Ghostzapper charts

[31lengths]

Anyone know where I can get Ghostzapper charts or stats?

Thanks, Leo

[todko]

Originally Posted by 31lengths

Anyone know where I can get Ghostzapper charts or stats?

Thanks, Leo

Brisnet.com will have them. Check out Pedigrees and Lifetime Starts. They won't have the Beyer figs but what's the use of the Beyer figs anyway?

[1st_Saturday_in_May]

Met Mile
BC Classic
Woodward
Iselin
Vosburgh
Kings Bishop

Lifetime PPs

Sorry I couldnt find more...

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by 1st_Saturday_in_May

Met Mile
BC Classic
Woodward
Iselin
Vosburgh
Kings Bishop

Lifetime PPs

Sorry I couldnt find more...

thanks for putting that up.
geez he left a few in his wake didn't he?

[31lengths]

Originally Posted by 1st_Saturday_in_May

Met Mile
BC Classic
Woodward
Iselin
Vosburgh
Kings Bishop

Lifetime PPs

Sorry I couldnt find more...

Great...thanks. I saw an ad last week touting his diverse wins. I can't remember the difference in distances (thats why I'm looking for these) but didnt he win at 6 1/2, 7 1/2 and 1 1/4 and so on ?

[avance2000]

it is still fun to look at numbers like that sometimes.
in his last 5 races he had 4 beyer figs that exceeded 120. the one race where he didn't he only ran a 114 and beat future hoy saint liam.
not a bad string of races to end a career.

[Revolution]

Brilliant career but his races are so spaced apart that it is impossible to consider him a great horse. He raced at 2, 3, 4 and 5 and had a total of 11 career races. I doubt he would have been able to race as quickly if he raced more than 1x every 4 months. Who is to say other top horses couldn't have done the same if they raced so infrequently.

People like to make him out to be Dr. Fager who could win at any distance, but Dr. Fager could win at any distance and do it regularly. He did not need months off between each start.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by 31lengths

Great...thanks. I saw an ad last week touting his diverse wins. I can't remember the difference in distances (thats why I'm looking for these) but didnt he win at 6 1/2, 7 1/2 and 1 1/4 and so on ?

Vosburgh-G1: 6.5F
Tom Fool-G2: 7F
Met Mile-G1: 8F
Iselin-G3: 9F
Woodward-G1: 9F
BC Classic-G1: 10F

Originally Posted by philcski

Vosburgh-G1: 6.5F
Tom Fool-G2: 7F
Met Mile-G1: 8F
Iselin-G3: 9F
Woodward-G1: 9F
BC Classic-G1: 10F

Ghostzapper is a horse who easily could have been undefeated.
His two losses had very legitimate and valid excuses.
Back on our old board at ESPN I wrote a post after his debut in which I proclaimed him to be the next coming.
In his 2nd start he was injured, jammed up a foot, which necessitated his layoff.
In his Kings Bishop loss the track bias was a as crazy powerful towards inside speed as any you will ever see. It the was the kinda bias where even real novices were aware of it early in the card.
He rallied so powerfully against it that you just knew what he was gonna do afterwards.
His Vosburgh was something to watch, boy was that some race.
Though his 4 year old campaign was short in terms of number of races, it was even better in hindsight than it was appreciated for at the time. I myself was worried and not convinced he could go a mile and a quarter after his hard fought Woodward. What we didn't know at the time was that St Liam had turned the corner into a special racehorse during his long layoff that preceeded the Woodward. His BCC win over Roses In May was incredible. he missed going in 1:58:4 by a few hundredths of a second, or by the increased wind resistance of Javier standing up and pumping his fist back and forth down the lane.
His Met Mile may have been his best race though, just an incredible display of sheer power and speed off that long layoff, wow.
Its gonna be hard to see another one as special as him anytime soon.

[Sightseek]

Pity that lightning didn't strike twice with Aristocrat.

Originally Posted by Revolution

Brilliant career but his races are so spaced apart that it is impossible to consider him a great horse. He raced at 2, 3, 4 and 5 and had a total of 11 career races. I doubt he would have been able to race as quickly if he raced more than 1x every 4 months. Who is to say other top horses couldn't have done the same if they raced so infrequently.

People like to make him out to be Dr. Fager who could win at any distance, but Dr. Fager could win at any distance and do it regularly. He did not need months off between each start.

