• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Top 25 mare families in the world

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    I'm kind of with Viney here, do these stamm numbers trace back to one mare or what?

    At least with TB mare families you know what you are dealing with when somewhen says 9-c or 14-c or any of the founding mares from numbered family's.

    So if you say family 763 from the Hanoverian line it would be nice to say oh yeah that's the founding mare so and so with a family that's produced such and such.

    Anyway, me chiming in.

    Terri
    COTH, keeping popcorn growers in business for years.

    "I need your grace to remind me to find my own." Snow Patrol-Chasing Cars. This line reminds me why I have horses.

    Comment


    • #22
      Tri, I don't know how other US studbooks regard the WBFSH, but the AHHA failed to send anyone to the very important meeting held in France earlier this month. Several BOD members were in Europe at the time and could easily have gone. Much information is lost to the membership when our studbooks take so little interest. But maybe other US based studbooks sent representitives... I don't know. I was very disappointed to learn of this faux pas on the part of the AHHA.

      These things are important for worldwide recognition of our horses. Campesino's son was ranked 25th in the world on the showjumping list, making Campesino very well known throughout Europe; in the US.... no recognition. I think we breeders have to stay on top of what is going on between our breed associations and the WBFSH or all may slip through the cracks. If our breed association doesn't understand the importance of the WBFSH to US breeders, this is a huge problem for us.
      http://ShowjumpersUSA.com
      CAMPESINO (1990 - 2008)
      Capitol I - Sacramento Song xx
      http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/annalisasmith

      Comment


      • #23
        Showjumpers, I agree wholeheartedly. It is once again, a problem stemming from the fragmented nature of our system here - a bunch of small, mostly poorly funded groups that backbite and bicker among themselves with no strong, cohesive direction, goals, or inititatives.

        Do any of the wb registries even have a 1 year plan or a 5 year plan? Do you know what it is if they do? Is there any accountability? Is there any acknowledgment of goals attained? Is there any tracking of market percentage? Number of horses sold, average prices, etc? Is that info then marketed?

        Comment


        • #24
          Very interesting info altogether. From all I gather the WBFSH-ranking works similar as the German FN rankings used to work before the BLUP was fashionable. The biggest point of critizism back then was that the recognized (rated S-level shows) show result had too much of an environmental factor to them and that anything that was not rated S-level classes fell under the table making for often misleading statistics.
          Today we see the opposite extreme within the FN-breed value calculation as many young stallions score major brownie points for their own merits in young horse performanc tests (e.g. BC-titles, stallion performance test results) which are as we all know fairly political by nature (no objective measure such as time and penalties but humans judgeing for the most of it) whereas some longstanding proven producers are downright kicked out of the statistics no matter how many top class performers they have produced over the years (Raphael comes to mind who's showjumping inheritance is certainly not argued a lot amongst showjumper folk?)
          While I clearly agree top level competition should play an important role in breed-value calculation or any breed ranking for that part, I don't think it is wise to fade out everything that happens in the sport at width because not only is the vast majority of riders competing in the lower levels but also this is where the biggest marketvalue lies. It is not in the top10 let's face it. Most breeders will never make one of those six figure or up sales so I think we'd be fools to base our breeding decisions on data that includes topsport only. To me the most valuable line is the one I can be sure will not produce 'complete failures' because it's those complete failures that cost a breeder money. Everything else can still be turned for the better and if I end up with one that can at best be a good lower level amateur mount he can still turn into a walking advertisement for my programme. Therefor I look for more broad-based data to found my breeding-ideas upon. Still very good information to have at hand.
          Froh zu sein bedarf es wenig...
          http://www.germanhorseconnection.com
          https://www.facebook.com/pages/Germa...m/237648984580

          Comment


          • #25
            As far as plans go I can say within the Hanoverian Verband there are quite a few goals definied. The guys at Verden work very hard yearround and the statistics of how many they marketed for how much and where are very easily accessed. There is a huge annual report published for everyone to follow and after each major breeding event the board members will comment at length and get guest commentatory as well. While there is nothing like a public 5year plan one can certainly say there are goals defined and followed and I can say quite successfully achieved.
            Froh zu sein bedarf es wenig...
            http://www.germanhorseconnection.com
            https://www.facebook.com/pages/Germa...m/237648984580

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Bayhawk View Post
              I dis-agree that the rankings are meaningless. If they were, they wouldn't bother with compiling the data. Yes, some families are bigger than others but we have the huge family 776 as #1 but we have another huge family 730b that is not in the top 25 . Production is production and it is what it is.

