Blind Luck

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

Thats my point, and he knocks Z daily.

Joey can speak for himself, but it's the connections and the a.ssholery that we get from her legion of fans that is easy to knock daily.

I am of the opinion that she's lost a step this year but that's for a different thread/topic.

NT

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

This is why I can't talk to you.

Im starting to like talking to you.... I think we are making progress.
Im not a Blind Luck fan, Im not bashing her. I think she is OK...
What else can I say?

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Joey can speak for himself, but it's the connections and the a.ssholery that we get from her legion of fans that is easy to knock daily.

I am of the opinion that she's lost a step this year but that's for a different thread/topic.

NT

OMG please dont start, she has not lost anything. She will take Blame apart. She gets beat if she gets a bad trip, and thats possible with Mike Smith, or if a horse like Quality Road freaks out on the front end... I am to the point where, I was always a fan of Z and Rachel, I just thought Z was better, but now I am starting to hate everyone else and praying Z just wipes them all out so everyone can STFU.

I'm kinda hoping Z collapses right before the wire and Mrs. Moss projectile vomits on Mr. Moss while he simultaneously has a massive heart attack and then they instantaneously self-combust.


Just so their worst fears will come true...not because I want them to die.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

OMG please dont start, she has not lost anything. She will take Blame apart. She gets beat if she gets a bad trip, and thats possible with Mike Smith, or if a horse like Quality Road freaks out on the front end... I am to the point where, I was always a fan of Z and Rachel, I just thought Z was better, but now I am starting to hate everyone else and praying Z just wipes them all out so everyone can STFU.

But that's the lesson that Blind Luck teaches us. Even a superior against-the-grain runner like BL has lost. In particular, she's lost on POLY, where it's a lot harder to go against the grain. And she's 4 for 4 on dirt where it's MUCH EASIER to do so. Hard to believe that those that appreciate what BL does can't make the next step and REALLY APPRECIATE what Z does. Z would CRUSH her on POLY -- and certainly on dirt --- with comparable setups/trips. As much as has been made about Z's last race, BL doesn't win with that setup. Has Z lost a step? Who knows? Just give her clear sailing and (reasonably) enough time and she'll run ANYTHING down.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

But that's the lesson that Blind Luck teaches us. Even a superior against-the-grain runner like BL has lost. In particular, she's lost on POLY, where it's a lot harder to go against the grain. And she's 4 for 4 on dirt where it's MUCH EASIER to do so. Hard to believe that those that appreciate what BL does can't make the next step and REALLY APPRECIATE what Z does. Z would CRUSH her on POLY -- and certainly on dirt --- with comparable setups/trips. As much as has been made about Z's last race, BL doesn't win with that setup. Has Z lost a step? Who knows? Just give her clear sailing and (reasonably) enough time and she'll run ANYTHING down.

On what planet is it easier to overcome a slow pace on dirt than on synthetic?

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

On what planet is it easier to overcome a slow pace on dirt than on synthetic?

On the same planet where, to here the intelligencia on it, jocks INTENTIONALLY slow their horses down early so they can make a late run.

Think about how many 'mediocre' poly horses do well on dirt; then consider the opposite.

P.S. the set of PACE (slow or fast) is a SUBSET of the setup set. Thinking of races only in terms of PACE means that you're not considering ALL the possible cases.

[ateamstupid]

A horse who's last behind a slow pace on synthetic is in much better shape than one who's last behind a slow pace on dirt. And a loose leader is far more dangerous on dirt than on synthetic. Synthetic has many of the same pace-neutralizing attributes that turf does. I'm not really sure how you can dispute that.

Most 'poly' horses who do well on dirt are types with tactical speed which is rendered useless on the 'level playing field' of synthetic. Hardly ever to we see deep closers run better on dirt than on synthetic.

