Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quite so Sal and Mesh. It is not so much that breeding itself is inprecise, but more ‘commercial’ breeders who either don’t know enough or don’t care enough about what they are doing.
Not quite Escorial. When it tells you something clearly with the right criteria in place you can be very certain about it. This in about 70-80% of cases. When the message is mixed it is best to widen the net and take account of other factors.
The breed is afflicted with a host of inherent flaws and weaknesses, any one of which can cause an individual to underperform.
Breeding is also not simply thinking of the best male and female performers on the track and putting them together. You need to consider such things as whether certain lines are better suited to lines free of Northern Dancer blood for example, or whether they will benefit from further concentrated inbreeding to such lines.
The fact that a scattergun approach is used for many stallions and that wrong mating decisions are made is more connected with disappointments than anything else.
A simple example to illustrate: the Sadler’s Wells/Habitat cross has led to a very high level of consistency and performance. Sadler’s Wells crossed with the progeny of other damsires may not produce offspring nearly as good or nearly as consistent.
While I am not suggesting for a moment that Sadler’s Wells should only be crossed with the progeny of Habitat (far from it) it boils down to a better quality of decision being made by breeders as to how consistent the results will be.
Thanks for posting your findings non-vintage.
The most likely result of the race by my calculations (taking everything into consideration), is:
1) High Chaparral<br>2) Fight Your Corner (narrowly preferred to Bandari)<br>3) Moon Ballad (narrowly preferred to Naheef)
With Hawk Wing as the bird in the ointment.
Dubai Destination is almost certain to be dropped (the least likely to get the trip). Tholjanah is a doubtful starter but must be considered a strong candidate for the St Leger, along with Fight Your Corner.<br>
For those of you who may have seen the rather flawed critique of my article on bettingmarket.com this is my response (I have sent it to them but have no indication as to whether they will publish it). I am posting my response here so that no one can accuse me of being wise after the event. Thanks for your indulgence.
A flawed review of a useful system
I am responding to the review of my article Hawk at full stretch for Derby now to avoid the criticism of being wise after the event. Had the reviewer bothered to read my article he/she would have spotted that Bandari was excluded on the grounds that his points total (16) was too low for an accurate reading. This also applies to previous winners Henbit (12) and Dr Devious (14, who I also drew attention to in my article).
Had the reviewer also been paying attention he/she would have seen that the Dosage figures do in fact give Hawk Wing a chance of getting the 12 furlongs, although there are others in the race that are better suited to the task. Indeed I had pointed out that previous winners of the Derby had quite similar profiles. The main objection to Hawk Wing is that I believe his physique his unsuited to Epsom. I went as far as to suggest the Irish Derby (also run over 12 furlongs) as a more appropriate (although not ideal) alternative.
Turning to the more specific criticism of Dosage, it is a common misconception that the system does not take account of the dam’s side – it does through qualifying chef-de-race sires that are present in that half of the pedigree. The reasons females are excluded as individuals are: 1) characteristics transmitted by a given individual are not necessarily those they possessed as a racehorse, 2) There is not enough data to make any assumption based of the performance of a mare’s progeny – even the most successful mare may have only a small handful of offspring that make it to the racecourse in their lifetime, whereas a stallion may have more than 1,000 individuals racing over less than a decade. It is clearly unsafe to base any claim of aptitudinal prepotence on such a relatively tiny progeny sample as a mare can offer and unwise to base it on an individual’s racecourse performances.
It is both a strength and a weakness of the Dosage system that sires cannot become chefs-de-race until there is enough evidence of aptitudinal prepotence. As a means of addressing the weakness aspect of this there is a secondary list of active sires listed under five stamina characteristic categories (dominant speed, intermediate speed, balanced speed, intermediate stamina and dominant stamina), which correspond to the five chef-de-race categories of Brilliant, Intermediate, Classic, Solid and Professional. While the stallions on the secondary list are not chefs-de-race they could be promoted to the main list eventually (but not necessarily). The list is maintained as a guide to typical performance traits for the progeny of stallions and is often useful in cases where chefs-de-race do not appear close up in the pedigree. New stallions are continually considered for inclusion, but they need to show incontrovertible evidence of aptitudinal prepotence to be added. The pool must only include such qualifying stallions to be of use.
Exceptions aside for the moment, the ‘proper’ type for the Derby tends toward a Dosage Index of 1.00 and a CD of zero, which represents an ideal balance of speed with stamina. Past top performers who conform to this blueprint for 12 furlongs include last year’s Derby winner Galileo DI 1.11, CD +0.28, dual-Derby winner Montjeu (like Galileo by Sadler’s Wells) DI 0.89, CD +0.08, and Epsom Derby winners Lammtarra (by Nijinsky) DI 1.15, CD +0.30 and Generous (by Caerleon) DI 0.69, CD 0.00.
