Horses that outrun their TrueNicks

[Insane Crazy]

Obviously its not a total science and even the poorest crosses will produce multiple winners over time. Still, I've been wondering about it. Nicks always come up when considering potential mates and it's clearly an indicator of something. Everyone loves A, A+, and A++ nicks - but does anyone know of specific horses who have "outrun" much lower nicks?

The site says this:

Almost half of Thoroughbreds in general–44%–are on the low end of the scale (rated “C” through “F”), yet only two in 25 stakes winners (8%) have these lower ratings.

I'm curious about that 8%, and if in there are any of real note - multiple stakes winners or anything similar.

Not sure if one can check this after-the-fact...I don't know 100% how nicks work, but I assume once horses start excelling, their cross grade goes up. But I figured some here might have the knowledge stored away somewhere! Sorry if this comes out like a totally ridiculous question, though.

[Calypso]

I've always wondered about Nicking statistics....is there a site I could go to that gives them? I always hear about how very few SW/GSWers have nicks lower than an A but on the flipside I'm wondering how many horses that can't break their maidens and struggle in claiming races have high nicks too.

If there's a site that gives those kinds of statistics, I'd love to see it. ^_^

[Brogan]

I may be incorrect, but have some recollection that Go For Wand was a D nick.

[TBird]

You can see them every week in the back of the BloodHorse where the stakes results are given along with the TrueNicks scores of the first three finishers.

Zenyatta was one such. Her cross was rated a C for the first half of her career. Now, of course, it's been upgraded.

[Mom's Command]

Obviously its not a total science and even the poorest crosses will produce multiple winners over time. Still, I've been wondering about it. Nicks always come up when considering potential mates and it's clearly an indicator of something. Everyone loves A, A+, and A++ nicks - but does anyone know of specific horses who have "outrun" much lower nicks?

The site says this:

Almost half of Thoroughbreds in general–44%–are on the low end of the scale (rated “C” through “F”), yet only two in 25 stakes winners (8%) have these lower ratings.

I'm curious about that 8%, and if in there are any of real note - multiple stakes winners or anything similar.

Not sure if one can check this after-the-fact...I don't know 100% how nicks work, but I assume once horses start excelling, their cross grade goes up. But I figured some here might have the knowledge stored away somewhere! Sorry if this comes out like a totally ridiculous question, though.

I believe you are correct. I bought a daughter of Chief's Crown in foal to Sharp Humor. At that time, I believe Enicks had her as an A, although, I'm not sure. True Nicks had her much lower, maybe a D? The resulting foal, just turned three, and is now a multiple stakes winner, albeit restricted stakes (WV bred). Enicks has the cross at a C+ and doesn't even find the match, where as True nicks has it as an A++ and lists the filly as one of the examples.

[Mom's Command]

I guess part of my point in this, is that as soon as one of these stallions, particularly the new ones, gets a stakes winner, the rating upgrades with True Nicks, because it doesn't use a broad a spectrum as Enicks

[Tonno100]

It would be impossible to have a notable horse with a really bad nick, since the mere existence of that notable horse would bump up the nick's value.

This is a limitation of this system, somebody told me they were going to publish nick ratings of horses at the time of conception, which I think would hold much higher value than as things stand in their current format. As I see it as the moment, they just serve to highlight the pedigree of current top runners. Also I'm not a fan of A, A+, A++ and A+++, is an A actually like a D?!

Cleverly marketed though.

[pokeyman]

My stakes horse was is a D nick when I bred his dam to produce him and he's still a D nick.

I don't believe in nicks. Nicks can't tell you if the phenotypes match; or race styles; or if there is linebreeding. Plus, they discount the female family as being non-influential.

They look at one thing= sire line crossed on broodmare sire line.

There are plenty of A+ nicks out there that could never win a race as they were bred just because it was a A+ nick. Nevermind the fact that the dam was a lousy race horse and the sire is a lousy sire.... afterall, they have the right sire line/broodmare sire line cross.

Interestingly, I am curious if horses will start to nick differently now that there are synthetic racecourses but feel not enough data yet....

[horseinator]

I used TrueNicks and Werks Ratings exclusively to help with choosing the sire of my 2011 foal. I studied their websites and wrote e-mails asking a lot of questions. I am very comfortable with the choice I made. IMHO I would not breed on a nick that is less than the best you can find. If you intend on sending the offspring to auction, you will have a distinct edge if the nick rating is A (top 13%) or better (A++ 6%). Also, I would not even attemp breeding a Thoroughbred unless the broodmare and the sire are both Blacktype rated.

