Reply With QuoteHi jammsb, I was refering to their genetic make up/DNA.
Ok the challenge.
Rule Number One- Black men run faster than white men over 100 metres.
The one thing MOST of them have in common is ability is ability on the racetrack. Even there, two notable exceptions come to mind are Hal Dale and Vance Hanover. Jusdoit, I challenge you - Give me a rule and I'll show you one or more exceptions to it.
Hi jammsb, I was refering to their genetic make up/DNA.
Ok the challenge.
Rule Number One- Black men run faster than white men over 100 metres.
Last edited by justdoit; 01-03-2011 at 01:31 AM. Reason: Bored
Huh? What does that have to do with the predictability of furue Standardbred sires?
Huh? What, pray tell does that have to do with the predictability of future success by Standardbred sires?
Rule number one-
The answer is in the answer and its not just because.
I don't understand riddles.
I reckon there are some general 'guidelines' when it comes to stallion success ... but, yes, there are unquestionably exceptions.
The full-relation example is an ideal case in point. Brothers with identical genetic makeup do not have identical siring ability.
It would be a whole lot easier if there were some very solid parameters that resulted in breeding success. It'd also be a lot more boring.
I like the unpreditability of the game - and the constant pursuit of breeing a top horse based on your own judgement, knowledge and experience.
We have bred some pretty good horses over the years - and some pretty average ones, too. And the best horse we bred was the least fashionable one, too.
It's a funny game - and I believe anyone who reckons they have a formula for success will inevitably be disappointed more often than not.
Full brothers don't count, they are not a clone of one another.
If limited books were introduced an easier comparison between sires could be made.
The mare you are breeding is more important than the sire. What do you think Ben.
I agree Ben. Pretty much the only rule is that the rules are actually generalisations and that they have numerous exceptions.
If it were all about bits of paper and computer screens showing this cross or that cross as being irrefutable predictors of racetrack success, those with the most cash would own all the good racehorses and broodmares and a small syndicate from Truro, NS would never have ended up with arguably the greatest colt to have ever set foot on a racetrack.
A well known & very successful breeder here in Oz once told me that over the years he'd considered and at one time or another had put into practice pretty much every breeding theory that there was going. He went on to say he experienced his greatest breeding successes in relatively recent times by forgetting about all the theories & instead focussing solely on type. That is the only approach I have ever come across that makes any sense to me as it deals with the tangible...the phenotype, the visual appearance of the indivividuals involved, the sire & dam. Identical bloodlines are not the same as identical genes btw, save of course the profile of identical twins. Full brothers Most Happy Fella & Good Humour Man, Nero and The Shrimp Man/Jun Jun Ni or more recently, Camluck & Lucky Cam, Artsplace & Chill Factor etc. etc are examples. Reading back through all the old stud books it's actually quite shocking to see how many full brothers or full brothers in blood to various well known/well performed sires were imported to AUS & NZ in the bad old days. Dreadful stuff.
fascinating reading guys
I'm going to dig out some of those old magazines because I remember the Good Humour Man advertisements.
I've got a poor mans Mach Three
Posting Permissions