Answers to the questions we hear most from breeders, buyers, and eNicks® users.
The Werk Nick Rating® can best be described as a reflection of the effectiveness of crossing the two sire lines from which a stallion and broodmare descend. Our nick rating is not a guarantee that specific individuals will succeed or fail on the racetrack since some “A” nicks will never win a race and occasionally and “F” nick will win a stakes race. But it has proven to be a very reliable indictor over past 20 years in a business where looking for the exception instead of the rule is a formula for failure.
An important thing to remember is that while an “A” nick created from breeding a weak-pedigreed or badly-conformed mare to an equally deficient stallion might improve the chance for success of that particular stallion and mare, the overall probability for success is still minimal compared to that of higher quality individuals from the same sirelines.
To breed or purchase a thoroughbred based solely on the nick rating would be as ill-advised as breeding or purchasing a thoroughbred based solely on conformation or dosage, etc., only. The overall evaluation of potential purchases, as well as the planning of matings, is a complex proposition. With the many factors deserving consideration, it is unreasonable to expect just one to be sufficient. Consequently, an above-average nick rating must be kept in proper perspective since there are other factors that must be considered when deciding a mating or considering a prospective purchase.
Nicks can and do change with the addition of new SWs. Werk Thoroughbred Consultants adds all unrestricted SWs eligible for blacktype by International Cataloguing Standards to our database weekly and we recalculate nicks to reflect those new SWs monthly.
The variant is a calculated index on which the nick rating (letter grade) is based. The table below shows the variant scale used to assign a nick rating:
| Werk Nick | Horse | Variant |
|---|---|---|
| A++ | Superior | +1501 |
| A+ | Superb | +500 to +1500 |
| A | Outstanding | +150 to +499 |
| B+ | Very Good | +100 to +149 |
| B | Good | +50 to +99 |
| C+ | Acceptable | +16 to +49 |
| C | Average | -15 to +15 |
| D+ | Weak | -16 to -34 |
| D | Poor | -35 to -49 |
| F | Unsuccessful | -50 |
| 0 SW | Zero Stakes Winners | 0 SW |
In measuring the success a particular sire or sireline has had with a specific broodmare sire or sireline, our proprietary system compares the success of these two lines together against the success of these lines with the population as a whole. It then calculates the percentage of deviation from the norm, either positive or negative. That percentage is the variant, and that variant determines the nick rating. Here are some examples:
Example 1: Blushing Groom-line stallions have sired 2.50% of the SWs produced by Dixieland Band-line mares. So, is this a good cross, bad cross, or the norm? In this example, the cross is the norm – pretty much what you'd expect. Blushing Groom-line stallions have sired 2.25% of all SWs, so Blushing Groom line stallions sire 11% more SWs when bred to Dixieland Band-line mares than they do with the population as a whole. The Werk Nick Rating® is “C.”
Example 2: Sadler's Wells-line stallions have sired 29.89% of the SWs produced by Darshaan line mares. Is this a good cross, bad cross, or the norm? Well, this one is obvious — Sadler's Wells-line stallions have sired 1.90% of all SWs, so Sadler's Wells line stallions sire 1476% more SWs when bred to Darshaan-line mares than they do with the population as a whole. This equates to an “A+” nick. In fact, this cross has resulted in 28 SWs to date, eight of them G1 winners, including multiple Champion on two continents – High Chaparral.
A word of caution: Any variant between +150 and +499 is an “A” nick, and we consider the vast majority of all “A” nicks as indistinguishable except by reference to how specifically the rating relates to the cross at hand. For example, an A+ based on the cross of a Darshaan mare with Sadler's Wells himself would generally be regarded as more reliable than the cross of a Darshaan mare with a son of Sadler's Wells. This is why we indicate what cross provides the basis for the nick rating just below the nick rating itself on our reports.
Another word of caution: Extremely high variants are often the result of a small sireline population crossed with a small broodmare sireline population with which it has had success. This is a reflection of a smaller sample size and does not necessarily represent a mega-nick.
