You've basically made my point for me here.
If Cracksman's dam is by Pivotal and Frankel is from the Sadlers Wells line it is logical to assume the reason he needs a trip is because there is so much stamina in his sires pedigree.
Frankel - Stud Career
- Thread starter PNkt
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
If Cracksman's dam is by Pivotal and Frankel is from the Sadlers Wells line it is logical to assume the reason he needs a trip is because there is so much stamina in his sires pedigree.
I'll bow to your superior knowledge, i've only been interested in horse racing for 55yrs.
Some perspective please. Year to Date Frankel lies 3rd for all UK/Ireland based sires, which you can't be at without being a very decent sire. Only Galileo and Dubawi lie above him and at higher covering fees. They also have a few years advantage, with Frankel only having 4yos and nothing older.
At the end of last season I put up a chart of 2nd season sires and Frankel was top. 2nd was Nathaniel. I made the point at the time that although their money won differed by about 12%, the cost of producing all their horses that contributed to that was probably 10times more for Frankel's offspring: ergo Nathaniel was better value. But while Frankel's fee was increased to £175k from £125k, Nathaniel's stayed ay £20k. The only possible justification for the difference was that Cracksman was making everyone think Frankel would produce sires. I also made the point which aligns with Dooalittle is that 'would Nathaniel have done better than Frankel with Frankel's book of mares?'.
Earlier than that I was of the view that Frankel was probably due a reduction from £125k. So what did I know.
Frankel to my mind is an exciting sire but is not quite justifying all the hyperbole at the moment. A lot of his horses don't run as 2yos, which I think is a weakness. He hasn't had a really good horse yet, though some promising ones. His horses have inherited some of his temperament but that's not always a bad thing: Hyperion's best produce were often fiery..
Kingman has started well, but not really that much better than Frankel, there's some patience needed on this sire. I do like Sea the Stars who has produced 2 really top class fillies as well as an average Derby winner. One of the problems for Frankel is that he can't be bred to daughters of Galileo. All factors that make it difficult.
At the end of last season I put up a chart of 2nd season sires and Frankel was top. 2nd was Nathaniel. I made the point at the time that although their money won differed by about 12%, the cost of producing all their horses that contributed to that was probably 10times more for Frankel's offspring: ergo Nathaniel was better value. But while Frankel's fee was increased to £175k from £125k, Nathaniel's stayed ay £20k. The only possible justification for the difference was that Cracksman was making everyone think Frankel would produce sires. I also made the point which aligns with Dooalittle is that 'would Nathaniel have done better than Frankel with Frankel's book of mares?'.
Earlier than that I was of the view that Frankel was probably due a reduction from £125k. So what did I know.
Frankel to my mind is an exciting sire but is not quite justifying all the hyperbole at the moment. A lot of his horses don't run as 2yos, which I think is a weakness. He hasn't had a really good horse yet, though some promising ones. His horses have inherited some of his temperament but that's not always a bad thing: Hyperion's best produce were often fiery..
Kingman has started well, but not really that much better than Frankel, there's some patience needed on this sire. I do like Sea the Stars who has produced 2 really top class fillies as well as an average Derby winner. One of the problems for Frankel is that he can't be bred to daughters of Galileo. All factors that make it difficult.
Bustino knows more about pedigrees than anyone on here so I always read what he writes with interest.
The only thing I would query is why not running as a 2yo is a problem. If I had a foal/yearling, I would never run it as a 2yo as I don't believe it is good for their long term soundness. Maybe an introductory run at most. From memory I don't think many top rated 2yos train on to be top rated 3/4yos (especially fillies). Frankel and New Approach are ones I easily recall
The only thing I would query is why not running as a 2yo is a problem. If I had a foal/yearling, I would never run it as a 2yo as I don't believe it is good for their long term soundness. Maybe an introductory run at most. From memory I don't think many top rated 2yos train on to be top rated 3/4yos (especially fillies). Frankel and New Approach are ones I easily recall
Because most class horses are finished by the time they are 4yos (I'm talking flat horses). So if they don't run as a 2yo maybe 40-50% of their racing lives are over. Most of the best racehorses through history have run as 2yos and often been very good 2yos. The best such as Frankel, Ribot, Sea Bird, Brigadier Gerard, Mill Reef, Vaguely Noble and Nijinsky were either top 2yos or very good 2yos and it's hard to find many great horses who didn't run until they were 3yos.
Can't get a more impressive list than that, so my memory failed me miserably there
. As you say though, they are finished at 3 or 4. It's all about the money money money
Thanks for your wise input Bustino, i saw most of those 2yos apart from Ribot, i actually had money on the Brigadier in the guineas, My Swallow who was the top 2yo in 1970 at the time never won another race and was unsuccessful at stud. Most of the 2yos mentioned went on to be very successful at stud apart from BG.
I'm not against late-developing horses but if all horses were bred to be like that then you'd end up with a stud like Ballymacoll where the horses hardly ran.
I think it's instructive that Coolmore bought a horse like Airwave and bingo a daughter of hers gets a colt who wins the 2000G when bred to Galileo. I'm sure they are doing the same with Fairyland.
When the Ascot Gold Cup was the most important race in the calendar it wasn't unknown for the horses that won that to be good 2yos. We seem to have created two horse types and never the twain shall meet.
I was at Ascot when the Italian wonder horse won the KG & QE stakes. Slipped on the bend and still won by 5l. That horse won from 5f to 2miles on all types of ground. Not only did he win the Arc twice, his great grandson, Alleged, also won it twice. I have many favourite horses (some named above) but Ribot is the one I admire the most
People seem to get tunnel vision when it comes to breeding, when in fact breeding is only part of the art of turning out great racehorses. Handling, riding style and above all training make up a good 60% of the outcome. No doubt a well bred horse is a fantastic start, but if a trainer can’t or more usually won’t handle characteristics to bring out the best in a horse; no amount of breeding will make up for trainer error.
Cecil was a one of when it came to reading his charges, hence his stature. Gosdon is probably the closest when it comes to equine skill.
VERACIOUS makes it 3 winners for Frankel today
Loved the pricked ears at the line.
From my experience (or rather Amanda's) a rider can ruin a horse in no time and it takes a lot of patience and understanding to get it back. A trainer can also ruin a horse. There are some whose methods are very distasteful
