- This topic has 11 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Great to see Juddmonte confirm that following a scan, Midday is in foal to the great Frankel. 16 Group 1s between them – should be amongst the best pairings of recent years.
We all know how great racehorses don’t necessarily go on to be great sires.
Anyone got any views on Frankel’s prospects as a sire ?
- Total Posts 764
Unimaginable potential, but we’ll just have to wait and see.
I seem to remember reading that no horse rated over 136 (Not 100% sure of that figure.) has ever made up into a champion stallion. If that is true the prospects of Frankel replicating his track career in the covering yard might not be too great?
I seem to remember reading that no horse rated over 136 (Not 100% sure of that figure.) has ever made up into a champion stallion. If that is true the prospects of Frankel replicating his track career in the covering yard might not be too great?
As an arbitary number assigned to a racehorse can have any useful correlation to success at stud?
How do you define champion?
The chance of Frankel replicating his track career at stud isn’t likely for the sole reason that inate racing ability as a pecking order doesn’t translate itself to the same pecking order at stud.
No one knows how Frankel will do at stud, and no one has any useful data to really project any realistic success. Perhaps we should wait 5-6 years instead of inane projections.
I seem to remember reading that no horse rated over 136 (Not 100% sure of that figure.) has ever made up into a champion stallion. If that is true the prospects of Frankel replicating his track career in the covering yard might not be too great?
As an arbitary number assigned to a racehorse can have any useful correlation to success at stud?
How do you define champion?
The chance of Frankel replicating his track career at stud isn’t likely for the sole reason that inate racing ability as a pecking order doesn’t translate itself to the same pecking order at stud.
No one knows how Frankel will do at stud, and no one has any useful data to really project any realistic success. Perhaps we should wait 5-6 years instead of inane projections.
Your first sentence has me baffled, (It’s a little inane.
) but assuming it means what I think then all I was pointing out was what you have in your third paragraph. As I said I’m not certain of the exact rating but historically no horse over a particular rating has been the most successful stallion in any year, or at least that’s what I think I read.I assumed the champion stallion was that stallion who’s offspring produced the highest prize money for any given year, but I’m not really clued up about the subject. I’ll happily bow to your superior knowledge.
[
Your first sentence has me baffled, (It’s a little inane. ) but assuming it means what I think then all I was pointing out was what you have in your third paragraph. As I said I’m not certain of the exact rating but historically no horse over a particular rating has been the most successful stallion in any year, or at least that’s what I think I read.I assumed the champion stallion was that stallion who’s offspring produced the highest prize money for any given year, but I’m not really clued up about the subject. I’ll happily bow to your superior knowledge.
Imagine GingerTipster and myself in a room …. now that would be inane.
Ratings are a subjective human produced number. Correlating that to stud success is like correlating penis size to success in picking up women in bars. If you aren’t certain of the exact rating threshold and aren’t willing to evolve the point then it becomes rather spurious don’t you think?
I asked you for your definition of Champion because A) different people will have different definitions B) I am curious. I too would have expected that to be the particular measurement. The randomly created threshold of 136 with this strict restricted definition really provides no context at all. Many horses will have very successful stud careers without being "Champion" or topping the total earnings list.
We should simply wait and see what happens, rather than a somewhat redundant airy fairy stat with no context behind it. If you wanted to go very in-depth on that piece of data, Hammy, i’d be interested to see the results. Not that i expect you to, since i hope you have better things to do with your time
[
Your first sentence has me baffled, (It’s a little inane. ) but assuming it means what I think then all I was pointing out was what you have in your third paragraph. As I said I’m not certain of the exact rating but historically no horse over a particular rating has been the most successful stallion in any year, or at least that’s what I think I read.I assumed the champion stallion was that stallion who’s offspring produced the highest prize money for any given year, but I’m not really clued up about the subject. I’ll happily bow to your superior knowledge.
Imagine GingerTipster and myself in a room …. now that would be inane.
Ratings are a subjective human produced number. Correlating that to stud success is like correlating penis size to success in picking up women in bars. If you aren’t certain of the exact rating threshold and aren’t willing to evolve the point then it becomes rather spurious don’t you think?
I asked you for your definition of Champion because A) different people will have different definitions B) I am curious. I too would have expected that to be the particular measurement. The randomly created threshold of 136 with this strict restricted definition really provides no context at all. Many horses will have very successful stud careers without being "Champion" or topping the total earnings list.
