The following is an open letter to Johan Knaap (Director of the KWPN), the chair of the WBFSH committee with responsibility for producing, in collaboration with the FEI, the rankings of competition horses, sires, and studbooks.
Dear Johan,
During the last eighteen months several of my columns for an international equestrian magazine have called upon the World Breeding Federation for Sport Horses (WBFSH) to improve the methodologies used to create its rankings so the final product is useful to sport horse breeders. In these articles I offered specific suggestions on how to improve the rankings.
The WBFSH recently released the rankings for the 2009 competition year (see www.wbfsh.org). Unfortunately the suggestions I and other breeders offered you and the WBFSH have been ignored. Nothing has changed in the way the rankings are computed and we breeders are once again left with a ranking system that is of little value but are nevertheless the source of self-promotion among the studbooks that are ranked at the top.
Below I offer you a number of concerns and suggestions about the rankings:
1. The studbook rankings do not reflect the true genetic contributions of the studbooks.
Under the current system for computing rankings the studbook a horse is born into earns all the credit for the horse's success in sport. This means that the genetic contributions that studbooks make to each other are not recognized.
Please allow me to offer a few examples to illustrate my point. Studbook Zangersheide is ranked as the 8th best studbook for producing international showjumpers and is less than one-half of one percentage point behind the Oldenburg Studbook, which is ranked 7th. This is a great accomplishment for a relatively young studbook.
However, not a single one of the six competition horses used to compute Zangersheide's ranking was sired by a stallion born into Studbook Zangersheide. Instead these showjumpers were sired by Holsteiner (in fact three were sired by Holsteiners), Oldenburg, Belgium Warmblood, and KWPN stallions.
Further not a single one of the six competition horses used to compute Zangersheide's ranking is out of a mare born into Studbook Zangersheide. Instead these showjumpers are out of mares born into the Selle Français (two mares, on fact), Hanoverian, TB, KWPN, and Belgian Warmblood studbooks.
So in the case of Studbook Zangersheide its 8th place ranking is based on not a single sire or dam that was born into that studbook. From a genetic perspective, is Zangersheide really the 8th best studbook in the world? Or does its very liberal and open registration policy allow it to free-ride in the rankings on the genetics found in other studbooks?
This is not an isolated case. In your own KWPN Studbook, which was ranked as the best studbook for producing international showjumpers, three of the six horses were sired by non-KWPN stallions (Oldenburg, Selle Français, and Holsteiner). In the case of the 2nd place Selle Français Studbook, one of the six horses was sired by a Hanoverian stallion. The 3rd place Holsteiner Studbook had one international showjumper sired by a Selle Français stallion. The 9th place Swedish Warmblood Studbook has five of its top six showjumpers sired by non-Swedish stallions and the 10th place Danish Warmblood Studbook has all six of their top showjumpers sired by non-Danish stallions.
And in case you think this anomaly is restricted to the showjumping rankings, please note that much of the Irish Sport Horse Studbook's success in the eventing rankings has been built for the last decade on the genetics of a Holsteiner stallion, Cavalier Royale, which the studbook refused to approve until shortly before his death despite standing at stud in Ireland for about a decade.
And in the dressage rankings, your own KWPN Studbook, which is ranked first, has a similar predicament. Five of the six dressage horses whose results contributed to the KWPN's top ranking were sired by non-KWPN stallions: Gribaldi (sire of two horses in the rankings) and Partout are Trakehner stallions and Contango and Amsterdam are Oldenburg stallions. Shouldn't the Trakehner Studbook, for example, enjoy some of the credit in the WBFSH rankings for the amazing success in top sport by Totilas, Painted Black, and Nadine? Shouldn’t the Oldenburg studbook enjoy some of the credit for Ravel and Pop Art? I think they should.
The WBFSH must come up with a methodology that takes into account the genetic contributions made by stallions (and mares) that were not born into the particular studbook. If not, then the true contribution each studbook makes to producing world-class athletes will remain distorted and the winners will be those studbooks that are most adept are buying-in, rather than breeding, world-class stallions and mares.
2. The studbook rankings do not give credit to TBs.
The studbook rankings exclude thoroughbreds (presumably because TB sport horses are not born into a studbook that is a member of the WBFSH) and, therefore, under-estimate their true impact on sport horse breeding and sport.
The WBFSH must create a studbook ranking where TB sport horses can be classified and where the contribution of TB sires to other studbooks can be measured. For example, although the TB showjumping stallion Favoritas xx appears in the 2009 ranking as the sire of a showjumper, a TB international showjumper like Favoritas xx could not appear in the studbook ranking because no classification exists for a TB studbook. And the great TB stallion Heraldik xx, which sired horses in all three Olympic disciplines (a truly amazing feat), should have his contributions to other studbooks credited to the TB studbook, as recommended above in point 1.
3. The studbook rankings penalize small studbooks.
The studbook rankings are computed by summing the points earned by the top six competition horses (in each discipline) born into each member studbook. The fact that some of the studbooks produce 10,000 – 15,000 foals each year while others produce much smaller numbers is not taken into account.
I have already pointed out the immense, but unrecognized, contribution the Trakehner Studbook has made to the KWPN's first place ranking in dressage. In 2009 the Trakener Studbook registered 1,234 foals. Let's assume the KWPN registered 12,000 foals – approximately 10 times as many foals. Now let's take the KWPN's 12,200 ranking points and divide that by its 12,000 foals: that gives us 1.02 points per foal. Now let's do the same for the Trakehner Studbook: 5,498 ranking points divided by 1,230 foals gives us 4.47 points per foal. So the Trakehner Studbook is producing 4.5 times as many points per foal as the KWPN Studbook. Which is the better studbook for dressage? Now the answer is not so clear.
Of course this is a rough and ready calculation but it does illustrate that we cannot understand the true genetic value of a studbook if the WBFSH ranking methodology does not adjust for the size of the population of each studbook.
The WBFSH must come up with a methodology that takes into account the size of the studbook and the number of chances it has to produce top athletes. If not, the rankings will remain biased in favor of big studbooks and biased against small studbooks. One solution could be to count the international results from every competition horse born into each studbook and adjust for studbook size by computing two rankings based on the average number of points earned (a) per international athlete and (b) per horse born into the studbook at some point in time (for example, ten years prior to the ranking year).
Until now in this letter I have focused on studbook rankings. Now I would like to turn our attention to the ranking of sires.
4. The sire rankings penalize younger sires.
The WBFSH ranking of competition horses only uses data from upper-level international competition so the rankings are skewed toward established sires whose progeny are old enough to compete at those levels. So for all practical purposes the highly-ranked sires will be 15 years or older and, in fact, many of the sires at the very top of the ranking will be aged, dead or have age-related fertility problems.
The WBFSH must change its methodology to include results from all international competitions so we can identify up-and-coming sires of international athletes. Further, two age bands should be created and sire rankings should be generated for each band: sires of international athletes 6 - 8 years of age and sires of international athletes age 9 and above.
5. The sire rankings over-reward popular and fashionable stallions.
The sire rankings are computed by summing all the points earned by all the progeny of each stallion. Stallions like Darco (ranked 1st as a sire), which sired a very large number of progeny, have a built-in advantage over sires like Mr. Blue (ranked 11th), which sired relatively few foals.
The ranking of sires must take into account the number of progeny produced by each stallion. A sire that has had 2,000 foals has had many more chances to produce international athletes than a stallion with 500 foals. Ideally this new ranking would take the total points earned by each sire (the basis for the conventional ranking produced now) and divide it by the number of progeny that are over six years of age. (I recommend six years of age because that is the youngest that we would normally see a horse competing in international sport.)
Along with this change to the rankings the WBFSH should also report the number of progeny age six and over; the average number of points earned by each progeny age six and older; and the strike rate, meaning the percentage of progeny age six and older that have become international competitors.
6. The sire rankings have no memory.
In years past, when the WBFSH rankings were published in book form, two rankings were computed: a current year ranking of sires and a ranking over the past ten years. As the WBFSH migrated from book to DVD to now online publication of the rankings we lost the longitudinal data and rankings. This is very unfortunate.
The WBFSH must publish rankings over a longer time period, such as the aforementioned ten-year period, so breeders can see the contributions of sires over time. These rankings should have the same corrections and adjustments as noted above.
7. Dam-sires are ignored.
It would take a computer programmer or statistical analyst less than one minute to write the code to create a ranking of dam-sires. The ranking should be based on the same methodologies noted above.
Finally, let us turn our attention to the ranking of breeders.
8. Breeders are ignored.
When the WBFSH rankings were published in book form the name of every sire and competition horse was accompanied by the name of its breeder. For the last few years we have had a bizarre state of affairs in the World "Breeding" Federation for Sport Horses: the breeder is no longer recognized in the rankings.
The WBFSH must print the name of the breeder of every sire and competition horse and once again rank breeders. It would be very helpful if the breeder ranking were for the current year and ten-year periods.
Johan, I now invite you to consider these points and to reply. I believe you have a fiduciary responsibility to the WBFSH and, by extension, to the members of every studbook that is a member of the WBFSH, to improve these rankings so they are useful tools for breeders. Until now that has not happened.
As I see it, you have three choices: (1) Fix the problems; or (2) Debate me and others on the problems and the solutions; or (3) Resign from your position of authority over these rankings. The one thing you cannot continue to do is ignore the problems.
I will gladly debate my points with you in any forum including the blog I have established specifically for this purpose:
www.fixtherankings.blogspot.com
Yours sincerely,
Thomas Reed, Ph.D.
Morningside Stud
Ogonnelloe,
Co. Clare
Ireland
tom@morningside-stud.com
About Me
- Morningside Stud
- Morningside Stud's mission is to breed and produce International Grand Prix / 4* competition horses for the three Olympic disciplines of showjumping, eventing, and dressage by crossing world-class warmblood sires with mares that possess outstanding performance bloodlines and athleticism. Many of our foals and young horses have been sold to international showjumping, international dressage, and international eventing riders. We own eight stallions -- Ballistic m2s, Boy Toy m2s, Chien-Ming Wang m2s, Condios, Conspiracy m2s, Desir du Chateau, Ulysses m2s, and Wang Chung m2s -- plus approximately 50 mares and fillies sporting the best performance bloodlines from Germany, Holland, Ireland, and France. We aim to breed 25 - 30 foals per year. We invite you to browse through our homepage at www.morningside-stud.com. Copyright © Morningside Stud 2001 - 2010. All rights reserved.
Tom, I hope you are going to be able to get the WBFSH to start moving in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteEven if some of your propositions are difficult to implement, that doesn't mean that we couldn't start thinking about how to make them work.
This will be in the best interest of the breeders, and the WBFSH is their federation, so the federation should start hearing what the breeders are saying.
From postings on the Chronicle of the Horse buletin board, as of 12 noon GMT 30 November 2009:
ReplyDeleteIndy-lou (USA)
Tom, your post and open letter is an excellent read, and quite thought provoking. Your points seem to be well-researched. I hope we have the opportunity to hear back from WBFSH on the matter.
EquusMagnificus (Canada)
ReplyDeleteI really hope we'll hear back from the WBFSH. Very very well written, as usual Tom!
siegi b. (USA)
I think you're asking for the WBFSH to increase their staff by 100% just to accommodate your request.
What is wrong with listing the studbooks that are assigned to the horses at the time of winning? Why do we need to drill down to the nth degree in order to keep everybody happy? Where do we draw the line?
I understand that the folks with horses in registries that are not ranked highly but can show relatives to the top contenders want some recognition, but let's get real! Just because registry X has an uncle to a WBFSH winner doesn't mean that his name should be on the main banner. I also think that everybody knows that Gribaldi is a Trakehner but that it's not Gribaldi himself but his sons that are winning. I do think that the Trakehner Verband uses that fact very much to their advantage and rightfully so. I just don't see where the WBFSH needs to give credit to every registry that ever existed in one horse's pedigree. Talk about nickel and diming something to death!
BravAddict (USA)
Studbooks are organizations of breeders. I don't believe that the WBFSH, which is an organization of breeders' organizations, seeks to reward the percent genetic contributions, Thoroughbred or otherwise. Instead, they rank horses based on the studbook that the BREEDER belongs to. That takes care of #1 and #8.
stoicfish (Canada)
ReplyDeleteBut, statistically, simply dividing by the total number of offspring would not really determine the prepotency of a stallion. If a stallion is popular, or is not very expensive, freezes well etc….it will be bred to a greater range of mares, including untalented ones. This will count against him, even if he is brilliant. Or you could have an expensive stud fee, does not freeze well and is only bred to select talented, well chosen mares resulting in the same number of successful offspring. Either way the mares used are somewhat of a limiting factor in the success of the offspring and resulting numbers
It would be very hard to come up with a fair rating either way.
Since the ratings are more of a marketing tool (I would imagine serious breeders do there own research), every group is going to have a different method that favors their own group. Raw data would be the best.
(Except the info on the Traks, more people need to see that)
poltroon (USA)
The other reason you have to be careful about averaging is that many foals may never have the opportunity to be shown internationally - they may be owned by people who intend them as personal mounts, etc. In racing, for example, they have an easy way of working out winners versus starters. Not so easy in sport horse disciplines.
But, you can show both numbers, or you can merely show next to the statistics the size of the eligible foal crop. Once you have 6-10 international winners, obviously you're producing valuable foals no matter how large the crop is. But a stallion with one or two and only a handful of foals on the ground would be worthy of some special notice.
ne1 (USA)
ReplyDeleteevery single horse produced is up against all the risk and challenge of falling into the 'right' hands. every stallion is subject to being bred to any quality of mares. that there would remain a high degree of uncontrollable variable is without question. no one is talking about PERFECT math. what we're looking for is BETTER math than currently exists without too onerous a burden upon those producing it.
i strongly disagree that the raw data is any use whatsoever. it isn't. it is completely skewed in favour of the wholsale foal-factory studbooks. no one is saying that better statistics will cause any lurch in the marketplace for which stallions get bred to. the ranking currently awards mass production. with a little math it can be made to reward proportionate success. in itself it, the ranking, is not the prize. the prize is the ribbon won at every international competition. although studbooks do market on it, the purpose it actually should serve is a small piece of information a breeder would look to - along with many others - in order to consider a potential direction or mating for their program. currently it does not serve that purpose.... rather it is a self-congratulating trophy for quantity, not quality, of production.
data on cattle is presented in a way that may be useful to look at. here are two examples of top bulls in the angus breed:
Ambush:
http://bullbarn.com/angblkepd.asp?ID=1130
at the bottom of most boxes you see a figure referenced as 'acc' in the key above. this figure speaks in percentage terms to the quantity of offspring of a bull have been measured for any particular trait. under 'Production' this fella 'Ambush' has a Yearling Height (YH) score of +.9 with a reliability rating of .71 (1.0 would mean that a statistically complete and unquestionable quantity of offspring had been measured to give the .9 figure).
