Thoroughbred Stallions' Profiles
Once you start looking at pedigrees, you will want to know who was who. When assessing the pedigrees, you clearly need it. The key point is - where to find stallions' overviews?
In our early years of keen pedigree researchers, we hadn't much more than a notepad and a pen and pedigrees on the internet - and thanks at least for them; Federico Tesio wasn't so lucky. Now it's twenty years later, and let's be honest - we're not that much further. You can find tons of pedigrees, almost complete progeny lists or results of every claiming or class E race... but is THIS really what we need to evaluate a stallion?
Our answer is no, not really. What we actually need are comprehensive profiles with pedigree notes, racing career and top progeny lists with their achievements, and eventually established sirelines.
So we started creating these profiles. With offspring and influence on the female side of the pedigree up to the third generation, covered year by year, which allows us to discover the power and influence of every particular sire.
Profiles in alphabetical order:
|Name||Col.||Born||Bred / Stood||Pedigree|
|Admiral's Voyage||dkb||1959||USA||Crafty Admiral - Olympia Lou, Olympia - Louisiana Lou, Halcyon|
|Graustark||ch||1963||USA||Ribot - Flower Bowl, Alibhai - Flower Bed, Beau Pere|
|Northern Dancer||b||1961||CAN||Nearctic - Natalma, Native Dancer - Almahmoud, Mahmoud|
|Seattle Slew||dkb||1974||USA||Bold Reasoning - Fair Charmer, Poker - My Charmer, Jet Action|
|Swaps||ch||1952||USA||Khaled - Iron Reward, Beau Pere - Iron Maiden, War Admiral|
If you're interested in sirelines in general, or any particular sireline, please follow the Sirelines section of 'Various' site.
Criteria used for compiling data in stallions' profiles
Our original criteria were very simple: any horse mentioned in the profile must be a G1 or G2 winner, second or third. No exceptions. But having a website complicated like this one, you can rarely keep things simple. So, let us clarify a bit wider approach we had to take.
Let's stop for a moment with the original idea: why just G1 or G2 horses?
Well, a G1 winner all over the world means the top horse. Really top horse. A G2 winner can be just lucky G3 horse - but also an unlucky G1 horse, who would deserve to be there, and we all know these horses exist. Also, all in all, G2 horses are still well above average stakes winners - not to mention way above average allowance or class C horses. And most of them, when you read their names, actually really deserve to be remembered. But G3 winners, well... there are plenty of them; a random G3 winner is already well below the G1 standard, and you know them only occasionally.
Plus, to include G3 winners too would mean spending double time required to process our materials, which is already on the border of viability. Or to be honest, rather fairly behind it.
So, considering all these things, we decided to make only G1 and G2 horses.
Until we got to the problem of Admiral's Voyage.
He's the damsire of Danzig, of course, and it means people would like to know a lot about him. But among his progeny, there are maybe two or three G2 horses at all - and who would call it "enough information about stallion's abilities"? We certainly won't. So, Admiral's Voyage made us go much deeper into this problem.
We realized that the key point with profiles of similar stallions, like Admiral's Voyage, is not to make them a G1 or a G3, but to make them usable. That's the first thing we always had on our mind when creating our materials: this site has to be useful. It has to create links and deepen knowledge; otherwise, there's no point in running it. We want to give everyone, even not too experienced people, a chance to objectively evaluate each important thoroughbred individual they're interested in. And when you're stuck with three G2 horses in the progeny, it simply has nothing to do with any objectivity. But once you include twenty stakes winners, and some horses who actually ran really well against G1 competitors? Well... that's the whole different story now, isn't it?
And that's exactly what we're looking for. As long as we have enough time and space to do it - and thanks to our own website with the unlimited space we have - we want to include any relevant information which helps to assess the sire.
The world is not always simple. Some stallions can be simply evaluated by a giant number of G1 winners - and it's okay, this is what makes greatness. For some others, we just need to lower our standards to evaluate them correctly, and it's okay too. That's what we learned from the case of Admiral's Voyage.
So, for the most of the part of this website - not only stallion profiles, but the whole project - the G1-G2 rule works. You'll never see here a G3 horse by Nijinsky here, we can promise that. Only some profiles need to take a different point of view.
Unfortunately, this was not the only problem we had to deal with.
