Foaling date
- Thread starter maggsy
- Start date
Chesham
Sire
ARAZI91
Mare
M maggsy - never got round to doing any research on it but have been collecting foaling dates for years
Here's today's 2yo's foaling dates in race-card order in an excel file (CSV) along with sire, dam, damsire, gender, sales price etc - also created a PDF if you don't use excel (just enlarge it)
As for research may have a few articles, will have a check, think there may be an academic paper out there based on a study.
Last edited:
ARAZI91
Mare
M
maggsy - article summarising that study i referenced above from Owner Breeder magazine.
"Those of you faced with the task of buying foals or yearlings on a regular basis will recognise the indeterminate number of mental calculations that need to be made when assessing any young prospect. For some, one of those could be foaling date, especially if its pedigree suggests that it ought to reach its full potential as a two-year-old rather than later on in its career. A speedily-bred youngster with an early foaling date would surely be ideal if you want to strike early and perhaps put yourself in a position to have a go at one of the big Royal Ascot two-year-old contests? Well, the data suggests that it’s not as straightforward as that.
In a study of over 150,000 foals born in Britain and Ireland over a period of ten years from 2008 to 2017 that sought to examine their effectiveness as two-year- olds, the results were certainly interesting. Perhaps the biggest take away is that you can be too early with a foal. Those foaled in January were at a distinct disadvantage compared to their February- and March-foaled counterparts. This will not surprise most of us, as we all know how a harsh winter month can curtail the development of a young foal – from preventing it getting valuable exercise to the lack of spring grass for its mother.
Although January-foaled two-year- olds only made up 11 per cent of the total sample, the findings were based on 16,803 individuals – certainly a robust sample size on which to base some worthwhile conclusions.
The first thing to note is the fact that fewer January foals than February and March foals even make it to the racecourse as two-year-olds – 32% compared to 46 per cent among February foals and 39 per cent of the March foals. That is quite a significant reduction given the perceived advantage they have over their younger rivals. Even when they do make it to the racecourse, they are less likely to win than February and March foals as our strike-rates of 31.5 per cent, 34.3 per cent and 33.2 per cent suggest. True, these differences are less significant, but when stacked up against the number of foals they become very stark indeed. The two-year-old winner-to-foal percentage for January foals stands at just 10 per cent, compared to nearly 16 per cent for those born in February and the 13 per cent in March. It’s an identical story for percentage juvenile stakes horses from foals – 3.4 per cent among those born in January and counter intuitively very nearly double that rate at 6.2 per cent among February foals. March-foaled two-year-olds, with their 4.9 per cent stakes horses from foals are also comfortably clear. In fact, April foals with 3.2 per cent, are just about as successful as January’s.
We can also detect the same patterns using Timeform ratings, with January foals failing to post the highest average rating as one might expect. January notwithstanding, all other months line up in a logical way, February, March, April and May producing 15.8 per cent, 13.0 per cent, 9.3 per cent and 3.4 per cent juvenile winners to foals, plus 6.2 per cent, 4.9 per cent, 3.2 per cent and 1.1 per cent juvenile stakes horses to foals.
So, to summarise, it seems getting your mare pregnant on the earliest possible cover is demonstrably not the best way to go. It’s also patently clear that later foals are also compromised to one degree or another by their lack of maturity when it comes to two-year-old racing.
But what are their prospects of catching up through their three-year-old season? Well the short answer is that they do not recover the lost ground, certainly not to the degree we might expect. January foals still cannot match the rates of success of those born in the following two months.
Your probability of getting a three- year-old winner from a January foal stands at 46.2 per cent, up from the 31.9 per cent at two, but again well below the 61.1 per cent of February foals and the 52.9 per cent of those with a birthdate in March. Moreover, it’s not just January foals that cannot make up lost ground, it’s also those foaled in April and May, and they do not have the excuse of having had to deal with a harsh winter in their early life. Their strike rates of 18.7 per cent and 9.2 per cent are rather disappointing given the extra time they have had to mature. These trends are also manifest in the black-type scores of the various groups, the five monthly totals panning out at 6.5 per cent, 11.2 per cent, 9.1 per cent, 6.7 per cent and 3.2 per cent. And things don’t get any better when you examine the record of the various groups as older horses, the winner-to runner andsStakes horse-to- runner rates following a very similar downward spiral after February.
So why, after three years on the racecourse, should there be any discernable difference in the performance of various racehorses based solely on the month they were born? I must admit I have one extra theory that I’m sure plays a significant part in the phenomenon. During many hours looking at broodmare reproductive patterns, I have noticed that the progeny of mares, particularly younger mares, with no breaks in production, tend to have better outcomes on the racecourse. I can see that very same pattern in the data I have chosen for this study. Racehorses with both a year older and a year younger sibling are over 60 per cent more likely to be a stakes horse than a runner whose dam was barren both the year before and the year after it was born.