              I agree with you that it would be more telling if they went with international horses per 100 produced by each stutenstamme.
              Interesting logic. If the rankings were meaningless, you say, they would not be compiled. So the fact that they are compiled means they must be meaningful.

              Hmm.

              Note that Decartes wrote "I think therefore I am." He did not write "I am therefore I think."
              Morningside Stud
              http://www.morningside-stud.com
              http://twitter.com/MorningsideStud
              http://www.facebook.com/MorningsideStud

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by tom View Post
                Interesting logic. If the rankings were meaningless, you say, they would not be compiled. So the fact that they are compiled means they must be meaningful.

                Hmm.

                Note that Decartes wrote "I think therefore I am." He did not write "I am therefore I think."
                This list could be more informative, but it is not meaningless. Reece agreed with you that it could be more telling by using the per 100 method. Do I detect a hint of resentment here?

                I wonder if you would have the same opposition if the Irish Sporthorse or KWPN had the number one ranking.
                http://ShowjumpersUSA.com
                CAMPESINO (1990 - 2008)
                Capitol I - Sacramento Song xx
                http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/annalisasmith

                Comment


                • #28
                  Oh Kareen, I know that they have it in Europe. I should have been more clear in that I was referring to the wb registries operating in the U.S. and as far as the North American marketplace goes.

                  The european registries as it pertains to EUROPE have a very organized, strong business model that has proven successful for many years.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Of course I would have the same critique. I have similar critiques about the WBFSH rankings in which the KWPN is first in jumping and the IHB is first in eventing. In fact I wrote an article in Horse International magazine (also on my blog) that discusses the uses and misuses of index scores and offers several suggestions for improving the Irish and Dutch indices and the WBFSH rankings.

                    In an statistical analysis if the data are bad the analysis is worthless.

                    In any statistical analysis if the statistical model is wrong (or its assumptions violated) the analysis is worthless.

                    Some of us on this board have advanced degrees in disciplines that require advanced statistics and research methodology. The errors and misjudgements in this ranking and in the studbook indicies and WBFSH rankings are so basic that one does not need advanced training to shoot holes in them a mile wide.
                    Morningside Stud
                    http://www.morningside-stud.com
                    http://twitter.com/MorningsideStud
                    http://www.facebook.com/MorningsideStud

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Google "sampling on the dependent variable" and in five or ten minutes you will learn one important fatal flaw in this type of ranking.
                      Morningside Stud
                      http://www.morningside-stud.com
                      http://twitter.com/MorningsideStud
                      http://www.facebook.com/MorningsideStud

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        These rankings are compiled by the Dutch and the Germans. They obviously have some belief in them. Maybe while you're telling these people how wrong they are... and how right you are... you will go down in history as another Tessio. I'm sure they appreciate your good intentions.
                        http://ShowjumpersUSA.com
                        CAMPESINO (1990 - 2008)
                        Capitol I - Sacramento Song xx
                        http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/annalisasmith

                        Comment


                        • #32
                          So the authors believe in their rankings. Big deal! It does not make their analysis correct or useful.

                          I note that you have not made one statement arguing WHY you believe these rankings are correct and useful from a statistical and/or methodological point of view.

                          Signing off...
                          Morningside Stud
                          http://www.morningside-stud.com
                          http://twitter.com/MorningsideStud
                          http://www.facebook.com/MorningsideStud

                          Comment


                          • #33
                            I love this discussion so far! (okay, not the infighting but.....)

                            While I can't follow all the nuances of how the data presented here is collected/tabulated, as an epidemiologist, I agree with whoever said that any "result" is only as good as the data put in: if the data is crud, then so will be the results. See it in medicine all the time. Anyone can design a study to prove a desired result: a careful study, with a true null hypothesis, and great design, can withstand any assault.

