Re: RC: RC: RC: RC: RE: 'cheap' horses in endurance / no $ inowning...

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/24/00 6:33:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
truman.prevatt@netsrq.com writes:

<< One thing to consider before any survey is that just because a horse is a
 "cull" from one activity, doesn't mean he will or will not be good at
 another.  Michael Johnson - the only trackman to every win both the 200 and
 400 in the Olympics - can't compete with sprinters at 100 meters or middle
 distance runners at 800 meters. So he is a cull from the sprinter world and
 middle distance world. >>

This is true, Truman.  The thing that bothers me about this in the Arabian 
world, though, is that the Arabian classically was the brilliant generalist, 
and endurance draws on that sort of versatility.  Furthermore, if the classic 
Arabian had one place where he stood out, it was in endurance-type activity.  
This classic sort of Arabian is what is being lost in modern programs that 
specialize, and is the sort of Arabian that the sincere preservationist 
breeder (who IS looking at preserving traits and characteristics, rather than 
just names in pedigrees) is trying to perpetuate.  It is no accident that the 
successful endurance horses have pedigrees chock-full of classic horses AND 
also resemble those horses.  (As already mentioned, there are pedigrees that 
also contain those names but in which breeders have not selected the TRAITS 
that made those old horses what they are--and that is NOT preserving traits!) 
 In past threads, I have talked about KNOWING pedigrees--and this means not 
just knowing the names, but also knowing WHAT THOSE HORSES WERE, and what of 
them was passed on to specific offspring in each generation, so that you have 
some idea if the horse 5 generations down the road here still has the TRAITS 
that those horses had.  And even when those traits have NOT been carefully 
selected, sometimes given enough of those old horses back in the pedigree, 
enough of those genes will still surface in some of the individuals being 
produced that they still make good endurance horses--but in that case, they 
are the "culls" from those specialist programs that have been selecting away 
from the classic type of horse.  When that happens, the endurance rider may 
well find a good horse as a throw-away in a program that is trying to take 
classic horses a different direction.  One of the things that has 
consistently struck home to me after looking at pedigrees of successes (and 
failures!) on the endurance circuit for over a quarter of a century is the 
fact that a great many of these bargain basement horses that go out and do 
well do NOT have any big surprises in their pedigrees!  A great many of them 
come from VERY classic stock, and are "culls" only because they bred true to 
type and not to the extreme that the showring owners were trying to achieve.  
Rio is a very classic type horse, and his pedigree is 3/4 CMK and 1/4 
Egyptian, and reads like a smorgasbord of quality ancestors for our sport.  
Cash's Polish top half consists of a lot of the old classic 
"pre-American-market" Polish breeding that is similar in type to the old 
Crabbet stock (and in fact, utilized Naseem, which Poland imported from 
Crabbet), and his female line goes back to some of the best of the old North 
American stock--both CMK and early Polish imports.  I am not that 
knowledgeable about the one wedge of Egyptian in his pedigree.  I only spot a 
couple of ancestors there that I would not prize for their classic 
qualities--certainly a small minority in an otherwise very classic 
"endurance" pedigree.  The "rescue" horse that won the 1999 Haggin Cup has a 
classic CMK pedigree--again, a case of classic traits emerging from classic 
ancestors, and simply breeders and owners of the most recent generation that 
hadn't a clue what they had.  The Tevis winner in 1999 was more intentionally 
bred, but again, a very classic CMK pedigree AND type.  Dunno the breeders of 
the Pan Am winner, but again, a pedigree that holds no surprises--albeit a 
rather different CMK pedigree than the one that won Tevis.  (If you look past 
the 5th generation, you find that they are VERY similar, actually--have 
simply been brought forward through different hands and different horses.)  
1999 Swanton winner and BC were also both pedigrees with no surprises.  Old 
Dominion winner and BC in 1999 were both out of mares that read like an 
endurance smorgasbord and by sires with whom I am less familiar.  (There was 
a modern shift in Russian and Polish breeding just as there has been in 
American breeding, and I am less familiar with where that shift in emphasis 
occurred in those pedigrees, and which modern individuals carry down more 
classic type and which were selected for the market fads.)

Endurance riders are just beginning to look at types of horses that possess 
the qualities they need to do well, and to learn about breeding programs that 
are striving to produce those qualities.  One cannot chastise riders for 
snapping up horses with those qualities when they have been cast aside on the 
bargain rack by people who didn't have a clue that they had diamonds in the 
rough.  And horses like that will continue to come from "breeders" who are 
clueless and who have horses throw back to more classic ancestors from time 
to time.  However, such people will not CONSISTENTLY produce such horses--and 
that is why many endurance riders are learning to come to breeders who DO 
strive to produce those qualities--it is far easier to "shop" among a group 
of quality horses than it is to hunt the bargain racks!

Once again, though--I will not "breed to the market" for endurance riders any 
more than I will to any other market--I will rather use endurance as a 
yardstick to make sure that I am maintaining traits in my program that I wish 
to preserve there.  That makes for a nice symbiotic relationship with riders 
who are looking for good endurance horses.  But I will not just dash out and 
breed to a stallion that happens to win that is NOT compatable with my 
program--he may be perfectly meritorious in his own right, but unless he has 
specific things to offer to MY mares and to MY program, it would not further 
my goals to use him.  

By the way, the historically strong programs were built on MARES rather than 
stallions--and the key to any long-term program is to utilize the best MARES 
possible, and select stallions to bring out the best in each of them.  The 
historically influential programs did not utilize a "herd sire" but rather a 
battery of quality stallions, to keep a healthy gene pool on BOTH sides of 
the pedigree.  So again, looking at Salim's list--it is no surprise to see 
some very quality MARES appearing there as well as their better-promoted male 
counterparts.  Mr. Morris may kid all he wants about where would the women be 
without the men--but I submit the converse--where would the men be without 
the women, and what on earth could those stallions have ever produced without 
those good MARES to complement them.

Heidi