Good Lord another pletcher freak

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

I'm not sure if it is true that no horse has won the derby with such an early start. I'd like to see the data on that.

In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's ... there were 26 champions ... of all ages and sex ... who made their 2YO debuts in February, March, or April.

25 of them had full, injury-free careers ... of the 26 ... only Hail To Reason had his career compromised by injury.

The best strategy was ... is ... and always will be ... to run them early and often. Young horses must learn what it means to be professional athletes ... and must be raced into proper condition to accomplish that.

"Spacing" races and running horses "fresh" ... only produces the type of china dolls ... like Barbaro ... who can't physically or mentally handle the pressure of G1 racing.

As to Mr. Pletcher ... what else is new? He always has stables full of the best-bred horses ... and has rightfully become known as the "King Of The MSW Sprints." But when the 2YO colts have to go two turns in G1 races ... or the older colts have to go 10f ... it's bye-bye Toddie.

Every year he sets a new record for Triple Crown nominess ... and every year he comes up empty. He's a very accomplished trainer ... and a real nice guy ... but he's never developed a colt into a champion at classic distances ... though he's had several hundred opportunites to do so. Maybe some day he will ... so please wake me from my nap when he does.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Betsy

Really? Do you know for certain that there aren't any better bred horses waiting to run? They've all run already? How do you know there aren't ten two year olds better than CQ (no matter their pedigrees)? Are we all supposed to agree with you that this is the greatest two year old of the year? If so, I beg to differ. He may end up proving to be that or he may end up a dud- he may end up being somewhere in between. All I am saying is that it is VERY early in the baby season for me to be declaring this colt a champion. By the way, there have been plenty of good horses with great pedigrees, too.

Tell me how you quantify better bred?

I think he's a nice horse and we'll see what he does, who knows?

There certainly could be more talented horses though, not better bred, because that's an opinion, not a fact. If they are faster and beat him, they are more talented, not better bred.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's ... there were 26 champions ... of all ages and sex ... who made their 2YO debuts in February, March, or April.

25 of them had full, injury-free careers ... of the 26 ... only Hail To Reason had his career compromised by injury.

The best strategy was ... is ... and always will be ... to run them early and often. Young horses must learn what it means to be professional athletes ... and must be raced into proper condition to accomplish that.

"Spacing" races and running horses "fresh" ... only produces the type of china dolls ... like Barbaro ... who can't physically or mentally handle the pressure of G1 racing.

As to Mr. Pletcher ... what else is new? He always has stables full of the best-bred horses ... and has rightfully become known as the "King Of The MSW Sprints." But when the 2YO colts have to go two turns in G1 races ... or the older colts have to go 10f ... it's bye-bye Toddie.

Every year he sets a new record for Triple Crown nominess ... and every year he comes up empty. He's a very accomplished trainer ... and a real nice guy ... but he's never developed a colt into a champion at classic distances ... though he's had several hundred opportunites to do so. Maybe some day he will ... so please wake me from my nap when he does.

Horses today are much more fragile than they were back then. Drugs and breeding have left us with 2yr olds that need time to develop.

Your Barbaro "China doll" comment is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read. Get a life.

Originally Posted by Betsy

The point I was trying to make is that, IMO, it's too early to make judgments like this - babies have just started to run and no matter how talented CQ is, there could be more talented babies (or not) waiting in the wings. I have zero problem with anyone who wants to declare CQ the best, but by the same token, I would hope that people who disagree are accorded the same consideration.

The only smart thing I read on this entire thread.

[Betsy]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Tell me how you quantify better bred?

I think he's a nice horse and we'll see what he does, who knows?

There certainly could be more talented horses though, not better bred, because that's an opinion, not a fact. If they are faster and beat him, they are more talented, not better bred.

I have no problem leaving pedigree out of the equation - the horse has a very nice pedigree, period. He clearly looks like a nice colt (at the very least), so I will clarify my comments to say that there may be some more talented horses that haven't run yet....or there may not be. We won't know until the year continues to progress.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Betsy

I have no problem leaving pedigree out of the equation - the horse has a very nice pedigree, period. He clearly looks like a nice colt (at the very least), so I will clarify my comments to say that there may be some more talented horses that haven't run yet....or there may not be. We won't know until the year continues to progress.

Then I agree with that statement. I am not laying any claim to what this horse might do. My point was that just because there might be what is perceived to be "better bred" horses waiting to run, that they would beat him, they would beat him, because they were better horses.

Just so you guys know, if this horse does anything, Oracle will pull up this post and ram it down your throats, so get ready...

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Then I agree with that statement. I am not laying any claim to what this horse might do. My point was that just because there might be what is perceived to be "better bred" horses waiting to run, that they would beat him, they would beat him, because they were better horses.

Just so you guys know, if this horse does anything, Oracle will pull up this post and ram it down your throats, so get ready...

You throw enough posts out there you eventually will say something right.

Originally Posted by boldruler

Horses today are much more fragile than they were back then. Drugs and breeding have left us with 2yr olds that need time to develop.

Your Barbaro "China doll" comment is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read. Get a life.

You may be right ... do you know of any statistically reliable studies which support the proposition that today's horses are more fragile? I'd be interested in learning more ... and perhaps other Forum members would too ... if you can point us towards the right data.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Pletcher has another nice 2 year old running today in the 8th race at Churchill. Her name is Chagall. I saw her work at the FS 2 year old sale in Florida. She worked an 1/8th in :10 2/5. She looks like she can reall run. They bought her out of that sale for $825,000.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

You may be right ... do you know of any statistically reliable studies which support the proposition that today's horses are more fragile? I'd be interested in learning more ... and perhaps other Forum members would too ... if you can point us towards the right data.