Objective:
http://bullbarn.com/angblkepd.asp?ID=499
Objective is an older bull who has been at the top of the breed for a few years, and while he may score higher or lower for any given trait than Ambush, his 'acc' (accuracy, reliability) scores are typically much higher than those of Ambush. his YH score is +.4 but the accuracy is .95, meaning there is little likelihood of variation in that measurement of this animal with further offspring testing. the breeders have a really good expectation of what they're going to get because the data has been quantified according to accuracy based upon the statistical size of the sample of offspring measured.
there is a minimal initial code setup required for this (as tom says, it would take a techie about 48 seconds to write) and then the accuracy number is permanently available as new data gets entered. this is not a huge project or massive ongoing work.
there are many metrics offered by many studbooks to give breeders a cheat-sheet indication of a possible mating or breeding direction. this is the only one that offers a broad, internationally acquired sport result overview, and it needs to be allowed to be better mathematically calculated to have any meaning and use at all.
my personal view is that the issue of legacy studbooks from which a given animal comes is less important to acknowledge in breeeding results than the studbook from which the offspring actually come. for example, i have no concern as a holsteiner breeder that breeding credit for foals from indoctro and corland is given to the kwpn although both of these two of their top stallions are from the heart of the program in holstein. to some extent breeding is about selection of breeding stock as well as the actual breeding, and i have no issue letting that go. others mileage may vary.
The following are posts in the Warmblood Information bulletin board as of 12:20 pm GMT 30 November 2009
ReplyDeleteJos (USA)
To two issues that are going to conflict in your proposal , the breeding index of each studbook and the breeders of each studbook , and to going to have a index you are going to have numbers , and the KWPN has a very detailed breeding and performance index ,just name Totilas, yes Gribaldi as a Thrakhener but the mare who comes from the Freminka stam what goo's back to the Holsteiner stam I believe stam 776 ,Jack Remijnse does this in his magazine "Sport Horse Breeding" well if you want to go back in to the genes as you say than this Holstein family line goo's back to the Achille line and way back to the Yorksire , it becomes quite complicate in where you going draw a line, and you ignore the breeder , Yes I know some very fine and good breeders who traditional for years breed only with Holstein genes and doing that for more than 100 years but they might be registerd in the KWPN because they live there, but yes I am going to follow and response on your , "fix the rankinks.blogspot.com" Thanks for you effort and I hope its going to clear up in who is who, Jos
Andy (France)
ReplyDeleteTom, I hope you are going to be able to get the WBFSH to start moving in the right direction.
Even if some of your propositions are difficult to implement, that doesn't mean that we couldn't start thinking about how to make them work.
This will be in the best interest of the breeders, and the WBFSH is their federation, so the federation should start hearing what the breeders are saying.
Karen (USA)
ReplyDeleteI'm new to this discussion but what about two rankings, one by studbook and one by breed?
The following are postings in horsebreeders.myfastforum as of 9:30 AM< GMT 30 November 2009:
ReplyDeleteVolatis (UK)
Tom raises some very interesting points as ever
I especially like his idea of showing credit to the TB studbook and also the studbook rankings to take account of the size of the studbook. The KWPN and Hanoverian socities in particular produce such vast numbers of foals that they will always show up favourably the way the current ranking system works.
Motherhen I(unknown)
What an interesting and well considered letter. The comments regarding strike rate are especially relevant as well as the reference to TBs
Shirley2 (UK)
A very well written letter. Well done Tom. It will be interesting to await a response......
Stolensilver (UK)
ReplyDeleteI admire Tom for speaking his mind to the people that matter. I hope they step up to the plate and address the issues raised but I'm not sure they will.
Touchwood (UK)
Great letter Tom, particularly regarding the contribution on TBs being recognised.
Ballykett_Blue
A really impressive letter, with every point logically and clearly argued, and an overall argument that steps back from factional rivalries between different studbooks and suggests a valid way forward that would recognise the REAL contribution of the different studbooks and breeds, and would also acknowledge the breeders role!! I'm very interested to see what response you get, Tom, and all power to your elbow!
From the equiman bulletin board as of 12:30 PM 30 November 2009:
ReplyDeleteStarflash (Canada)
Tom, you make very good points.
I'm not a breeder but as someone who might wish to purchase a higher level horse for my daughter, I would be doing some serious research into successful lines. For example, we like Trakeners but under the current scenario, it would appear they have no standing in the ranks of successful, sired progeny. Yet your case clearly shows that they too make a contribution.
I'm all for getting the politics out of every aspect of our lives. What used to be a public service attitude became an entitlement attitude that is ruining any sense of balance or fairness. Thank you for pointing this out in a succinct, focussed and credible manner. Good luck in your campaign, it is a valuable one!
From private emails received by Tom Reed:
ReplyDeleteAG (USA)
good letter. let us know if anyone responds!
JL (Canada)
Hip hip hooray! I eagerly await news of a response – if you ever receive one!!! ...
GG (Germany)
what you write is very understandable and should be changed. I have never
thought about all this before I got this letter of yours. You should post
this to several forums like COTH, Horse and Hound and Horse-Gate to open the
eyes of the people. Credit to whom credit should go!
Thanks for sending this.
AW (Sweden)
Tom, you seems to know what you are talking/writing about. I fully agree
with you.
I wish you good luck in your mission.
WW (USA)
I applaud your efforts in writing this letter...
DD (Ireland)
Well said, Tom!!
Good luck.
From the French bulletin board EquiVista as 12:45 PM 30 November 2009:
ReplyDeleteAndrea
Tom Reed, un éleveur Irlandais et auteur des articles sur l'élevage de la revue Horse International, adresse une lettre ouverte à Johan Knaap (directeur du KWPN et responsable de ces classements)
Je trouve toutes ses remarques particulièrement justifiées, même si certaines paraissent difficile à mettre en place (ce qui n'est pas une raison pour ne pas commencer à chercher des solutions.
Le texte est en Anglais, si quelqu'un a un bon traducteur automatique, qu'il n'hésite pas à poster la traduction.
Je suis tellement positif que je vais poster ce sujet dans plusieurs forums qui traitent d'élevage.
Voici le lien: http://www.fixtherankings.blogspot.com/
zouzou
Trop drôle la traduction instantanée. Les sport tuberculose chevaux, les taureaux comme M Bleu... on s'y perd un peu
ij59
Très intéressant ce lien. Merci andrea
boze
Une réflexion très interessante...... qui n'est pas sans rappeler la création du BLUP par certains points.
Enfin, on ne peut qu'applaudir le point n°8 qui est souvent le seul salaire de l'éleveur!
New posts on the Chronicle of the Horse bulletin board as of 11:20 am GMT 3 December 2009:
ReplyDeletestoicfish (Canada) wrote:
ne1,
Raw data is just the numbers that are needed to make up any stat, Tom's divided number or any other. They are not skewed, only interpretation of those numbers that point towards a conclusion is skewed. The more raw data the more complete of a picture you can make. If it is indeed a tool for breeders, let them draw there own conclusions, based on their own personal philosophies. The best would be all the data in a spread sheet form that you are able to manipulate, and more details in the lineage. Nicks would be easier to spot. (a pun for you)
The cattle example uses many traits, while in the case of WBFSH, it should only deal with the competition results. That actually limits the conclusions that they can draw, since it must be based on their limit of experience. Horses entered and results.
ne1 (USA) wrote:
you are correct to say that the current interpretation of of earnings is what is skewed, and that is because it is not set against quantative production.
what you don't seem to get is that this population aginst which the sport earnings need to be calculated are NOT currently centrally published. you do not have the raw data currently. all you have are statistically irrelevant earnings. no breeder can draw any relevant conclusion from the currently published figures as they are not based against a strike rate.
what you propose is possible if laborious; publishing the entire spreadsheet, but perhaps a good idea. still rankings will be arrived at, and at the bottom-right corner of that spreadsheet this will be totalled up, regardless of the readers varying interpretation of the contents of the spreadsheet.
i agree that your thinking is in the right direction.... more information is better than not enough, and right now the complete picture of factors which would give relevant rankings is not available to breeders.
poltroon (USA) wrote:
Web publishing a data spreadsheet is very easy, once the spreadsheet is created. You can auto-create spreadsheets from more serious databases also, so once the logic is written, there's no issue with data going out of date.
Since it probably wasn't clear, despite my caution about the numbers, I find the letter thought-provoking and interesting, and I look forward to seeing a response (even though WB aren't my breed).
__________________
DancingAppy (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteMy only suggestion as a statistics student is find an university and ask for 1) the consulting statistician, many universities who have a statistics department have a statistician who deals with only with consulting projects for the semester/quarter 2) see if any students would be interested in it as a senior project/master's thesis/etc.
Then you have a statistician looking at this raw data and can look and see what can be done. Then once they are finished, the WBFSH can look at the results, and the procedures they took to get those results and either take it or leave it.
An outside statistician will look at the data unbiased and a good statistician will 1) research the field they are doing the statistics on and 2) think about the situations listed in the OP as well as others to find a balanced and unbiased analysis.
(Oh, and can we add rankings for Combined Driving?? Please? )
Maren (USA) wrote:
As long as stud books with such varying amounts of foals are all thrown together into the pot, this entire ranking system (like others too) is nothing but a huge marketing tool. I really do not care one bit about FN ranks, WBFSH ranks etc, if THIS is how they're made.
If the roles of the KWPN and the Trakehner were reversed Sigi, you would have a very different opinion (and like you, I'm not a friend of nickel and diming, but frankly, a horse like Totilas carries MORE TK blood than any other blood and that counts zero?). Maybe the WBFSH could run under the same system as the European presidency for a while - each stud book gets to lead the gang for 6 months and gets to play with the numbers. Now that would be fun ...
And like one poster said, it's an organization of stud books, so whichever books registers a horse, is the winner. Hence, we should not see the rankings as any indication of GENETIC POTENTIAL. It has little to no reference as such.
You'd also be surprised to see how many people have no clue that Gribaldi is a Trakehner (or Hohenstein, or Schwadroneur, while we're on it). In fact, Gribaldi competed as a KWPN for many years.
The KWPN does not produce better horses with Gribaldi than the Trakehner breed - again, NUMBERS. The Trakehner breed worldwide produces appr. 1500 foals PER YEAR. Gribaldi has sired successful, purebred Grand Prix Trakehner dressage horses. The KWPN simply profits from so many more Gribaldi foals per year - how big are your chances with a decent sire to produce really good horses? And is he a better fit for the KWPN? Possibly. But with the data at hand, one can't simply draw that conclusion, no matter how much one would like to.
So while I appreciate Tom's letter a lot (not only from a Trakehner perspective, but as as whole), I conclude for myself and my breeding decisions what I said at the beginning - rankings are laughable as long as they play out the way they do now. The FN index is an almost bigger joke and has close to no relevance for actually showing GOOD sires in their respective disciplines (and indeed, several Trakehners in the Top 1% of German dressage sires ;-). Who cares??
Andy.Smaga (France) wrote:
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% with Tom's letter, I also recognize that some changes are not easy for the WBFSH to implement, because the information is not in their hands.
But they need to show an interest in improving the actual situation, and that has not been the case to this day.
Improving the way registries are ranked is an interesting subject, but all breeders need a better way to rank the stallions and if you don't take in consideration the number of foals produced by each stallion, then you are only giving an unfair advantage to the ones with mass production, I think nobody will question that.
This is why I don't understand Mr.Johan Knaap not trying to get this information from the registries, because a Director of a registry should try to help his members with the best data possible, in order for the breeder to make the best decision regarding his mares.
This information will complement all the others parameters, a breeder use, to make the right decision.
So lets hope that we will get an answer from the WBFSH and see the beginning of some discussions instead of a "loud" silence.
siegi b (USA) wrote:
Wait a minute.... who in their right mind goes to the WBFSH in order to find the right stallion for their mare? I think of the WBFSH as an umbrella organization for the different registries and with the purpose of marketing and coordinating and streamlining efforts that will benefit all recognized registries.
I look to my own registry and studbook to provide me with pertinent historical data regarding stallion indices, mare families, etc. etc.
And no, Maren, this is not my opinion because I now breed KWPN horses.
Does anybody really want to see a spreadsheet instead of registries for the annual rankings? Why does everybody need to have information "pre-chewed" for them? What's wrong with doing a little research yourself in order to determine what makes up Totilas? It's really not that hard to do.... (www.paardenfokken.nl)
If I remember correctly, the WBFSH lists the top horses responsible for a registry's standing. So go check out their pedigrees and have a blast!
I think any breeder worth her salt knows enough about what the different registries bring to the table and can make breeding decisions based on that. I can't help the fact that the Trakehner
Verband only allows Arabs and TB in their books. The KWPN makes it very easy for its breeders to pick whatever stallion they deem right for their mare as long as the resulting product meets the studbook's strict requirements once it's old enough to be bred.
Tom, the originator of the letter to Johan Knaap, has only been in the breeding business for 8 or so years. He has, however, some training in math and statistics and is trying to use that to call attention to his breeding farm in Ireland. I don't blame him for trying, but I do blame other folks for taking everything he says without the necessary cubic foot of salt. There are times when one needs to consider the source.....
ne1 (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeletewell, i've seen less intelligent posts here before, but......
it is not a wonder that you might take exception against a statistical mathematical correction which may not cast your registry of choice in the best light. but consider first that all other member studbooks wanted to implement a change like this over a year ago. the kwpn were the only book to veto the proposal. now, i wouldn't say the dutch don't have the best horses in the world, they may. but to stiff-arm an otherwise unanimous choice to correct and enhance the math in order to make it statistically relevant and accurate, and then turn around and simultaneously market like fury on the rankings recieved because of wholesale foal production?
that is completely immoral and unethical.
as to your nonsensical assertion of using this to choose a stallion..... i'm sorry.... 'garbage' is the nicest response i'm able to find. there are many tools which a breeder uses in order to arrive at breeding decisions. some weigh more heavily, some less so. even if a stallion or studbook ranking is a less significant tool in the toolbox of information and decision making, it should be an accurate one.
i would not really be concerned either way regarding presentation.... some express a preference for the whole spreadsheet but i'd be equally content with just the listing of ranking order, as long as it is corrected from its current irrelevant format which takes no account of relative quantities of individuals measured.
you evidently don't see the disparity that if stallion 'a' put 5 horses at the top of the sport from 20 breedings while stallion 'b' did the same from 250 breedings that the current calculation takes no account of this? this is relevant, helpful information for breeders. having those two stallions ranked exactly the same for such similar production, as they now would be, makes the current published information irrelevant and useless.
there is no other tool available to breeders which offers anything towards quantifying international sport data by stallion nor studbook. the fact that this may only be one small piece of the puzzle does in no way mean it should be a mathematically useless and irrelevant one.
excuse me missing the part where it is about mr reed and his operation. this issue long predates his letter, but hopefully his input will cause mr knaap to finally do the right thing.
and for as unimportant as you make it out to be, the dutch sure do put all their efforts into maintaining the statistically inaccurate status quo, and then marketing hard on it. as you said.... consider the source.
think again.
siegi b (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeletene1 - quote "and then turn around and simultaneously market like fury on the rankings received because of wholesale foal production?"
