Betsy |
02-27-2011 12:03 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
(Post 756696)
i think you're basing too much on one race, especially when the goal is a race in may. should he have run better? maybe, will he end up running poorly again? that's to be seen. but plenty of horses over the years have run up the track and then gone on to bigger and better things. birdstone, thunder gulch, charismatic who ran for a tag and won 2/3's of the triple crown. the list truly is endless.
of course, there's also a list of horses a mile long who showed promise only to fade away; he could just as easily be one of those. my only point is that it's too soon to write him off. these horses are obviously still learning and developing.
i will offer one suggestion to you tho-don't get hopeful mainly due to a horses pedigree. it's all well and good to be a fan of a horse line, but don't think bloodlines alone will be enough. plenty of good horseflesh that doesn't pan out. base your picks and hopes on ability; take any biases out of the equation. horses don't run faster because you have high hopes for them.
|
I remember Thunder Gulch as I was a huge fan, so I suppose that should be a lesson to me.
I liked THAS from the beginning due to his pedigree, but I didn't base whether I thought he was good on that. He ran a very good race in his debut and after that I thought he was very talented; I felt right after the race that Astrology would never beat him again (I love Indy, but IMO that horse is not that good). Perhaps I overrated him based on his maiden win, but then he ran very well in the Nashua. Admittedly, I wasn't all that impressed with his Remsen, but I also didn't think it was a bad race. My favorite horses are those with pedigrees I favor, but whether or not some people think so, I don't necessarily think they are good afterwards just based on their pedigrees. Believe me, there are horses out there who I would love to think are good.......but they aren't..
|