Nijinsky proved effective at a range of distances. In the case of Benny The Dip and Erhaab, both appeared not to have the credentials to compete effectively at middle distances. However, you should always temper strict interpretation of the headline figures with common sense and look at possible “off-Dosageâ€ÂÂ
It’s getting a bit of a circular discussion Colin. I can only repeat that it is the point of Dosage to deselect any influence which has not proven prepotence, based on Vuillier’s/Varola’s principle that thoroughbred evolution proceeds through the influence of a much smaller number of prepotent stallions in any era than is widely appreciated.
You need to take this on board to appreciate what the system is telling you. Of course the premise can be questioned and you can choose to ignore its findings as you can with anything in life.<br>
(Edited by Steve M at 6:17 pm on June 3, 2002)
Colin, I assure you that I am not in the least attempting to be condescending. Just answering what you appeared to be saying. However, as you now seem to acknowledge that there isn’t an in built bias against the damside we can continue.
Your point now appears to be that whatever side the disproportion appears to be on makes the analysis uneven. This is to misunderstand the very basis of Dosage, which intentionally does not acknowledge unprepotent influences. This is what Dosage is about, identifying significant influence and weeding out that which is not.
On your point about sires being added to the list, it is both a strength and a weakness of the system that sires cannot become chefs-de-race until there is enough evidence of aptitudinal prepotence. As a means of addressing the weakness aspect of this there is a secondary list of active sires listed under five stamina characteristic categories (dominant speed, intermediate speed, balanced speed, intermediate stamina and dominant stamina, which correspond to the five chef-de-race categories of Brilliant, Intermediate, Classic, Solid and Professional. While the stallions on the secondary list are not chefs-de-race they could be promoted to the main list eventually (but not necessarily). The list is maintained as a guide to typical performance traits for the progeny of stallions and is often useful in cases where chefs-de-race do not appear close up in the pedigree. A successful or a prolific stallion is not necessarily a prepotent one. New stallions are continually considered for inclusion, but they need to show incontrovertible evidence of aptitudinal prepotence to be added. The pool can neither be too small or too large, but it MUST only include such qualifying stallions to be of use.
(Edited by Steve M at 5:36 pm on May 31, 2002)
Colin you don’t quite understand the principle. It is very common that more points are derived from the dam’s side than the sires side. In this case, however, it is the sire’s side that supplies most points – 22 as opposed to 8, making up a 30 point profile which will give an accurate reading.
The points come from wherever in the pedigree prepotence is identified and there is no "bias" to either side of the pedigree, unless by bias you mean that a sire is accredited with greater influence than a qualifying damsire.
(Edited by Steve M at 3:04 pm on May 31, 2002)
Yes I understand what you are saying Colin.
The very point of the Dosage system is to deselect unprepotent influences. This is where it scores over conventional pedigree analysis.
Yes Escorial I use projected ratings which factor in how far a horse has run within itself, form lines and Dosage (which won’t tell you how good a horse is but will give you an idea of how far it will stay) and a host of other tools.
When a variety of aspects start to confirm a clear picture you take notice of it. When they lead to an unclear picture you should not be as confident.
The Dosage analysis gives Hawk Wing a chance of staying 12 furlongs. Contrary to Colin’s belief the damside is factored in through the qualifying stallions in the female line (and Steven Roman has never said otherwise). It is the damside that provides Hawk Wing with his two stamina points in fact, through Nijinsky who is the sire of HW’s second dam.
Val De L’Orne is not a prepotent stallion and therefore his stamina capabilities are not of the same significance. It is not simply a case of attributing an equal factor to all components of the pedigree, some parts are more influential than others. The Raise A Native/Mr Prospector top line is of course packed with speed.
However, there are more suitable types for the Derby in this year’s renewal, such as High Chaparral and FYC who conform to what a Derby ‘type’ is. If Hawk Wing does manage it it will be as a consequence of his brilliance rather than him being the right sort for the race. It is interesting that Aidan O’Brien is telling the Press that he would have no problem running him in the July Cup. The idea that he would be just as capable of winning the July Cup and the St Leger is absurd. The truth is somewhere in between. I expect his best distance to be between 8 and 10 furlongs more in line with the AWD of his sire Woodman.<br>
(Edited by Steve M at 1:53 pm on May 30, 2002)
Maurice has published his ratings on the other forum. I take the liberty of reproducing them here:
"In order as listed by Steve:
Tholjanah 117<br>High Chaparral 123p<br>Fight Your Corner 121<br>Moon Ballad 113<br>Al Moulatham 114++<br>Naheef 116<br>Coshocton 111<br>Hawk Wing 130t<br>Dubai Destination 116+t
With Al Moulatham and Tholjanah doubtful, the way is very much open for High Chaparral and FYC to fight out the finish.
Also with good ratings but not in Steve’s list (doubtful runners bar Bandari?):
Castle Gandolfo 123+<br>Bandari 118<br>Ballingarry 114?<br>Black Sam Bellamy 114+
Checking his form tonight, I was quite struck by Al Moulatham, but if Moon Ballad is thought the better candidate he cannot be ignored. I think Castle Gandolfo’s breeding suggests 12f will be too far for him but Black Sam Bellamy is a full brother to Galileo. Is he going to run?
