't characterize Secretariat as "a horse-and-a-half wide." He may have been slightly wider than the norm, but I've seen many much wider. Let's just face it, he wasn't that good of a sire despite having all the opportunities imaginable. Likely, the main reason he was a good broodmare sire is because he was a distance influence, and the dams of his broodmares were of a far higher quality than the norm.

re: Ghostzapper's Excellent Weekend

Cassandra.Says — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 07:32:49 GMT

Then there's Secretariat . . .

I sometimes think that Secretariat's odd stud career, a disappointing sire and a breed-shaping broodmare sire, is a question of birthing. Secretariat was a horse-and-a-half wide. Getting that pelvis through the dam's pelvis probably resulted in some difficult births. Lost all chance at the start.

On the other hand, a normally conformed foal gestated and foaled by a roomy Secretariat mare would have a splendid prenatal environment and a quick, easy birth. Not contracted, no oxygen deprivation.

Hmmm? I think girls might get this more easily than boys.

re: Ghostzapper's Excellent Weekend

sceptre — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 03:13:28 GMT

mz:

I had intended to correct your observation about Danzig and Ambiorix, but got carried away and neglected to do so.-

While I grasp the relevance of your citing Danzig, I believe you also meant to cite *Alibhai (and not Ambiorix).

Ambiorix was a top racehorse. *Alibhai never started, as he bowed in his fores while in training. But Alibhai may be a good example of the parameters and missing information (what we may not be privy to) issue. Alibhai was quite well bred, being by Hyperion and out of an Oaks producer. We know now that *Alibhai broke a track record in a workout, but I wonder if this was common knowledge at the time. I believe that L.B. Mayer owned him, so it's certain that Mr. Mayer was aware of that workout. Very likely, Mr. Mayer was also privy to his trainer's opinion of *Alibhai's ability. Armed with all this, Mr. Mayer chose to stand this unraced horse at stud. The rest is history, but I'd venture to guess that had *Alibhai been owned by one less prominent, the name, *Alibhai, would not appear in pedigrees.

re: Ghostzapper's Excellent Weekend

sceptre — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:50:04 GMT

mz:

Inherent ability is likely reflected via numerous parameters (variables/qualities). There is likely also some differences in the parameters associated with inherent performance ability vs inherent siring/producing ability. The main point is, though, that while we may have a handle on some of these factors (parameters, etc.) we are likely incorrect (or improperly weigh, etc.) about some, and blind to many. Your mention of Danzig may serve as a useful illustration. Some, perhaps including yourself, weigh heavily "black type" performance and earnings when attempting to predict stallion success and, perhaps, to the exclusion of other qualities, etc. that I may deem + predictive. Through a far more "careful" scrutiny of the past could it not be possible for us to formulate a better approach toward better refining our predictive skills? Along these lines, Byron's point was very much on target-we kid ourselves that we can (at present) accurately assess performance ability when in fact what we are privy to, and the guidelines utilized are but a whisper of reality.

re: Ghostzapper's Excellent Weekend

Byron Rogers — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:36:51 GMT

Horses that raced on Lasix and/or bled while racing can go to stud in Germany, their offspring however are not able to participate in the lucrative Breeders Premiums which usually means that they don't bother. There is some use of estimated breeding values in German breeding which is possibly why they have made such good gains in their bloodstock in such a relatively short period of time.

re: Ghostzapper's Excellent Weekend

Byron Rogers — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:54:21 GMT

Sceptre,

I agree with a lot of what you have said in terms of our industry doing ourselves a great disservice by not fully using the data that we have to create meaningful breeding values that would make breeding a racehorse somewhat more predictable. The data and methods are there, it just needs doing.

It is completely bizarre that as an industry we have to rely on handicapping figures, such as Rag numbers, Beyers, etc as a measure of genetic worth, when they have low heritability (that is, if a mare runs a 100 Beyer, she has a low chance of producing a foal that will do the same).

re: Ghostzapper's Excellent Weekend

mz — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 00:08:53 GMT

Is it Germany that doesn't allow horses to go to stud unless they are certified non-bleeders? Maybe this is something that we can do but otherwise, I don't know how else you can choose who is more inherently gifted to breed. I wonder if Danzig would have been able to go to stud, or Ambiorix; and how do we even choose mares.

re: Ghostzapper's Excellent Weekend

sceptre — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:58:55 GMT

mz:

I sympathize with some of your sentiments, and one long day away, perhaps, we may learn too many answers (genome analysis, etc.), but for now I think it better that we don't stand pat. Aside from the potential gains I mentioned, it seems simply right that those stallions more inherently gifted deserve access to the greater numbers and better mares. All too often, in retrospect, the better "connected" stallions receive an undeserved disproportionate number of our best mares.

re: Ghostzapper's Excellent Weekend

mz — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:17:01 GMT

Sceptre: isn't one of the funs of racing waitin' and hopin' for your horse (not necessarily because you own him or her but just because you loved to follow them) to throw something wonderful in the future? If breeding racehorses becomes a cut and dried numbers crunching game, wouldn't the big guys (people with money) ALWAYS end up owning the great horses, with no room for a John Henry or a Seattle Slew or even a Mine that Bird?

I understand trying to control the improvement of the breed (and I personally think breeding in some stamina right now in the (North) American thoroughbred would be a good idea) but I still love the serendipity of a Tiznow from nowhere.

(OK, not actually nowhere -- there is Northern Dancer blood and some nice Chilean family blood in there but you know what I mean)

Just a thought.

re: Ghostzapper's Excellent Weekend

sceptre — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 22:42:09 GMT

Yes, Ghostzapper did have that big weekend, but it's hard to deny that he has been a disappointment (relative to opportunity) at stud. After all these years, despite all the data at our disposal, it seems we have improved little, if any, in our ability to predict stallion success. I really feel that we could make meaningful strides (without the use of genome research) toward this end were we to make better use of our bank of data and observation. I think that many of the answers are within our grasp, but requires the hard work of many. It would produce an obvious benefit in that far fewer elite broodmares would be "wasted" to inferior sires-a large drag on the improvement/or, perhaps, stability of the breed..This idea again occurred to me while reading this piece on Ghostzapper whom I had been skeptical about from the time of his retirement. But the cause(s) for that skepticism, though truly felt, is not easily verbalized and seems to relate to more than mere printed race record or supeficial look at pedigree. Take, for example, an Indian Charlie. Pedigree-wise he is qualitatively not too dissimilar from Ghostzapper and, like Ghostzapper, is a 5 gen. outcross, and a relative outcross to the breeding population. Most would argue that Ghostzapper was the superior runner. Yet, I was far more confident that Indian Charlie would make a successful stallion. Anecdote only as this is, I have a suspicion that careful comparatives of this type might yield us some answers.