In fact any break in production seems to have an adverse effect on the foals either side of that break.
Now there are many reasons why this might be, ranging from the benefits of having a more equitable temperament of pregnant mares nursing a foal at foot compared to less patient barren mares, right through to the possibility of a change in the constituents of a mare’s milk once she becomes pregnant.
Clearly, this is an area that requires further study, but whatever the reason, there is no denying that the existence of siblings the year before and the year after has a huge beneficial effect on the athletic ability of a racehorse.
Assuming then that this is the case, ask yourself this question: what months of the year is this scenario most likely to play out? Common sense tells us that if your foal is late, there is less likelihood of the mare getting pregnant again. And our data bears this out, with only 58 per cent of mares in our study producing a May foal going on to produce a foal the following year. Compare this to the 68 per cent of mares producing February foals that then have a foal a year later.
Could it be that when we talk about the effect of foaling dates on performance, we are really talking about something quite different".
"Those of you faced with the task of buying foals or yearlings on a regular basis will recognise the indeterminate number of mental calculations that need to be made when assessing any young prospect. For some, one of those could be foaling date, especially if its pedigree suggests that it ought to reach its full potential as a two-year-old rather than later on in its career. A speedily-bred youngster with an early foaling date would surely be ideal if you want to strike early and perhaps put yourself in a position to have a go at one of the big Royal Ascot two-year-old contests? Well, the data suggests that it’s not as straightforward as that.
In a study of over 150,000 foals born in Britain and Ireland over a period of ten years from 2008 to 2017 that sought to examine their effectiveness as two-year- olds, the results were certainly interesting. Perhaps the biggest take away is that you can be too early with a foal. Those foaled in January were at a distinct disadvantage compared to their February- and March-foaled counterparts. This will not surprise most of us, as we all know how a harsh winter month can curtail the development of a young foal – from preventing it getting valuable exercise to the lack of spring grass for its mother.
Although January-foaled two-year- olds only made up 11 per cent of the total sample, the findings were based on 16,803 individuals – certainly a robust sample size on which to base some worthwhile conclusions.
The first thing to note is the fact that fewer January foals than February and March foals even make it to the racecourse as two-year-olds – 32% compared to 46 per cent among February foals and 39 per cent of the March foals. That is quite a significant reduction given the perceived advantage they have over their younger rivals. Even when they do make it to the racecourse, they are less likely to win than February and March foals as our strike-rates of 31.5 per cent, 34.3 per cent and 33.2 per cent suggest. True, these differences are less significant, but when stacked up against the number of foals they become very stark indeed. The two-year-old winner-to-foal percentage for January foals stands at just 10 per cent, compared to nearly 16 per cent for those born in February and the 13 per cent in March. It’s an identical story for percentage juvenile stakes horses from foals – 3.4 per cent among those born in January and counter intuitively very nearly double that rate at 6.2 per cent among February foals. March-foaled two-year-olds, with their 4.9 per cent stakes horses from foals are also comfortably clear. In fact, April foals with 3.2 per cent, are just about as successful as January’s.
We can also detect the same patterns using Timeform ratings, with January foals failing to post the highest average rating as one might expect. January notwithstanding, all other months line up in a logical way, February, March, April and May producing 15.8 per cent, 13.0 per cent, 9.3 per cent and 3.4 per cent juvenile winners to foals, plus 6.2 per cent, 4.9 per cent, 3.2 per cent and 1.1 per cent juvenile stakes horses to foals.
So, to summarise, it seems getting your mare pregnant on the earliest possible cover is demonstrably not the best way to go. It’s also patently clear that later foals are also compromised to one degree or another by their lack of maturity when it comes to two-year-old racing.
But what are their prospects of catching up through their three-year-old season? Well the short answer is that they do not recover the lost ground, certainly not to the degree we might expect. January foals still cannot match the rates of success of those born in the following two months.
Your probability of getting a three- year-old winner from a January foal stands at 46.2 per cent, up from the 31.9 per cent at two, but again well below the 61.1 per cent of February foals and the 52.9 per cent of those with a birthdate in March. Moreover, it’s not just January foals that cannot make up lost ground, it’s also those foaled in April and May, and they do not have the excuse of having had to deal with a harsh winter in their early life. Their strike rates of 18.7 per cent and 9.2 per cent are rather disappointing given the extra time they have had to mature. These trends are also manifest in the black-type scores of the various groups, the five monthly totals panning out at 6.5 per cent, 11.2 per cent, 9.1 per cent, 6.7 per cent and 3.2 per cent. And things don’t get any better when you examine the record of the various groups as older horses, the winner-to runner andsStakes horse-to- runner rates following a very similar downward spiral after February.
