Galileo/Danehill Revisited

re: Galileo/Danehill Revisited

John T — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 02:13:21 GMT

I was hoping Ouija Board would produce a foal to be very proud of and it certainly looks that way when Austrlia, by Galileo, won a group 3 mile race at Leopardstown in very impressive fashion today.

re: Galileo/Danehill Revisited

John T — Mon, 02 Sep 2013 01:12:28 GMT

Dazzling who is a full-sister to Roderic O'Connor won a mile maiden at The Curragh today in fine fashion on her debut. A big strong powerful looking type of filly she should have no trouble with 12 furlongs and she looks like one to keep in mind for the classics next season.

re: Galileo/Danehill Revisited

Jerseyboy — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 18:14:26 GMT

Alan:

I have always found the percentage of stakes winners statistic somewhat deceptive.

Here is the reason. Let us say there are 20 graded stakes run. Of the starters 50 are from sireline X.

The maximum possible winning percentage for sireline X is 20/50--40%.

Overtime the descendants of sireline X rise to 100.

The maximum possible winning percentage of sireline X falls to 20/100--20%.

Of course this occurs because the number of participants have increased but the number of possible winners remains fixed.

This is bound to happen to the Galileo sireline. In some races they make up more than half of the field but there will be only one winner. The descendants compete against each other.

A more interesting statistic would be the percentage of all graded stakes run that are won each year by the descendants of the sireline (inbreeding or outcrossing).

re: Galileo/Danehill Revisited

Alan Porter — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 13:48:36 GMT

Djebel: Good question. I make it 68 Northern Hemisphere starters on the cross for 14 stakes winners (20% stakes winners to starters). In Australia it is 3 stakes winners from 37 starters as far as I can tell, a far more mortal 8%. Basically, it tends to reflect that in reality, Galileo/Danehill is even stronger than the worldwide figure makes it look, as his offspring were far less suited to racing in Australia.

Hal: that's interesting if true. When Phil Bull of Timeform did his famous study to debunk Lowe, he took horses that finished last in selling plates (claiming level in U.S. terms), and the #1 was the most populous in England at that time. I would guess the #4 at least would be very strongly represented in the U.S.

Joltman: in general terms inbreeding to a single ancestor tends to appear pretty much in proportion with regards to stakes winners and incidence in a commercially equivalent population. I think it did tend to be more common in the early days of the breed in England (smaller base population, tendency to breed in a small geographic region). Marcel Boussac used it with great success in the mid-1900s, including a Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe winner, Coronation V, who was 2x2 to Tourbillon. I think these days with a high proportion of the population being bred for the market, breeders don't want to deal with what are perceived risks involved in close inbreeding.

re: Galileo/Danehill Revisited

Joltman — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 12:04:38 GMT

It really doesn't surprise me to see a 3 x 2 breeding work with the right ones. Am I wrong in believing that closer inbreeding is more common in Europe, and was far more common 100 years and further back?

re: Galileo/Danehill Revisited

Hal Dane. — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:23:00 GMT

Alan... There are more mares at stud in the world, from families TWO and FOUR.. than family ONE.

Although more classic race winners continue to be produced by family ONE... something I can't understand.. perhaps it is because it is the only female line that goes back to a daughter of the Darley Arabian out of a Byerley Turk mare..

re: Galileo/Danehill Revisited

djebel — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 05:39:54 GMT

If you take out the Australian bred horses bred on the Galileo/Danehill cross what are the percentages or has that already been done ?