                            I think I read that there may not be enough controls on the variables affecting the data: what are the skew factors? ( I think Kareen hinted at some of them).

                            I have no clue , I just know I spend a lot of time looking at data, and "p" factors
                            "Her life was okay. Sometimes she wished she were sleeping with the right man instead of with her dog, but she never felt she was sleeping with the wrong dog."



                            www.dontlookbackfarm.com

                            Comment


                            • #34
                              The most fundamental problem with the analysis is that they are sampling on the dependent variable -- international showjumpers. They have a list of international showjumpers (their dependent variable) and they are sorting the showjumpers into their respective motherlines. Then they are ranking the motherlines by the number of international showjumpers each motherline has produced.

                              What is wrong with this approach? You are an epidemiologist so let's use an example from your field. Let's say there has been a large increase in brain cancer deaths in a jurisdiction and you are asked to investigate it.

                              An inexperienced researcher will develop a study that contains, let's say, all the people who died of brain cancer and then try to identify causes. The inexperienced researcher notes that 98.8% of the people who died of brain cancer watched Monday Night Football and this variable is the one that the greatest number of brain cancer patients shared. There you go! Monday Night Football must have caused the brain cancer!

                              But of course that is a silly conclusion.

                              A more appropriate technique woud have been to have drawn a random sample (of some type, a purely random sample would not provide enough cases of people with brain cancer since the incidence of brain cancer is still low in the population despite the spike in cases) to estimate a model that attempts to discriminate (to sort) between those with brain cancer and those without. And you could use a statistical estimator such as discriminant analysis or logistic regression (died of brain cancer = 1 and not developed brain cancer = 0) to test your theory. And if your theory is good, and your data are good, and you have enough statistical power you might find one or more variables that are important predictors/explainers, from both a substantive (remember Monday Night Football?) and a statistical point of view, of why certain people died of brain cancer and others did not. And included in that model would have to be control variables such as age, sex, race, etc. -- variables that may be correlated to your key independent viables but are themselves certainly not possible causes of brain cancer.

                              In the case of these mare families we have a similar problem of sampling on the dependent varable. The authors took as their population to be studied the population of international showjumpers (i.e., the brain cancer casualties). They should have taken as their population to be studied the entire population of each mare family (i.e., the brain cancer casualties AND the people without brain cancer) and then sorted each mare family into those horses that are/were international showjumpers and those that are/were not. So the solution is so much easier here with the mare families than it is with the cancer study: all they have to do is control for the size of each mare family! Simple.

                              Let me give another example. Ireland (was and maybe still is) the second largest exporter of software in the world after the USA. So the USA is like the most successful motherline in the study and Ireland is like the second most successful motherline in the study. But wait a minute. Ireland has only about 1.5 percent of the total US population. So on a per capita basis Ireland is a much more "powerful" exporter of software than the USA.

                              Or consider whose record is more impressive in producing Nobel Laureates in Literature? Ireland has one-third (4) the number of Nobel prizes in literature as does the USA (12). Who impresses you the most by their production of Nobels in Literature? Ireland or the USA? For me the answer is easy: Ireland.

                              Let's go back to the mare families. For this ranking to have any utility we have to know the denominator, how many horses are in each of the mare families. We know stamm 776 is big. But how big is it? If we took into account the size of each of the mare families would the ranking be the same? Holding size of the mareline constant does the ranking stay the same? Or do the positions shift dramatically once we take into account how many horses are in each mare family?

                              Is stamm 776's production of international showjumpers impressive? I do not know and the only way to truly know is if we control for size. And the most reader-friendly way to do that is to compute a rate -- number of international showjumpers per 100 horses in each motherline.

                              Without controlling for the size of the mare family and/or computing a rate we simply have no idea which mare families are truly powerful producers of international showjumpers and which ones only appear to be so because they are so big.
                              Morningside Stud
                              http://www.morningside-stud.com
                              http://twitter.com/MorningsideStud
                              http://www.facebook.com/MorningsideStud

                              Comment


                              • #35
                                Tom - I am of Irish descent. Don't need to impress me with Ireland. I just wish they hadn't become the largest exporter of software, then the Shelbourne might be the wonderful old hotel it was, not the modernized hotel it is now (owned by Marriot!). PS: my grandfather brought the Abby theater to America......