What exactly are you talking about? So the KWPN gets a No. 1 ranking and uses it as a marketing tool? Yes, and the problem with that is exactly what? What do you mean by wholesale foal production?
And why would the KWPN be able to "stiff-arm" anybody on the WBFSH? Aren't we getting a little emotional here? Last time I checked it still took a committee to get anything accomplished.....
I still would like an explanation - other than statistics - as to why the number of foals produced by a stallion really make a difference in the final results. Quantity does not equal quality. And I have news for the rest of the breeders - marketing a stallion well will always result in more breedings. How do I know? Been there, done that! Does it mean that your chances of getting better mares increase in proportion to the number of your breedings? Heck no!
So just because Stallion A produces 10 times more foals than Stallion B doesn't mean that he has a 10 times bigger opportunity to come out in the top rankings. That's where statistics get in the way of people picking stallions for emotional reasons. It would be nice if you could just put it all into nice little equations, but reality says that it just doesn't work that way. Way too many variables that will never be accounted for.....
And as much as you, ne1 may be able to put your world into nice little boxes that hold the key to all of your questions, real life has a way of ruining that concept.
Think about it....
P.S.: Ne1, please don't hurt yourself "trying to come up with the nicest response possible...." :-)
PineTreeFarm (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteI know you don't want statistics but oh well...
In the racing industry many statistics are used such as % of starters, % of 2 yr old winners.
If you look at those numbers over time you can see if a stallion is consistently producing above or below his peers for whatever condition you're interested in.
The larger the sample the better the data. And with more in the sample you can start to see patterns based on nicks. After a pattern is established pairings are impacted based on 'known' nicks.
In the racing industry the number of foals sired in any given year is available.
Without any information on the number of foals produced a claim of 'sired a gp winner' may indicate that out of 1000 foals he produced one horse that can jump or it may mean that out of 10 foals one was a winner. But if the rankings are just on the winning of offspring for that year a stallion can be a high performer on the basis of one or two offspring and entirely disappear the next year. A one hit wonder.
It seems that at least some of the registries market on the basis of their ranking so I'd guess the rankings are important at least to whatever registry comes out on top.
Let's say two stallions are shown to produce GP winners 5% of the time. Stallion A is bred 100 times so he would be expected to produce 5 GP horses, Stallion B gets 500 mares and produces 25 GP horses. Not a better stallion statistically. But he will look a lot better on the rankings than stallion A when in fact their production record is the same.
The more data available the better. But that's just me. I'm always curious when I see claims or high rankings about how the ranking was constructed.
Maren (California) wrote:
ReplyDeleteOh I know Tom pretty well Sigi and if I ever had an open-minded horse discussion with two very different views on a topic with anyone, it's with him. I also have read enough posts by you on his various themes to know what you "think" of him. It's not so hard to read between the lines. That is not the issue.
I should rephrase: I "hope" serious breeders do not pay too much attention to FEI/WBFSH/FN index systems AS THEY STAND - true, these are not the sources one would turn to when choosing a stallion. But you very well know it is EXACTLY the case. And that is where Tom's letter hits a very valid point. Because it is such a big deal (rightly or wrongly is not up for discussion here right now), the ranking should be the best it can be. And it is not. It has impact, if we like it or not. And hence, it should live up to a certain standard. "Some" training in statistics and math is certainly true for me to and I just cringe when I read their "guidelines". Even my best paper ever would be dismissed immediately if I tried to publish on the basis of what is currently used by many to promote a breeding plan/organization etc.
And just to be totally clear here: I am GLAD the stud book of the Trakehner is a closed one. It's a major reason why I'm drawn to the breed. It doesn't make life easier, of course not, but for all I care the KWPN or anyone else can breed mules into their books - bottom line: the mules then deserve a part of the cake.
For all I care the system can stay the way it is right now - just stop fooling the public with fancy rankings when in reality, they have close to zero relevance.
There is a very non-statistical way to explain that stallion A breeding 50 mares has less of a chance to produce top horses than stallion B breeding 250. It's called common sense ;-)
stoicfish (Canada) wrote:
ReplyDeleteActually I do get that. But having that number is not the end of the equation. To get a strike rate, you would need other information. Like coefficients that take into affect # of horses in the hands of people that can actually take then to the top levels, level of talent of the mares bred, injuries, talent of the riders competing the horses, deaths, unregistered animals, animals used for breeding instead of competing, etc etc etc.
My point is there are too many factors to try and say that any one calculated number could be indicative of a stallions prepotency of jumping talent. Not the way they are doing it now, or the way Tom proposed.
They should limit their "results" to the facts that they can accurately present. The horses, the lineage, and the results. By having more complete lineages they would be answering the concerns listed as 1,2,3 and 7. And by having a simple program that did searches such as % blood of a stud book, % of any one horse, nicks, how many times the stallion appears in the dam side or the sire side, competition result in detail. This would really be a more useful tool and actually be beneficial to breeders.
It is not that laborious, the initial program would take a bit but it would be simple input after that. I work for large companies that organize data for much the same reasons, to see what makes up the results by correlating the different factors involved.
Look at it this way what information would be more important to know, how many offspring Cor De La Bryere had in total or how many of his competing offspring were a cross with Lord or Ramiro?
PineTree Farm - I agree but racing at two years old and jumping at 12 has many more variables for "getting there" don't you think?
IndyLou (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteIf rankings are going to be posted, I feel that those rankings should be statistically relevant. Do I make breeding decisions based on the stats of the WBFSH? No!....not even a consideration. Do I care which studbook is #1, or even where any of them rank? No! Not even a consideration there either. I am completely uncertain as to the value of these stats for/to any breeder or rider anywhere in the world. However, if the WBFSH is determined to post rankings, I think it would in everyone's best interest for the stats to be as relevant as possible. I am by no means a scientist or expert in statistics, though I was forced (reluctantly) to take a number of upper division stat courses in my education. Enough to know that the many variables present in the now published stats are not well-accounted for, and that the numbers given are likely to be hugely flawed, so I can't help but think improvement of the methodology of the stats offered would increase the value of bothering to compile them in the first place. Tom raises some good points in his post, and while his posts tend to ask for a high level of scrutiny beyond my personal scope in understanding, I haven't felt that those posts and questions were purely self-promotional. And if they are, so what? That doesn't make his points less relevant. I personally think it is healthy for there to be challenges to whatever the status quo is for compiling data. I welcome open debate on this, and don't think it can hurt. At BEST, stats are only a limited tool, not a religion to lay down for and sacrifice all. At the end, no the BEGINNING of the day, I have already gone to www.paardenfokken.nl for info, and then some, and would love to have other resources to turn to.
ne1 (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeletesiegi b., this is quite incongruous. from the breeder of the year of the studbook that does more linear analysis and statistical study of its breeding stock than arguably any other in existance, all of a sudden now 'fuzzy math' is ok! statistical accuracy when it suits you and irrelvant mass-production slanted math when that works better for you.
can you say hypocrite?
"...just because Stallion A produces 10 times more foals than Stallion B doesn't mean that he has a 10 times bigger opportunity..."
SIEGI - FLAT OUT WRONG.
that is exactly what he has..... 10 times the opportunity.
every single foal born is subject to variables of falling into the right hands, developing physically well, getting talent from his genes or not, risk of all qualities of mare etc etc etc. these variables are not being looked at and are not the issue. they remain variables and there is no attempt being made to put our arms around these. but the number of foals still equals the number of opportunities to go out and fight those variables.
no one is proposing PERFECT math. what is being proposed is BETTER math.
and just exactly as to why the kwpn felt it necesary to be the sole party preventing the requisite unanimity to have got this ball rolling long ago, well, i would have to refer you to mr knaap to get that answer.
but from here, the answer looks pretty evident.
the kwpn may indeed have the best horses in the world. certainly it has many great horses and many wonderful breeders. but i challenge the kwpn to allow their horses to be gagued upon a statistically level playing field when being ranked against all other horses and studbooks, and to stop their self-serving veto.
PineTreFarm (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteSure, but the racing people would argue that their sport is more complex. LOL
Stats for racing sires do get compiled in a lot of categories. You get stuff like Sire of Sires, Broodmare Sires, % of winners, % of blacktype winners, on and on and on.....
They would have similar variables for trainer, jockey, who started them, etc. but they really don't seem to be concerned about that slice of information. It's just another tool.
stoicfish (Canada) wrote:
ReplyDeleteYour right, they are tools and that is how this should be treated, a tool. Not one definitive # with marketing value attached to it. I have a hard time with respecting any viewpoint that wants to point to any one conclusion as opposed to a useable tool. I do believe there is reason to criticize the present methods.
The following are additional posts in the Warmblood Information bulletin board as of 11.35 AM GMT 3 December 2009:
ReplyDeleteZaffiro Farm (USA) wrote:
The WBFSH already ranks by stallion irrespective of breed or registry as well as listing horses in performance order irrespective of breed or registry. I always saw the registry rankings as just a nice to have novelty and never the core of the data. So I don't understand some of the positions of this letter since the data is right there fully published, ranked in order of stallion. Carthago's number will include offspring from Z and HV, for example. Certainly Contender does with many of his points from Oldenburg mares.
The registry ranking is what it is, and I think it was intended as a bragging right not a be all and end all value. No one breeds to a registry, breeding is to a stallion.
Years ago I took the data and made my own damsire calculation, as well as my own sire calculations. Alme clearly stood out as damsire.
As a collection of registries, I don't think the WBFSH should be crunching the data to the Nth degree to the point of influencing what breeders do too much. Horse breeding has a brighter future with diverse approaches and creativeness. All of the data is there online for anyone wishing to dig into the depths of it. Yeah it would be nice to have a spreadsheet in addition to the PDF to simplify things. Also, without the qualitative values on technique, gaits, soundness, conformation and other physical attributes to go along with sport scores, too much analysis could actually be detrimental in the cases of some successful horses with serious breeding issues or just plain incompatibilities with certain mares. I argue it is better for the WBFSH to produce mostly raw data as it does, and leave interpretation to the various horse people with their unlimited opinions.
The suggestion of something like a TB equivalent proficiency index require production data from the registries, many of which may not turn it over. The WBFSH does not have the power to force submission of this data, so what are they to do? It is a monumental task also. Look at how many registries are in the WBFSH now.
Bob
Nick Edmunds (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeletethis conversation was already had over on coth.
it is wrong to say you already have all the data. you don't.
the argument can be made to publish the data and leave it to various interpretations, but currently there is nothing of the quantative distinction between stallions nor studbooks. current methodology of calculation supports only wholesale foal production.
the lack of this quantification is what makes the currently published rankings statistically irrelevant.
if you mistook the intention of the proposed change as being some new statistic-guided breeding directive, you are mistaken. there are many tools offered from indexes to inspection scores but this would be the only tool in the toolbox available to breeders which would relevantly interpret international sport results.
frankly i'm surprised you seem against this, knowing both your sport orientation as well as the fact that quantative calculation would only be beneficial to small studbooks in the wbfsh, as i'm sure the cs would like to be at some point, as long as they have at least some horses getting the job done.
Zaffiro Farm (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteI am not opposed to all of the suggestions. A proficiency index is something that I have discussed many times; however, some realities are not addressed. Namely the WBFSH does not have the information to compute the proficiency index. Also, specialization in the 3 sports would have to be reliably incorporated into the data; otherwise, a proficiency index is worthless. Can that really be done at time of foaling? In some cases, yes, but there will be a lot of foals straddling disciplines. Without this information, the denominator is inaccurate.
The 10 year running average should definitely be returned. A simple damsire computation is also a good suggestion. I do that number crunching on my own with the data that is available. So I don't understand the position that the data is not available. WBFSH lists every single horse down to those that earned only 1 point.
Also, most registries publish rankings of their own but choose not to publish a proficiency index. GOV, HV or KWPN can do this now without the WBFSH, but they don't. So why no outrage with them?
The WBFSH is aligned with FEI, and it is not intended to track lower level performance (i.e., non-international) as suggested. National competition has never been their domain, and should not be their domain as it cannot translate from one's registries turf to another's turf. It primarily publishes data where the registries' horses compete head to head in international events. The registries do and should perform this function of lower level analysis in their own countries or regions. The Continental Studbook has integrated all of its design with USEF to perform this function in the US when the foals enter competition. WBFSH data should be used in conjunction with other data such as the SF statistics, HV breeding values, German FN data, KWPN ranking and conformation data, and similar CS data in the future, etc.
The likely reason that 6 horses are used in the registry computation is that the top 6 are probably the bulk of the points. Below that there is likely little or no change at all in registry rank. However, it is a simple enough suggestion to use all horses in the value and list the top 6.
Nick Edmunds (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeletei don't disagree with the components you are detailing which all go towards stock performance evaluation. however important you see your proficiency index as being in the equation, though, i am struggling to see it as relevant to this discussion at all. it may be a helpful tool, as are other measures that are available, but we are discussing a separate tool which is currently mathematically irrelevant and needing to be fixed. but it is not looking in any way to blend the type of information you discuss.
let's remove the smoke. it is merely a question of taking the missing information: THE ANNUAL QUANTITY OF FOAL PRODUCTION OF EACH STUDBOOK AND STALLION and putting that against the existing performance numbers.
this has nothing to do with reflex nor bascule nor any other area of jumping technique, neither by studbook nor individual. that is all good, helpful stuff, but nothing to do with correcting the ranking math problem.
i also don't have any problem with the difference you articulate between national vs international, but again, you're confusing the issue. that's got nothing to do with it. its just a question of quantifying the currently published results by basing them against each studbooks (or stallion's) number of offspring.
i am not in disagreement with other aspects of how you propose measuring and indexing to assist in breeding stock evaluation, but you wander a long way away from the issues raised in tom's letter to which we are hoping there will be both a reply and relevant change.
nick
ps i have posted elsewhere that i don't have a problem, as a holsteiner breeder, in allowing ranking credit to the kwpn for indoctro and corland foals. there is an element of breeding which is selection of stock, and then there is breeding itself. but i do also agree with maintaining a 10-year running average and also think it would be great if a useful dam-sire measurement tool could be created.
