First Season Sires

For 10k I would have to be taking a punt on an unproven low profile stallion, an older boy or one that has shown potential without having set the World alight yet. Probably go with an older proven stallion with a foal out of a younger mare. Thinking Alhaarth (gets plenty that progress to jumps),Tagula and Dubai Destination. (moved from Darley in 2010 so won't be as sought after and you might pick up one with a fancy arab pedigree from his last year there )

Kodiac and Camacho ( 2nd and third crop ) are just under the radar and so are in your bracket and have made good starts at stud.

These are all Irish based obviously .
 
On The Bridle said:
Excuse my ignorance but the Golden Cross you refer to would have something to do with Galileo and not the hurdler that Johnny Murtagh managed to get beaten in a stayers hurdle many moons back......
Click to expand...

Again, depends on the vetting and what it looks like at the sales - something not attractive or suspect vetting you may do. OCD removal is about 1.5k and pretty much most OCD chips never cause an issue anyway but put buyers off.

Golden Cross - Galileo over Danehill: 98 2yos or up are bred on this cross, 71% are starters, 42% are winners, 13% are Black type winners and they account for 10% of Galileo's overall progeny winnings at 7.6million. Frankel, Golden Lilac and Roderic O'Connor are all bred on this cross.
 
I love Dubai Destination's stepping up in trip. Think he'll make the grade with his jumpers too because they do stay further than ever the sire himself tried. Go well on the poly/fibre too.
 
Id have the 10k on Martin Kaymer for the KLM open this week. Then id use this 90k to get some of that Galileo brand sperm....Or even just one of them if thats all it would buy, and hope its a strong swimmer. The Ian Thorpe of horse sperm.
 
del boy said:
Id have the 10k on Martin Kaymer for the KLM open this week. Then id use this 90k to get some of that Galileo brand sperm....Or even just one of them if thats all it would buy, and hope its a strong swimmer. The Ian Thorpe of horse sperm.
Click to expand...


I'd buy a cheap Westerner filly and and stop her 4 times then have the remaining 3k on on handicap debut :-)
 
Miesque said:
Again, depends on the vetting and what it looks like at the sales - something not attractive or suspect vetting you may do. OCD removal is about 1.5k and pretty much most OCD chips never cause an issue anyway but put buyers off.

Golden Cross - Galileo over Danehill: 98 2yos or up are bred on this cross, 71% are starters, 42% are winners, 13% are Black type winners and they account for 10% of Galileo's overall progeny winnings at 7.6million. Frankel, Golden Lilac and Roderic O'Connor are all bred on this cross.
Click to expand...

Any idea what the stats are for the other 90% of Gals progeny ?
 
Miesque said:
Will work it out or dig them out when I'm in the office.

What stats do you want? Runners to winners? Black type %?
Click to expand...

Just wondering how much of those great stats re: the Galileo/Danehill cross would be down to the fact that the Danehill dams dam would have been high class anyway in order to have been sent to Danehill in the first place and than of those Danehill mares the cream of that select bunch would only be sent to Galileo. Many these days don't give credence to nicks I do, but I also think some apparent nicks can be skewed or exaggerated by other factors.
 
Sheikh said:
Just wondering how much of those great stats re: the Galileo/Danehill cross would be down to the fact that the Danehill dams dam would have been high class anyway in order to have been sent to Danehill in the first place and than of those Danehill mares the cream of that select bunch would only be sent to Galileo. Many these days don't give credence to nicks I do, but I also think some apparent nicks can be skewed or exaggerated by other factors.
Click to expand...

I have a nice article on this - will dig it out. Link here
 
Golden cross indeed.
Of course, with Galileo succeeding his sire Sadler’s Wells as Europe’s leading stallion, and Danehill daughters having already produced 157 stakes winners worldwide, it’s tempting to credit the combination's success as being merely a natural consequence of the quality of the components.
A look at the raw statistics available on the TrueNicks Enhanced Report demonstrates that not to be the case, showing that the cross between Galileo and mares by Danehill has resulted in 10 stakes winners from 62 starters. This is 16% stakes winners to starters, twice the stakes production strike rate that Galileo has enjoyed when bred to all other mares, and nearly three times the percentage of stakes winners achieved by Danehill mares that have starters by Galileo when bred to all other sires. It is also worth noting that the stakes production rate of the Danehill mares that have visited Galileo is within half a percent of that achieved by Danehill mares when bred to all other stallions, which indicates, initially at least, that Galileo did not have the advantage of covering Danehill mares that were especially distinguished.
Click to expand...
 
You're missing the point slightly, Sheikh, it's the success from a relatively small subset of his progeny that makes the nick so impressive.

...the Galileo/Danehill cross has been a strong influence for quality, supplying seven of Galileo’s 41 group or graded winners (17%) and five of his 21 group or grade I winners (nearly 24%), although it has provided only a little better than 6% of Galileo’s starters.
Click to expand...

So a group of horses that represents only 6% of his offspring is responsible for nearly a quarter of his group one winners....that has to point to something!
 
Not if the sample sizes are too small for those results to be statistically significant. Someone in the comments asked about that, and there was a reply which went into great detail without really answering it.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Not if the sample sizes are too small for those results to be statistically significant. Someone in the comments asked about that, and there was a reply which went into great detail without really answering it.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can call 98 unique individuals too small a sample size - if you worked with those stats and ran a statistical significance calculation I'm pretty sure you'd find they were significant or "unlikely to have occurred by chance". (I knew those years of lab stats would come in handy in the real world some day ;) )

On the original question asked;

1497 foals of racing age
1039 (69%) starters
645 (43%) winners
93 (6%) Black Type winners

So the overall population of Galileo progeny has a similar percentage of winners to the Danehill Dam line subset, but the Danehill group have a much higher ratio of black type earners to runners.

Possibly I should go do some actual work now...
 
Not if the sample sizes are too small for those results to be statistically significant. Someone in the comments asked about that, and there was a reply which went into great detail without really answering it.
Click to expand...

The larger the sample size the more reliable the data sure.


But I’d take Miesque’s point that if a certain cross is throwing up consistently enhanced quality it would suggest it is statistically significant.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The difference in % stakes winners is statistically significant at the 0.0585 level. The standard threshold for statistical significance is the 0.05 level, so to all intents and purposes, it would be considered statistically significant !
 
Back
Top