[serenassong]

Here's an example of an "F" that has produced a black type runner:
Guy's Reward:http://www.equineline.com/extendedco...areRef=5305741

His record:http://equibase.com/premium/eqbHorse...207&registry=T

[Tappiano]

They put down on paper what any of us who have studied pedigrees for years know.

I have yet to have them tell me something I see as being a great match on paper is not and vice versa.

Here's an example of what's missing in their formulas.

If I cross my mare to Posse it's an A+ and the example is Kodiak Kowboy
If I cross my mare to Kodiak Kowboy it's an A+ because of Kodiak Kowboy. It totally disregards a close 3 x 4 to Forty Niner that I would deem "NICE to know how inbreeding to Forty Niner has done" when looking at matings.

If I crossed the mare to a different son of Posse it's a relevant example to cite KK but to use KK himself shows that it has left out a key element of inbreeding because it's only focused on ONE match up.

[Miss Woodford]

Sweep's Cry's in the most minor of minor leagues, but the Street Cry-End Sweep's Girl cross is a D nick. I think he managed to fly under the TrueNicks radar.
http://www.equineline.com/extendedco...areRef=4039527
His record: http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/fc_di...21922081683703

[brogers]

It would be impossible to have a notable horse with a really bad nick, since the mere existence of that notable horse would bump up the nick's value.

This is a limitation of this system, somebody told me they were going to publish nick ratings of horses at the time of conception, which I think would hold much higher value than as things stand in their current format. As I see it as the moment, they just serve to highlight the pedigree of current top runners. Also I'm not a fan of A, A+, A++ and A+++, is an A actually like a D?!

Cleverly marketed though.

Goldikova was a D as a 2yo. She was a D all the way through her career until this year where her rating has crept up to a C after two stakes winners bred on similar lines emerged.

A couple of years ago Jason Hall of Thoroughbred Review published a study on eNicks and TrueNicks. It may be worth revisiting.

http://www.thoroughbredreview.com/nickingcomparison.htm

We are looking at creating a historical TrueNicks function which would allow you to enter the horses name and have the rating today, the rating on data up to the date of the birth of the horse and the rating on data up to 11 months prior to the date of birth of the horse (conception).

[Insane Crazy]

It would be impossible to have a notable horse with a really bad nick, since the mere existence of that notable horse would bump up the nick's value.

Of course, which is why I was more interested in the initial nick versus the current one (e.g., Zenyatta's was originally a C), and wasn't sure if such information was available. But as Mom's Command said, there's also an element of new sires producing bad nicks because they're newer sires, and then it goes up over time if they succeed...which would make those initial nicks unfair to some simply based on statistics.

Of course no single system should be used to rate anything in the sport (Nicks for breeding, but also Beyers or raw time for races, etc.), but I do find it a very interesting concept and one that clearly is based in something along the line.

[brogers]

My stakes horse was is a D nick when I bred his dam to produce him and he's still a D nick.

Congrats on producing a stakes winner.

I don't believe in nicks. Nicks can't tell you if the phenotypes match; or race styles; or if there is linebreeding. Plus, they discount the female family as being non-influential.

Phenotyes matching? - True. But then paper doesn't run very fast and all breeders should be weighting nick ratings appropriately in their mating decisions

Linebreeding? - we note the linebreeding on the TrueNicks report but we cant make a calculation based on inbreeding. This is not to say we haven't tried, we have looked at quantifying linebreeding and inbreeding and it is very hard to create a rating around it. We might look at just putting the data out there without a rating associated to it and letting people make their own decisions on it.

Discounting female family as non influential - if by not considering it we are discounting it then we are guilty but I would add that there has never been a study that has proven that the female family provides any additional "magic" to the pedigree at hand. We have proven nick ratings are statistically significant, but all studies we tried with female families failed to reach statistical significance.

There are plenty of A+ nicks out there that could never win a race as they were bred just because it was a A+ nick. Nevermind the fact that the dam was a lousy race horse and the sire is a lousy sire.... afterall, they have the right sire line/broodmare sire line cross.

There are certainly a lot of A rated horses that are not stakes winners, but the percentage of them that turn out to be stakes winners is much higher than the norm. In fact B+ or better is where, from a statistical viewpoint, the rating starts to work in your favor.

Interestingly, I am curious if horses will start to nick differently now that there are synthetic racecourses but feel not enough data yet....