Zaffiro Farm (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteDon't get caught up in when I say proficiency index. That is a TB value computed by the Jockey Club for the rate of Grade I production of offspring, or something similar. I probably have some details wrong. Anyway, it is the same as the strike rate or whatever one wants to call it.
I have no problem with computing one, except that unlike Jockey Club the WBFSH deals with 3 sports. To compute a success rate, the foals produced in those years must be allocated into dressage, jumping, eventing. Breeders don't want Donnerhalls tainting data of QdRs, and vice versa. Sometime this is obvious, sometime it is not, especially in eventing.
The WBFSH does not have the production data from the registries, and there are more than 2 registries (43 produced numbers in jumping in 2009). I don't think even half of the 43 will agree to turn over their data. Since there is such a monumental practical aspect overlooked, I think this is a little harsh on the WBFSH. It isn't like they are trying to hide or twist data. They are producing what the have.
If UELN data transfer of all foals comes to be, then the proficiency index can be calculated. But then again, as a breeder I will be far less concerned about the registry ratings rather than the index of individual stallions. As a director of the CS, sure we would like to have a high index; however, we also place signficant focus on quality amateur level and national level where most breeders will sell their horses.
Nick Edmunds (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeletein '06 and '07 i did the numbers for myself, sometimes getting total annual foals using online searches and other times by contacting the studbook and just asking. there was not a single one i couldn't get. (the result of my analysis was interesting, but a different subject). if this had to be done once a year by the wbfsh it doesn't come near being a 'monumental' task.
i agree regarding the mix of disciplines and your (donnerhall x qdr example), and have posted here before how the dutch threatened to separate out their wbfsh registered books if the change were forced upon them, so that they could retain a favourable rating. however, as i've said in other online discussion about this, it is not about PERFECT data. it is about BETTER data.
right now the published data, in terms of being anything a breeder could take an indication from, is totally useless unless they're looking to start a walmart of foal production.
the proposal may end up being an incremental step, but it certainly doesn't take anything backwards. rather, if implemented some value would be given to a currently valueless set of numbers.
Zaffiro Farm (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe data is far from useless or Walmart use, especially since it is the elite data (elite = Walmart?). There will be a good demonstration of this in the CS journal coming out shortly. The data is however primarily a lagging indicator, in that by the time a stallion reaches the top 30, he is probably nearing the latter 1/3 or even worse period of his stud career. As I pointed out though, this is the domain of the WBFSH. Registries produce data for young stallion evaluations.
And the KWPN is absolutely right. Why should their dressage foals count in the denominator of the jumping results and vice versa? The analysis would then be incorrect and completely worthless. A foal should not be counted three times for each sport ranking. Every foal would have to be declared for a sport in order to make this registry calculation. Or alternatively the registry rankings data would have to be combined for all 3 sports, and that has no practical value at all.
Nick Edmunds (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeletei had no argument with the kwpn's proposal in the event the correction was made.
what i do have issue with is that they are the only wbfsh member that was against making the change already, while simultaneously marketing hard on the favourable ranking they recieved.
if you do not get exactly why the current data has significantly less value than what is proposed i suggest you're either being intentionally ignorant of the issues presented or you've missed the points contained therein and ought to go back and re-read tom's letter. you correctly point out the 'lagging' nature of the data and yet fail to see how tom's proposals address this? sorry, i'm not sure i can help you there. its an issue of reading english. 'elite' is as 'elite' does, and the current data does nothing elite, and won't until it is quantified.
you can argue as hard against it as you like, but neither is there logic nor company in doing so, unless you're looking to affiliate the cs closely with the kwpn? again, why you'd fight so hard against a common sense initiative which would only serve the cs, its members and its horses that do step into the big ring beats the hell out of me.
Zaffiro Farm (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou are beginning to cross a line. Please remember to be polite.
"the dutch threatened to separate out their wbfsh registered books if the change were forced upon them, so that they could retain a favourable rating."
Above is what you complained about, not about their vote. I accurately stated that they are correct to have foals allocated according to dressage and jumping. This creates an accurate ranking as you acknowledge. It does not give them an artificial favorable ranking as you also claim.
What would US registries do with their hunter foals, and can a foal be predicted as a hunter or jumper at birth? Several Baroque registries have similar issues where the horses are not destined only for WBFSH sport. Every one of the 43 or so registries would have to do this sport allocation for the 3 sports to produce the registry analysis suggested. Do hunter and Baraque foals get excluded? As I have said for the 3rd time, a proficiency index is valid good idea but has serious practical and participation issues to overcome to produce a registry ranking. It may be more convenient to ignore the facts, but facts are facts.
My input on the points:
A registry level proficiency index has practical issues that do not appear to have been considered. Individual stallion index data would be free from these issues and much more valid, while also addressing the cross registry production topic. So stallion proficiency calculation is a good idea if the registries are willing to supply the production data, and it also has more meaning to the breeder. A listing of all of the stallions with their index and birth registry would give credit to those registries and solve the cross registry breeding issue.
None of this may be practical until all foal data is submitted via the UELN system.
(CS Implications - What are we to do with hunter foals that will never compete in FEI? Should they count against jumpers? If a CS stallion breeds only 20 mares a year and produces several FEI offspring, it will duly get ranked at a high level and bring recognition to North America and the CS. If the CS produced the 4 highest indexed stallions, one could claim it as the "best" registry.)
I agree that a damsire calculation and bringing back a 10 year running average are easy and should be implemented.
I do NOT agree that the WBFSH can or should delve into sub-FEI competition which is the domain of its member registries. Every horse on their ranking has an FEI number, and the WBFSH has an inter-registry purpose, not an intra-registry purpose. It is not set up to follow horses below FEI. International competition and organization is the express purpose and the limit of the WBFSH data collection and activity. Registries have responsibility for providing members with data analysis at national levels, and every major European registry does this in some very capable format already. Usually there is greater detail for breeding traits from national data as well. The two datasets complement each other.
Nick Edmunds (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeletei've got emails telling me you are not as unintelligent as these posts appear, but rather you are baiting me with deliberate confusion away from the issue and with irrelevant tangents.
i'm not sure what to believe, so i will patiently try again.
bob, you are not getting it. here we go.....
"the dutch threatened to separate out their wbfsh registered books if the change were forced upon them, so that they could retain a favourable rating."
Above is what you complained about, not about their vote. I accurately stated that they are correct to have foals allocated according to dressage and jumping. This creates an accurate ranking as you acknowledge. It does not give them an artificial favorable ranking as you also claim.
you are wrong. you have mixed two separate issues. i have stated any number of times that my issue is with their use of a veto to avoid a change in the math that everyone else wanted to implement. i am not aware how more clear to state my position, again, which is what leads to the suspicion of a deliberate avoidance of the issue.
the hypothetical that came from the discussion of their use of the veto was that they would then split their books if corrected math were implemented somehow despite their veto. while of course this did not happen, i agreed that in this hypothetical scenario i would have no problem with this. that does not somehow make it necessary for every book to do, but yet also they could if the mechanism existed and they so chose. again, tom's request for quantification of sport data puts relativity and relevance to numbers which now have none. and yet again, while the more relevant numbers are better, they may be but an incremental step to getting even further value later through these subsequent hypotheticals you are suggesting, but what you are suggesting is not necessary to simply improve what we currently have by factoring against population and production quantities.
the artificial favourable ranking i referred to is this, and please see if you can get hold of this so i don't have to write it again.... the current numbers that are published, because they are not made relative against quantative production. therefore those producing in higher quantity are advantaged by the current math, or lack of math.
do you follow that so far? if you do, it would be for rhe first time, despite it being the umpteenth time of writing. this is totally separate and distinct from your confused blurb above.
then here we go with your red herring.... hunter foals. totally irrelevant. not included. get it? the wbfsh does not know what a hunter is. it is a world and culture unto itself within this continent only as you are aware, and you know you are blowing smoke to confuse the issue. firstly there is no mandate requiring the kwpn nor anyone else separate their books. secondly if they do the only designations the wbfsh are interested in are those for olympic sport, and already you may or may not be aware that the kwpn-na are having some difficulty in implementing discipline distinctions anyway, and then more again with the addition of their hunter book.
A registry level proficiency index has practical issues that do not appear to have been considered.
(continued in next post)
Nick Edmunds (USA) continues from the above post:
ReplyDeleteno, you are wrong again. they have been considered and, once more, while improving the data may be incremental with a move such as quantifying it against total foal production, it still gets better. it is still a step forward from where we are. it does not preclude well thought out future adjustments. tom's letter invited johan to debate the issue and crafting the best current steps to be taken could come from that, but my problem with your position is your apparent contentment with the status quo. because there are issues to work out we should avoid improving altogether? give me a break. the push is to take what we have and make it more relevant and useful, especially in ways specifically pertinent to the cs client base. again, your resistance to these improvements which would benefit your own customers is utterly baffling.
your final paragraph, nicely emphatic, begs for relevance. i do not recall any mention or proposal that caused the wbfsh to collate sub-fei data. but bravo for bringing it out anyway.
n
Tom Reed replied to Zaffiro Farm:
ReplyDeleteI do NOT advocate including the results of national (i.e., non-FEI/international) classes in the analysis to produce rankings. My exact words were:
"The WBFSH must change its methodology to include results from all international competitions so we can identify up-and-coming sires of international athletes. Further, two age bands should be created and sire rankings should be generated for each band: sires of international athletes 6 - 8 years of age and sires of international athletes age 9 and above."
Zaffiro Farm (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteTom,
I did go back and re-read it already. There is some vagueness and contradiction that got me off track. Rarely do 6 and 7 year olds and only very small numbers of 8 year olds compete in FEI international competition. Among the 2009 dressage rankings, only 7 out of 598 horses are 8 years old; there are zero 6 and 7 year olds. So to bring those ages into the rankings, the performance level would have to come down. That is the domain of young horse and national levels for the most part. Most horses of these ages do not compete head-to-head internationally, so it falls outside of the domain of the WBFSH.
If you still want younger and older offspring calculations made by the WBFSH, I would suggest moving the divider age from 8 years to around 11-12 years (or more specifically whatever is the median age of the WBFSH ranked population) rather than bringing the competition bar down. For example, the youngest of the stallions can be ranked in a category of <11 years old competition offspring. Geriatric, established or dead stallions will not normally appear in the list. I have sometimes computed this on my own with current data as is.
>>>
Let me take some vagueness out of my viewpoint:
The WBFSH is a collection of independent registries, so it should not be involved in trying to produce early judgements of young stallions being developed within the registries, especially without the important phenotype data which it does not collect. I prefer that the primary WBFSH data be limited to a consistent high level of sport such as 1.5+ m international jumping and GP level dressage, rather than trying to scale points from various levels of the sports. If data is sourced for younger horses in 1.4 m classes, for example, it will become dominated by European classes and not translate well to the US, Britain, Ireland, Australia and other countries. All data responsibilities below these upper levels should be left to national federations and registries since the young horses seldom or never leave their region to compete. If there are FEI competitions at these upper levels missing from data collection, that is a good suggestion to have them added to increase the sample size, especially if it increases dressage individuals being counted.
Zaffiro Farm (USA) continues from the above post:
ReplyDelete>>>
Most all of your other suggestions I agree with. Registry based issues will always be open to "my way is the right way" type thinking.
It would be good to normalize registry group data for small registries. However, how are foals allocated into 3 sports to compute the registry strike rate for each sport, will all 40+ registries be able and willing to handle the data logistics to make it accurate, can the WBFSH be confident that the 40+ registry production data is not manipulated before it receives the data, can American registries exclude their hunter foals from the production count? These are details that indicate that any new registry metric could be even more controversial than the current one it replaces. So would it be better to instead suggest that the WBFSH stop computing the controversial registry rankings all together? Maybe.
I think that the cross breeding issue is already well handled by the more important individual stallion ranking. If registry ranking was eliminated, individual stallion multi-registry data would be the primary data produced. Referencing your example, Gribaldi is given credit for his enormous contribution by being ranked 10th stallion in the world. WBFSH could publish this date better online by listing his birth registry, data of birth, and his top offspring as is done in the Horse International magazine, but currently all stallions are given credit for their multi-registry contributions in their individual ranking.
Yes I agree individual stallion strike rate is very good IF it can be implemented accurately. Will all of the 40+ registries support it by providing the foal production data? This probably requires maturity and integration of the UELN data systems and XML transfers to become a reality. (The Continental Studbook is already participating.) Individual stallion offspring do not have to be allocated by sport, which solves that sticky problem. It is perfectly accepted that a stallion could have success in jumping and none in dressage for example. Computing all 3 sports for stallions may also turn up surprises when a stallion becomes proficient in an unexpected sport.
These comments are simply my feedback. If no feedback or different viewpoint was welcome, then the letter should not have been posted on the BB.
Tom Reed replied:
ReplyDeleteBob,
You wrote: " Rarely do 6 and 7 year olds and only very small numbers of 8 year olds compete in FEI international competition. Among the 2009 dressage rankings, only 7 out of 598 horses are 8 years old; there are zero 6 and 7 year olds. So to bring those ages into the rankings, the performance level would have to come down. That is the domain of young horse and national levels for the most part. Most horses of these ages do not compete head-to-head internationally, so it falls outside of the domain of the WBFSH."
Yes, most 6 and 7 year olds do not compete in international competitions.. But only a very small percentage of sport horses EVER compete in international classes irrespective of their age. But many of the best 6 and 7 year old showjumpers, in fact, do compete in international showjumping.
I personally have had several 6 and 7 year olds compete successfully in FEI (international) competitions. Most recently my stallion Wang Chung m2s competed in the Future Elite international showjumping series for 6 and 7 year olds run by the French Equestrian Federation. The series is run by 11 large (3 and 4 star) international shows in France. Pointed are earned across all 11 shows. Wang Chung competed in two shows and had 5 first places and 1 fourth place. Overall he finished 2nd in the 6-year-old series.
There are many other international shows that have classes for 6 and 7 year olds. These international young horse classes in these international shows do not earn points for the current WBFSH rankings.
Likewise smaller international shows do not earn points in the WBFSH rankings. These shows often have classes for 6 and 7 year olds. But we don't see these results in the current rankings because they have been excluded as a policy decision. (And the policy is probably to make things easier for some bureaucrat or technical person.)
In showjumping, if you see a young horse in the current WBFSH rankings it is because the horse is likely being pushed too far and too fast in shows and classes that are harder than is reasonable for a young horse. It is not because young horses are not competing in international showjumping. They are. The current rankings simply ignore them.
