riva ridge was an example of how light weight works for a racehorse

Tags

applied biomechanics, boojum's bonanza, charlie hatton, classic winners as sires, mechanics of motion, riva ridge

At fellow blogger Dave Dink’s site, Boojum’s Bonanza, there’s an interesting post about Riva Ridge, champion juvenile colt in 1971 and champion older horse in 1973.

In the context of examining the female lines and families of famous Thoroughbreds and determining which are more successful statistically, the Boojum also uses commentary from turf scribe Charlie Hatton to put flesh and spirit into the animals being portrayed.

This is all the more important for a horse such as Riva Ridge, who was a wet track away from becoming a Triple Crown winner as a 3-year-old but whose form collapsed so badly after mid-season in 1972 that the impressive Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes winner actually lost the 3-year-old championship to Key to the Mint in the year-end Eclipse Award voting.

Riva Ridge came back the following year with a campaign that established his superiority over other older horses (except possibly Prove Out), while all stood reverently in the shadow of His Chestnut Perfection.

As a sire, however, Riva Ridge was only moderately and intermittently successful. Among his best offspring were G1 winner Tap Shoes (Hopeful, Futurity, and Flamingo), G2 winner Blitey, and G3 winner Favoridge (also second in the G1 Cheveley Park and 1,000 Guineas).

In a comment following the piece on Riva Ridge, the Boojum mentions the pedigree of Blitey and her success as a broodmare for the Phipps family.

A member of Riva Ridge’s second crop at stud, Blitey has a pedigree that is also a fascinating exercise because where else can we find Riva Ridge, Sword Dancer, and Whirlaway as successive sires of quality in the female line, and talk about high-class racehorses with minimal success at stud! These three are poster boys for selective success at stud.

I would hypothesize that one reason for this is the odd mechanical nature of Riva Ridge (and probably the other two, as well). Riva Ridge was a very, very light horse in an era when the weights of better horses have trended upward and continue to do so. If we look at photographs of Riva Ridge, and lamentably they don’t grow on trees, we can see how deer-like and refined he was. He carried no excess anywhere, as Hatton said:

Physically also, it was almost as if he were two horses. When he was out of condition, Riva Ridge, a 16 hands bay with black points, looked rather like a light necked, rawboned gelding. He was never massive and masculine.

But when freshened, he was racing-like and elegant, appearing to have stepped out of an ancient print of an Epsom Derby hero. He cut a captivating figure on parade for the Stuyvesant, his coat glistening and moving gracefully as a ballet dancer.

And I believe it was that lightness of body which made him such an efficient racehorse, as well as so unsuited to dig in and plow through the mud. It wasn’t a weakness of character, I believe, but the fact that he wasn’t equipped to do the job. He didn’t have the bulk and necessary power to churn through the heavier track, and any holding tendency of the track kept him from using his natural action to glide over the track with minimum effort.

Hatton described the horse’s action as “wonderfully light and collected. A splendid gate horse at four, he had catlike agility and could be in the first flight leaving the post in any race. ” Riva Ridge’s quickness was a result of lightness in proportion to muscle, but in his case, it was lightness of body rather than an exaggerated proportion of muscle that gave him speed, which he frequently used to flit along in front of his competition to wide-margin victories in races like the Derby and Belmont.

When deprived of this natural advantage, as the wet tracks fouled his action somewhat and required extra muscle power to push along at a similar speed, Riva Ridge was physically unable to outrun his contemporaries.

I prefer this explanation of Riva Ridge’s lack of success on wet tracks because it is consistent with his general character as a game and high-class racehorse, rather than saying that he got a burr under his saddle whenever the track was wet.

Advertisement

pace in the kentucky derby

Tags

animal kingdom, benefits of pace and speed, boojum's bonanza, calumet farm, churchill downs, Kentucky Derby, pace, pace in the kentucky derby, pace profile and racing type, tim tam, Triple Crown

In another contentious post at Boojum’s Bonanza, the Boojum has suggested that the pace of the Kentucky Derby was atypical of the Churchill Downs classic, which is usually run at a ridiculously fast pace that burns up many of the horses involved in the early part of the race to the unexpected benefit of some deep closers.

Yet in this year’s renewal, the time for the first six furlongs was slower than Tim Tam’s Derby of 1958, which was run on a nasty gumbo of a racing surface, and the slowest six furlongs since 1947.

The slowness of the times is not a direct indicator of quality or the lack of it, however. Tim Tam not only won the Preakness but also might have given Calumet Farm its third Triple Crown but for fracturing sesamoids late in the Belmont and finishing second.

One of the peculiarities of the pace for this Kentucky Derby, however, is that it “was more typical of a race on artificial or turf than dirt, which might have helped those horses who had never run on dirt before,” the Boojum asserts.

One of those horses was Animal Kingdom, who coped well with the conditions but might have caught a break in the way the race shaped up.

The big chestnut colt will almost certainly encounter much different conditions both in the Preakness and in the Belmont, and his ability to adapt and excel will determine whether he can ascend to the most difficult heights of equine stardom.

was secretariat the most important sire of the last 40 years?

Tags

20 top sires in the fourth generation, a.p. indy, bloodstock statistics, bold ruler, boojum's bonanza, gone west, influence of stallions, performance of stallions, secretariat, stallion statistics, statistics as a tool in evaluating stallions, storm cat, success and influence

By one way of looking at the impact of horses, particularly stallions, the answer is “yes.” The tremendous number-crunching machine over at “Boojum’s Bonanza” has evaluated the 20 most successful stallions in the fourth generation of pedigrees in terms of their sales value and racetrack success, and Secretariat (known more humbly as “His Chestnut Perfection”) was top of the tree. Read more here.

The Boojum wrote: “Secretariat had the highest prices of all 20 sires in the fourth generation, was expected to have the best results, and did have the best results overall. And his results (1.36) were even higher than his prices (1.21). His daughters were better than his sons (no surprise at all there), but his sons were not bad.”

Does that mean that Secretariat was actually as great a sire as he was a racehorse?

Well, purely in terms of his offspring’s results on the racetrack, the answer is “no.” But in terms of lasting success and continuing impact on the breed, the answer is much more in the positive category.

The difference between the great horse’s performance on the racetrack and his results as a sire of racehorses is a puzzle that has fascinated legions of Secretariat fans (and I am one of them and not the least of that number).

That Secretariat’s sons and his daughters both fared well in this study is very interesting. Most of us have become accustomed to thinking of the great chestnut son of Bold Ruler as a massively important broodmare sire, but his other avenues of influence should be considered as well.

And as the broodmare sire of Storm Cat, Gone West, and AP Indy, Secretariat’s contributions to the breed will linger yet a while.

secretariat’s physique, per charlie hatton

Tags

action in thoroughbreds, boojum's bonanza, charlie hatton, Daily Racing Form, function of the hindquarter, proportions of the hindleg of the horse, racehorse conformation, secretariat

The noted teller of tales and watcher of racehorses, Charlie Hatton, penned a column at the Daily Racing Form for decades, and he also wrote many of the individual essays about champion racehorses for the American Racing Manual over the years.

At the end of his career, he watched the development and continued success of a chestnut colt by the name of Secretariat.

Hatton was, with reason, one of the colt’s most ardent fans, and he also wrote the profiles of the champion son of Bold Ruler for the ARM in 1972 and 1973. The first of these is reprinted, in excerpted form, at Boojum’s Bonanza here.

Now as a rival admirer of His Chestnut Perfection, I could not pass the opportunity to read and to comment on the ruminations of Brother Hatton.

One of Hatton’s observations was the construction of Secretariat’s hindquarters and the horse’s action at a gallop and at the walk. He wrote:

The pelvis is exceedingly sloping, however, giving him a vaguely goose-rumped aspect at first glance. This is a characteristic of the Nearcos, including his classicists, though horsemen used to consider it the mark of a sprinter. The flag is set on low, accentuating the precipitate droop of the quarters.

Here again, as in the shoulder, a particularly desirable point rescues him, for below the pelvis is a massive and very low stifle joint, extending into gaskins muscled right into the hock in the straightest hind legs seen in years.

This construction comes to a sort of scooting action behind. He gets his hind parts far under himself in action, and the drive of his hind legs is tremendous, as he follows through like a golfer.

