Nashua, Fourth Generation

Last week Charles Hatton discussed Nashua the racehorse (1955 Horse of the Year). This week it is my turn to discuss Nashua as a name in more modern pedigrees, specifically in the fourth generation of all weanlings, yearlings, and two-year-olds sold at public auction in North America in 1999-2002.

Nashua showed up 8,343 times among these 54,000+ foals, sixth among the top 20 sires. In contrast to most of his predecessors, Nashua is not much of a male-line influence at all (most people might be surprised that he has ANY male line at all). At P1 in the fourth generation (the male line) Nashua had a Price Index of 0.70 (13th among these 20 sires) and a PPI (result) of 1.20 (seventh), a very respectable improvement in performance over price.

That result was based on only five stakes winners from 79 foals (6.33%). I am venturing to guess that the majority of those foals and stakes winners were by Chilean champion Memo (by Mocito Guapo, by Good Manners, by Nashua).

At P2 in the fourth generation Nashua had a Price Index of 1.21 (sixth) and a PPI (result) of 1.20 (seventh), which is about as close as you can get. More than two-thirds of these 8,343 foals were at P2 in the fourth generation, and Nashua was the leader at that position by number of foals.

He had 5,803 foals at P2 in the fourth generation, including 239 stakes winners (4.14%), including 18 stakes winners with 2,000+ Performance Points: Azeri (9,380), War Emblem (4,991), Alkaased (3,999), Voodoo Dancer (3,628), Russian Rhythm (3,361), Hawk Wing (3,111), Starrer (2,843), Whipper (2,790), City Zip (2,718), Speightstown (2,658), Kicken Kris (2,627), Crafty Shaw (2,446), Kris Kin (2,242), Barbeau Ruckus (2,189), The Cliff’s Edge (2,165), Behaving Badly (2,149), Proud Man (2,035), and Kela (2,023).

Nashua is the broodmare sire of Mr. Prospector, who accounts for 15 of the 18 stakes winners above. Nashua is also the broodmare sire of Roberto, who accounts for the other three. Kicken Kris and Kris Kin were by Kris S. (a son of Roberto). Starrer was by Dynasformer (a son of Roberto).

At P3 in the fourth generation Nashua had a Price Index of 0.78 (16th) and a PPI (result) of 0.69 (15th), not a particularly good result. He had 493 foals at P3, including 12 stakes winners (2.43%), but no stakes winners with 2,000+ Performance Points.

At P4 in the fourth generation Nashua had a Price Index of 0.37 (18th) and a PPI (result) of 0.19 (19th), not a particularly good result. He had 190 foals at P4, including four stakes winners (2.11%), but no stakes winners with 2,000+ Performance Points.

At P5 in the fourth generation Nashua had a Price Index of 0.56 (19th) and a PPI (result) of 0.60 (18th), a very slight improvement. He had 74 foals at P5, including three stakes winners (4.05%), but no stakes winners with 2,000+ Performance Points.

At P6 in the fourth generation Nashua had a Price Index of 1.42 (third) and a PPI (result) of 1.51 (fifth), an improvement in absolute terms but not in relative terms. He had 806 foals at P6, including 52 stakes winners (6.45%), including Coach Jimi Lee (2,072 Performance Points). Coach Jimi Lee was by Roar our of Princess Lili, by My Gallant (by Gallant Man out of Predate, by Nashua). I find it interesting that not one of the stakes winners with 2,000+ Performance Points was out of a mare by Mr. Prospector or Roberto.

At P7 in the fourth generation Nashua had a Price Index of 0.90 (18th) and a PPI (result) of 0.27 (20th), an atrocious result. He had 508 foals at P7, including nine stakes winners (1.77%), but no stakes winners with 2,000+ Performance Points.

At P8 in the fourth generation Nashua had a Price Index of 1.03 (16th) and a PPI (result) of 0.61 (18th), not too bad in relative terms, not too good in absolute terms. He had 390 foals at P8, including 11 stakes winners (2.82%), but no stakes winners with 2,000+ Performance Points.

Overall, counting all eight positions, Nashua had a Price Index of 1.15 (second) and a PPI (result) of 1.09 (eighth), not too bad in absolute terms, not too good in relative terms. He had 337 stakes winners (4.03%) from those 8,343 foals.

Unlike most of his predecessors, Nashua is mainly a sire of females (needless to say). Less than 14% (1,154) of those 8,343 Nashuas in the fourth generation were sons of Nashua in the third generation. Those 1,154 foals had a Price Index of 0.81 and a PPI (result) of 0.53, not very good at all. The other 7,189 foals (daughters of Nashua in the third generation) had a Price Index of 1.20 and a PPI (result) of 1.17, very close to correctly valued.

More than 64% (5,378) of those 8,343 foals had either Mr. Prospector or Roberto as the sire of their sire. Those 5,378 foals had a Price Index of 1.31 and a PPI (result) of 1.43, a nice improvement. The other 2,965 foals had a Price Index of 0.85 and a PPI (result) of 0.46, not very good at all.

More than 79% (6,609) of those 8,343 foals had Nashua at either P2 or P6 in the fourth generation. Those 6,609 foals had a Price Index of 1.24 and a PPI (result) of 1.24, right on the money. The other 1,734 foals (at the other six positions) had a Price Index of 0.82 and a PPI (result) of 0.51, not very good at all.

To recapitulate, Nashua is very good as the broodmare sire of Mr. Prospector or Roberto in the second generation. He was also pretty good at P2 and P6. He improved a little at P1 and P5 (from a very small number of foals). He was not very good at all at the other four positions. He was pretty good (but not cheap) as a sire of females in the third generation. He was cheap but not even relatively good as a sire of males in the third generation.

These results should not really surprise anyone. They merely confirm common sense. Common sense dictates that a sire can NOT possibly be good at every single position, in every possible situation, especially as far back as the fourth generation. Nashua is an excellent example of this dichotomy.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s