The few international horses you see in the dressage rankings is also a function of the long time it takes to produce dressage horse and the dearth of age classes in international dressage shows. You don't see international 6 and 7 year old classes in dressage except for special cases like Verden.
(post continues below)
Tom Reed' reply to Zaffiro Farm continues:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: “The WBFSH is a collection of independent registries, so it should not be involved in trying to produce early judgements of young stallions being developed within the registries, especially without the important phenotype data which it does not collect.”
There is no “judgment” being requested. What is being requested is a ranking methodology that highlights each stallion's success in producing elite athletes holding constant (and not ingoring) the age of those athletes.
You wrote: “ I prefer that the primary WBFSH data be limited to a consistent high level of sport such as 1.5+ m international jumping and GP level dressage, rather than trying to scale points from various levels of the sports. If data is sourced for younger horses in 1.4 m classes, for example, it will become dominated by European classes and not translate well to the US, Britain, Ireland, Australia and other countries.”
But that is already the case. Europe dominates and will continue to dominant for the foreseeable future because that is where the greatest concentration of superior athletes reside.
You wrote:
“All data responsibilities below these upper levels should be left to national federations and registries since the young horses seldom or never leave their region to compete.”
We are not discussing “most” young horses. We are discussing elite young horses. Again, using my own horses as examples, my 6 and 7 year old international showjumpers have competed in international classes in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and probably one or more two countries that I do not recall.
If a young horse is competing in FEI classes his sire should receive recognition. Otherwise we are left with stallion rankings mostly of old, dead, or infertile stallions.
You wrote: “ If there are FEI competitions at these upper levels missing from data collection, that is a good suggestion to have them added to increase the sample size, especially if it increases dressage individuals being counted.”
You have hit on one of my unstated points: we should be dealing with the “universe” of international shows and not a systematically biased “sample”.
You wrote: “These comments are simply my feedback. If no feedback or different viewpoint was welcome, then the letter should not have been posted on the BB.”
One more point:
A discipline-based strike rate is a real problem because most studbooks do not engage in, as a formal policy, the hyper-specialization the KWPN is promoting. And there is nothing stopping a KWPN “dressage” horses from competing in showjumping – and there should not be anything stopping him.
Finally, how did you come to the conclusion that feedback or different viewpoints were not welcome by me? Because I corrected in a factual and neutral manner your mischaracterization of what I wrote? That is not fair.
rytimick (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteHello Bob,
When I chose to breed showjumpers, I went to what I perceived to be the breed that was best suited for the sport, Holsteiners. If I wanted to breed for dressage I would have chosen a different breed, such as Hanoverian, KWPN, etc. Isn't that the point. When looking at breeds what breed does better in this said arena. When the dressage rankings come out, Holsteiners that performed internationally were ranked, and then also the studbook. I an not going to ask Dolany or Loran foals to only be considered. That would be silly. Yet KWPN is suggesting doing that if the proposed rules change. Now Hanoverians have a jumper book, but I understand that us just to know what sires to breed to if you have a Hanoverian, jumper mare, not to affect the rankings.
Now I did not go to the WBFSH website to see what horse I should breed. It was based mostly off of observation and recommendation. However, the wbfsh is a ranking organization. That is their purpose. I think it is a worth while discussion to have see if more useful information can come of their efforts.
Tim
Zaffiro Farm (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteHow you choose to you use data is up to you. As I said early on, WBFSH data should avoid Nth degree analyses and be left to the unlimited interpretations by breeders. If someone chooses to look at studbook rankings and select stallions only from a single studbook, it is a choice. It is a bad one in my opinion (especially in America), but still a free choice.
Other breeders like myself will recognize that mares are bred to an individual horse, not to a grouping of horses, and will only look at individual stallion data in breeding decisions.
Maybe others come up with additional approaches.
jos sevriens (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteIt might be convienent to ignore the facts but a fact is a fact that a stallion like Gribaldi as a Trakhener breed better with a Dutch mare than with a Trahkener mare , what means that the Dutch breed produced better sporthorses than the pure Thrakhener does is based on the structure and enviorment of each studbook, Gribaldi who is also availble for the Thrahkener studbook has no offspring going international as a horse like Totilas , but also the current new approved United X Gribaldi , {3 years old}who was the best dressage stallion after the final 50 day test and fully approved of a year long approval process,
Also a Contendro I X Guidam was they best jumping stallion, What I am saying is that the KWPN is out not just for quanity but for quality from the large number of you stallions who are presented for the 2009 approval process a very small group of stallions could finish the final , maybe 15 in total in two different of finals of 50 days {early and late ones}with group of over 600 young stallions.
I like to know how Nick see this to a just the issue of the rankings, facts are facts, the best FEI horse is based pure on his performance and if they are bred in a particular studbook regardles the genes they carry, than that studbook and breeder ,should be recognized, if not explane how you want to accomplish this, what Tom writes is conflicting with the facts.
Read the magazine of Jack Remijnse , he explaine this also in his mare lines of horses who compete in dressage and jumping or all FEI diciplins
Nick Edmunds (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeletejos,
this is one area of the proposal which i have written already, here and elsewhere, that i would agree with you both in principle and in practice.
tom's letter talks about wanting to see credit given to the legacy studbooks from which an animal is bred, but for myself, as a holsteiner breeder, i do not have a problem with the kwpn getting credit for all and any indoctro or corland babies, despite these horses in their pedigrees being holsteiners. while breeding is breeding, there is also an aspect which is around the selection of breeding stock, and i agree with you that if the kwpn select and allow contendro i and guidam to come together to make a spectacular stallion, then the kwpn should get credit for that. i would be open to other thoughts or considerations about that but i agree that studbook credit stops at the registered offspring within any given studbook.
that is a separate issue to the other question regarding quantity of production.
n
jos sevriens (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteSo Nick what is thew problem , fact is that stallion owners like Henk Nijhof and Wiepke van de Lageweg are being bigger and bigger , with their stallions all over Europe and even the whole world , so is with the KWPN with affiliations in Britan, France, USA, Austrlia, but that aside the breed starts with the breeder, and their mares, and yes that is going to be bettr through the enviorment of a studbook with a very prommising structure, if they creating a larger quanity and selecting in quality than what else you wants them to do ??
Tom Reed wrote:
ReplyDeleteThat is a reasonable position, Nick, but consider studbooks like Zangersheide that are wide open and are able to zoom up the rankings not because of their own Z-bred genetics, and not because their system of approvals selects optimal stallions for their mare base, but because they are a wide open studbook and as long as a stallion is approved by a WBFSH member studbook his progeny can be registered by Z.
This does not make Z a great studbook; it makes Z's business model great for the current ranking system.
And more broadly, not giving credit to the studbooks from which the competion horse's sire and dam come from means that closed and highly restricted studbooks (like Trakehner, Holsteiner, Selle Francais) will always be disadvantaged in the studbooks rankings. It will be a source of SYSTEMATIC error: the rankings will always underestimate their true quality. Error in rankings should be random, not systematic.
Nick Edmunds wrote:
ReplyDeleteif this could be accomplished it would be great. credit should be given where it is due.
to me, this was valid but the least of the valid issues your letter brought to light. again, while i would be thrilled to think it could all be amended and improved as proposed and the market adjust to all the recommended changes in one sweep, if it would take a little longer for this to get done it would be fine with me.
what is rewarding to note is that, despite some confusion around the proposal and history on this board, on other forums there is almost unanimous support for the thrust of your proposal, and the magazine isn't even out yet! (at least not here in the us)
Nick Edmunds (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeletejos, they need to do nothing more than what they are doing.
it is frankly incredible the evident inability that intelligent people have to get a hold of the simple requirement in tom's letter.
the need for change is at the wbfsh. where currently results are published without being quantified, they need to be quantified. one way to do this, for an example, would be to take the existing total winnings from the top six horses (which currently make up the final rankings) and to divide that number by the number of foals born to that studbook, averaged from the preceeding ten years. there are other ways which would bring similar quantification to these results and that is just an example.
it has nothing to do with henk or wiepke; it is not specific to the kwpn, it has nothing to do with regional structure. i could tell when we spoke on the phone that you seemed to have difficulty getting it, because you have great justifiable pride in the horses of holland and you see the proposal as come kind of attack and become very defensive. there is no attack. the dutch may indeed have the best horses in the world. we just don't know based on the current numbers because there is no quantification, no proportionate factoring of the total winnings divided by the total population.
n
jos sevriens (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteSorry to hear Nick but you'r wrong with saying I have pride in the Dutch KWPN , to me a good horse is a good horse no matter where he comes from as if you know me to me it is more worth in what is what than who is who , I love the Holsteiner horse because we grew up with them the Dutch avarge breeder was and is very close and that is going back for over 100 years with the Holstein horse , As you maybe know The Dutch Danish and Hungarians where for years the closet to the Holstein breed And that is why I support strongly the AHHA in their effort to breed a Holsteiner horse ,but the reality is also that some stallions fits better in a particulate breeding area , Like Cor de la Bryere had no influance in France but people like Maas Hell discover this stallion and had a huge influance to the Holstein breed and through that in the whole international horse industry especial in producing jumpers , but the same was with Amor , Manchester,Lancher II , Landadel and other Holstein stallions who are very good in other breeding area's, The success starts with the mare and breeder , and why you want to draw a line of 10 years what means for some stallions no impact and for some lots of impact like Contendro I who has is called the Sire of Sires, and is involved like Ramiro in almost every studbook world wide, just to make some small studbooks looks like they breed good horses also ? Again a good horse is a good horse no matter where he comes from
Nick Edmunds (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteits not fun telling people they're not getting it, but jos, buddy, again.... you're not getting it.
the 10 year timeframe was the time over which to take an average number of foal production. it has absolutely nothing to do with what any given stallion has done in that timeframe. also it was floated as an example of how to derive an average, while at the same time i said it was only an example. there are other ways to assess an appropriate strike rate.
it is great to know that you feel a good horse is a good horse, regardless of where it comes from. i feel the same way! if that is true and if you really understand tom's proposal then you would be fully in agreement with adopting the changes proposed. my concern to this point is that you have repeatedly exhibited that you do not understand what is being proposed. i would be delighted to be wrong about that and have your voice join ours in challenging johan to make the wbfsh more relevant and useful to its breed organisations and ultimately its breeders.
jos sevriens (USA) wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou could be correct but I am not the only one who is not getting it if this propsal in where the Dutch and Zangersheide come short in recognizing the genes coming from the French , Holstein or Thrakhener , and you don't recognize where the horse is bred ,and performed than this concept is not going to fly besides the interest is soly based on only some Americans and some in Europe who are not realy involved with this industry , to me its not just based on numbers and for how long ,its more about a perfomed horse what is bred in a active breeding enviorment like the KWPN,
So tell us who is not getting it what needs to be done if its that simple than it could be said in a very short and compact and simple proposal what every WBFSH member could read, but if I follow this BB than I see long debates with a repetition of saying, that the Dutch or Zangersheide does this soly for their own image to market their product , but the fact is if you Nick or Tom visit this winter Wellington Fl than you hear cand see the same kind of horses from studbooks who are be accused in not playing a fair game , so help us out we are not getting it
Additonal posts my horsebreeders.myfastform as of 12:05 PM GMT 3 December 2009:
ReplyDeleteCruiseline (UK and Dubai) wrote:
As the others have said, I will be very interested to hear the response to your very well written letter.
Keep us posted
rollin (France) wrote:
ReplyDeleteFantastic. I have been discussing this with a French trainer who would like to see the letter. How can I download it? Help please?
Sadly Rare breeds don't stand a chance in this system. They survive through a small but dedicated network of committed breeders.
From the uncouthbb bulletin board as of 12:10 PM GMT on 3 December 2009:
ReplyDeleteFrom shoos:
Good letter Tom!
Susanne F. wrote:
ReplyDeleteGa je hier nou je eigen brief aanprijzen?
Je hebt heus wel een punt hoor maar moest dat zo langdradig??
Ibbel wrote:
ReplyDeleteIk denk niet dat Tom je begrijpt hoor, 't is een Ier.
Mooie lap Engels. Ik hoop dat Johan 'm begrijpt :D
De bedoeling van dit topic is kennelijk om wedstrijdruiters/fokkers aan te sporen dezelfde brief naar Johan te mailen.
Ik betwijfel of dat de bedoeling van bokt is...
Tom, I doubt whether bokt is the right medium for you. You might consider contacting 'de paardenkrant' or 'de hoefslag', Dutch horse magazines, and see whether you can get their attention. It might give you more exposure than a internet forum mostly peopled with non-professionals/non-breeders.
Ibbel wrote:
ReplyDeleteEne Tom van een fokkerij in Ierland vindt dat Johan Knaap de rankings van sportpaarden niet goed bijhoudt. En met name de fokwaardes niet.
Adriana wrote:
ReplyDeleteDit gedeelte heet fokkerij en afstamming. Dit onderwerp heeft met de fokkerij te maken.
Tom geeft een aantal verbeterpunten aan dit mijn aanziens helemaal niet zo gek zijn.
Hij geeft aan wat de fokker van Totilas bijvoorbeeld ook aangeeft, het geeft stof tot denken en Bokt heeft een breed scala aan gebruikers.
misterA wrote:
ReplyDeleteZou mooi zijn als Tom kan zorgen voor een goede vertaling.
Verder kan ik me heel goed voorstellen dat de verliezers altijd twijfelen of twijfel zaaien over/aan de betrouwbaarheid van zo'n ranking.
Bovendien is de ranking niet van het KWPN maar van de WBFSH, misschien is Tom wel aan het verkeerde adres.
Adriana wrote:
ReplyDeleteDus op zich niet aan het verkeerde adres ;-)
ceasario wrote:
ReplyDeleteNu gaat het weer "pijnlijk" worden..
Nu nog een Ranking op Type.. :D
amaze wrote:
ReplyDeleteIk heb er niet zo'n moeite mee hoor ; niet met de tekst ,noch met de inhoud ervan.
''Ere wie de ere toekomt'' .
Dat bv Gribaldi en Partout voor een aanzienlijk deel van de plaatsings punten van het KWPN verantwoordelijk zijn, zegt evenveeel over de Trakehner fokkerij ,als over het fokbeleid van het KWPN. Het KWPN -en zijn leden- erkent ,door het goedkeuren en inzetten van deze Trakehner hengsten, de kwaliteiten van de Trakehners iha. Dat zegt over beide stamboeken wel wat.
Er moet imo een systeem ontwikkeld worden dat beide stamboeken voor hun aandeel hierin wardeert.
P.S. deze is misschien wel handig mister A ;) http://www.google.com/support/toolbar/b ... x=mi&hl=nl
ceasario wrote:
ReplyDeleteWordt al gedaan ..
