biomechanics: it ain’t easy being big

Tags

big horses, biomechanical analysis, equine physiology, john madden, soundness

Size isn’t just important at the sales grounds. Sometimes, I would swear it is everything. The advantage of large horses at the sales is that they tend to generate a larger return for sellers, providing they are strong and correct, walk well, and pass the vet.

The competition at the racetrack is even stiffer than at the yearling sales, and the results at the racetrack leave no doubt that big horses have some advantages over smaller competitors.

Some of these advantages are as obvious as those that attract attention at the sales. A big horse should have a bigger stride, for instance. With longer legs, a longer body, and correspondingly larger muscles and bone, a big power horse is a formidable competitor, and one of John Madden’s maxims comes to mind: “A good big horse will beat a good little one.”

But, as with most maxims, there was a corresponding one from Madden: “Many big turnips are hollow.” There’s more truth in the statement than might appear from the homely wrapping of Madden’s phrase.

Just as they have advantages, the big power horses possess some disadvantages when compared to their slightly smaller, typey, and mechanically well-balanced competition.

The big horse has two chinks in its armor. With increasing size also comes increasing difficulty in preserving soundness and speed.

The soundness issues come from two sources. First, the power horse puts more pressure on its legs by relying on its propulsion power for speed, and second, the longer any bone is, the greater the bending stress it has to survive when put under great pressure.

To compensate for these challenges, a power horse needs more bone, and this adds more weight. To compensate for the increase in added weight and size, the power horse’s engine, which he is relying on for his success, has to increase in greater proportion to what it is pushing forward.

An appropriate analogy would be the difference between the engines of a large sedan and a compact car. While a small car can race very efficiently with an oversized engine, a large car with a little engine cannot go very far or very fast.

Following this analogy, horses who succeed due to specialized traits are more likely to lose class (or success) if they aren’t mated so that they have greater chances of retaining their best traits. In the normal course of breeding, these specialized horses will not find the most suitable mates as often, and as a result, they will be less consistent than the horses of Type I, who can mate with most mares and still retain many of their best traits.

Advertisement

understanding stamina and classic performance iii

Tags

Belmont Stakes, classics, dunkirk, fashion, Kentucky Derby, soundness, tesio, Unbridled's Song

This post came to us from reader and fearless commentator Shimatoree, who offers his observations and reflections on the Thoroughbred and racing class.

Jay’s article on the issue of comparing today’s thoroughbred racehorses in America with those of the bygone days is interesting to say the least.

A little perspective must be added, though, to the lure of the by-gone days and the Thoroughbred.

What is missing from the article is a mention of other factors which played a role in the soundness of the by-gone era Thoroughbred.

As Tesio has pointed out in his comments the sociological and political factors of human beings plays a role in the evolution of the Thoroughbred race horse . (italics are the editor’s)

The owners in the past were few and mostly very wealthy capitalists. It was well known that a lot of these owners used to simply shoot the horses that could not run fast enough or were unsound.

So a large number of the unsound horses were eliminated, and those that remained were sounder.

In those days, no one thought much about culling horses rather brutally. In fact, no one much objected to doing the same to human beings either, and even though this sounds like a polemic, the historical facts speak for themselves.

And from my experience, to think that some sort of help will come from the genetics experts is completely false as no help is likely to come in this field.

Yes, there is lots of talk and theoretical discussion, but in a practical sense – nothing of substance will be achieved as is the case in human medicine.

The issue of unsoundness has nothing to do with either inbreeding or outcrossing.

It is simple – if you inbreed to sound stock, you will have sound stock and so on.

And the elimination of the FASHION factor from commercial breeding. Those that write on this topic of Thoroughbred breeding in journals and magazines need to have the courage and character to speak up.

For example, today Unbridled’s Song is a very popular stallion, and his offspring are in great demand.

Yet not one journalist from a trade publication has written about the fact that his offspring are extremely UNSOUND.

No bloodstock advisor has spoken about this. The filly Eight Bells died after breaking down in the Kentucky Derby, and practically no one said anything about this.

His sons are in great demand, and they are producing the same unsoundness.

