 |
Re: [RC] Progeny championship percentages - Heidi SmithWhen I look at studs, I try to find out their %, not numbers, sure if you hear that the stallions sired 200 champions then you are impressed. Then you find out that he's sired a total of 700, or a total of 400, which makes you happier?I find that relatively meaningless, considering what I see winning in the show ring. All that a high percentage of champions means is that a high percentage of foals were shown successfully. And that's only useful if you're interested in breeding a horse suitable for the show ring. It won't tell you a lot about their potential as endurance sires, or field hunters, or working ranch horses. I might be interested in the AERC or ECTRA records of a stallion's get, if I were looking for a distance horse. Most of the stallions that I am interested in have never set foot in a show ring, nor have many of their get. And none of them have sired 200 foals period. Again, Charlotte, you've taken the words right off of my keyboard. Although I do find some of the older show records (pre-1960 or so) of interest, in most cases, evidence that a horse's get have been successful in the show ring indicates to me that he is NOT the sort of horse I'd want to use. The more modern the record, the more that impression, as long backs, "hooky" necks, long cannons, tipped pelvises, upright shoulders, etc. that are rewarded in the modern show ring are NOT traits I care to breed into horses that I plan to ride! Now if they have credentials in cutting, jumping, or dressage, and it just happens to be IAHA competition, I might pay attention in a positive manner. But not the rest of it. Have actually had EP and Park breeders state that they purposefully select FOR long cannon bones to "enhance" motion--no wonder the poor things look like flailing windmills out there.... Horses are like anything else, study the pedegree all you want, you still probly won't get what you thought.No; but you are far less likely to be unpleasantly surprised if you've done your homework. It will give you a good idea of what you are likely to get. Furthermore, the few times I've been "surprised" by what I got, it turned out to mean that I really hadn't studied the pedigree as thoroughly as I thought. Pedigrees are not blueprints. However, they are a set of possibilities, and whatever you get HAD to come from within the set of possibilities expressed by that pedigree. If the pedigree is so erratic that there is every trait in there under the sun, then yes, I'd have to agree that pedigree study has little meaning. But when one is very selective about pedigrees so that one more closely controls what that set of possibilities encompasses, then there really aren't any big surprises. Once again, true, you can't just set down a bunch of specifics and expect to get exactly that--but you SHOULD be aware of the range of possibilities, and at least know enough about that range to predict with reasonable accuracy what sorts of outcomes are apt to happen. I never cease to be amazed by the folks who are REALLY knowledgeable about CMK pedigrees, and who can walk through just about any CMK herd and refer you back to a handful of ancestors that each horse particularly resembles, and who can back that up with photographic evidence. I'll take pedigree study over showring data hands down. Heidi =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|