In de USA zie je regelmatig Totilas - ( Gribaldi-Trak. ) voorbij komen. :D
amaze wrote:
ReplyDeleteVoor ''jullie'' (slecht) vertaald met de Google translate machine :)
(Al heb ik die zelf niet nodig ;))
Het volgende is een open brief aan Johan Knaap (directeur van het KWPN), de voorzitter van de WBFSH commissie die Verantwoordelijk is voor het produceren, in samenwerking met de FEI, de ranglijst van de concurrentie paarden, stieren en Stamboeken.
Als u wilt reageren op mijn brief en / of uw eigen ideeën een bijdrage leveren over hoe de rangorde vast te stellen gaat u naar
http://www.fixtherankings.blogspot.com
en plaats een commentaar.
Ik nodig u uit te schrijven aan Johan Knaap op
johan.knaap @ kwpn.nl
nl moedigen hem vast te stellen het klassement.
En stuur dit bericht naar uw vrienden en sterven Geïnteresseerd collega's zijn om te leren over deze kwesties.
(translation from English to Dutch followed)
amaze wrote:
ReplyDeleteDe ts fokt iig wel met KWPN ers! :D
http://www.morningside-stud.com/2009Foals.html
excuseme wrote:
ReplyDeleteTom spreekt hier niet Johan Knaap aan als KWPN bobo, maar als voorzitter van een WBFSH-commissie die de rankings regelt en berekent.
Moderator Nicole 288 wrote:
ReplyDeleteModeratoropmerking:
Een aantal reacties zijn verwijderd, graag ontopic blijven
ceasario wrote:
ReplyDeleteVoor sommige zou een cursus engels op zijn plaats zijn. :(:)
ceasario wrote:
ReplyDeleteVoor sommige zou een cursus engels op zijn plaats zijn. :(:)
KiWiKo wrote:
ReplyDeleteik hoop dat het tom geeft wat hij wil
mistera wrote:
ReplyDeletemisterA vind de oorspronkelijke tekst beter te begrijpen dan de "vertaling". :(:)
Hoe je een ranglijst ook berekent, er zal altijd wel commentaar op geleverd worden.
Feit is dat een groot aantal nederlandse fokproducten met een KWPN-gekeurde vader presteren op het hoogste niveau.
Een belangrijke verdienste van de fokkers met hun uitstekende merriestammen én de open structuur van het KWPN en de hoge eisen die aan goedkeuring van de hengsten
worden gesteld.
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteIs al een vrij felle en onzinnige discussie over geweest.
Met name de hier genoemde hengsten Gribaldi en Partout zijn ook bij andere stamboeken, waaronder het Trakehner Verband goedgekeurd.
Vraag is waarom die stamboeken het niet voor elkaar krijgen om internationale GP paarden uit deze hengsten voort te brengen, in plaats van te zeuren over misgelopen eer.
ceasario wrote:
ReplyDeleteHieruit blijkt weer dat het gebruik van outcross tot positieve resultaten kan leiden..
Waren deze outcrossproducten er niet geweest net als voorheen de volbloed F1 producten dan had het bovenstaande nooit geschreven kunnen worden.
Daarom ligt de credit bij de gebruikers van deze outcrossproducten dankzij hun "gokkers-inzicht" en het fokkersvakmanschap bij de fokkers van het outcrossproduct waar meer dan honderd jaar een moederlijn aan vooraf gaat.
amaze wrote:
ReplyDeleteWellicht is het omdat er bij het KWPN ,zoals in de tekst aangegeven wordt ,10x zoveel veulens geboren worden als bij het Trakehner verband.
ceasario wrote:
ReplyDeleteTrakehner is geen partij..net zoals de Engelse Volbloed en dat weet ieder .. Zij zorgen er al decennia voor dat regelmatig de "grote" kunnen "pronken" door gebruik te maken van hun genen. Maar dat is geen aanklacht maar een feit...( Mooi voorbeeld is het paard Sarabande van Sarabande )
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteDat hoeft het Trakehner stamboek niet te beletten om ondanks de aantallen GP paarden te kunnen fokken, het gaat immers om de kwalitiet niet om de kwantiteit, daarbij hebben zij het voordeel, zoals ze in ongeveer in ieder artikel tot uit den treure roepen, van een rijpaardfokkerij die al meer dan 250 jaar bestaat, terwijl andere stamboeken hebben moeten modderen met omvorming vanuit landbouwpaarden.
Gribaldi heeft intussen tig Lichte tour en GP kinderen bij het KWPN.
ceasario wrote:
ReplyDeleteHet woord Outcross is blijkbaar moeilijk te begrijpen..Als Trakehner dezelfde toepassing zou gebruiken als de "landbouw"sector waren er ook ander resultaten..
Het een kan blijkbaar niet zonder het ander..
Outcross toegepast in Hannover..
Zie de hengst Victorio.
http://www.paardenfokken.nl/pedigree.ph ... axniveau=5
Als Victorio nu straks een GP paard gaat worden hoe wil men er dan tegenaan kijken?
[F-AM] Najaarsonderzoek 2009
amaze wrote:
ReplyDeleteJuist ! Het zijn de outcross combinaties die de grote resultaten boeken, dus zijn de prestaties niet aan het fokbeleid van 1 stamboek toe te schrijven.
amaze wrote:
ReplyDelete..waar het KWPN ook mede zijn succes aan te danken heeft.
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteJe bedoelt die met veel volbioed erin :D :D :D
ceasario wrote:
ReplyDeleteHet is wel aan dat fokbeleid toe te schrijven van het stamboek.
Immers zij geven de ruimte voor outcrosstoepassingen..Maar het is natuurlijk niet kies om zoals in dit geval het trakhenerstamboek weg te zetten als oud vuil aan de straat,
terwijl het bewezen is ( eigenlijk schandelijk voor discussie) dat zij het mede mogelijk gemaakt hebben dat fokkerijresultaten buiten hun stamboek en beleid tot zulke resultaten hebben geleid.
amaze wrote:
ReplyDeleteDie ook ! oa ,in het verleden Volbloed x Gelders,de outcross van nu ; Trakehner x KWPN(zonder trak genen)
merelhof wrote:
ReplyDeletesarabande, hier wordt je toch wel erg onkies hoor. Het is dankzij de trakeners en volbloed die een gesloten fokkerij hebben dat er zuurstof in de fokkerij komt (ook in de kwpn fokkerij, net als andere stamboeken zorgen trak en vb voor bloedverversing). En dat van die boerenfokkerij, de trakeners hun geschiedenis is veel rijker dan dat van enig ander stamboek. Die dieren hebben mensenlevens gered in oorlogen anderen aan het ploegen waren of in de koets liepen!
bomba wrote:
ReplyDeleteTS: I totally agree!
Ben het absoluut met de TS eens. Blijkbaar zijn voornamelijk KWPN fokkers van mening dat ze dit succes niet aan andere stamboeken als Oldenburg en Trakehnen hebben te danken, maar alleen aan dat wat KWPN heet. Natuurlijk, kwets niet de hand die je voert. Toch? :D
Ik heb een paar KWPN-ers, maar ik ben echter wel van mening dat het KWPN (en ook andere stamboeken uiteraard) punten weg kapen bij weer andere stamboeken. Niet zo netjes hè..
Wat betreft het Trakehner Stamboek, zoals de TS omschrijft heeft het Trakehner Stamboek inderdaad meer punten behaald dan het KWPN gezien het KWPN 10 keer zoveel veulens had. Is het dan wel zo eerlijk om te zeggen dat het KWPN beter presteert? Want de som die de TS laat zien, toont inderdaad aan dat dat niet het geval is.
Ben het daarnaast ook zat dat het Trakehner Verband de grond zo wordt ingestampt. En dan voornamelijk van Sarabande, die overal loopt te roepen dat er vooral niet met Trakehners gefokt moeten worden omdat ze zo ongezond zouden zijn (en het aller mooiste is dan nog dat ze een halve en volle Trakehnermerrie heeft. En zoals ik kijk naar Uckey: uit een Oldenburger hengst en Trakehner moeder, hoezo KWPN????? En gefokt met United, kleinzoon van een Trakehner. De pot verwijt de ketel dat 'ie zwart ziet :+ ) Hoe wil je dan verklaren dat het KWPN bovenaan staat, met drie nakomelingen van een Trakehnerhengst in de groep? Ja ik zou het bijna geloven, allemaal goede invloed van de moeder. Sure.. :Z
Maar goed, bedenk er maar weer een leuk antwoord op.
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteDat hoef ik niet te bedenken (ik heb trouwens nooit met United gefokt)
Gezondheid .. het KWPN heeft een hengst goedgekeurd met een bemerking, omdat ie zo mooi is. Goh dat klinkt bekend en ja hoor United (Krack x Partout) x Gribaldi. Dat verzin ik niet.
Maar goed ik vind dit een onzinnige discussie worden, het Oldenburger Verband noemt een door hen gefokte hengst met ander bloed ook een Oldenburder trouwens.
Bomba wrote:
ReplyDeleteJa.. toch ook niet eerlijk?
Niet gefokt, maar wel één gehad van United.
Maar Sarabande, ieder stamboek heeft wel paarden die iets aan de benen hebben. Dat is ook weer het geval dat het KWPN een veel groter stamboek heeft (een groter deel goed op de foto, maar ook een nog groter deel slecht op de foto). Zoek maar eens uit hoeveel KWPN gefokte paarden iets op de foto hebben. Ik denk dat je schrikt.
Feit is en blijft dat het KWPN zonder de invloeden van het Trakehner Verband lang niet zo succesvol was geweest.
merelhof wrote:
ReplyDeletesarabande: wat is er onzin aan deze discussie? De onzin is niet toe te geven dat trakheners in volbloeden nodig zijn en dat alle andere stamboeken er heeel veel aan te danken hebben.
Bomba wrote:
ReplyDeleteWat ik overigens ook wel grappig vind.. Waarom hebben/hadden veel topruiters dan een Trakehner of een nakomeling er van?
* Anky van Grunsven - Partout
* Edward Gal - Gribaldi, Totilas (v. Gribaldi), Sisther de Jeu (v. Gribaldi), Bodyguard (v. Gribaldi), United (mv. Partout), Uusminka (v. Gribaldi)
* Hans-Peter Minderhoud - Nadine (v. Partout), Ucelli (mv. Gribaldi)
* Ellen Bontje - Heuriger
* Isabell Werth - Anthony (v. Argument)
* Dr. Reiner Klimke - Biotop
* Monica Theodorescu - Renaissance Fleur
* Tineke/Imke Bartels - Barbria (v. Doruto)
* Andreas Helgstand - Matiné (v. Silvermoon)
* Anne van Olst - Chronos, Chevalier (v. Doruto)
* Coby van Baalen - Pasternak (v. Gribaldi)
* Emmelie Scholtens - Westpoint (mv. Michelangelo)
* Ulla Salzgeber - Herzruf's Erbe (v. Herzruf) en Wall Street
* Anne-Grethe Jensen - Schwadroneur
Misschien dat we ze eventjes moeten bellen. Melden dat ze fout bezig waren/zijn.
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteIeder stamboek heeft zijn eigen beleid. Als dat beleid niet tot successen leidt, in tegendeel tot verenging en gezondheidsproblemen en je sluit uit achterhaalde elitaire oogpunten vernieuwingen uit, dan moet je ook niet gaan zeuren als andere stamboeken, en dat zijn alle sportpaarden stamboeken, met het goede uit jouw populatie wel weten te scoren.
Dat klinkt teveel als jalourzie.
25 jaar geleden zei Georg Hoogen al, de beste Trakhner is de halfbloed Trakehner en daar bedoelde hij geen halve volbloed mee.
Kijk en zoals ik al zei er lopen tig Gribaldi KWPN kinderen GP en lichte tour, blijft het toch raar dat het Trakehner stamboek er geen heeft.
merelhof wrote:
ReplyDeleteals je niet weet dat een F1 produkt makkelijker in prestatie scoort als een raszuivere dan wordt het inderdaad onzinnig verder te discussiëren
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteDat was 40 jaar geleden :(:)
Bomba wrote:
ReplyDeleteJaloezie is het. En nee hoor, dat is geen jaloezie, maar het niet willen toegeven dat het succes grotendeels te danken is aan een ander stamboek. Zou ik ook vooral niet toegeven als ik jou was hoor.
En wat meneer Hoogen zei, die overigens onlangs overleden is, klopt als een zwerende vinger. Ieder stamboek heeft volbloed nodig.
Wat zeg je me trouwens van het lijstje paarden boven je bericht? Puur toeval zeker.
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteAls je de overledenen eraf haalt hou je weinig zuivere Trakehners meer over. Dat is ook heel typisch dat geuren met het verleden, beter is je zorgen te maken over de toekomst
merelhof wrote:
ReplyDelete40 jaar geleden? wat toen waar was is nog steeds waar, of is er maar een waarheid en dat is jouw huidige opinie? Een gebasseerd op een mooi (zelfs fantastisch) stamboeksucces maar waar de basis 10 jaar geleden voor gelegd is, toen er nog een heel ander beleid, en door fokkers die jouw regels aan hun laars lappen?
Bomba wrote:
ReplyDeleteDie paarden hebben toch wel prestaties geleverd om u tegen te zeggen, en dan ook vooral Partout.
Renaissance Fleur is van 1992 en was één van de meest veelbelovende paarden. Helaas maakte een tragisch ongeval een eind aan haar leven. Westpoint, lijkt me toch een bijzonder goede toekomst tegemoet te gaan, evenals Totilas, Sisther de Jeu, United, Uusminka, Ucelli, Matiné en Herzruf's Erbe.
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteEven lezen, het ging juist niet over volbloed.
amaze wrote:
ReplyDeleteHoe dan ook ,het KWPN is wat het is ,omdat het geen gesloten stamboek is; dat is de keuze die het heeft gemaakt .
Dankzij de gesloten stamboeken (die op hun beurt de keuze hebben gemaakt gesloten te zijn) kunnnen wij als KWPN (fokker) dankbaar gebruik maken van hun fokbeleid.
De engelsen hebben een spreekwoord : ''if you scratch my back ,I'll scratch yours''
Wij fokken met de paarden van andere stamboeken ,en dat moet dan logischerwijs gewardeerd worden ...toch ?! *D
Bomba wrote:
ReplyDeleteFoutje in het lezen.