We should simply wait and see what happens, rather than a somewhat redundant airy fairy stat with no context behind it. If you wanted to go very in-depth on that piece of data, Hammy, i’d be interested to see the results. Not that i expect you to, since i hope you have better things to do with your time
Hell’s teeth man I was simply passing on something that I read! It wasn’t supposed to be a statement of irrefutable fact from me. And I certainly wasn’t looking for a protracted argument about it. (I suppose I should have known better tbh.)
It isn’t difficult to grasp. In one of the racing papers, or perhaps on one of the online sites, when speculating about the probability of Frankel being a success in the breeding sheds whilst he was still in training, a journo made the point that no horse with a Timeform rating over (And yes, I cannot remember the exact number. Is it a hanging offence? Or even remotely relevant??) a very high number which I think was 136 has been a very successful stallion.
Given that a horse is mere flesh and blood and ‘heir to those thousand shocks’ as with any other animate creature then it is as pertinent as any other factor likely to provide pointers such as breeding or racing talent. In fact isn’t that the whole premise of the bloodstock sales arena? You know, to pick a horse on the probability of it’s breeding? In that respect the fact that no horse over a certain Timeform rating (Far lower than Frankel’s) has ever been especially successful as a sire is as relevant a pointer as any other as far as I can see.
Now do me a favour, write your inevitable barbed reply and then find someone else to argue the toss with!
Hammy is right. I think it is Tony Morris, the breeding expert in the Racing Post, who calls it "regression to the norm". The notion that no great racehorse can produce a better one than himself.
However Frankel broke all the rules as a racehorse, it would not surprise me one bit if he broke them as a stallion as well.
"this perfect mix of poetry and destruction, this glory of rhythm, power and majesty: the undisputed champion of the world!!!"
I seem to remember reading that no horse rated over 136 (Not 100% sure of that figure.) has ever made up into a champion stallion. If that is true the prospects of Frankel replicating his track career in the covering yard might not be too great?
Ribot, Vaguely Noble, Alleged, Alycidon, Crepello, Mill Reef, Montjeu, Nijinsky, Sunday Silence, Old Vic, Tantieme, and Easy Goer don’t count?
Hammy is right. I think it is Tony Morris, the breeding expert in the Racing Post, who calls it "regression to the norm". The notion that no great racehorse can produce a better one than himself.
However Frankel broke all the rules as a racehorse, it would not surprise me one bit if he broke them as a stallion as well.
Thanks Joni, but I think I did have it slightly wrong. (That’s why my original post says ‘seem to remember’.) the whole point of posting was because I expected some body to expand on it. That’s why I put question marks at the end of my post.
Here’s the quote I must have read:
"Curiously, Frankel appears doomed not to produce a son or daughter who is superior to him. The Racing Post’s bloodstock expert, Tony Morris, writes: “No horse rated 138 has ever sired a horse rated 138 or above. "
So it is his likelihood of siring an individual to rival his own talent that is in question rather than whether he might be a successful stallion financially.
I wish I hadn’t mentioned it now. I might have known there would be the usual suspects looking for a game of bicker-tennis on this forum.
It was only meant to be a passing remark, not a hard and fast condemnation of Frankel’s chances of breeding success. I hope he bucks the trends, and fully expect that he will.
Hammy is right. I think it is Tony Morris, the breeding expert in the Racing Post, who calls it "regression to the norm". The notion that no great racehorse can produce a better one than himself.
However Frankel broke all the rules as a racehorse, it would not surprise me one bit if he broke them as a stallion as well.
Thanks Joni, but I think I did have it slightly wrong. (That’s why my original post says ‘seem to remember’.) the whole point of posting was because I expected some body to expand on it. That’s why I put question marks at the end of my post.
Here’s the quote I must have read:
"Curiously, Frankel appears doomed not to produce a son or daughter who is superior to him. The Racing Post’s bloodstock expert, Tony Morris, writes: “No horse rated 138 has ever sired a horse rated 138 or above. "
That is also false. Mill Reef, rated 141, sired Reference Point, rated 139.
) but assuming it means what I think then all I was pointing out was what you have in your third paragraph. As I said I’m not certain of the exact rating but historically no horse over a particular rating has been the most successful stallion in any year, or at least that’s what I think I read.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.