[the_fat_man]

I think that there are some synthetic generalizations that just aren't supported anymore. Last year, I argued that WO was a very fair track, in the sense that closers weren't penalized by slow paces (or minimal move races) and it was very difficult for speed to wire. This hasn't been the case as much this year, where speed seems to have as good a chance as closers. And, certainly, HOL and SA aren't exactly more favorable to late runners than they are to speed.

I think where confusion comes into to play is when we group UNFAIR (speed favoring) dirt tracks in with dirt tracks in general. Clearly, CRC, TAM, FG, even CD, among others, are as, if not more, favorable to closers than they are to front runners. And, when these tracks get wet, while speed holds on the speed favoring dirt tracks, races are much more prone to collapse on fair ones. As a result, there are, as best as I can determine, significantly more wipeouts on dirt, in particular OFF dirt tracks, than there are on poly and turf, where, additionally, and certainly beyond argument, you have much smaller gaps between the fields at the finish.

Horses that run a high number of wipeouts in relation to their overall races, like Z, and BL, to a much smaller extent, do so more easily on dirt because horses are more prone to come back on dirt, fair dirt, that is, than they are on poly, where they're much more bunched during the running of the race, and at the finish.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

A horse who's last behind a slow pace on synthetic is in much better shape than one who's last behind a slow pace on dirt. And a loose leader is far more dangerous on dirt than on synthetic. Synthetic has many of the same pace-neutralizing attributes that turf does. I'm not really sure how you can dispute that.

Most 'poly' horses who do well on dirt are types with tactical speed which is rendered useless on the 'level playing field' of synthetic. Hardly ever to we see deep closers run better on dirt than on synthetic.

I think it all depends on the circumstances (who is in the race and the way the track is playing). There are plenty of times when a deep closer in a race with no pace is better off on dirt than synthetic or grass.

If you're a deep closer on synthetic or grass, there is no way you're going to be able to win one of those races where the front runners sprint home and run their final 1/8th of a mile in under 11 seconds. You see that sometimes on synthetic and grass. That's never going to happen on the dirt. You'll never see the final 1/8th of a mile run in :10 3/5 on the dirt, yet you see that sometimes on synthetic and grass. On the dirt, the front runners will almost never break 12 seconds for the final 1/8th.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think it all depends on the circumstances (who is in the race and the way the track is playing). There are plenty of times when a deep closer in a race with no pace is better off on dirt than synthetic or grass.

If you're a deep closer on synthetic or grass, there is no way you're going to be able to win one of those races where the front runners sprint home and run their final 1/8th of a mile in under 11 seconds. You see that sometimes on synthetic and grass. That's never going to happen on the dirt. You'll never see the final 1/8th of a mile run in :10 3/5 on the dirt, yet you see that sometimes on synthetic and grass. On the dirt, the front runners will almost never break 12 seconds for the final 1/8th.

This may be true, but by the same token, closers can run final 3/8 way quicker on synthetic than they can on dirt. The nature of synthetic racing rewards turn of foot rather than consistent tactical speed. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule, but that's generally the case.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

This may be true, but by the same token, closers can run final 3/8 way quicker on synthetic than they can on dirt. The nature of synthetic racing rewards turn of foot rather than consistent tactical speed. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule, but that's generally the case.

I agree that turn of foot is obviously much more important on grass and synthetic than dirt. They sometimes will sprint home that final quarter of a mile in both grass and synthetic racing. You don't see that on dirt.

There are days on synthetic tracks where having an easy lead in slow fractions isn't even an advantage. That first meet with syntetic at Del Mar, you would tehm run the half in :51 and a horse would win from dead-last. It didn't make any sense. All conventional wisdom was thrown out the window the way that track was playing that meet.

But I think it's tough to generalize because not all syntetic tracks play the same and not all dirt tracks play the same. Even one track will play different from day to day. I've seen days at Saratoga over the years when there is a fairly big speed-bias and I've seen other days there where there is an anti-speed bias.