Jammer dat de beste man zich dan zo enorm in heeft gezet voor het Trakehner Verband en ook altijd fokte met Trakehners. Hij stond er altijd verlekkerd bij te kijken op Trakehner keuringen, zo trots op Trakehners. Waar waren z'n halve Trakehners dan?
http://www.trakehner-rheinland.de/ghoogen.htm
Edit: Net zoals wat je zei van meneer Fransen die volgens jou nooit meer een Trakehner zou nemen. En wat heeft hij? Een Partout. :(:)
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteDe beste man heeft altijd gestreden voor inzet van ander bloed, juist omdat het heil van de Trakehner hem zo aan het hart ging. Jaren geleden heeft De Vogelenzang ook andere hengsten ingezet.
De heer Franssen heeft wel meer paarden dan een Partout, hij heeft er indertijd veel mee gedekt, dus dat hij er een van overgehouden heeft is eerder bedenkelijk dan om te juichen.
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteWeer foutje in het lezen, ik zei dat de heer Franssen tijdens een rondleiding in zijn stal voor een groep mensen op een paar Partouts wees en zei die geeft nog al eens problemen mee daar fok ik niet meer mee. Dat hij nooit Trakehners zou willen hebben lijkt me uit je duim gezogen, weinig mensen hebben er zoveel successen mee behaald. Maar ook voor hem ligt de lat voor gezondheid hoog, en als hij er een gekocht (dus niet gefokt) heeft zal die vast aan die voorwaarden voldoen.
Verder zou ik het prettig vinden als je je bij het onderwerp hield en niet mijn paarden erbij sleept, en op de man gaat spelen. Dat doe ik ook niet.
merelhof wrote:
ReplyDeleteSarabande, ga je in al je alwetendheid, en als jezelf even terugleest nu niet zwaar uit de bocht? We weten allemaal dat het kwpn superieur is (:)), maar is het zo moeilijk om toe te geven dat ze er mede geraakt zijn door inbreng van oa de trakheners (maar ook volbloeden, holsteiners en sf) en dat dit mag gezegd worden? Dat die mensen daar (in de voor jou inferieure boerenstreken) al jarenlang met hun gesloten fokkerij een zuurstofbel zijn voor de huidige stamboeken?
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteMijn stelling is dat ieder stamboek verantwoordelijk is voor het succes dat dieren die onder dat stamboek gefokt zijn behalen. Niet meer niet minder.
Boerenknollen heb ik in verband met Trakehners niet neergezet, integendeel.
En respect hebben voor een heldendaad in 1944 heeft weinig te maken met een mening over het huidige paard. Dat is ook wat ik aanhaal, dat eeuwige wijzen op het verleden. Daar fok je geen sportpaarden mee, wel met een streng en doordacht beleid.
Als je ontkent dat de huidige Trakehners gezondheids problemen hebben, ben je slecht op de hoogte van de fokkerij waar je zegt zo gek op te zijn.
Suzanne F wrote:
ReplyDeleteDe kracht van het KWPN zit hem blijkbaar in het kruisen van rassen (lees andere stamboeken). Dat het KWPN ook andere stamboeken toelaat tot hun fokkerij is juist het succes. Misschien zijn de andere stamboeken er wel jaloers op dat ze daar zelf nooit op zijn gekomen. Die blijven in een eigen kringetje zoeken en krijgen problemen met inteelt en gebreken.
merelhof wrote:
ReplyDelete"Als je ontkent dat de huidige Trakehners gezondheids problemen hebben, ben je slecht op de hoogte van de fokkerij waar je zegt zo gek op te zijn" dank u sarabande, dat was weer niet persoonlijk en helemaal on topic
Bomba wrote:
ReplyDeleteHet KWPN geeft niet toe dat hun succes aan andere stamboeken te danken is, en dat is wat me steekt. Bekijk het eens van de andere kant.. Het Trakehner Verband heeft bijvoorbeeld om Gribaldi te fokken jarenlang de juiste keuzes gemaakt wat betreft de hengsten/merriekeuze. Daaruit is Gribaldi voort gekomen, en bij het KWPN heeft hij dan ook bijzonder veel succesvolle paarden voortgebracht. Maar Gribaldi wordt geprezen als een KWPN hengst, en het Trakehner Verband krijgt niet de eer die ze toekomen. En dat is gewoon zonde, want die verdient het TV wel. Sla de In De Strengen of Paardenkrant eens open. Wordt hij in titels genoemd, dan staat er "KWPN hengst Gribaldi wint blabla". Dat is niet eerlijk, hij is uit een Trakehnerfokkerij voort gekomen en daar heeft het KWPN veel aan te danken, maar dat wordt niet toegegeven.
excuseme wrote:
ReplyDeleteEen brief aan J. Knaap, waarin je hem vraagt om eens genuenaceerd te kijken en mogelijk van gedachten te wisselen, zal toch niets uithalen:
KWPN-inspecteur Jacques Verkerk krijgt op 1 januari aanstaande ontslag. Na een conflict met KWPN-directeur Johan Knaap is Verkerk vrijgesteld van werkzaamheden, maar hij zal niet terugkeren op zijn werkplek bij de afdeling inspectie. Het is nu voor de zesde keer in drie jaar tijd dat er een kaderfunctionaris van het KWPN zijn biezen pakt of wordt ontslagen.
Eerder verdwenen hoofd Communicatie en Voorlichting Dirk Willem Rosie, hoofd Financiën Ton Bakker, foktechnisch medewerker Hans van Tartwijk, adjunct-directeur René van der Kuil en hoofd Communicatie Dick Jonker.
Het nieuws over Verkerks naderende ontslag ging afgelopen week als een vuurtje rond. Maar net als in voorgaande gevallen, hulden alle betrokken partijen zich in absoluut stilzwijgen. Het is opvallend dat zelfs de Gelderse en Overijsselse regiobestuursleden, waar Verkerk als inspecteur voor werkte, een slot op de mond hebben gekregen van KWPN-directeur Knaap. Vanmiddag om kwart over één verscheen er een persbericht over het naderende ontslag op de website van het KWPN.
Het is duidelijk dat er opnieuw sprake is van een arbeidsconflict met directeur Knaap. In diens stijl van leiding geven is geen ruimte voor tegenspraak of persoonlijk initiatief. Deze houding heeft de afgelopen jaren tot conflicten en een onaangename werksfeer op het kantoor in Harderwijk geleid.
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteUitermate gekleurd geschreven. Inhoud heeft ook niets met het topic te maken.
De meningen kunnen hier
[ON] Jacques Verkerk per 1 januari ontslagen 30 11 2009
gegeven worden
Moderator Nicole 288 wrote:
ReplyDeleteModeratoropmerking:
Nogmaals het verzoek om ontopic te blijven: zou het systeem om tot de WBSFH rankings te komen anders kunnen/moeten. Wie wel of niet met hengsten van andere stamboeken fokt staat daar los van, de vraag is of en hoe deze kruisingen doorberekend moeten worden in de rankings.
merelhof wrote:
ReplyDeletebeetje spijtig dat het hier blijkbaar mee ophoud want best interessante discussie die Tom hier opstarte. Want stel dat het vaderstamboek gevaloriseerd wordt zou je je ook kunnen afvragen of niet het moederlijnstamboek moeten gevaloriseerd worden. Zou het mogelijk zijn om te komen tot een berekening met vier factoren: oorsprong vaderlijn, stamboek van inschrijven, oorsprong moederlijn en relatieve grote van het stamboek? Wanneer je zo een berekening zou maken zou dit niet enkel juistere uitslag geven maar ook veel interessante info: welke moederlijnen scoren het best, welke combi's van stamboeken geven de meeste topprodukten...
amaze wrote:
ReplyDeleteDan zal ik wel een ''domme ollander'' zijn ,maar wat is ''gevaloriseerd ''? :o?
merelhof wrote:
ReplyDeleteeen waarde opkleven, wij belgen met die franse woorden toch altijd :D
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteIeder krijgt de waarde die het toekomt.
In het rijtje van Bomba is te zien, wat ik eerder ook al opmerkte, dat veel van Gribaldi zijn kinderen oprukken naar de internationale status.
Dat zou kunnen betekenen dat Gribaldi Jazz gaat verdringen van het hoogste schavot als vader van de meeste succesvolle dressurpaarden ter wereld.
En ondanks dat al die kinderen gefokt zijn door KWPN fokkers zal er dan een Trakehner op de eerste plaats staan, precies zo als Doruto indertijd.
Ik zie dan het KWPN of KWPN fokkers niet gaan mekkeren dat zij die eer moeten hebben omdat zij voor dat succes gezorgd hebben.
merelhof wrote:
ReplyDeletedaar gaat het dus net om in de stelling van Tom, dat niet iedereen krijgt wat het toekomt en dat dit een vertekend beeld geeft en dat een andere manier van berekenen nodig is.
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteGribaldi is een Trakehner en zal als zodanig geeerd worden, dat komt hem toe.
Zijn kinderen zijn KWPN gefokte paarden en de eer daarvoor gaat naar het stamboek van die fokkers.
Voor de KWPN fokkers is het vervolgens een bevestiging van hun goede keuzes en inzet dat er steeds meer hengsten bij de beste 10 komen door hun KWPN gefokte afstammelingen.
En natuurlijk gebruikt het stamboek dat terecht als promotie, dat is weer goed voor de fokkers, het trekt buitenlandse kopers aan.
Dus als Tom of de stamboeken het daar niet mee eens zijn, zou ik ze als advies geven, neem je fokbeleid eens onder de loep.
merelhof wrote:
ReplyDeleteTom zijn punt is net dat het eerste niet naar voor komt in de ranking. Net zoals de grote van de populatie niet in acht genomen wordt. Zijn we het erover eens dat je uit drie meries moeilijker een krack fokt dan uit drieduizend? Zijn we het er ook over eens dat de merrie belangrijk is en dat dit niet in de resultaten wordt weerspiegelt? En deze dingen hebben helemaal niks te maken met het fokbeleid van de desbetreffende stamboek!
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteTom heeft het over een andere ranking, hier gaat het over de individuele plaats als dekhengst
Ik kan zo 3 merries opnoemen die ieder meerdere Cracks gefokt hebben en er waarschijnlijk meer dan 3000 vinden die dat nooit zullen doen.
Ik weet niet waar jij het met jezelf over eens bent, maar de merrie wordt wel degelijk belangrijk gevonden, zij bepaalt onder welk stamboek de kinderen vallen, het beleid van dat stamboek is de grondslag voor het succes.
merelhof wrote:
ReplyDeleteFlauw hoor die opmerking van jouw ivm met 3 en 3000 merries. :(
Nog flauwer om de discussie te verengen tot enkel de ranking van de dekhengsten, dan moet je de openbrief eens nalezen. Je moet trouwens eens aandachtig mijn post lezen ivm het berekeningssyteem dat ik voorstelde en de toegevoegde waarde hiervan (wat betreft foktechnische info), in plaats van constant die reactie te hebben: wij zijn de nummer 1 dus alles is goed. Heb ooit eens gelezen: "Men kan alleen discussiëren indien men er vanuit gaat dat de discussiegenoot ook wel eens gelijk zou kunnen hebben" :)
sarabande wrote:
ReplyDeleteJa die gebruiken mensen altijd als ze geen argumenten meer hebben, het bewijst de stelling
merelhof wrote:
ReplyDeletevandaar dat het jou lijfspreuk is :D Ondertussen geen enkel antwoord op mijn vragen en geen enkele bijdrage tot de discussie?
The following are postings from the Horse-Gate bulletin board in Germany as of 1:00 PM GMT 3 December 2009:
ReplyDeleteCarlo wrote:
Dies ist ein Auszug ueber Sinn und weitaus mehr UNSINN des WBFSH Rankings:
aus : http://www.eurodressage.com/news/bre...penletter.html
WFBSH Breeding News
The Inaccuracy of the WBFSH Ranking
December 1, 2009 - By Tom Reed
The following is an open letter to Johan Knaap (Director of the KWPN), the chair of the WBFSH committee with responsibility for producing, in collaboration with the FEI, the rankings of competition horses, sires, and studbooks. Please send your views to Mr. Knaap at johan.knaap@kwpn.nl and post reactions to this letter on www.fixtherankings.blogspot.com
2. The studbook rankings do not give credit to TBs.
The studbook rankings exclude TBs (presumably because TB sport horses are not born into a studbook that is a member of the WBFSH) and, therefore, under-estimate their true impact on sport horse breeding and sport.
The WBFSH must create a studbook ranking where TB sport horses can be classified and where the contribution of TB sires to other studbooks can be measured. For example, although the TB showjumping stallion Favoritas xx appears in the 2009 ranking as the sire of a showjumper, a TB international showjumper like Favoritas xx could not appear in the studbook ranking because no classification exists for a TB studbook. And the great TB stallion Heraldik xx, which sired horses in all three Olympic disciplines (a truly amazing feat), should have his contributions to other studbooks credited to the TB studbook, as recommended above in point 1.
Ich unterstuetze dies vollkommen,wie ich auch an anderer Stelle Vorschlaege gemacht habe,wie auf breiter Basis das Vollblut -z.B. durch eine Datenbank - mehr zugaenglich gemacht werden koennte.
Gruss vom GLASKUGELPEDIGREE-ANALYSTEN
Oh-Gloria wrote:
ReplyDelete1. The studbook rankings do not reflect the true genetic contributions of the studbooks.
2. The studbook rankings do not give credit to TBs.
3. The studbook rankings penalize small studbooks.
4. The sire rankings penalize younger sires.
5. The sire rankings over-reward popular and fashionable stallions.
6. The sire rankings have no memory.
7. Dam-sires are ignored.
8. Breeders are ignored.
^^
Carlo, das sprechen wir ja auch schon die ganze Zeit an und versuchen ja zusammen im kleinen Kreis ein wenig Licht in die Große DUNKELE KAMMER zu bekommen..Das was wir Diskutieren ist ein wirklich kleiner Teil, es fehlt einfach die Lobby um etwas bewegen zu wollen, das ist das schlimme dabei. Vielleicht erkennen mit der Zeit doch auch immer mehr wie wichtig TB für die WBZ ist.. wenn schon solche Berichte geschrieben werden, machen sich viel mehr darüber Gedanken wie so manche Verbände es gerne sehen..
Gut das man wieder etwas vom
GLASKUGELPEDIGREE-ANALYSTEN hört... ;-)
Carlo wrote:
ReplyDeleteAuch dies steht fuer eine meiner Thesen,die ich hier immer wieder aufgefuehrt habe:
Naemlich sich auf die XX-Hengste zu konzentrieren,die Geschwister oder naechste Verwandte haben,die selbst im WB-Bereich (ZUcht oder/und Sport) erfolgreich waren!
aHeresy M2S
By Lanthano x Caramel xx x Cale xx.
Bay.
Born 2001.
Registered by the Baden-Wuerttemberg Verband.