That would take some time to manifest itself. We have added surface detail to TrueNicks so when you complete a rating you can see on which surface (dirt/turf/sythetics) that the horses on the cross have run, but it will take some time to see where ratings are expressing themselves as unique to synthetics. There are ratings that seem to be unique to dirt and turf separately so this is not impossible.

[pokeyman]

Congrats on producing a stakes winner.



Phenotyes matching? - True. But then paper doesn't run very fast and all breeders should be weighting nick ratings appropriately in their mating decisions

Linebreeding? - we note the linebreeding on the TrueNicks report but we cant make a calculation based on inbreeding. This is not to say we haven't tried, we have looked at quantifying linebreeding and inbreeding and it is very hard to create a rating around it. We might look at just putting the data out there without a rating associated to it and letting people make their own decisions on it.

Discounting female family as non influential - if by not considering it we are discounting it then we are guilty but I would add that there has never been a study that has proven that the female family provides any additional "magic" to the pedigree at hand. We have proven nick ratings are statistically significant, but all studies we tried with female families failed to reach statistical significance.



There are certainly a lot of A rated horses that are not stakes winners, but the percentage of them that turn out to be stakes winners is much higher than the norm. In fact B+ or better is where, from a statistical viewpoint, the rating starts to work in your favor.



That would take some time to manifest itself. We have added surface detail to TrueNicks so when you complete a rating you can see on which surface (dirt/turf/sythetics) that the horses on the cross have run, but it will take some time to see where ratings are expressing themselves as unique to synthetics. There are ratings that seem to be unique to dirt and turf separately so this is not impossible.

Thank you for your well written reply. As mentioned, I feel there are too many variables in breeding to boil it down to a nick rating. As I wrote previously, you can take a crappy race mare from a certain broodmare sire line and breed her to a backyard stallion from a particular sire line and get an A++ rating.

The nick rating does not take into account the ACTUAL quality of the specific horses in terms of race records or production. A stallion that significantly improves his mares and sires a high percentage of stakes winners will not be given preference in a nick rating. Instead, he will be equal to an inferior stallion who shares similar sire lines. Likewise, the same situation will occur regarding the quality of a mare, in terms of production.

On this point, the nick rating does also not take into account a phenotypical match. Thus, an A++ rating could be given to a horse based on its pedigree but the animals could have severe faults that would limit their ability to be a racehorse.

Furthermore, the nick ratings show linebreeding for a particular cross but that linebreeding or inbreeding does not influence the rating. For example, I might get a D nick rating (which my stakes horse received) that does not use the 3/4 siblings I was linebreeding to as an actual INFLUENCE on the nick rating.

Also, as mentioned, nicks have no use for the female family. In fact, breeding a mare back to her female family has proven to be quite a successful technique for producing stakes horses. This breeding technique could most certainly influence the likelihood of stakes success. It would not be demonstrated in a nick rating.

Thus, I feel that nicks are interesting but, merely, a side note to the work that needs to be done to properly prepare a mating. The problem is that some breeders do not want to do the massive amount of work involved in tailoring a breeding. There are so many factors one must look at to devise a proper mating. Thus, nicks are much easier for these breeders as it involves zero work.

In conclusion, I feel if it was that easy to breed stakes horses by just having A+ nick ratings than we would all have Derby winners and it would certainly make my job as a breeder much easier! But, to each his own......

However, thank you for the very intelligent conversation, despite our disagreement. Best wishes with your project!

[brogers]

Thank you for your well written reply. As mentioned, I feel there are too many variables in breeding to boil it down to a nick rating. As I wrote previously, you can take a crappy race mare from a certain broodmare sire line and breed her to a backyard stallion from a particular sire line and get an A++ rating.

The nick rating does not take into account the ACTUAL quality of the specific horses in terms of race records or production. A stallion that significantly improves his mares and sires a high percentage of stakes winners will not be given preference in a nick rating. Instead, he will be equal to an inferior stallion who shares similar sire lines. Likewise, the same situation will occur regarding the quality of a mare, in terms of production.

That is an issue TrueNicks plans to tackle in 2011. There is no doubt, as you rightly point out, that the quality of the immediate ancestors plays a significant part on the outcome. Nick rating regulate that to a certain extent, as sons of good stallions tend to have ratings that recess to the norm (C), but your point is well made. A mating with AP Indy and a mare that rates a B+ has a higher percentage chance of becoming a stakes winner than one by a lesser sire that rates an A++. Just how much higher the percentage chance is, and what influences that chance (i.e the heritability of race performance) is what we are going to look at.