This is nonsense, all of it.
Criticizing Ghostzapper for running sparingly would be like criticizing Barbaro for never racing again or Don Mattingly or Bo Jackson for retiring early.
Newsflash, these things ain't machines. They are flesh and blood living creatures with a tendency to have physical problems.
He wasn't raced sparingly to set up an easy schedule, he had all sorts of physical issues and racing him back to back on short rest would have meant an early breeding shed for him.
Frankel's training job with him is 2nd only to Shug's job with Personal Ensign in my mind as the two greatest training jobs I've ever seen.
Despite the fact that he had these issues and couldn't be trained hard, or raced quick enough back to maintain form and fitness off racing(which is MUCH easier than training one of a layoff, despite what some knuckleheads may tell you), he won at all 4 ages you mentioned, and did so against teh very best of his contempoaries and at all distances and at SA, saratoga, Belmont, Monmouth, and Lone Star.
Fact is that without the problems that necessitated the abbreviated schedule, he would have been even faster and better.
I don't need to see a horse run a million times to evaluate them anyway. What else exactly did he need to prove to be considered great?

[jpops757]

Originally Posted by oracle80

This is nonsense, all of it.
Criticizing Ghostzapper for running sparingly would be like criticizing Barbaro for never racing again or Don Mattingly or Bo Jackson for retiring early.
Newsflash, these things ain't machines. They are flesh and blood living creatures with a tendency to have physical problems.
He wasn't raced sparingly to set up an easy schedule, he had all sorts of physical issues and racing him back to back on short rest would have meant an early breeding shed for him.
Frankel's training job with him is 2nd only to Shug's job with Personal Ensign in my mind as the two greatest training jobs I've ever seen.
Despite the fact that he had these issues and couldn't be trained hard, or raced quick enough back to maintain form and fitness off racing(which is MUCH easier than training one of a layoff, despite what some knuckleheads may tell you), he won at all 4 ages you mentioned, and did so against teh very best of his contempoaries and at all distances and at SA, saratoga, Belmont, Monmouth, and Lone Star.
Fact is that without the problems that necessitated the abbreviated schedule, he would have been even faster and better.
I don't need to see a horse run a million times to evaluate them anyway. What else exactly did he need to prove to be considered great?

I guess you could call him a specialist, and that was winning. It made no differance the distance or the venue. He wasnt perfect but oh so close.

Originally Posted by jpops757

I guess you could call him a specialist, and that was winning. It made no differance the distance or the venue. He wasnt perfect but oh so close.

He was a foot injury and a monster track bias away from being just that.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by avance2000

it is still fun to look at numbers like that sometimes.
in his last 5 races he had 4 beyer figs that exceeded 120. the one race where he didn't he only ran a 114 and beat future hoy saint liam.
not a bad string of races to end a career.

The 114 was a BS number anyways. they dropped it about 6-7 points because they weren't convinced SL was "worthy" of a higher number.
He actually ran closer to a 121.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Ghostzapper is a horse who easily could have been undefeated.
His two losses had very legitimate and valid excuses.
Back on our old board at ESPN I wrote a post after his debut in which I proclaimed him to be the next coming.In his 2nd start he was injured, jammed up a foot, which necessitated his layoff.
In his Kings Bishop loss the track bias was a as crazy powerful towards inside speed as any you will ever see. It the was the kinda bias where even real novices were aware of it early in the card.
He rallied so powerfully against it that you just knew what he was gonna do afterwards.
His Vosburgh was something to watch, boy was that some race.
Though his 4 year old campaign was short in terms of number of races, it was even better in hindsight than it was appreciated for at the time. I myself was worried and not convinced he could go a mile and a quarter after his hard fought Woodward. What we didn't know at the time was that St Liam had turned the corner into a special racehorse during his long layoff that preceeded the Woodward. His BCC win over Roses In May was incredible. he missed going in 1:58:4 by a few hundredths of a second, or by the increased wind resistance of Javier standing up and pumping his fist back and forth down the lane.
His Met Mile may have been his best race though, just an incredible display of sheer power and speed off that long layoff, wow.
Its gonna be hard to see another one as special as him anytime soon.

I'll tell ya, i happened to be @ Belmont for his comeback race at 3, and it was beyond jaw-dropping. I wish i could find a video of it. He was beaten at least 8 lengths at the top of the stretch in a 6F sprint, and went by them all in a pole without Javier even touching him to win by open lengths. It was truly stunning.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by philcski

The 114 was a BS number anyways. they dropped it about 6-7 points because they weren't convinced SL was "worthy" of a higher number.
He actually ran closer to a 121.

I don't remember them dropping that Beyer. If they did, they dropped it very quickly.

As wide as St Liam took Ghostzapper around the turn, and as much as they leaned on each other down the stretch, I thought the 114 was as good as any of the 120's.

I lost a prop bet that day that Ghostzapper would win by a certain amount of daylight, but I came out of the race with huge respect for both horses.