The half-bred Heresy M2S is half-sister to Royaldik (by Royal Diamond), the 2003 stallion performance test champion at Neustadt-Dosse that is approved by the Hannoverian and Oldenburg Verbands, and a half-sister to Meraldik (by Muenchhausen), the 2002 stallion approved by the Oldenburg and Trakehner Verbands. They all are out of the thoroughbred mare Herka xx, a full-sister to the great thoroughbred sire Heraldik xx. In 2009 Heresy M2S produced a chestnut colt sired by Wang Chung M2S, named Ai WeiWei m2s.
Sire: Lanthano is a true multi-talented sire, excelling in both showjumping and dressage and producing progeny that compete in showjumping, dressage, and eventing. Lanthano won the stallion performance test and in 1993 became the South German stallion champion. In 1994 and 1995 he won novice, elementary, and intermediate showjumping classes and qualified both years for the Bundeschampionate in showjumping. He then switched to dressage and has been very successful with a young rider winning, for example, the Swiss Young Rider Championship and now competing in international classes. Lanthano is also a succesful sire. In 1996 and 1997 he was stallion progeny winner in Baden-Wuerttemberg. His daughter Lettina won the 1997 Bundeschampionate Riding Horse Championship and in 1998 she was Bundeschampionate Vice-Champion in Dressage. In 2000 four of Lanthano's progeny competed in the Bundeschampionate and were successful in all three Olympic disciplines. Lanthano's sire is the highly-regarded descendant of Der Loewe xx, the black stallion Lanthan with 15 approved sons and a number of progeny who compete at the highest levels in dressage. Damsire Akzent I was a stallion performance test champion who produced progeny that competed at international level in both showjumping and dressage.
Dam: Herka xx is the dam of the approved stallion Royaldik (by Royal Diamond) and the approved stallion Meraldik (by Muenchhausen). Herka xx is a full-sister to Heraldik xx, one of the most important thoroughbred sires for producing international showjumpers, international eventers, and champion mares. Heraldik xx is the sire of two horses that were on the Gold Medal winning eventing team at the 2008 Olympics, Abraxxas (5th in the final individual ranking) and Butts Leon (8th in the final individual ranking).
Plans for 2010: Heresy M2S is in foal to Condios
http://d4620107.u123.hosting365.ie/HeresyM2S.html
Carlo wrote:
ReplyDeleteWem erzaehlst Du dies,Oh-Gloria ? Gegen wieviele Waende bin ich gelaufen in den letzten Jahren ?
Gruss carlo -alias .......- ist zu lang,um es immer zu wiederholen!
Ramzes wrote:
ReplyDeleteOh-Gloria ,...zur Ehrenrettung - Dressur der Trakehner mußt Du aber auch Absatz 3. lesen ,...gilt ebenso für Angloaraber (VS)etc. , VS generell total "unterbelichtet".
Diese Unterbewertung kleiner Populationen hatten wir hier auch schon mal angesprochen .
Auch Punkt 4 ist sehr interessant , ...dazu müssen aber die Deckdaten,gefallenen Fohlen , güste auch ähnlich der xx-Zucht erfasst werden , ...Erfassung unter dem Mindestlimit an Nachkommen nationale FN-Zuchtwertschätzung , z.B. auch für Populationen inc. Shagya ,ist auf der anderen Seite auch bislang nicht darstellbar . Hohe Nachkommenzahl besser ins Verhälnis setzen , ...wurde auch schon für xx angemahnt.
Die korrekte Ermittlung von Auslandserfolgen ,...! Bei der DVR-xx-Datenbank gerade bei Abverkauf z.B.gen Osten leider auch ein Problem .
Bei der FN ???
...im übrigen ,...alles eine Muschpooke , ...EU-studbook ??
Oh-Gloria wrote:
ReplyDeleteDa haste RECHT... Hey echt nettes Wort dafür
Oh-Gloria wrote:
ReplyDeleteDa wäre ich auch dafür.. ich war da die ganze Zeit immer am überlegen..hatte immer innerlich abgelehnt.
Später kamen einige neue Erkenntnisse hinzu und muss jetzt auch dafür plädieren..Für einen FORTSCHRITT wäre es sicherlich die beste Lösung!!!.
Wie das dann ja jeder für sich selbst gestaltet liegt ja in jedem seinem ermessen..
__________________
Ramzes wrote:
ReplyDeleteDas geht aber nur , wenn man sich EU-weit auch über Selektionskriterien einigt !!!
Oh-Gloria wrote:
ReplyDeleteWenn man die Politik dabei als Maßstab nimmt, wird das nichts..
Wie soll man so viele Nationen unter einen Hut bekommen...ich bezweifel das leider sehr...
Carlo wrote:
ReplyDeleteSorry, Ramzes, - vielleicht bin ich schon zu lange im Ausland - aber ich verstehe Deine Kurzsaetze - eben das Problem,dass es keine Saetze sind - oft nicht! Da ich Deine Anmerkungen aber immer sehr schaetze,moechte ich sie nicht verpassen!
Liebe Gruesse,
carlo
Kareen wrote:
ReplyDeleteUm Gottes Willen, bloß kein EU-studbook. Da müsste man sich ja auf den kleinsten gemeinsamen Nenner einigen und das funktioniert ja schon in der EU-Legislative so hervorragend
Führt zu so Blüten wie Herrn Oettinger als Energie-Kommissar u.ä. Gruselig. Der Mann steht immerhin als erklärter Atomkraft-Fan seit Jahren in der Öffentlichkeit und soll nun Energiepolitik prägen obwohl die überwiegende Mehrheit der Bevölkerung soweit ich weiß in jedem einzelnen EU-Staat den schnellstmöglichen Ausstieg aus der Kernkraft wünscht. Das Äquivalent davon in der Pferdezucht möchte ich mir lieber nicht vorstellen.
Neinnein ich bin ganz glücklich mit den Verbänden so wie sie sind. Da kann jeder dahingehen wo es ihm am besten gefällt und man kennt seine Leute.
Ramzes wrote:
ReplyDeleteNa , Du hast das Wichtigste doch mit aufgepickt s. Dein Beitrag zu den Trakehnern .
Manchmal ist es eher Telegrammstil , bes. wenn wenig Zeit !
Dafür bemühe ich mich aber rechtschreibmäßig , im Gegensatz zu vielen Zeitungsartikeln heutzutage , ...liest da gar niemand mehr vorher Korrektur ?
In die FN-Zuchtwertschätzung kommt der Hengst ja erst ab einer bestimmten Mindestzahl Turniersport-Nachkommen, ...für Vollblüter und andere Exoten ja noch schwieriger heutzutage bei 1 Stute pro Quartal !
Mit Hilfe populationsgenetischer Modelle für kleine Nachkommenschaften ...?? Könnte man doch bei Prof.Bruns in Göttingen einen Doktoranten mit beschäftigen ??!
Fleißen die Auslandserfolge in die Datenbanken der FN mit ein ?
Alles eine Muschpooke ...siehst Du ja im offenen Brief ( von Dir eingestellt ) ,...welches Stutbuch sich wessen Genetik bedient . Inzwischen sind ja die Pedigrees der meisten WB-Zuchtverbände miteinander verwoben ( Holstein nur bedingt,Trak. Reinzucht) : Selle Francais , Hol,H,W,Trak. KWPN ,BWP, mit den entsprechenden Anerkennungen der Kandidaten untereinander , plus AA,xx .
Schandor wrote:
ReplyDeleteDas Ranking der WFBSH ist genauso mit Undifferenziert und unzutreffend Wie die Zuchtwertschätzung der FN.
Zitat:
Fleißen die Auslandserfolge in die Datenbanken der FN mit ein ?
So weit ich weiß,nein.
Zitat:
Mit Hilfe populationsgenetischer Modelle für kleine Nachkommenschaften
Gute Idee.
Das würde auf XX,OX AA, Trakehner zutreffen. Wobei die Frage ist, wie das umgesetzt werden könnte.
Lilly Go Lucky wrote:
ReplyDeleteWenn ich das richtig im Kopf habe, liegt bei der FN-Schätzung die Mindestzahl der NK (im Sport) bei 5 - Einen noch kleineren Wert anzusetzen, macht sicherlich keinen Sinn.
Liest man den ganzen Brief hinsichtlich des WBFSH Rankings sind aber etliche bedenkenswerte Ansätze darin enthalten, insbesondere was die Zuordnung von Erfolgen zum jeweiligen Stutbuch betrifft. Da geraten die Trak und Holst ins Hintertreffen, obwohl es ihre Stämme sind, die einen gut Teil des Erfolges fremder Stutbücher ausmachen (siehe KWPN, Zangersheide).
Lilly go lucky ist gerade online Mit Zitat antworten
Schandor wrote:
ReplyDeleteEs geht um die Nichtanrechnung von VS -Prüfungen,der Auslandserfolge, und das eine "Unbekannte" (Vollblut) Abstammung mit einem viel niedrigeren Zuchtwert startet,als die renomierten.
Das verfälscht das Bild erheblich.
Und beachtenswert die Aufrechnung KWPN/Trakehner Fohlenzahlen im Hinblick auf die prozentualen Punkte pro Fohlen.
I have already pointed out the immense, but unrecognized, contribution the Trakehner Studbook has made to the KWPN's first place ranking in dressage. In 2009 the Trakener Studbook registered 1,234 foals. Let's assume the KWPN registered 12,000 foals – approximately 10 times as many foals. Now let's take the KWPN's 12,200 ranking points and divide that by its 12,000 foals: that gives us 1.02 points per foal. Now let's do the same for the Trakehner Studbook: 5,498 ranking points divided by 1,230 foals gives us 4.47 points per foal. So the Trakehner Studbook is producing 4.5 times as many points per foal as the KWPN Studbook. Which is the better studbook for dressage? Now the answer is not so clear.
Carlo wrote:
ReplyDeleteVielen Dank Ramzes!
Ist wirklich so,dass ich von Deinen Beitraegen viel halte,wenn ich mir dann nicht sicher bin,ob ich Dich auch richtig verstanden habe,dann ergibt es ja keinen Sinn!
Gruss,
carlo
Ramzes wrote:
ReplyDelete....fließen , ...nicht fleißen ( oh,wie peinlich)
Leider gibt es in dem Sinne ja eine Zuchtwertschätzung für xx vom DVR auch nicht mehr.
Früher gab es wenigstens mal die Darstellung der Verteilung um den Mittelwert mit Angabe GAG-Mutter / GAG-Produkt für jeden Hengst ab best. Nachkommenzahl.
Jetzt "nur noch" Index .
Nur als Beispiel :wenn ein Hengst im Schnitt Mütter mit GAG 85 kg bekommt und Produkte im Schnitt 68 kg oder weniger ?
Oder wenig mit Marketing belasteter Hengst (GAG 95)in einem rel.unpopulärem Gestüt mit niedriger Bedeckungszahl und mittelprächtigen Stuten einen Schnitt um die 70 kg bei den Nachkommen schafft .
Heute Gewinnsumme , GAG - Endprodukt , Durchschnitts-GAG .
Die überhöhte Dotierung der Auktionsrennen (Nationale Listenrennen , kein Blacktype ) verzerren da das Bild doch auch . Wenn da nicht unerhebliche Mengen an Auktionsrennenkandidaten der vorderen Plätze
in den Ausgleichen nicht weiter kommen mit dem erlaufenen Auktionsrennen-GAG ??? Ausgleich I ist ja so gut wie ausgestorben , AGL II auch immer weniger , ...dafür auf der anderen Seite F , wo 85 kg gegen 48 kg läuft mit " Schwarzgold-Weile " ???
Bei den xx-Amerikanern wird man ja dagegen " erschlagen " mit Statistik ,...ist ja bei der Populationsgröße einfacher Tendenzen zu erarbeiten .Nicks und Dosage.
Auch die unvollständige Erfassung der Auslandsleistungen ,...mit Hilfe von france-galop u.a.kein Problem , aber bei der Schweiz und den östlichen Nachbarn
hört es dann schon wieder auf . Sind ja eher die kleinen Züchter , deren Produkte dort laufen ( und auch gewinnen können).
From a second thread on Horse-Gate forum in Germany as of 1:20 PM GMT 3 December 2009:
ReplyDeleteKareen wrote:
Also entschuldigt mal, das sieht jetzt aber wirklich komisch aus, wenn wir ausgerechnet jetzt eine Riesendiskussion hier haben, wo die Holländischen Nachbarn mal ganz vorne stehen.
Die Modalitäten sind doch schon ewig so und zumindest von den Deutschen Groß-Stutbüchern die gewohnheitsmäßig auf Rang 1 bis 3 gelandet sind, hat sich noch nie jemand darüber beklagt oder? Wenn jetzt plötzlich das Verfahren debattiert wird, gibt das bei mir ehrlich gesagt einen ziemlich armseligen Beigeschmack von nicht verlieren können. Tom sitzt in Irland, und er hat auch sicherlich recht mit dem was er da schreibt, deshalb mag er solche Briefe legitim verfassen aber wenn ausgerechnet wir hier in das Gejaul mit einstimmen, erreichen wir ehrlich gesagt das genaue Gegenteil von dem was wir wollen. Ich kann ja vieles tolerieren aber wenn jemand sich als schlechter Verlierer erweist sowas finde ich schäbig.
Chin wrote:
ReplyDeleteSEH ICH AUCH SO!!
DIE KÄSKOPPE HABEN ÜBER JAHRE VIEL ZEIT UND GELD INVESTIERT DA GÖNN ICH DENEN EIN JAHR VORNE
DIE HOLEN WIR SICHER WIEDER EIN!
Schandor wrote:
ReplyDeleteDu wolltest sicherlich Niederländer schreiben?
Chin wrote:
ReplyDeleteOH JA KLAR
Farbenfroh wrote:
ReplyDeleteIch habe das ganz anders verstanden. Für mich sieht es eher so aus als ob Tom es nicht richtig findet, dass man Lorbeeren einheimst für etwas, was man nicht gezüchtet und somit nicht geleistet hat. Und das finde ich eigentlich richtig. Denn es geht doch nur darum, dass die Aussage der Rankings nicht korrekt sind sondern verwässert, durch die nicht genaue spezifische Aufschlüsselung.
Some recommendations with regard to improved WBFSH rankings have been presented at an Interstallion Seminar in Uppsala. This presentation can be downloaded from the Interstallion website (www.interstallion.org)
ReplyDeleteDirect link:
http://www.biw.kuleuven.be/genlog/livgen/workshop/E_HansvanTartwijk1.pdf
free classic mahjong
ReplyDeleteCookie Crush 2
bug match
candy rain 4
Candy Rain 3
bike racing 2
Fly with Rope 2
bubble shooter saga 2
Crazy Birds 2