Flat Racing Yearlings

M

momo79

Member
Joined
13 August 2012
Messages
21
Visit site
Hi, if anyone has a moment please take a look at these videos and let me know what you think re:conformation etc. Both are TB's bred for flat racing foaled sept/oct 2011 (southern hemisphere!).
Keen to buy one of these as he has amazing pedigree but one is a lot more expensive than the other - which would you pay the most for based on these video's? (even though I appreciate pedigree is largely what you are paying for) please let me know your comments.

http://db.tt/lPinANIb

http://db.tt/i5p0BC06
 
Personally I prefer the chestnut . Think the front end is better put together - neck set on slightly higher than the bay. Are they to carry on racing or to do something else with ?
 
There's something not quite right about the bay's hocks. Would have to see him stood up properly but looks very very sickle hocked to me.
 
Pigeon said:
There's something not quite right about the bay's hocks. Would have to see him stood up properly but looks very very sickle hocked to me.
Click to expand...

Agree, with this, very sickle hocked, near hind looks worse, not even sure its sound. However, looks more athletic than the chestnut. Is the second one sprint bred? Compared to the UK yearlings, neither walks particularly well, no swing to the back. I used to show off foals and yearlings at tatts, so do have a reasonable idea of what is expected.
 
cundlegreen said:
Agree, with this, very sickle hocked, near hind looks worse, not even sure its sound. However, looks more athletic than the chestnut. Is the second one sprint bred? Compared to the UK yearlings, neither walks particularly well, no swing to the back. I used to show off foals and yearlings at tatts, so do have a reasonable idea of what is expected.
Click to expand...

Both are well presented but neither seems to walk out well with a loose free walk - chestnut too tight through the shoulders and the bay tight behind
 
I agree neither shouts athletic to me, theyre both fairly stuffy behind though I agree the bay is worse. I'd pick the chesnut out of these two
 
I would bet the bay is more expensive, I'd hazard I can take a fair guess at his sire too. The chestnut is the better walker though. The bay's walk is suffering from poor handling - get his head to drop and get him striding out a bit more by the handler taking longer steps and he will look massively improved.
 
Thanks for your thoughts and comments so far.

Just to clarify, neither have been backed, they turn 2yrs old on the 1st August and would be bought to race.

The bay is actually the more expensive. It's by Dynasty out of a Badger Land mare (Codex breeding). I like the breeding but wasn't happy with the way he was walking out, so glad I posted this as you've all confirmed my thinking.

The chestnut is by Judpot (an unproven stallion, even though in his favour he is by AP Indy). The damn is by Jallad. The breeding is much less proven than the bay.

Any further thoughts with the above in mind would be really appreciated.

Thanks
 
The bay is the class horse of those two. Big engine and serious muscle across his back. he's light in front, but that wouldn't concern me overly, until he's ridden it's difficult to put top line on with out using gadgets. Also he'll likely stay sounder because there will not too much weight on his front tendons. Chestnut looked very stiff behind and his tail swishing is a concern.. maybe general character or habit, but for me personally, tails are so indicative of back problems or temperament issues. It is hard to tell how well they walk as the handler isn't the greatest and the surface is rough. Hardly Tatts! ;0)
I like Dynasty as a sire, he was tough, and he's red hot at the moment with 48% of his runners are winners, which is an awesome stat in his favour, though, have to say this little bay looks better suited to sprinting with a backend like that. Hope that helps at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top