Just look at the stallion Songandaprayer. His offspring are very fast but break down very often too. Dunkirk sold for $3.7 million. He has made very few starts. Should we blame that on anything other than the fact that his father is Unbridled’s Song, who sires very unsound horses? If we did that, we would be less than honest. Following the Belmont, Dunkirk has a condylar fracture, and trainer Todd Pletcher says the colt will be back. And I could go on.

When how much you can sell your yearling for becomes the end in itself, the question of soundness goes out of the window.

The yearling seller is only interested in selling his yearling for good profit, and after that it is not his problem.

The advisors and trainers who are mostly responsible for selecting the yearlings for owners are not doing their job in a responsible fashion by knowingly selecting unsound stock.

What makes the thoroughbred racehorse good and sound is a combination of many things, but you have to start with the right parents so the bone and ligament soundness is there.

how fast is a derby horse?

Tags

breed stasis, churchill downs, classics, Kentucky Derby, mr. prospector, native dancer, northern dancer, soundness, strength of materials

In his response to a lengthy message from Jay Leimbach on Adrian Parry’s “tb_breeding_theory” group, Tony Morris has made an exceptional synthesis of the factors involved in molding the Thoroughbred of 50 years ago into the animal we have today. Clearly, they are not the same animals, and the squashy nexus of commerce (international stallions, etc.), politics (jockey clubs, etc.), and social pressures (synthetic surfaces, changing attitudes, urban growth, etc.) all worked to that end.

There was also one table in Leimbach’s commentary regarding average times for the Kentucky Derby that illuminates one other point of interest for those of us with a concern for the history of the breed, as well as its future.

For the past six decades, the average time for the 10 furlongs at Churchill Downs has hovered right on 2:02 1/5. There have been insignificant fluctuations up or down, but the times have stayed admirably consistent despite different climate conditions for the race.

Some point to this as evidence that the Thoroughbred has stagnated genetically — or even worse — has regressed because the blooded racing horse had steadily decreased the average time for running the 10 furlongs of the Kentucky classic over the preceding decades.

In contrast, I interpret the data to indicate two different things. For one, we have reached a level of stasis in the breeding population. No matter how badly we breeders plan our matings and no matter how oddly we manage our horses, there are a sufficient number of horses in the population capable of running 10 furlongs in about 2:02 early in May to ensure that the race will be won by something of that ilk. Regardless of pedigree or fashion or price or anything.

I believe essentially that there are enough good horses in the breeding pool that a reasonable number of horses capable of running 10 furlongs in solid time will be born every year and that enough of these will survive the rigors of training to compete in the classics. This is despite considerations of pedigree or planning and suggests the depth of the bloodstock pool, as well as the random manner that genetics works out the details for us.

And on a second and quite different point, there is a concept in physics called the “strength of materials” that helps engineers and builders judge how much wood, steel, or concrete is needed to create something that will perform a function (think of bridges, buildings, and towers, for instance). That is the concept we are dealing with in the construction of Thoroughbreds.

Unlike engineers, breeders cannot select a horse for legs of a specific diameter or density. But by using racing class as evidence of soundness and using the most capable trainers available, owners can maximize the potential of their racers.

If a horse’s legs cannot stand the stress of racing any faster, it becomes unsound. If a horse is built with too much bone, it isn’t as fast as the one with somewhat less. So racing is selecting the horses with the minimum strength of materials needed to race as fast as possible and win. Therefore, horses with extraordinary speed and a tinge of fragility (Mr. Prospector, Native Dancer, Northern Dancer) are the best breeding prospects because they are right on the borderline of the perfect proportion of bone to weight and power.

And from the data regarding the Kentucky Derby, a Thoroughbred possessing the norm for strength of materials to run 10 furlongs and survive will get you the distance in 2:02 or thereabouts.

Cheers,

Frank.

understanding stamina and classic performance ii

Tags

brigadier gerard, citation, classics, german breeding, hail to reason, jay leimbach, man o' war, monsun, national stud of england, northern dancer, peter burrell, raise a native, secretariat, soundness, stamina, tony morris

The internationally recognized bloodstock columnist and author Tony Morris offered the following observations on Jay Leimbach’s discourse on stamina and the classic Thoroughbred.

As a synthesis of the issues, combined with lengthy personal observation and study, these comments are among the best I’ve ever read.

Jay,

In many ways, you and I are on the same wavelength. If either of us were the benevolent dictator of the breeding industry, things would be very different – or would have been, if either of us had been given the job as a lifetime post 40 years ago. It would be hard for a new dictator to alter things now.

There should be rules such that the Germans have – no job for a stallion who did not race for at least two seasons, did not achieve a rating that proclaimed his class, that had ever competed under medication, or had recognised hereditary faults. Germany produces sounder horses than any other country; of course, she doesn’t always produce the acknowledged best in the world, and her rules would have meant that such as Hail to Reason, Raise a Native, and, if we believe what has recently been claimed, Northern Dancer would not have entered the breeding population. But she has given us Monsun, and if nobody outside Germany knows of no other German sire, they ought to know about him.

The fact that today’s top horses do not race as often as their predecessors of a few (equine) generations is not all about lack of soundness; commercial considerations are often a large part of it. But there is no doubt: today’s horse is softer than the horse of even 40 years ago. We have bred from inherently unsound stock, and unsoundness breeds unsoundness.

But, Jay, references to breeding policies in plants and animals such as sheep and cattle don’t really signify much. In the early 1970s I was writing to eminent geneticists and asking them why they couldn’t offer solutions for the Thoroughbred; all I got in response was self-congratulatory guff about what they had done for increased milk yield and the good news for butchers in terms of beek and pork. They didn’t want to talk about the Thoroughbred, because they hadn’t a clue about the ATHLETIC animal, who is a completely different beast.

We are in a different world now, and the current crop of equine geneticists will revolutionise the game within a few years – if their findings are published.

In 1960, Peter Burrell, former director of the National Stud in England, gave a lecture in which he said that he believed that the British Thoroughbred had gone as far as it could go in the years before World War I. I have always accepted that view. I also took from that the assumption that American Thoroughbreds of that time were behind the British, and I believed that. Yes, there were exceptional individuals in the States, but overall the standard there was lower.

It remained lower for some time. Noor, who was some way short of top class here, had a few shots at Citation, and when properly on his game, could give him weight. Anyone who has properly analysed form, and recognised both the advances in breeding and the increased competitiveness of racing will know that Citation was a better horse than Man o’ War, and that Secretariat was a decided improvement on the pair of them.

By Secretariat’s time, America had more than caught up with Europe, but he was an exception. We were already recognising that America produced better horses than we did, we imported them in huge numbers, and Americans sent their stock to race here. The impact of all that was we found that traditional European pedigrees didn’t work anymore; Brigadier Gerard was the last of our home-grown superstars.

But, surprising as it may seem, the better American horses who came here – and they are still coming – have never been rated as highly as Brigadier Gerard was. America had reached the peak that Europe had reached just before World War I; the odd one might always rise above that plateau, but when it did, it would never reproduce itself.

I am well aware that America takes far more notice of times than we do in Europe, but, seriously, nowhere in racing do they really matter, when the main objective is to defeat the opposition. There is no virtue, or any more cash, in doing that in a faster time than is necessary. How many Kentucky Derby winners ran a faster time than Citation? How many of them were better than Citation? Aside from Secretariat, name one, and try to justify it.

I wrote a piece for the Racing Post a couple of days ago, referring to the fact that there was nothing special in her female line since Hail to All, and referred to his career – 12 starts at 2 and 16 more as a three-year-old. Yes, to be sure, horses aren’t as sound as they were then, but they also aren’t campaigned as aggressively, and commercial considerations affect the situation.

Think on’t.

understanding stamina and classic performance

Tags

classic winner, jay leimbach, Kentucky Derby, racing time statistics, soundness, stamina, Triple Crown

The bloodstock commentator Jay Leimbach recently offered the following post to the subscribers of a web group of confirmed students of pedigrees and sifters of arcane information.

Some of the thoughts he wrote seemed worthy of repetition, and they are reproduced here with permission.

For readers interested in the subject line, the writer’s comments on the Kentucky Derby, its times over the past several decades, and those implications make especially interesting reading.

Your thoughts and observations are most welcome.

THE VANISHING THOROUGHBRED HERO:

—————————————————————–

By Jay Leimbach

As a boy I fell in love with the great Thoroughbreds: Man o’ War, Exterminator, Seabiscuit, Whirlaway, Citation, Native Dancer, and Bold Ruler. Even their names had a magical ring. As a young man I saw legendary horses like Buckpasser, Secretariat, Seattle Slew, Affirmed, and Spectacular Bid.