Our system requires a minimum of two unrestricted stakes winners (SWs) from a cross to qualify for a Werk Nick Rating®. “0 SWs” indicates there have been no unrestricted SWs within a generational distance deemed appropriate to the two sire lines involved, as determined by the sireline analysis that provides an important part of the expertise that goes into the assignment of nick ratings (see How far back do you go to assign a nick? below). There are two possible reasons why no stakes winners have resulted from the cross: 1) the cross has not been tried, or 2) the cross has been tried and has proven unsuccessful. More often than not, “0 SWs” is an indication that one or both of the sirelines are obscure or dying sirelines without much, if any, representation in the SW population.
Since we require at least two SWs to determine a nick rating, when the program has only found one SW when it reaches the limits of the sirelines involved, it calculates the variant and displays the nick rating based on the “1 SW.” The “1 SW” can also indicate a lack of long term success or a lack of opportunity.
Our nick ratings are derived from a systematic analysis of sireline pairs that have been combined in tail-male descent to the sire and dam of qualifying stakes winners. If the sire and broodmare sire have not been combined in the production of at least two stakes winners, then, in accordance with a search protocol, the system drops back along the sire and broodmare sire in search of stakes production. In principle, the system might search as far back as four generations along the sire line of the sire and/or dam, but only very rarely does the system go back that far. Obviously, the farther back the system must go, the less reliable the nick rating will be. Most of the time, stakes production has occurred within the first two or three generations, and at other times the search is prevented from going back that far by a comprehensive sireline analysis that prevents the system from yielding a nick rating that would be too far removed to be of any value. This sire-line analysis constitutes an important part of the system since, in effect, it establishes rules for the assignment of nick ratings, based on the peculiarities of individual sires and the lines from which they descend and that descend from them. The WTC staff reviews, researches, discusses, and updates this sireline analysis annually in light of new information and emerging trends in the development of all relevant sire lines.
The generational distance at which a nick rating is assigned is an extremely important variable to the reliability of the nick rating. That is why our nick rating reports provide a notation indicating at what distance qualifying stakes production from a given cross has occurred. For example, when A.P. Indy is crossed with a Mr. Prospector mare, the expression “based on the A.P. Indy-Mr. Prospector cross” is printed just below the nick rating. That same notation might appear under the nick rating for a cross involving a son of A.P. Indy and a paternal granddaughter of Mr. Prospector. In that case, the nick rating must be considered less reliable, on principle, than the former case, precisely because the sire and dam are separated from the relevant stakes production by greater generational distance. In fact, our system does not know whether that nick rating is less reliable or perhaps even more reliable. This is where consideration of other factors, such as the conformation of the sire and dam, how typical they are of the sire lines from which they descend, etc., should come into play.
The most common criticism of the Werk Nick Rating is that it ought to compare the frequency of stakes success with the frequency of foals that are bred from the cross in question. From a statistical standpoint, this seems a reasonable expectation, and it could be done very efficiently by means of sampling the annual foal population, which is the population survey approach preferred by statisticians. However, such an approach, if applied to the Thoroughbred population, would inevitably find itself comparing apples and oranges. The reasons for this are explained by Roger Lyons in an article titled “The Werk Nick Rating and its Critics” (TeamWerk 2005, pages 13-15). In it, he describes the surprising consequences of such an approach. After reading this article, you will understand exactly why the frequency of foals bred from a cross yields a misleading picture of opportunity.
The A+++ or “Triple Plus” is not just another nick rating. Nick ratings ranging from F to A++ are determined by the frequency of SWs from a cross as measured by the “variant,” just like an academic letter grade. Each grade covers a certain interval on the scale. The Triple Plus is designed in such a way as to represent only the most elite crosses.
The Triple Plus is partially determined by the variant for the cross, in the sense that only A, A+, or A++ ratings can qualify for the Triple Plus rating. In order to qualify, however, a cross must meet certain qualitative criteria beyond a certain frequency of SWs.
While WTC bases all its nick ratings on unrestricted North American stakes and blacktype-qualifying foreign stakes, a Triple Plus cross must be represented by a minimum number of stakes winners, by a minimum proportion of G1 and G2 stakes winners, and by a least one G1 stakes winner. This means that crosses rated “Triple Plus” are more likely than other nick ratings to yield runners of the highest class.