Ribot went in this fashion, and that wire-hung filly Top Flight, whose stifles were set on singularly low. Rather long, springy pasterns and legs like a deer’s combined with a gorgeous forehand to give her stealthy action.

Walking off after a race, Secretariat divulges nothing of his extended action. He goes frightfully short behind, like so many Princequillos, and wide in front, like most the Bold Rulers. At a glance, one might suspect he had bucked.

Hatton’s last comment was not intended as humor, I believe. But Secretariat kept that rather choppy shuffling action all his life, and it is worth pondering because this is the opposite of the extensive and elastic reach so preferred today in the sales rings.

It is also worth wondering how greatly his action behind and in front would be penalized by evaluators of yearlings and 2yos today, which would like him and which would not. And would the perceptions of his walk and motion have kept the horse from becoming a Triple Crown winner and two-time Horse of the Year?

how not to mate a champion mare

Tags

almahmoud family, boojum's bonanza, champion fillies, cosmah daughters, hall of fame, racemares as broodmares, rachel alexandra, tosmah, zenyatta

Over at Boojum’s Bonanza, there’s another good post, this one on champion filly Tosmah (1961, bay by Tim Tam x Cosmah, by Cosmic Bomb). Tosmah was a first-rate competitor, and she earned championships at 2 and 3. In 1964, she was named both champion 3yo filly and champion handicap mare (for defeating the best older mares in the Beldame). Tosmah raced through age 5 and won 23 of 39 starts, with six seconds and two thirds, earning $612,588. The mare was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1984.

Her class and courage will live on in the record books and in the appreciation of those who watched her race. But only through those avenues.

And as we consider the matings likely for champions Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra, it is worth recalling that sometimes splendid racemares do not reproduce much of their excellence.

In the case of Tosmah, she certainly had one of the strangest careers of any champion sent to stud.

The fast, high-class performer with the stellar pedigree was raced and owned by Anthony Imbesi, who bred her to a couple of the most obscure stallions imaginable … presumably because they were important to him.

Barren in 1968, Tosmah produced four foals consecutively thereafter. The mare’s first two foals were by the moderate stakes winner Convex (1962 by Vertex x Crisis III, by Hyperion). The colt Major Duomo, a foal 1969, had one second in two starts, and the filly Santa Vittoria, born in 1970, won three of 15 starts, earning $22,790.

Tosmah’s third foal was her best. La Guidecca, born in 1971, won the New Jersey Futurity and two more of her 24 starts. La Guidecca was by the most puzzling of Tosmah’s mates, the winner Royal I.J. (1960 by Royal Charger x Lump Sugar, by Bull Lea), who was a half-brother to the high-class 2yo and useful sire Restless Wind.

Tosmah’s fourth foal was born in 1972. Suprema was a bay filly by international champion Ribot, and this would appear to be the kind of mating that at least had some rational hope of important success. Suprema, however, never raced and died as a 4yo.

Tosmah never produced another live foal, and without the complement of first-class sires for her two surviving daughters, the mare’s offspring did nothing to strengthen this branch of the Almahmoud family. Instead, Cosmah’s daughters Queen Sucree (Ribot), Perfecta (Swaps), and Royal Match (Turn-to) carried on with mates like Bold Bidder, Vaguely Noble, Northern Dancer, and Buckpasser.

series on horse of the year debates

Tags

blame, boojum's bonanza, charlie hatton, Daily Racing Form, horse of the year, rachel alexandra, year-end awards, zenyatta

Over at Boojum’s Bonanza, there is an interesting series of posts about earlier debates concerning Horse of the Year. The focus of these historical postings, culled from Daily Racing Form annuals, is the 1953 and 1954 seasons that featured Native Dancer against Tom Fool and High Gun, respectively.

The thoughts and analyses of the Boojum and Charlie Hatton are not only lively reading but also offer some insights into the internal drama of the past two racing seasons, with Zenyatta competing against Rachel Alexandra and now Blame for the premium award.

Fifty-odd years ago, the different voting groups had not united to produce a single Horse of the Year, and the result was that sometimes there were multiple Horses of the Year, according to the perspectives of the different voting groups. As a result, there would be years with a good deal of infighting, biting, scratching, and name-calling.

Racing is not a dull sport.

blood-horse can’t add

Tags

blood-horse, boojum's bonanza, humor, statistics and breeding

The Blood-Horse has drifted to a new low of dysfunctional performance. In the Oct. 23 issue, the former flagship publication of Thoroughbred breeding offered subscribers insights into the relationship between successful produce and the racing class of broodmares, birth rank, and the post-barren effect.

All well and good, even if not exactly new ground. The only hitch is that the statistics used in the article don’t add up.

In his sardonic post on this train wreck, Boojum’s Bonanza builds the Blood-Horse a new orifice for their feckless frolic through a serious subject.

It makes one wonder if there’s anyone home.

the strength of being ‘giant’

Tags

boojum's bonanza, giant's causeway, lemon drop kid, sire of stallions, sire statistics, stallion analysis

The statistical curmudgeon at Boojum’s Bonanza has created a minor tidal wave in the blogosphere with his contentious comparison of the noted international sire Giant’s Causeway, who stands in Kentucky at Coolmore/Ashford Stud, and the US champion racer Lemon Drop Kid, who stands a few miles away at Lane’s End Farm.

They are exact contemporaries in their stud careers, and both have had noted success. Generally, Giant’s Causeway is considered a much better (or more fashionable) sire, whereas Lemon Drop Kid is one of the most underappreciated stallions in Kentucky.

Boojum undertook to illustrate this dichotomy of perception through the use of stallion statistics, with sufficient effect to unleash a storm of commentary across the net.

That is good because breeders (and writers and advisers, etc.) need to churn different ideas through their heads. Clears the cobwebs, I’m told.

One who responded to the contrary was commentator Tinky in this note.

He asserted that statistics represent a defined set of results but do not present a complete picture of complex systems, and horse racing and breeding is nothing if not a highly complex and sophisticated system.

I agree. In addition, I believe that Boojum and nearly all other savvy users of statistics would likewise.

And there is one portion of results from the stud career of Giant’s Causeway that has put all his contemporaries in the shade: getting sons who carry on as stallions. From the earliest results of his first sons at stud (who had their first European crops race last year), Giant’s Causeway had the leading freshman sire in Europe, Shamardal, and a second in the top 10, Footstepsinthesand.

Both were classic winners from the first crop of foals by Giant’s Causeway, were conceived and raced in Europe, and stand there at stud, as well as in the Southern Hemisphere.

There will be several more sons of Giant’s Causeway coming along soon, and some of them will fail miserably. That is inevitable because most stallions are not successful. But, having sired one son who is showing every sign of being a very useful or better stallion and having a second who is within hailing distance indicates that Giant’s Causeway has every chance to be as good as or better than Storm Cat as a sire of stallions.

is lemon drop kid better than giant’s causeway?

Tags

boojum's bonanza, giant's causeway, lemon drop kid, sire stats, stallion comparisons

The contentious blog, Boojum’s Bonanza, shoots another statistical zinger in a lengthy discussion of sire stats.

The final bit of analysis at the end of the post makes a case for Lemon Drop Kid (by Kingmambo) as a better stallion than Giant’s Causeway (Storm Cat). Read it here.

I look forward to hearing readers’ views on this proposition.

new blog on thoroughbred breeding

Tags

boojum's bonanza, david dink, statistics and breeding, thoroughbred breeding

There is a briskly written new blog on the net with the enticing name of Boojum’s Bonanza. Visit it here.

Boojum is the pen name for the statistician, theorist, racing historian, and writer David Dink. Long a devotee of independent inquiry, Dink has produced massive studies on the effects of inbreeding and dosage, in particular, that have drawn both high praise and vitriolic condemnation (depending on the individual).

As that suggests, Dink is not a writer inclined to sit upon the fence of fashion and make quiet comments that can be taken in many ways. Instead, he tends to fire at will and let the bodies lie where they fall.

It is an approach to discourse that has its charms.

So I would encourage all the statistically challenged to take a gander at Boojum’s Bonanza and see what an amazingly deep well is there to be sampled. Dink’s general interest, statistics as a means of illuminating pedigrees, is a facet of breeding that is nowadays virtually extinct in print and underrepresented on the net.

The site has, as yet, only freshly minted pieces on Birth Month, Coat Color, and a two-part dissertation on inbreeding to Bold Ruler. That is plenty for a start. Read, think, and ask questions.