When it comes to Zenyatta, I actually think she is much more vulnerable on synthetic than dirt when she's running against weak competiton. She's had a few races that she barely won where the horses in front of her were sprinting home and they were hard to catch. I don't think Z would have that problem against those types of horses on dirt.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

She will turn out better than Rags.

OMG

[Indian Charlie]

I firmly believe that the 1-2 finishers from the Acorn a couple of years ago, Zaftig and a smartly ridden Indian Blessing, would have absolutely slaughtered Blind Luck at any distance up to 9f.

Rags would have beaten her from any distance ranging from 6f to 20f.

Proud Spell would have handled BL as well.

Blind Luck, to me, is much like an Octave, just in a really weak year.

[westcoastinvader]

Originally Posted by PSH

Good to see a local NoCal trainer make good.
Jerry is a hard working, clean (appears to be) trainer who has dominated over the years at Golden Gate and Bay Meadows and has now become a fixture down in SO Cal. He is not afraid to ship his good horses to wherever to compete and has a fine record in shipping the good horses to win major stake races.....

PSH

Yep, I'm a big Hollendorfer fan. Came to California from the dark shadows of Northeastern Ohio's Thistledown when he was in his early 20's.

Self made guy who started as a groom at Bay Meadows way back.

Two of my most enjoyable days of racing attendance in my life were at Del Mar a few seasons ago. Jerry Hollendorfer did the late morning track side handicapping Q&A on Saturday, and Andy Beyer did the same on Sunday.

Obviously Hollendorfer horses get bet down, and he's positioned himself to get good stock against the competition.

But to the best of my knowledge, no one just "gave it" to him.

It's a common sight to see him as the only person in the paddock with his horse, and he handles the whole regimen solo. Blue collar guy, I believe.

[ateamstupid]

Zaftig is another horse I wish didn't have such a short career. She could've been a real beast.

[RockHardTen1985]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I firmly believe that the 1-2 finishers from the Acorn a couple of years ago, Zaftig and a smartly ridden Indian Blessing, would have absolutely slaughtered Blind Luck at any distance up to 9f.

Rags would have beaten her from any distance ranging from 6f to 20f.

Proud Spell would have handled BL as well.

Blind Luck, to me, is much like an Octave, just in a really weak year.

I agree Indian Blessing was a monster.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

But that's the lesson that Blind Luck teaches us. Even a superior against-the-grain runner like BL has lost. In particular, she's lost on POLY, where it's a lot harder to go against the grain. And she's 4 for 4 on dirt where it's MUCH EASIER to do so. Hard to believe that those that appreciate what BL does can't make the next step and REALLY APPRECIATE what Z does. Z would CRUSH her on POLY -- and certainly on dirt --- with comparable setups/trips. As much as has been made about Z's last race, BL doesn't win with that setup. Has Z lost a step? Who knows? Just give her clear sailing and (reasonably) enough time and she'll run ANYTHING down.

I would disagree as you know. On dirt, Z's total lack of early speed is going to be a detriment on dirt. Blind Luck, while a similar style, is able to maintain closer contact in my opinion on dirt. That very attribute is what caused her to lose a few times on rubber.

You can pretend the surfaces are the same all you want, it just isn't so.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Zaftig is another horse I wish didn't have such a short career. She could've been a real beast.

Yep.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I firmly believe that the 1-2 finishers from the Acorn a couple of years ago, Zaftig and a smartly ridden Indian Blessing, would have absolutely slaughtered Blind Luck at any distance up to 9f.

Rags would have beaten her from any distance ranging from 6f to 20f.

Proud Spell would have handled BL as well.

Blind Luck, to me, is much like an Octave, just in a really weak year.

What's interesting to me about these internet head-to-head discussions, and I'm not specifically saying you did it here, is that horses are pitted against one another and the one from yesteryear is used solely based on one, maybe two races. How else has Candy Ride become such an internet all-time great sensation?

There's also a big difference between Blind Luck and Octave. Blind Luck knows how to win.

NT