On this point, the nick rating does also not take into account a phenotypical match. Thus, an A++ rating could be given to a horse based on its pedigree but the animals could have severe faults that would limit their ability to be a racehorse.

Very true. But that is an issue with any type of system. Breeders need to appreciate that while we are dealing with a very important part, genetics only represents 30-40% of the picture with the environment playing a big part. Horsemanship and genetics go hand in hand to produce the superior athlete.

Also, as mentioned, nicks have no use for the female family. In fact, breeding a mare back to her female family has proven to be quite a successful technique for producing stakes horses. This breeding technique could most certainly influence the likelihood of stakes success. It would not be demonstrated in a nick rating.

One technique that seem to get a lot of play as far as the female line is concerned is mating to a sire/sireline that has worked in the family. So if say for example you see that a female line has a lot of success with say Storm Cat, you breed your mare to a Storm Cat stallion. The problem is that invariably the family has been tried an awful lot with Storm Cat line stallions anyway and there are just as many successful ones as there are bad ones, you just dont see the latter as they are edited out of the pedigree, and the ones that are good ones are in many cases the result of a good nick in the first place.

Thus, I feel that nicks are interesting but, merely, a side note to the work that needs to be done to properly prepare a mating. The problem is that some breeders do not want to do the massive amount of work involved in tailoring a breeding. There are so many factors one must look at to devise a proper mating. Thus, nicks are much easier for these breeders as it involves zero work.

We see that a lot and believe me it is just as much of a pain to us as it is to you I suspect. We have had clients that our #1 recommendation for the mare is a B+ mating but they insist on going to a stallion that is A+ or better. Intelligent interpretation of nick ratings (or any other genetics/pedigree system) along with solid horsemanship is what gets results, not blind faith in just one or the other.

In conclusion, I feel if it was that easy to breed stakes horses by just having A+ nick ratings than we would all have Derby winners and it would certainly make my job as a breeder much easier! But, to each his own......

However, thank you for the very intelligent conversation, despite our disagreement. Best wishes with your project!

Invariably you learn most from those that dissent with your view so thank you.

[Tappiano]

I guess I should put a database together because I"m not sure what's so challenging about looking at inbreeding unless the data itself is cost prohibitive.

[pokeyman]

Brogers, again, very well written.......

Perhaps, we are no so far apart in our analysis of modern breeding as I would have thought!

To reiterate, best wishes with your project. My applause for seeking improvements and being open minded to constructive criticism.

[Lord Helpus]

They put down on paper what any of us who have studied pedigrees for years know.

I have yet to have them tell me something I see as being a great match on paper is not and vice versa.

Here's an example of what's missing in their formulas.

If I cross my mare to Posse it's an A+ and the example is Kodiak Kowboy
If I cross my mare to Kodiak Kowboy it's an A+ because of Kodiak Kowboy. It totally disregards a close 3 x 4 to Forty Niner that I would deem "NICE to know how inbreeding to Forty Niner has done" when looking at matings.

If I crossed the mare to a different son of Posse it's a relevant example to cite KK but to use KK himself shows that it has left out a key element of inbreeding because it's only focused on ONE match up.

You point out 2 of the weaknesses of Nicking: that it only goes up as far as it needs to in order to find enough data to provide a "meaningful" statistical number.

OTOH, if you have a horse who is by a sire who is by an outcross family, then the nicing match might have to go 3 - 4 generations back on both sides to find enough horses to make a statistical match.

I just sold a mare by Maria's Mon. Frequently, the data base did not have enough numbers to evaluate a nick for a foal by a stallion when crossed with MM as the dam sire, nor for Monarchos, and had to go to Wavering Monarch (the foal's great grandsire) to find enough crosses. And, if the sire is young, we go to the sire's sire, or even the sire's grandsire.... Ad nauseum.

How meaningful can such a statistic be?

Not very it turns out: One of the nicking programs gave the foal she was carrying an A rating. The other gave it a D rating.

Geesh. I never would have used the stallion I did, if I had read the "other" nick rating (the "D"). But, having read the "A" rating, I used the stallion, figuring it must be a good cross.

But I'm guessing that the buyers (who cared) read the D nick rating. She was lovely mare who did not even make a very low reserve.

No siree, I am not a believer in nicks anymore.

As one accountant said, "When I am asked, 'How much is 2+ 2?' I answer, "How much do you want it to be?'"

People can manipulate numbers so they can tell you anything you want them to. Be wary of believing in them!!