Another major issue is the quality of races itself. Once the present system of race grading was introduced in 1971, one would say that the problem is solved. But the statuses of the races continuously change since then, so although we don't like it, we have to follow the current status for every year, which means one winner of the race can be included and the other is left out. Which is okay in fact - once the race loses its longtime standard, it makes sense to stop considering its winners the top horses. But in materials like ours, it just can cause a lot of confusion. No less funny is this situation vice versa when the top fields of the G3 race for several years lead to the upgrading, but these horses themselves can't be included. It is, unfortunately, something we can't do anything about... only to make sure we have the right grades for every year.
The pattern system is the source of a constant joy for us. Of course, we included the inaugural running of the Dubai World Cup - which was only a listed race, but Cigar was no listed horse at all, and so were neither Soul of the Matter nor L'Carriere. And it would be fairly unobjective not to assign them such a big result. Another fine thing is restricted races - which means we should leave out most of the Canadian top races, as well as several runnings of Japanese classic races. Despite they're assigned as non-graded, does anybody think it would be fine to exclude the whole Canadian Triple Crown...? Because we don't, despite we have to violate our own rules again.
This is another big thing: the national races. Okay, we can't leave out Canadian champions, we all understand this. But what about a race like the Deutsches St. Leger, currently a G3 race? It is one of the classic races in the country which has quite the impact on the global horse-breeding, thanks to horses like Lomitas, Shirocco, or even the mighty Galileo. Galileo's third sire Lombard won this race by himself before the introduction of the system of pattern races - and should he be let in our left out? And what about the Premio Parioli, another current G3 local Triple Crown race? Italy is still the country where Falbrav, Gentlewave or Danedream competed...
We are well aware that not every local thoroughbred breeding deserves to be here. We are from the region with a very strong and long-term influence of local bloodlines - which, of course, have its own superstars, but also no influence on the world thoroughbred breeding at all. But speaking of Italian and German classic races, and its winners like Literat or Donatello? It's something very different.
Speaking of the pattern system: there was a long, long time when there wasn't any.
It may be only a little problem speaking about the races from the 1950s, which were introduced as G3 in the 1970s, and now are G1. But our families profiles run back to the beginning of the 19th century, and especially the United States had a completely different scale of important stakes and handicaps back then. When horses like Henry of Navarre, Imp, Ben Brush or Roamer competed in the races like the Municipal Handicap or the Oriental Handicap. There was the Potomac Handicap, won in the 1920s and 1930s by the horses like Man o'War, Discovery or Menow... or the Riggs Handicap, which was won from 1945 to 1947 by Stymie, Polynesian and Double Jay. Are we supposed to leave these races out? To leave these horses out? Once again, we don't think so. Of course, they are no Travers Stakes or some other traditional race, but despite their hardly even generally-known now, we think these results deserve to be mentioned in the profiles.
So actually, our "very simple criteria" disappeared really quickly. We decided to orientate on the aforementioned "usefulness" and thus to include just all information we consider necessary for it.
This need for usefulness in the first place put us in front of another problem. Our stallions' profiles were always intended as the lists of the top racing progeny in the first place. In the end, no matter whether the Derby Stakes winner or the third in some minor stakes race, but always the top racing progeny of any particular sire. But then came a moment when we had to deal with Northern Dancer. I'll say only one word: Danzig.
There's no way to put him anywhere on the top progeny list as he even didn't win any stakes race. But - is it okay to leave him out? Wasn't he a very important member of his crop, who should be mentioned for the general overview of Northern Dancer's progeny? Danzig founded one of the most powerful branches of Northern Dancer's line. Also, the fact he was a member of the same crop as Nureyev is interesting, especially for the understanding when and how was Northern Dancer's influence spread to various locations in the world.
But what was a way worse, a similar problem arose with Northern Dancer's daughters. Like Royal Statute, who was lucky to win one start, but has no less than ten descendants in the list of the top progeny. Or even a G1 winner like White Star Line, who has eight of them. Well, every horse has at least a short version of his pedigree included, but we soon found out that it's not enough, because in this way, even the grandsons of the same mare can't be recognized as relatives.
At the beginning, we simply left it out. But when the number of similar daughters of Northern Dancer arose to about twenty, we realized we have a real problem, because the number of data and links, which were missing, was suddenly dramatically high. So we tried to add these daughters too, no matter what they have won or even whether they raced. And we linked them to their top progeny and vice versa - and suddenly, a whole new net of data grew in front of our eyes. This way, every reader is able not only to match every mare with a particular crop but also to understand her immediate family and influence. Which is certainly a big benefit, to have this kind of information in the stallions' profiles - but nothing can be further from our original intent of the top racing progeny.
So in the end, we had neither clear criteria nor even the list of racing progeny. But we can be sure that everywhere on this website, there's everything what's good to know.