- This topic has 192 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What puzzles me is that if a trainer doesn’t believe the information is of any relevance whatsoever, why protest against it so strongly ? Just shut up and inform the BHA.
I wonder if Moore knows his Hamlet.
Problem with the wind op declarations and intimations that Sadlers Wells is behind many (he will as there are so many lines back to SW). Many horses have wind ops for very little reason, in some yards it is as common as worming (I jest but nearly so). In 25 years of owning, we have only had 2 wind ops – with varying breeding some with no SW and some with. The ops made no difference and they both broke down within months of running. Unless there is a really bad wind issue the risks must outweigh the advantages.
As with most other aspects of horse racing, much will depend on the trainer and how strong the force is with them.
I read something on a bloodstock forum that made me laugh (nothing to do with wind ops). One poster said that all that matters with breeding is DNA – that of the trainer who ends up with your progeny.
As wind ops seem to be under discussion here, I’m hoping someone might be able to clarify an aspect that is confusing me. I’m sure I’ve heard it mentioned that horses who’ve had wind ops tend to be unsuited by heavy going afterwards. Why would this be? I’d have thought the whole point of the wind op would be to make life easier in situations where there is more pressure on breathing such as heavy ground.
Hi Marlingford, if a horse has a wind problem, I suppose after that there is a doubt about it even after surgery, until proven that it was successful. Also wind ops sometimes need repeating after a while (not always a permanent fix, depending on the issue), so people probably have that in mind when saying such things. I would agree though, that if a wind problem was stopping it, and surgery was 100% successful, then a horse should cope better afterwards, at least in the short term – otherwise the horse just hated heavy ground, full stop.
Thanks very much for the reply Louise
I guess the way to look at it is that the wind op should sound a note of caution until there is evidence that it has worked, and this is especially the case in situations where there is likely to be more pressure on breathing such as when the going is heavy.For those of you interested in the sires data from Cheltenham, here are the headlines …
181 sires represented; 459 individual runners; 28 races; no sire was responsible for > 1 winner. So, unlike Leopardstown, there was no stand out performance.
Of the 28 sires with winners, only 4 had five or more runners. Six with double figure representatives did not have a winner and five sires with five or more runners did not have a placed runner. All of these sires would be in the ‘big books’ category. By contrast, sires with very small numbers of runners did very well indeed. 9 winners came from sires with just one runner, including the winners of the GC, the RSA, the Champion Chase and the Triumph. Sires with just two runners were responsible for the winners of the CH, the Supreme, the Arkle, the Stayers and the Ballymore. In other words, 9 of the G1 races were won by sires with a very small number of runners. So – quality is to be found well beyond the ‘big books’ stallions.
Of the 181 sires represented at Cheltenham, 111 (61%) descend in tail male from ND, but in terms of runners, 157 (34%) came from the Sadler’s Wells line and 52 (11%) from Danzig. So, approaching half of all the runners (45%) came from just these two lines. That hyper-concentration is as per the Leopardstown data. Even the other established ND NH sire lines are in retreat: Nijinsky’s line was responsible for only 27 runners and Lyphard’s for just 19. Beyond ND, Native Dancer/Mr P had 17 runners and 8 came from Native Dancer/Atan. Nearco/Nasrullah sires provided just 53 runners between them (12%). Beyond that, Ribot’s line had 30 runners, as did Blandford’s; 13 came from Nearco/Dante/High Top, and then just a smattering came from Nearco/Royal Charger/Turn-to, Hyperion, Fair Trial, Djebel and Birkhahn/Acatenango.
In terms of performance, the SW and Danzig lines supplied the winners of 11 races (39%), of which 7 were hurdle races. Four of those hurdle race winners were G1s – Summerville Boy (Supreme), Benie des Dieux (Mares), Penhill (Stayers), Farclas (Triumph). Two G1 chases were won by horses from these lines – both by Sadler’s Wells line sires: the CC (Altior – High Chaparral) and the JLT (Shattered Love – Yeats). Another two chases were won by Sadler’s Wells line horses (Tiger Roll – XC, Mr Whitaker). The Danzig line sires produced one placed runner in a chase (from 18 runners). Out of interest, I then went back to reanalyse the Leopardstown data. The same pattern emerges there: Danzig line sires had 38 runners there, 6 of them in a chase, with one placed. Sadler’s Wells sires had 128 runners, 31 of them in chases. 7 of those runners won, but only one of those was a chase (Shattered Love, again). Food for thought – especially given the increasing numbers of Danzig/Danehill’s on the NH roster.
Back at Cheltenham, beyond Sadler’s Wells & Danzig, of the other ND sires represented, only Nijinsky’s and Lyphard’s line produced winners, with Nijinsky’s both being chase winners, including the GC.
As at Leopardstown, the Nearco/Nasrullah line sires did well, providing 12% of the runners, 6 winners (21%), 4 of them chases. The Mill Reef line was again the standout here – 6% of the runners, 11% of the winners (Rathvinden, Blow by Blow, Presenting Percy). But there is also Red God here, responsible for Buveur d’Air and Missed Approach, and Grey Sovereign (Blue Bresil) with Le Prezien.Native Dancer/ Mr P was responsible for Footpad; Native Dancer/Atan for Samcro and Pacha du Polder.
From Ribot (i.e. Flemensfirth and Shantou) there was Relegate and The Storyteller; Nearco-Dante-High Top, through Balko, was responsible for Balko des Flos; Nearco-Royal Charger-Turn-to (Intikhab) had Mohaayed and Blandford/Monsun (Network), Delta Work.So, in sum – as per the Leopardstown data – quality NH horses come from diverse sources. The performance data suggests that it very much matters for NH racing that that diversity is preserved.
PS @rustyrails – I haven’t done the ND duplications for this lot yet :) That may have to wait until the flat kicks in in earnest.
Good stuff Titus and the simple stat of 28 races, 28 sires and the diversity that you have dug deeper into is heartening.
Hi Titus, apologies for the late response – thank you for all your hard work, and it’s good to see some figures/analysis against the results.
Hi Titus, apologies for the late response – thank you for all your hard work. I’m going to have a read through it now, and look forward to your Aintree edition
Here is the Punchestown update (a little late!):
556 runners; 540 individual horses (16 ran twice, including one horse that had fallen on the first run). 201 sires were represented (a larger n than at the other festivals). Nonetheless, the runners were dominated by a narrow range of sire lines. Of the 556 unique runners, 335 (58%) are direct descendants of Northern Dancer, with 35% of the total runners from the Sadler’s Wells line. 47% of the runners (~ half of the entire Punchestown field) descend from Sadler’s Wells or Danzig line sires.
26 individual sires had winners. But, unlike the other festivals, Punchestown had more sires with multiple winners (5 in total). 2 sires had 3 winners a piece (Flemensfirth , Great Pretender). A further 3 sires had 2 winners (Fame and Glory, King’s Theatre and Shantou).
21 sires had a single winner but, whereas 6 of these came from their only runner, some high profile (big books) stallions had just one winner from a large number of runners. Some big books stallions with a large number of runners had no winners (> 20 runners: Beneficial, Presenting; > 10 Getaway). Flemensfirth’s 3 winners came from 21 runners. Great Pretender, by contrast, had just 4 runners, 3 of whom won – including two G1s.
As at other festivals, the Sadler’s Wells and Danzig sire lines performed well, supplying 15 and 6 winners respectively ( 56% of the winners). But, once again, other sire lines, with much lower numerical representation, performed well. Notable here are Nasrullah (especially Red God and Mill Reef) and Ribot (Flemensfirth, Shantou). The Djebel line is also represented amongst the winners, from extremely small numbers. As before, a headline conclusion is that diversity is no barrier to racecourse success.
As noteworthy is the under-performance at Punchestown of other sire lines. Monsun’s sons stand out here. Although with identical numerical representation to Ribot’s line, and with 10 sires with runners (c.f. 4), this line produced not a single winner.
I wonder if anyone can help, I am looking for statistics if anyone has them, the question I have is it better to breed from a mare, that has previous National Hunt form, even though it may be poorish, or take a chance on a mare that is super bred, but never raced in her career? The statistics I suppose what I am looking for is how many national Hunt winners have come from previously raced mares Vs unraced mares ??
I’m not sure about statistics, but in Ireland it’s not unusual for a well bred NH mare not to race, due to the risk of injury. This is probably less true now than, say, 15-20 years ago, because they can pick up black type without jumping an obstacle these days (don’t get me started), but it’s no reflection on her ability if she us unraced (she may not even be broken). Are you actually looking at two mares, or is it a hypothetical question?
Hi Louise, yes looking at a couple for this season coming, one mare won 8 times over a mile on the flat but has plenty of stamina in her page, rated 90 the other a lovely bred mare by Kalanisi and has a page to die for but never raced, just wondered if anyone had the statistics
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.