I will take the word of the guys at Three Chimneys. Any study would be unreliable because they just don't run as often in their careers. The data suggests that horses careers are now shorter than they were, across all levels.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by boldruler

Horses today are much more fragile than they were back then. Drugs and breeding have left us with 2yr olds that need time to develop.

Your Barbaro "China doll" comment is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read. Get a life.

I also got a chuckle out of the Barbaro/China Doll comment. But I wouldn't think it's far dumber than some of the other comments on this thread, a couple of yours included. You've gone far out of your way to be critical of others discussing a colt's impressive debut. You were wrong about the colt being 3/5 (paid $4.20) and you're probably wrong about him being 6/5 in the Sanford.

It's really meaningless to infer or say as you did that a debut at 5.5f is useless for a 2yo in terms of prepping for his 3yo season. Next year is so far away that sort of comment sounds silly to me. It's obvious the colt was ready and Pletcher decided -- correctly -- that yesterday's race was the right place to start.

Nobody proclaimed him a Triple Crown winner. He's just a very nice colt who ran a super debut.

good luck.

[Kasept]

On the Thoro-Graph "Ask the Experts" forum, there's been a lot about this... Some of Jerry's Kids have been doing various studies, analyses on the tpoic.. Haven't seen the conclusions though...

Originally Posted by boldruler

I will take the word of the guys at Three Chimneys. Any study would be unreliable because they just don't run as often in their careers. The data suggests that horses careers are now shorter than they were, across all levels.

The shorter careers may be due to factors other than physical fragility. I'm mainly referring to racing at the G1 level.

It's clear that G1-level horses are raced far less than in the past ... but I don't think it's because they're any more fragile. In the past ... horses who began their racing careers early on ... and who raced frequently ... tended to stay sounder longer.

Maybe it was Darwinian in that they were the sounder specimens to begin with ... but I believe that being a G1 professional athlete requires extraordinary physical and mental training ... which today's horses simply aren't getting.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

The shorter careers may be due to factors other than physical fragility. I'm mainly referring to racing at the G1 level.

It's clear that G1-level horses are raced far less than in the past ... but I don't think it's because they're any more fragile. In the past ... horses who began their racing careers early on ... and who raced frequently ... tended to stay sounder longer.

Maybe it was Darwinian in that they were the sounder specimens to begin with ... but I believe that being a G1 professional athlete requires extraordinary physical and mental training ... which today's horses simply aren't getting.

Don't see how you can do a study on just G1 horses. Pletcher did just have to euthanize Venetian Sunset, one of his top 4yr olds, so there is another quality horse that went down, but I don't know if it was a bad step or just a fragile horse. I believe VS was plagued by injuries his entire career, but not positive on that one.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by boldruler

The problem with racing horses this soon is that they are running distances that are completely useless in putting any foundation in a horse. What good does a 5F race do a horse. You might as well just breeze them 5F and let them come around for the fall.

Didn't seem to hurt Secretariat, Affirmed and Alydar, et. al. The odd thing is that in the last 20 years trainers have cut back on running 2yos earlier in the year in hopes they will last longer at 3, yet it seems to be having the opposite effect. Round Table won the Keeneland SPRING meet 2yo stakes and lasted forever.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Smarty could carry his speed short and long, I don't care who a horse is by, once they prove it on the track. People that sit around and study pedigrees and carry on and on with the better bred nonsense, usually no very little else except pedigrees and who's better bred. These are the same people that said Barbaro couldn't win the Derby, because of RAN in the Dam sire line, that didn't work out so good for them....

Sorry to bust the bubble, but the people who really KNOW pedigrees had no doubt about Barbaro; his sire stayed and his dam stayed. The half-baked pedigree ideas of the average racing analyst do not reflect the opinions of the pedigree consultants to top breeders and other real experts. Check out what Avalyn Hunter wrote at the Blood-Horse (or was it TT?).

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Sorry to bust the bubble, but the people who really KNOW pedigrees had no doubt about Barbaro; his sire stayed and his dam stayed. The half-baked pedigree ideas of the average racing analyst do not reflect the opinions of the pedigree consultants to top breeders and other real experts. Check out what Avalyn Hunter wrote at the Blood-Horse (or was it TT?).

LOL, another pedigree blowhard!

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

LOL, another pedigree blowhard!

Sorry, that was uncalled for, I just have no time for the whole breeding nonsense. If I ever need a cure for insomnia, I would read that article. Ofcourse breeding is important, but to say that a certain horse will be good, based on breeding makes my headspin. I know people love to research and go back and this and that and if that's your cup of tea, go for it. Once they hit the track and show talent, it doesn't matter what their breeding is. If you go back far enough in any horses pedigree, they're probably all well bred, just because someone is willing to shell out millions doesn't make the horse a champion or well bred.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I can't wait to the Green Monkey runs, you guys will have a National Holiday....

I think you are still missing the point. A nice pedigree DOES NOT ensure good on-track performance. I don't think anybody would be foolish enough to argue that, because there are tons of brilliantly bred horses who haven't done squat. Green Monkey may be another. I am one of those that DOES think pedigree matters, but I won't be taking part in any Green Monkey Day parades. The point remains that pedigree can be an important factor in determining a horse's ability, especially his or her ability to stretch out to longer distances. Is it the only factor? Of course not. But it is A factor, which (getting back to the original point) makes this Thunder Gulch colt's debut all the more interesting.

[SentToStud]

just for fun... here's the original Cirqular Quay thread. Though he's faster and better now, I still think his maiden win was his most impressive race.