--Dunbar

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Ghostzapper is a horse who easily could have been undefeated.
His two losses had very legitimate and valid excuses.
Back on our old board at ESPN I wrote a post after his debut in which I proclaimed him to be the next coming.
In his 2nd start he was injured, jammed up a foot, which necessitated his layoff.
In his Kings Bishop loss the track bias was a as crazy powerful towards inside speed as any you will ever see. It the was the kinda bias where even real novices were aware of it early in the card.
He rallied so powerfully against it that you just knew what he was gonna do afterwards.
His Vosburgh was something to watch, boy was that some race.
Though his 4 year old campaign was short in terms of number of races, it was even better in hindsight than it was appreciated for at the time. I myself was worried and not convinced he could go a mile and a quarter after his hard fought Woodward. What we didn't know at the time was that St Liam had turned the corner into a special racehorse during his long layoff that preceeded the Woodward. His BCC win over Roses In May was incredible. he missed going in 1:58:4 by a few hundredths of a second, or by the increased wind resistance of Javier standing up and pumping his fist back and forth down the lane.
His Met Mile may have been his best race though, just an incredible display of sheer power and speed off that long layoff, wow.
Its gonna be hard to see another one as special as him anytime soon.

Very well written. Loved the Javier/wind resistance image.

This is the 2nd recent horse-tribute post of yours that I've enjoyed quite a bit. (Holy Bull was the other)

--Dunbar

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I don't remember them dropping that Beyer. If they did, they dropped it very quickly.

As wide as St Liam took Ghostzapper around the turn, and as much as they leaned on each other down the stretch, I thought the 114 was as good as any of the 120's.

I lost a prop bet that day that Ghostzapper would win by a certain amount of daylight, but I came out of the race with huge respect for both horses.

--Dunbar

The number was published initially too low, then admitted by Beyer to be a single race variant. The times for the day were:

NYB MSW 2YO fillies @ 7F: 1:26.51
CLM 20K @ 6F: 1:10.73
MSW 3U fillies @ 1 mile: 1:38.10
MSW 2YO's @ 6.5F: 1:17.25
CLM 50K @ 1 mile: 1:36.72
MSW 2YO's @ 6.5F: 1:17.59 - won by Reverberate
ALW 3U fillies @ 7F: 1:23.37
The Gazelle G1 @ 9F: 1:48.25 - won by Stellar Jayne
The Woodward G1 @ 9F: 1:46.38 (:45.70, 1:08.75, 1:33.35 fractions!)

My figures were (approx Beyer):
85 (51)
102.2 (75)
97.7 (68)
102.1 (75)
107.0 (82.6)
99.8 (71.7)
106.2 (80.7)
116.1 (99.4)
129.4 (122)

[Buffymommy]

I just hope they are breeding him to strongly sound mares.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by oracle80

This is nonsense, all of it.
Criticizing Ghostzapper for running sparingly would be like criticizing Barbaro for never racing again or Don Mattingly or Bo Jackson for retiring early.
Newsflash, these things ain't machines. They are flesh and blood living creatures with a tendency to have physical problems.
He wasn't raced sparingly to set up an easy schedule, he had all sorts of physical issues and racing him back to back on short rest would have meant an early breeding shed for him.
Frankel's training job with him is 2nd only to Shug's job with Personal Ensign in my mind as the two greatest training jobs I've ever seen.
Despite the fact that he had these issues and couldn't be trained hard, or raced quick enough back to maintain form and fitness off racing(which is MUCH easier than training one of a layoff, despite what some knuckleheads may tell you), he won at all 4 ages you mentioned, and did so against teh very best of his contempoaries and at all distances and at SA, saratoga, Belmont, Monmouth, and Lone Star.
Fact is that without the problems that necessitated the abbreviated schedule, he would have been even faster and better.
I don't need to see a horse run a million times to evaluate them anyway. What else exactly did he need to prove to be considered great?

You say "fact is that without the problems that necessitate the abbreviated schedule, he would have been even faster and better". How do you know this? The fact is he did have an abbreviated schedule. 11 races in 4 years.

Nobody is criticizing Ghostzapper. Learn how to read. The point is he can never be a great horse. Injury or whatever, he didn't race enough.

Your comments "fact is that without the problems" means nothing. He had problems. There are no excuses when talking about greatness. You either achieve it or you don't. The sports world is full of athletes that were just short of greatness for one reason or another. Putting a horse like Ghostzapper in the category with the great horses is an insult to them. Let's stop cheapening the word greatness. Invasor is 9 for 10. Discreet Cat is 5-5. Neither of them is great yet either.