So why, after three years on the racecourse, should there be any discernable difference in the performance of various racehorses based solely on the month they were born? I must admit I have one extra theory that I’m sure plays a significant part in the phenomenon. During many hours looking at broodmare reproductive patterns, I have noticed that the progeny of mares, particularly younger mares, with no breaks in production, tend to have better outcomes on the racecourse. I can see that very same pattern in the data I have chosen for this study. Racehorses with both a year older and a year younger sibling are over 60 per cent more likely to be a stakes horse than a runner whose dam was barren both the year before and the year after it was born.
In fact any break in production seems to have an adverse effect on the foals either side of that break.
Now there are many reasons why this might be, ranging from the benefits of having a more equitable temperament of pregnant mares nursing a foal at foot compared to less patient barren mares, right through to the possibility of a change in the constituents of a mare’s milk once she becomes pregnant.
Clearly, this is an area that requires further study, but whatever the reason, there is no denying that the existence of siblings the year before and the year after has a huge beneficial effect on the athletic ability of a racehorse.
Assuming then that this is the case, ask yourself this question: what months of the year is this scenario most likely to play out? Common sense tells us that if your foal is late, there is less likelihood of the mare getting pregnant again. And our data bears this out, with only 58 per cent of mares in our study producing a May foal going on to produce a foal the following year. Compare this to the 68 per cent of mares producing February foals that then have a foal a year later.
Could it be that when we talk about the effect of foaling dates on performance, we are really talking about something quite different".
Last edited:
Interesting. This seems to confirm other research I have read about foaling dates. Do you have the ROI on the stats that you quoted?
gerry
Mare
I do know when i was younger and just starting out in betting i used to look at the 2yold dates born and i common sense thought to my self at only two surely the ones a couple months older must be stronger and i followed them for little while thinking i had found something so simple why are they not always short fav and bet them.
But to my diss may it was so simple it did not work and in fact some time the youngest won the race that really puzzled me all i could come up with at time and i am talking like 50 years ago is that better horses where breed later but there was something and never done it after that.
But to my diss may it was so simple it did not work and in fact some time the youngest won the race that really puzzled me all i could come up with at time and i am talking like 50 years ago is that better horses where breed later but there was something and never done it after that.
Chesham
Sire
Knocked this up last night to see how things work out following your question about foaling dates
The Nursery at Doncaster has a couple of qualifier a Boughey Horse and Karl Burke horses . Non qualifier a Godolphin horse called Pacifica Pier who won a Sandown Race 2nd LTO and the race form has worked out well . NTO was the stables 2nd string . The betting should tell you more about this horse.
The favourite is a Boughey Horse
The winner, McMurray, demonstrated a highly effective race strategy, as highlighted by a comprehensive analysis of the sectional data and Timeform comments. Despite not having the fastest early pace or the highest top speed in the race, McMurray's victory was a result of superior finishing speed and energy management.
The pace of the race was judged as Even, with the race leader finishing at 107.71% of their optimum speed. McMurray's own finish percentage was slightly lower at 108.90%, indicating a strong final effort relative to its overall race time.
Here's a breakdown of McMurray's sectional speeds and energy distribution:
Timeform's analysis reinforces the sectional data, praising McMurray's ability to finish powerfully. The comments note that McMurray was "waited with, headway when forced to switch over 1f out, quickened to lead final 50 yds, went clear." This description aligns perfectly with the sectional markers, showing a horse that accelerated late in the race to secure victory.
The Timeform rating of 82+ and a Timeform rating figure of 68 indicate that McMurray is a horse of good potential, with room for further improvement. The + symbol suggests that the horse is expected to progress from this run, which is consistent with the comments that he is "progressing well at this early stage and can continue the improvement for a while yet." The analysis also highlights his impressive pedigree, being by Mehmas out of a half-sister to Dubawi, suggesting a strong genetic foundation for future success.
In contrast, the Timeform notes for the second-place finisher, Dark Shore, mention that he was "worn down well inside the final 1f, no extra," which supports the sectional data showing his speed decreased significantly in the final moments of the race, allowing McMurray's superior finishing speed to win.
Summary of McMurray's Performance:
McMurray's win was a masterclass in tactical acceleration. While many horses may show high top speeds earlier in a race, McMurray's ability to deploy his fastest speed—the 41.34 mph top speed and 36.91 mph final speed—at the precise moment it mattered most, combined with a well-timed and patient ride, was the defining factor in his victory. The sectional data, particularly the high final speed and gallop out, provides concrete evidence to back up the Timeform comments about his impressive finishing kick.
