Unproven stallions-- best/worst values

[GenuineRisk]

http://thoroughbredreview.com/

Top page has a list of this guy's opinions on stud prospects for various new stalllions. What I know about pedigree would fit on the head of a pin with room left over, but I found it entertaining reading. Buffy, don't look... you won't be happy...

[Cannon Shell]

If a stallion is unproven then how do you determine value?

[Buffymommy]

http://www.lanesend.com/stallions/st...ten/index.html


I was looking at this picture yesterday. I actually like everything about his looks, EXCEPT his friggen ankles. In this picture does, is it just me, but does he not look like he has HUGE friggen ankles? His lower leg looks friggen awful. Am I crazy? Now I am not an expert on horse's confirmation, but I like the rest except for his lower legs.

[Buffymommy]

And Genuine,

Now he(RH10) can prove this dude wrong. I still love the horse though.

[slotdirt]

Always liked Speightstown. Should we start to see his weanlings soon?

[LARHAGE]

Originally Posted by Buffymommy

http://www.lanesend.com/stallions/st...ten/index.html


I was looking at this picture yesterday. I actually like everything about his looks, EXCEPT his friggen ankles. In this picture does, is it just me, but does he not look like he has HUGE friggen ankles? His lower leg looks friggen awful. Am I crazy? Now I am not an expert on horse's confirmation, but I like the rest except for his lower legs.

I am actually not surprised his ankles look like that, his left hind leg is so swollen theres not even any definition in the pastern area. The wear and tear on a horse that size is telling, it's hard to say from the picture if he's just stocked up or if the damage is always visible. Thats one of the reasons I tend to like the smaller horses, 17 hands is too large for my liking.

[Danzig]

he's too big, just one of his 'knocks'....a horses legs aren't really any bigger when they are, so what they have has to carry that much more weight, causing unsoundness, and ankles like his.
another knock on rht is his sire hasn't had much success becoming a sire of sires. and that's putting it nicely. arch is one of his very few to do much of note. one is't enough.

9 of 10 stallions are failures at stud. not good odds at all. that's why i would buy fillies! they have residual value as broodmares. amazing what people are selling broodmares for--people are going to the track and claiming well bred, but slow mares, and selling them for many times what they paid for them...

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Buffymommy

http://www.lanesend.com/stallions/st...ten/index.html


I was looking at this picture yesterday. I actually like everything about his looks, EXCEPT his friggen ankles. In this picture does, is it just me, but does he not look like he has HUGE friggen ankles? His lower leg looks friggen awful. Am I crazy? Now I am not an expert on horse's confirmation, but I like the rest except for his lower legs.

You couldn't pay me to breed to a horse with legs like that (sorry Buffy....I know you like him). It isn't just his ankles...it is his whole freaking leg. It's hard to see, but look at how swollen and capped the points of his hocks are. His knees are slightly bent forward (bucked) too. No wonder they couldn't run the horse in the BCC last year. Sheesh. His angles on his pasterns are off..at least, I think that they are...I can't really tell because you can't see his hooves and his ankles are so darn swollen. I don't think he is stocked up. His pasterns look too clean for him to be stocked up. I think that it is just him.

His head and neck are absolutely beautiful though. He is a very pretty horse to look at.

All of this is pure guesswork ... because ...

... it's impossible to forecast in advance who will be a successful stallion and who won't.

Race record, pedigree, physical appearance, soundness, and professionalism all are contributing factors ... but ...

... there are so many horses who share so many of those attributes ... that somehow divining which ones of dozens of prospects are going to succeed ... and which ones are going to fail ... is a sucker's game.

Hundreds of years of breeding experience have borne this out.

Next topic!

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

All of this is pure guesswork ... because ...

... it's impossible to forecast in advance who will be a successful stallion and who won't.

Race record, pedigree, physical appearance, soundness, and professionalism all are contributing factors ... but ...

... there are so many horses who share so many of those attributes ... that somehow divining which ones of dozens of prospects are going to succeed ... and which ones are going to fail ... is a sucker's game.

Hundreds of years of breeding experience have borne this out.

Next topic!

it is not all guesswork. there is a tremendous amount of thought involved. the goal is to increase the odds. it is no different than any other business. luck is involved but it is not ALL guesswork, as you noted. do you speak from breeding experience? i would find it hard to believe anyone that has ever been in the breeding business would make your statements.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

You couldn't pay me to breed to a horse with legs like that (sorry Buffy....I know you like him). It isn't just his ankles...it is his whole freaking leg. It's hard to see, but look at how swollen and capped the points of his hocks are. His knees are slightly bent forward (bucked) too. No wonder they couldn't run the horse in the BCC last year. Sheesh. His angles on his pasterns are off..at least, I think that they are...I can't really tell because you can't see his hooves and his ankles are so darn swollen. I don't think he is stocked up. His pasterns look too clean for him to be stocked up. I think that it is just him.

His head and neck are absolutely beautiful though. He is a very pretty horse to look at.

you bring up one of my biggest pet peeves in conformation shots...when they are standing in the grass and you can't see the hoof or half of the pastern, really annoying.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If a stallion is unproven then how do you determine value?

Ah, there's the gamble in breeding, eh? From what he writes, most stallions going to stud will prove to not be worth it, but buyers like getting in on what could be the next big thing-- Smarty stands for $100,000, right?

Here's his article on stallions who entered stud between 1994-1997 and where they are now:

http://thoroughbredreview.com/94-97Stallions.htm

And on the unproven sire psychology:

http://thoroughbredreview.com/1stYearCommSires.htm

Look at it this way, BuffyM: if he's right and RHT doesn't pan out at stud, it'll make getting one of his babies a lot less expensive for you!

[Buffymommy]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Look at it this way, BuffyM: if he's right and RHT doesn't pan out at stud, it'll make getting one of his babies a lot less expensive for you!

OH YEAH! I hadn't thought about it that way!

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

http://thoroughbredreview.com/

Top page has a list of this guy's opinions on stud prospects for various new stalllions. What I know about pedigree would fit on the head of a pin with room left over, but I found it entertaining reading. Buffy, don't look... you won't be happy...

I know nothing about pedigree but clicked on to read it.....

Took one look, saw the name Powerscourt, and changed my mind.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

I know nothing about pedigree but clicked on to read it.....

Took one look, saw the name Powerscourt, and changed my mind.

Tee hee. Well, it's all just speculation at this point. I really enjoyed the "where are they now" on sires who entered the market '94-'97. I wish he'd do a followup on '97-'00.

And even if a horse doesn't turn out to be the best at stud, it doesn't take away from what he achieved on the track. I think some horses are meant to be one-of-a-kind.