                                From what you have posted, the analysis is backwards: it appears to have started with the "end" product and worked backwards. However, I don't see how not to start with the end product - how else to identify a place to start?
                                However, once identified, ie top marelines, you suggest, and I buy it, that the next step would be: of all offspring, of said mareline (identified as having produced "a" or "several" GP jumpers), how many offspring of said mareline, with number of offspring the denominator, have produced GP jumpers? 1 in 10? 1 in 50? 1 in 100? And can you control for number of shows?
                                Or, perhaps more critical, as Kareen points out, what about the offspring who excel below the radar? Is that not perhaps even more important than the 1 in 100 GP jumpers?????

                                I am sure I am regurgitating what you have all ready posted Tom, just have to work it through my tiny brain cells.

                                In any event, love the TV and brain cancer analogy. We have had many a correlation "proved" - equally absurd - only to have to retract years later. Luckily, everyone is still watching football go Redskins!
                                "Her life was okay. Sometimes she wished she were sleeping with the right man instead of with her dog, but she never felt she was sleeping with the wrong dog."



                                www.dontlookbackfarm.com

                                Comment


                                • #36
                                  I think to be valid, like with stallions, you have to look at percentages.

                                  If stallion A has produced 10 FEI horses, and Stallion B has produced 2, who is the better sire?

                                  It seems like Stallion A, but if Stallion A has 2000 offspring of riding age, and Stallion B only has 100, then Stallion A has .5%, and Stallion B has 2%, then I would go with Stallion B. To take that a step further though, you would have to know how successfull of producers the mares were that had been bred to each, ages of the offspring, and how many offspring found themselves in a trainer's barn that could produce an FEI candidate. and then there is the financial aspect, the match of horse to rider, etc, etc.

                                  There is just no easy way to make a valid and meaningful list, but they are lots of fun to use for bragging.

                                  What I DO know is that if you breed Luna to Salieri you are likely to get one heck of an athlete!
                                  (Even more interesting to me as a breeder of older type blood is that there is no real refining blood for many generations, but the offspring are modern type) <I really just love the Sender, Don Carlos, Lungau blood)
                                  Last edited by Fairview Horse Center; Dec. 1, 2008, 02:24 AM.

                                  Comment


                                  • #37
                                    Originally posted by tom View Post
                                    The most fundamental problem with the analysis is that they are sampling on the dependent variable -- international showjumpers. They have a list of international showjumpers (their dependent variable) and they are sorting the showjumpers into their respective motherlines. Then they are ranking the motherlines by the number of international showjumpers each motherline has produced.

                                    What is wrong with this approach? You are an epidemiologist so let's use an example from your field. Let's say there has been a large increase in brain cancer deaths in a jurisdiction and you are asked to investigate it.

                                    An inexperienced researcher will develop a study that contains, let's say, all the people who died of brain cancer and then try to identify causes. The inexperienced researcher notes that 98.8% of the people who died of brain cancer watched Monday Night Football and this variable is the one that the greatest number of brain cancer patients shared. There you go! Monday Night Football must have caused the brain cancer!

                                    But of course that is a silly conclusion.

                                    A more appropriate technique woud have been to have drawn a random sample (of some type, a purely random sample would not provide enough cases of people with brain cancer since the incidence of brain cancer is still low in the population despite the spike in cases) to estimate a model that attempts to discriminate (to sort) between those with brain cancer and those without. And you could use a statistical estimator such as discriminant analysis or logistic regression (died of brain cancer = 1 and not developed brain cancer = 0) to test your theory. And if your theory is good, and your data are good, and you have enough statistical power you might find one or more variables that are important predictors/explainers, from both a substantive (remember Monday Night Football?) and a statistical point of view, of why certain people died of brain cancer and others did not. And included in that model would have to be control variables such as age, sex, race, etc. -- variables that may be correlated to your key independent viables but are themselves certainly not possible causes of brain cancer.