My preferred order:
1 High Chaparral<br>2 Fight Your Corner<br>3 Tholjanah (if he gets there in one piece)<br>4 Godolphin’s selected"
ends
This works out well. There seems to be a high correlation between suitablity for the race in terms of stamina and the ratings. This should make the result more predictable than usual.
I had come to pretty much the same conclusion as Maurice.
1) High Chaparral<br>2) Fight Your Corner (preferred to Bandari)<br>3) Moon Ballad (preferred to Naheef)
With Hawk Wing the bird in the ointment.
In terms of value FYC stands out at a readily available 12/1 (you lucky, lucky people).
Not long to wait until we find out… I’m beginning to get quite excited. I apologise for so doing as many of you are still bemoaning how terrible life, the universe and the Derby is (in reverse order of course).<br>
We don’t know how "average" the Derby is until after it is run. People run down the Derby EVERY year, it is rarely the case after the event (Oath was the last poor winner, his race suffered from the absence of Montjeu).
Coolmore may well be taking a view that it is there for the taking this year. But he will be a "wonder horse" if he wins because it is unlikely that he will get the trip well enough in relation to better suited horses.
Aidan O’Brien explained to the Daily Mail yesterday how similar he was to Nijinsky. He then added that he would have no problem running him in the July Cup as he has so much pace. In my opinion it is not sensible to say on the one hand that he is capable of winning the St Leger and on the other that the July Cup is there for the taking. O’Brien (or rather Coolmore) will have his own reasons for saying this, but even Champion the Wonder Horse would be hard pressed to do all of that. Perhaps he intends walking across the Irish sea as well.
Fight Your Corner for example has no such problem with the distance and Kevin Darley is bullish about his chances. He is reported as saying:
"I saw him this morning and he looks a million dollars. I’m over the moon… I think he just had an off-day first time out but he did nothing wrong at Chester and the Vase is as good a classic trial as any. He showed something at Chester that he’d not shown us before – he got a bit outpaced and showed a turn of foot. The one question mark we haven’t got is that he’ll stay because I think that’s his game. He’ll get a mile and a half stood on his head".
This in addition to his most recent piece of speed work with Simeon (who heads for France at the weekend, so look out for pointers), in which he shone over five furlongs, is very encouraging.
In my mind High Chaperral has a fairly equal chance to FYC, but there is a big difference in the price.
If they do run Hawk Wing they must believe he is going to win and I would expect most jockeys to stick with the class horse rather than the one best suited to conditions, simply because they often cannot bear to let anyone else onboard.<br>
(Edited by Steve M at 4:55 pm on May 29, 2002)
A brave decision can also be a foolhardy one. There are other and better races for him.
Some believe that Coolmore have no intention of running him. Although I would rather see him run elsewhere, I hope this is not so. If it is the case Coolmore’s conduct is deplorable.
Great clip elderberry, only in Ireland eh?…
Jim and Prince have to be right. Baracouda had Bannow Bay beaten everywhere – even his trainer who thought BB couldn’t be beaten concedes this.
This is no poor reflection on BB who has run the race of his life to his fullest extent. It took a horse of Baracouda’s ability to bring this out of him. But Baracouda had him totally held coming from well off the pace and the further they went the less chance BB had of ever getting back at him.
If you are looking for peerless horses look no further than this one, I doubt that BB would or could ever beat him if you gave him 100 opportunities.
As I say Baracouda’s nine length beating of Hor La Loi at Ascot this season makes particularly good reading now. Yes Baracouda is much superior to Bannow Bay. And yes Bannow Bay did run the race of his life, by about a stone.
I agree with both Daniel and dario.
Bannow Bay is a staying hurdler of very high order who can only improve.
JDC is only a 5-y-o and is bound to be one for the future. 5-y-os as we should now know don’t win the Stayers hurdle. Even brilliant 5-y-o favourites in the race cannot manage it. The race is simply too demanding for a young horse.<br>
The amount of sour grapes about getting it wrong about this horse is unbelievable.
Bannow Bay ran the race of his life as the rating will bear out. His trainer confessed to believing he couldn’t be beaten. Yet Baracouda was ridden hands and heels to beat him – the whip was not used in the finish.
He remains probably the best staying hurdler I have seen.
I suspected that Baracouda would end up odds against, as unless you had backed him when I put that thread up about him before he raced for the first time this season (Baracouda takes centre stage – now vanished), you would not have been able to get on at anything much better than evens since last year.
Consequently he was the only horse in the race that bookmakers (especially the on-course bookmakers) hadn’t taken a penny for, whereas half of Ireland had plenty of opportunity to back Bannow Bay at a wide variety of prices.
Baracouda will continue to beat the opposition for the forseeable future.<br>