The father of dosage was Lt. Col. J.J. Vuillier, who identified stallions who showed up frequently in the pedigrees of European classic winners. He called these stallions “chefs-de-race” or “chiefs of the breed.”
Then Dr. Franco Varola introduced aptitudinal analysis to Vuillier's concept. He created five aptitudinal categories – Brilliant, Intermediate, Classic, Solid, Professional – and began to place influential stallions in the various categories by their influence on their progeny. He also created dosage diagrams with point calculations, but without distinguishing between generations.
In the late 1970's Steven Roman developed more elaborate calculations associated with dosage profiles. Using just the first four generations, he assigned points given a particular chef by generation – 1st: 16 points, 2nd: 8 points, 3rd: 4 points, and 4th: 2 points. He then created the DI (dosage index) and the CD (center of distribution). Both indexes measure speed vs. stamina in a pedigree. Basically, the higher the DI and CD, the more speed and less stamina an individual will have. The lower the DI and CD, the less speed and more stamina a runner will have. Currently, Roman's chef list includes 209 stallions.
Leon Rasmussen began to feature Roman's dosage concepts in his Daily Racing Form column Bloodlines. Roman had shown that no horse had ever won the Kentucky Derby with a DI of over 4.00. Dosage's popularity grew like wild fire throughout the 1980's as every top contender, including several strong favorites, with DI's over 4.00 lost the Kentucky Derby. Along the way, dosage became something that it was not really intended by Roman to be – a “theory” to plan matings.
But, the 1990's proved to be demise of the Derby/dosage mystique when three of the 10 Kentucky Derby winners had DI's over 4.00 – Strike the Gold (DI: 9.00) in 1991, Real Quiet (DI 5.29) in 1998, and Charismatic (DI: 5.22) in 1999. It happened again in 2005 when Giacomo (DI: 4.33) won the Derby.
For a complete explanation of the Roman system of dosage, you can visit Dr. Steven Roman's website at dosage.online.
This is a question we are often asked. The answer is a qualified no. Does it really matter whether you win the Breeders' Cup Sprint or the Breeders' Cup Classic? Of course, there is more money and prestige with the Classic, but isn't the idea to breed a top stakes-caliber racehorse, regardless of how far it can go? Roman's Dosage was never meant to be used to select the best stallion for a particular mare.
Nevertheless, if a breeder has a mare with a stamina-laden pedigree, a stallion should be selected who adds some speed to a prospective foal's pedigree, and visa versa. To this extent, dosage can be useful in mating decisions.
We believe the dosage has limited value, at best, when it comes to selecting the ideal stallion for a mare, as well as for identifying potentially superior runners at auction. It is no question that the racing class of a thoroughbred is greatly influenced by the quality of the ancestors that comprise his or her pedigree. With a few notable exceptions, chefs-de-race stallions not only pass on identifiable altitudinal influence to their progeny, but also superior racing class.
Because most chefs-de-race are named during the twilight years of their stud careers (and often after they are dead), stallions such as Storm Cat and A.P. Indy have not yet been named a chef-de-race, and based on Roman's dosage system, there is no guarantee that they ever will be. At the same time, it is undeniable that Storm Cat and A.P. Indy transmit superior racing class to their offspring.
Consequently, we developed and maintain a list of what we identify as Quality chefs. These are stallions we have determined transmit superior racing class and are dominant influences in pedigrees. Not only do they include the likes of Storm Cat and A.P. Indy, but also the most important sire influences of Australia and South America, where few such stallions have been assigned chef-de-race status by the Roman dosage system.
We have done numerous studies over the years in an attempt to discover a correlation between dosage and superior racing stock. The one and only factor we have found that appears to influence the racing class of thoroughbreds is the total dosage points of individual stakes winners, as the chart below shows:
| Level of Achievement | Total Points |
|---|---|
| Grade 1 & 2 SWs | 36.5 |
| Grade 3 SWs | 34.8 |
| Ungraded SWs | 30.4 |
| Commercial Sample | 26.5 |
Using our Quality chef designation, Storm Cat and A.P. Indy now contribute 16 dosage points as the sire of an individual, eight points if he is the grandsire, etc. When Quality points (QP) contributed by such deserving sires are combined with Roman dosage points, the total points tend to more accurately reflect the overall class in a pedigree. If and when a Quality chef stallion is assigned chef-de-race status by the Roman dosage system, his Quality chef designation (Q) is replaced with the Roman dosage system's aptitudinal designation (B, I, C, S, or P). Because our “total dosage points” is the combination of dosage points and quality points, the change in status does not affect total points.