The Nursery at Doncaster has a couple of qualifier a Boughey Horse and Karl Burke horses . Non qualifier a Godolphin horse called Pacifica Pier who won a Sandown Race 2nd LTO and the race form has worked out well . NTO was the stables 2nd string . The betting should tell you more about this horse.
The favourite is a Boughey Horse
Race Analysis: McMurray's Winning Performance
The winner, McMurray, demonstrated a highly effective race strategy, as highlighted by a comprehensive analysis of the sectional data and Timeform comments. Despite not having the fastest early pace or the highest top speed in the race, McMurray's victory was a result of superior finishing speed and energy management.
Sectional and Pace Data
The pace of the race was judged as Even, with the race leader finishing at 107.71% of their optimum speed. McMurray's own finish percentage was slightly lower at 108.90%, indicating a strong final effort relative to its overall race time.
Here's a breakdown of McMurray's sectional speeds and energy distribution:
- Final Speed: McMurray recorded the fastest final speed in the race at 36.91 mph, which is also referred to as the gallop out speed. This number represents the horse's speed as it crosses the finish line. This exceptional finishing speed is the key to McMurray's victory, as it allowed him to overcome a rival who had led for a significant portion of the race.
- Top Speed: McMurray's top speed was 41.34 mph, which was the fastest of any horse in the field. This demonstrates a potent turn of foot in the final stages of the race.
- Energy Distribution: McMurray's Energy Distribution chart shows a smooth acceleration curve, with speeds steadily increasing from the 6f marker onwards. His final sectional speeds of 111.66 (1f) and 106.37 (Fin) mph were not only the fastest in the race but also reflect a well-timed effort. The "C" grade for Efficiency Gradesuggests that while the horse was efficient, it had to dig deep to achieve its top speed and finish strongly.
Timeform Race Comments and Ratings
Timeform's analysis reinforces the sectional data, praising McMurray's ability to finish powerfully. The comments note that McMurray was "waited with, headway when forced to switch over 1f out, quickened to lead final 50 yds, went clear." This description aligns perfectly with the sectional markers, showing a horse that accelerated late in the race to secure victory.
The Timeform rating of 82+ and a Timeform rating figure of 68 indicate that McMurray is a horse of good potential, with room for further improvement. The + symbol suggests that the horse is expected to progress from this run, which is consistent with the comments that he is "progressing well at this early stage and can continue the improvement for a while yet." The analysis also highlights his impressive pedigree, being by Mehmas out of a half-sister to Dubawi, suggesting a strong genetic foundation for future success.
In contrast, the Timeform notes for the second-place finisher, Dark Shore, mention that he was "worn down well inside the final 1f, no extra," which supports the sectional data showing his speed decreased significantly in the final moments of the race, allowing McMurray's superior finishing speed to win.
Summary of McMurray's Performance:
McMurray's win was a masterclass in tactical acceleration. While many horses may show high top speeds earlier in a race, McMurray's ability to deploy his fastest speed—the 41.34 mph top speed and 36.91 mph final speed—at the precise moment it mattered most, combined with a well-timed and patient ride, was the defining factor in his victory. The sectional data, particularly the high final speed and gallop out, provides concrete evidence to back up the Timeform comments about his impressive finishing kick.
ARAZI91
Mare
Interesting points
gerry - never really paid much attention to it TBH, although might attempt a little study - one thing i didn't know, just having a look at the data over the last 5 years is that in the scheme of things a January foal is quite rare with UK trained 2yo's whilst it seems to be the norm in Ireland with the vast majority of Irish trained 2yos being foaled then - the massive difference is very surprising !!UK Trained 2yo's by Foaling Month since 2020 - only 7.6% are foaled in January
Irish Trained 2yo's by foaling Month since 2020 - approx 85% are foaled in January
trecelyn
Filly
Are horses consistent in their pregnancy cycle, humans have premature children. It must be a risky business having all these births planned for January and if born prematurely in December they will be one year old on New Years Day. I see no births registered for December so the Irish are very good with their calculations
ARAZI91
Mare
Am no expert
trecelyn but from what i've picked up i think as an industry there is a high level of consistency as the season runs from that Jan 1 onwards and would imagine that they have greater technology now to monitor the mares, better veterinary care, as well as how long they have been breeding thoroughbreds. It's been a long standing Industry. Saying that have read there can be an element of secrecy with the odd late December foal being kept back for registering. Given the % of even January foals that do not make it to the track due to the factors
Chesham mentioned (especially in a hard dark winter), then an earlier December foal would need even more care and protection.
Chesham
Sire
ARAZI91
Mare
Hi Chesham. Where do you get your Sectional and pace data from?
Chesham
Sire
Racing TV and ATR