It’s easy to romanticize the heroes of our youth, but in the case of the Thoroughbred there is growing evidence to suggest this is more than just nostalgia. Decades later, stakes and world records of these great horses still stand, while many of today’s best young racehorses are retiring prematurely due to injuries and unsoundness.

This lack of durability is certainly reflected in a comparison to the race records of past greats. As a 2-year-old, Man o’ War began his career with 4 starts in just 18 days, once on a single day’s rest. Seabiscuit raced an incredible 35 times at two, but didn’t reach his prime until age 5. Citation won 19 times at age three, including the Kentucky Derby on three days rest and the Jockey Club Gold Cup on just two days rest. Native Dancer won four races in a one month at Saratoga.

Today’s horses could not even dream of such feats. Racing twice in a month is now considered a stretch. The stress of the Triple Crown, run over five weeks, is now considered so taxing that few horses are able to complete all three races. Forty years ago Citation, Native Dancer, and Bold Ruler raced BETWEEN Triple Crown engagements just to stay sharp. Stymie raced an incredible 131 times before he retired to stud.

Hall of Fame trainer Charlie Whittingham observed that the great horses of the ’40s and ’50s, “were built like Russian tanks.” Shug McGaughey speaks for most trainers when he says, “I think we’re dealing with a lot softer type of horse today.”

It is also significant that imported Thoroughbreds from Europe and South America are now exerting a major influence on the racetrack, often leaving their American counterparts in the dust. In the million-dollar Santa Anita Handicap of 1997, the first three finishers were all from South America. (Siphon-Sandpit-Gentlemen).

Clearly something has gone wrong. Not only are we seeing an epidemic of unsoundness, but winning times for the major stakes races have shown no improvement in recent decades – despite advantages in faster shoes, faster racing surfaces, performance enhancing medications, and a much larger Thoroughbred population – all of which should have improved times significantly.

From the 1880s to the 1930s average winning times for the Belmont Stakes improved by 13 seconds for the mile-and-a-half race. In the first decade of the 20th Century the average winning time for the mile-and-a-quarter Kentucky Derby was 2:09 3/5. This time dropped to 2:04 3/5 by the 1940s, and 2:01 4/5 by the 1960s. But winning times actually slowed slightly in the 1970s, (despite secretariat’s stakes record), and again in the 1980s and ’90s. (See tables)

————————————————————————-

KENTUCKY DERBY LIFETIME STARTS

AVERAGE WINNING TIMES DERBY WINNERS

————————————- —————————

1900-09 2:09 3/5 52.9

1910-19 2:06 4/5 55.5

1920-29 2:07 34.2

1930-39 2:04 3/5 20.5

1940-49 2:04 4/5 33.0

1950-59 2:02 3/5 27.3

1960-69 2:01 4/5 25.6

1970-79 2:02 1/5 26.1

1980-89 2:02 2/5 20.5

1990-99 2:02 2/5 21.0

TEN FASTEST DERBIES

——————————————-

Secretariat 1:59 2/5 (1973)

Northern Dancer 2:00 (1964)

Spend A Buck 2:00 1/5 (1985)

Carry Back 2:00 2/5 (1961)

Proud Clarion 2:00 3/5 (1967)

Grindstone 2:01 (1996)

Lucky Debonair 2:01 1/5 (1965)

Affirmed 2:01 1/5 (1977)

Thunder Gulch 2:01 1/5 (1995)

Whirlaway 2:01 2/5 (1941)

————————————-

It can quickly be seen that most of the fastest Derbies came before 1978. While the Derby is not the sole measure of the breed it remains the ultimate standard for American Thoroughbreds. Apparently we are now seeing a breed that is no longer growing faster, but simply more fragile. A recent survey of the sport’s top 50 sires showed they averaged only ten starts lifetime: at best a dubious genetic pool from which to draw.

Dr. Fager’s world record for the mile on the dirt (1:32 1/5) has stood since 1968, Secretariat’s dirt record for 1 1/2 miles (2:24) has stood since 1973, and Spectacular Bid’s record for 1 1/4 miles (1:57 4/5) since 1980. This is in stark contrast to the Standardbred of harness-racing, where records fall almost monthly. This breed has grown out of a wide genetic background providing the variation needed for long-term improvement and vigor.