View a current list of the Werk Thoroughbred Consultant's 172 Quality chefs ›
The Quality Chefs in a pedigree contribute quality points (QP) in exactly the same way as Roman chefs-de-race contribute dosage points (DP) — 16 points if a chef appears in the first generation of a pedigree; eight points if appearing in the second generation; four points if appearing in the third generation; and two point if appearing in the fourth generation.
The maximum number of points possible for any thorougbred 64 and the minimum number is zero. It is extremely rare to find a pedigree with either of these extremes. This chart gives a breakdown of how the Quality Rating is determined.
| Total Points | Quality Rating |
|---|---|
| 0 | Q0 |
| 1 to 4 | Q1 |
| 5 to 9 | Q2 |
| 10 to 14 | Q3 |
| 15 to 19 | Q4 |
| 20 to 24 | Q5 |
| 25 to 29 | Q6 |
| 30 to 39 | Q7 |
| 40 to 44 | Q8 |
| 45 to 54 | Q9 |
| 55 + | Q10 |
On a weekly basis, we track stakes winners worldwide and evaluate their pedigrees from a variety of perspectives. Year in and year out and almost without fail, we find that ungraded SWs on average have more total dosage points than the general population; that graded SWs more than ungraded SWs; that G2 winners more than G3 winners; and that G1 winners more than G2 winners.
| Level of Achievement | Total Points | Quality Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Grade 1 SWs | 37.5 | Q7 |
| Grade 2 SWs | 35.9 | Q7 |
| Grade 3 SWs | 34.8 | Q7 |
| Ungraded SWs | 30.4 | Q7 |
| Commercial Sample | 26.5 | Q6 |
With regard to mating decisions, it can be useful as a tie-breaker if your final decision is between to two or three stallions, but NOT as a factor to eliminate stallions initially.
Also, don't forget that the maximum number of points a stallion can contribute is 40 (extremely rare) and a mare 24. So, if all of your potential matings yield low points and a low quality rating, it is likely that your mare is making a small contribution.
With regards to purchases (weanlings, yearlings, 2yos in-training, and breeding stock), we believe the Quality Points and Rating have some utility as an identifier of class. But again, we do not recommend you use these as a way to eliminate your potential purchases, but rather as one more positive factor for those horses who meet your other criteria.
Remember, Roman dosage and our Quality Chefs, points, and ratings, are not without flaws. Both are subjective and both are always going to be the victim of reverse engineering.
If a particular mare's pedigree is not in our data base, you have the facility to enter it yourself. The pedigrees you enter become unique to your account. WTC can not access your account and correct mistakes you might make in pedigrees. Once you enter a pedigree incorrectly and saved, that pedigree will remain in your account. If a particular mare's pedigree is subsequently entered by WTC, then both pedigrees will display when accessing eNicks through your account.
Be careful when entering a stallion's name. If you enter a stallion's name and the program does not find it, double check the spelling, especially if it is an obvious stallion (IE Conquistador Cielo).
If you do not have a complete five generation pedigree on a particular mare you want to enter, we will be happy to provide you with the information by calling (510) 490-1111 or emailing the request to wtc@werkhorse.com.
Please remember, WTC's nick ratings do not work for Quarter Horses or Standardbreds. You will enter the pedigree and get a response of NF (Not Found).
The Werk Nick Rating with 5-cross pedigrees you create are stored for seven day in your account history. By clicking on the “My Account” button on the left panel of the web page, you can access all them you've created over the past seven days.
Many regular users create a folder on their desktop and save their Werk Nick Rating/5-cross pedigrees on their computer.
It is not necessary to add country identification codes, such as Bold Lad (IRE), or II or 2nd, such as Nijinsky II, in order to find the correct horse. In ALL cases it is best to enter JUST the name of the horse, without anything after it. Here are some examples: