Tom Fool, Fourth Generation

This whole Charles Hatton series started out with Naive Dancer and Tom Fool (see Tom Fool, 1953). So let us now examine Tom Fool as a name in more current pedigrees, specifically in the fourth generation of all weanlings, yearlings, or two-year-olds sold at public auction in North America in 1999-2002.

Tom Fool showed 4,978 times in the fourth generation of these 54,000+ foals, ranking him 14th in overall popularity.

At P1 in the fourth generation (the male line) Tom Fool had a Price Index of 0.82 (11th among these 20 sires) and a PPI (result) of 1.19 (sixth), a  pretty good improvement on both scores. He had 538 foals at P1, including 27 stakes winners (5.02%), but none with 2,000+ Performance Points.

At P2 in the fourth generation Tom Fool had a Price Index of 0.59 (15th) and a PPI (result) of 0.26 (16th), a poor performance on both scores. He had 226 foals at P2, including four stakes winners (1.77%), but none with 2,000+ Performance Points.

At P3 in the fourth generation Tom Fool had a Price Index of 1.20 (first) and a PPI (result) of 0.91 (fifth), a poor performance on both scores. He had 1,557 foals at P3, including 62 stakes winners (3.98%), including Hawk Wing (3,111 Performance Points). Hawk Wing was by Woodman (by Mr. Prospector out of Playmate, by Buckpasser, by Tom Fool).

At P4 in the fourth generation Tom Fool had a Price Index of 0.96 (eighth) and a PPI (result) of 1.62 (third), a pretty good improvement on both scores. He had 565 foals at P4, including 31 stakes winners (5.49%), including Artie Schiller (3,989 Performance Points). Artie Schiller was by El Prado, whose second dam was Cap and Bells, by Tom Fool. No doubt El Prado has a lot to do with these good results for Tom Fool at P4.

At P5 in the fourth generation Tom Fool had a Price Index of 0.78 (17th) and a PPI (result) of 0.49 (20th), a very poor result on both scores. He had 776 foals at P5, including 21 stakes winners (2.71%), but none with 2,000+ Performance Points.

At P6 in the fourth generation Tom Fool had a Price Index of 0.89 (12th) and a PPI (result) of 1.30 (seventh), a pretty good improvement on both scores. He had 518 foals at P6, including 15 stakes winners (2.90%), including Xtra Heat (6,790 Performance Points). Xtra Heat was out of a mare by Hatchet Man (by The Axe II out of Bebopper, by Tom Fool). Without Xtra Heat Tom Fool was only 0.74 at P6.

At P7 in the fourth generation Tom Fool had a Price Index of 1.38 (first) and a PPI (result) of 1.05 (tenth), a lack of improvement on both scores. He had 515 foals at P7, including 23 stakes winners (4.47%), but none with 2,000+ Performance Points.

At P8 in the fourth generation Tom Fool had a Price Index of 0.96 (18th) and a PPI (result) of 1.05 (11th), a slight improvement on both scores. He had 283 foals at P8, including nine stakes winners (3.18%), including Saratoga County (2,747 Performance Points). The third dam of Saratoga County was Foolish Swap, by Tom Fool.

Overall, counting all eight positions in the fourth generation, Tom Fool had a Price Index of 1.01 (eighth) and a PPI (result) of 0.99 (13th), a slightly poor performance on both scores. He had 4,978 foals overall, including 192 stakes winners (3.86%).

Tom Fool is actually better balanced than most sires in distribution by sex. About 32% (1,592) of those 4,978 foals involved daughters of Tom Fool in the third generation. Those 1,592 foals had a Price Index of 0.88 and a PPI (result) of 1.22. The remaining 3,386 foals involved sons of Tom Fool in the third generation. Those 3,386 foals had a Price Index of 1.07 and a PPI (result) of 0.88. So the fillies were definitely a better proposition than the colts, although without Xtra Heat those 1,592 foals would have a PPI (result) of only 1.05 (instead of 1.22).

About 57% (2,845) of these 4,978 foals involved Buckpasser in the third generation. Those 2,845 foals had a Price Index of 1.09 and a PPI (result) of 0.94. The remaining 2,163 foals had a Price Index of 0.89 and a PPI (result) of 1.05. So Buckpasser in the third generation was actually a drag on Tom Fool in the fourth generation.

To recapitulate, Tom Fool’s fillies in the third generation were better than his colts in the third generation. Buckpasser in the third generation was actually a drag on Tom Fool in the fourth generation. Perhaps the most telling numbers are that Tom Fool had an overall Price Index of 1.01 and an overall PPI (result) of 0.99, both right around the norms of 1.00 each. After four generations that is approximately what you should expect to see.

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