The basic purpose of all livestock breeding is to reinforce the best traits of a breed, while improving the weaknesses. Reinforcing the best traits is usually done by selective inbreeding to great ancestors, while improving the weaknesses is accomplished by adding fresh bloodlines. In other words, a combination of inbreeding and outcrossing.

This calls for a delicate balance. Inbreeding is needed to fix a type, particularly in the early evolution of a breed. But too much inbreeding over too long a time will inevitably lead to defects and a general loss of vigor. On the other hand, too much outcrossing will undo the very traits that were selected for over decades.

Ideally such patterns of inbreeding and outcrossing can be worked out experimentally, as they are for many breeds of plant and animal livestock. Unfortunately raising racehorses is an expensive proposition and breeders cannot afford to cull 90% of their offspring as failures. We can learn a great deal about breeding theory from agricultural breeders, however. They enjoy the advantage of being able to produce many generations of offspring quickly and inexpensively to confirm their results.

In the successful breeding of corn, wheat, chickens, sheep, and cattle we see a recurring pattern. Initially a few outstanding individuals are chosen for breeding. This is followed by a period of selective inbreeding to fix the best traits in the breed–which continues until signs of decline set in. At this point experiments in outcrossing with new strains begin to see which crosses will eliminate the faults and produce the best specimens. Then another cycle of selective inbreeding usually begins.

If we trace the Thoroughbred’s inbreeding back to its roots circa 1700, we find a steadily rising “coefficient of inbreeding” for the breed. This is largely because the Stud Book was closed in 1827, leaving only the descendants of three stallions: Herod, Matchem, and Eclipse. In effect, the Thoroughbred then grew out of a small “island population” of three stallions and a few dozen foundation mares. No matter how many thousands of Thoroughbreds followed, they all came from the same closely related population.

From the existing Thoroughbred gene pool, it appears that genetic limits may have already been reached, but today’s racehorse is not simply stuck at the status quo. Many of the highest priced yearlings, selling for upwards of a million dollars, cannot stand up to hard training, cannot race beyond a mile, and often come out of a race lame or bleeding from the lungs.

To improve soundness the genetic solution is almost surely outcrossing, but because all Thoroughbreds are so closely related this difficult if not possible. Cross-breeding to other horse breeds may offer the best long-range hope, but the Jockey Club does not permit anything but pure Thoroughbreds to race, nor are they likely to in the near future. If the current epidemic of unsoundness continues, however, they may be forced to re-examine this policy. At the very least, breeders will need to conscientiously select for soundness and durability, more than just commercial appeal or precocious speed.

Broodmares from Argentina and New Zealand are renowned for the stamina and durability, and could become key figures. The recent Horse of the Year, Cigar, in fact comes from a South American maternal family, as did the undefeated mare Personal Ensign, and the sire Pleasant Colony–now a major influence for stamina.

Experiments in outcrossing and cross-breeding are not uncommon among other forms of competition horses, and most of the top Olympic horses are cross-breds carrying at least some Thoroughbred blood. Clearly this is deliberate.

Experiments in cross-breeding have increased egg, wool, and dairy production by as much as five times in the past century. Simply stated, the greater the genetic variety of a breed, the greater potential for long-term growth and vigor.

On the other hand “purebreds” with closed stud books and no cross-breeding inevitably find there is a limit to their growth before negative qualities become ingrained. This pattern has been repeated many times from corn, to show-dogs, cattle, and horses. (The infamous Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s is a perfect example.)

Thoroughbred breeders have been justifiably proud of the noble animal they have created in the past. But the growing signs of unsoundness, breathing problems, and lack of stamina are typical of many other livestock breeds which have solved these problems with programs based on scientific breeding principles. The Thoroughbred breeding industry is now big business, with profit sometimes coming before quality. Long-term breeding programs may be looked at as economically impractical. But is it practical to breed horses that retire with injury before they can even earn back their sales price?

Sports fans want to see bigger than life heroes: horses who can break world records and run week after week, year after year. Owners need to know that their $100,000 yearlings are not going to break down after two or three starts leaving them deeply in debt. Network television does not want to show horses breaking down before their national TV audience. This is not good business.

The Thoroughbred world simply needs to breed better horses. The good news is there is some rhyme and reason to all livestock breeding.

———

end