                                    In the case of these mare families we have a similar problem of sampling on the dependent varable. The authors took as their population to be studied the population of international showjumpers (i.e., the brain cancer casualties). They should have taken as their population to be studied the entire population of each mare family (i.e., the brain cancer casualties AND the people without brain cancer) and then sorted each mare family into those horses that are/were international showjumpers and those that are/were not. So the solution is so much easier here with the mare families than it is with the cancer study: all they have to do is control for the size of each mare family! Simple.

                                    Let me give another example. Ireland (was and maybe still is) the second largest exporter of software in the world after the USA. So the USA is like the most successful motherline in the study and Ireland is like the second most successful motherline in the study. But wait a minute. Ireland has only about 1.5 percent of the total US population. So on a per capita basis Ireland is a much more "powerful" exporter of software than the USA.

                                    Or consider whose record is more impressive in producing Nobel Laureates in Literature? Ireland has one-third (4) the number of Nobel prizes in literature as does the USA (12). Who impresses you the most by their production of Nobels in Literature? Ireland or the USA? For me the answer is easy: Ireland.

                                    Let's go back to the mare families. For this ranking to have any utility we have to know the denominator, how many horses are in each of the mare families. We know stamm 776 is big. But how big is it? If we took into account the size of each of the mare families would the ranking be the same? Holding size of the mareline constant does the ranking stay the same? Or do the positions shift dramatically once we take into account how many horses are in each mare family?

                                    Is stamm 776's production of international showjumpers impressive? I do not know and the only way to truly know is if we control for size. And the most reader-friendly way to do that is to compute a rate -- number of international showjumpers per 100 horses in each motherline.

                                    Without controlling for the size of the mare family and/or computing a rate we simply have no idea which mare families are truly powerful producers of international showjumpers and which ones only appear to be so because they are so big.
                                    Been reading this forum off and on for what, 10 years… or however long it’s been around… this discussion is one of the most useful ever. Thank you.
                                    Logres Farm on Facebook
                                    http://logresfarmpintowarmbloods.com/
                                    http://logresdobermans.com/

                                    Comment


                                    • #38
                                      Another problem, as Tom's analogy makes clear, is that new stamm numbers with much less chance to produce (time being what it is) are still being created. That would have to be another skew factor when listing families by stamm number.

                                      At least in TBs, the root families go back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and all of the lettered subfamilies eventually go back to one of the root mares, leaving MtDNA analysis out of it.
                                      "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
                                      Thread killer Extraordinaire

                                      Comment


                                      • #39
                                        Or consider whose record is more impressive in producing Nobel Laureates in Literature? Ireland has one-third (4) the number of Nobel prizes in literature as does the USA (12). Who impresses you the most by their production of Nobels in Literature? Ireland or the USA? For me the answer is easy: Ireland.
                                        I like your analogies with the exception of this one. The awarding of Nobel prizes is subjective and very political. Keep in mind that they gave that idiot Al Gore a Nobel prize. Also, the committee that awards these prizes know that they can't load up the U.S. with prize after prize - there is already enough hostility towards us around the world.

                                        Your points also remind me of the threads regarding the Hilltop stallion, Riverman. He has bred 100s of mares - rumored at 200 mares a year? Yet, few have done much of anything. Pro Riverman posters point to a horse here and there, but from all those breedings, you would think there would be lots at all levels of sport. There isn't.

                                        Comment


                                        • #40
                                          Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center View Post
                                          I think to be valid, like with stallions, you have to look at percentages.

                                          If stallion A has produced 10 FEI horses, and Stallion B has produced 2, who is the better sire?

                                          It seems like Stallion A, but if Stallion A has 2000 offspring of riding age, and Stallion B only has 100, then Stallion A has .5%, and Stallion B has 2%, then I would go with Stallion B. To take that a step further though, you would have to know how successfull of producers the mares were that had been bred to each, ages of the offspring, and how many offspring found themselves in a trainer's barn that could produce an FEI candidate. and then there is the financial aspect, the match of horse to rider, etc, etc.
                                          Only problem here is that if stallion B has too few offspring, the percentages will change in greater magnitude because there are so few numbers versus the stallion that has more offspring on the ground. Thus you also need to know the reliability of the statistic/percentage.
                                          Kris
                                          www.edgewoodmeadowfarm.com
                                          Like us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/edgewoodmeadowfarm

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X