Afleet Alex

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by miraja2

He ran in the SA Derby huh? Well how did he finish?

Smarty Jones won more stakes races and earned more money than Charismatic. Based on that criteria I would say he had a better year. I ask you is there any criteria in which one could argue that Charismatic had a better year?

He ran 4th in the SA Derby, not bad, considering General Challenge was a monster in California.

Not better, but not worse either, they are both the same in the criteria that would be used for HOY...

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Well if you want to get technical about it they were not equal in graded stakes. Smarty Jones finished second in the graded stakes race he didn't win, while Charasmatic finished third.
Obviously graded stakes victories is probably the most important criteria used in determining HOY. But if all things are equal in that category - as they are here - other criteria are used. Criteria like total stakes won, money earned, finishes in other graded stakes races etc. In ALL of those categories SJ is better than Char.

That's exactly my point to mindlessly write off Charismatic, without looking at how close they really were, is revisionist.

I like to bring some reality to the situation...

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

There are so many things to consider here. First off Alex was a very very good horse. But also keep in mind that he was running in the MRLS year. The competition was diluted to say the least. But he still won and he looked good doing it.

In my opinion, The Breeders Cup is bad for racing when you look at older horses. Also too much emphasis is put on a Breeders Cup win for older horses. This is why we only see the best older horses racing 5 times a year. Without the Breeders Cup we would see more and more older horses running earlier in the year.

Horse of the Year is a joke of an award. I have been sour on the award ever since Favorite Trick won the award.

IMO Alex wouldnt have even come close to St Liam in the Classic. In fact, I dont think he would have been Flower Alley. I would even go as far as saying that 3 year olds should not be running against older horses.

Afleet Alex was a much better horse than Flower Alley. They weren't even in the same league. AA was amazing. Did you not see the time of the work off of that huge layoff just before they officially retired him? By God, that horse could run. There is no doubt in my mind that AA would have won the BC Classic had he run. He would have ran right by those two because Ritchey and Jeremy finally figured the horse out. If they would have figured out the horse one race sooner, we would be looking at a TC winner.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Afleet Alex was a much better horse than Flower Alley. They weren't even in the same league. AA was amazing. Did you not see the time of the work off of that huge layoff just before they officially retired him? By God, that horse could run. There is no doubt in my mind that AA would have won the BC Classic had he run. He would have ran right by those two because Ritchey and Jeremy finally figured the horse out.

I don't agree, Jessica. TIME in a work means little... it's HOW the horse worked. I don't think AA would have come close to St. Liam.

[slotdirt]

St. Liam was so obviously a dog because he managed to only lose to Ghostzapper - another obvious nag - by a neck in the Clark in 2004.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

He ran 4th in the SA Derby, not bad, considering General Challenge was a monster in California.

Not better, but not worse either, they are both the same in the criteria that would be used for HOY...

Okay this is where you are wrong. They are not "the same in criteria that would be used for HOY." You act like the # of graded stakes wins is the ONLY criteria they use. It isn't. They also consider other things and in ALL of those other things Smarty Jones beats Charismatic. I am not saying that Charismatic didn't deserve HOY in '99, or that he wasn't a good horse or anything like that. At the end of the year they don't simply tally up the graded stakes wins and give HOY to whoever has the most, or declare a 4 way tie if 4 horses have the same number of graded stakes wins. THEY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OTHER THINGS!!!!
Finishing second in the Belmont is better then finishing third.
Winning 6 stakes races is better than winning 3.
etc.

If you objectively look at the two horses' entire years, it is kind of silly to say "There is absolutely no difference whatsoever. They both had the exact same year." The only way you can say that is if you look EXCLUSIVELY at their number of graded stakes wins....which doesn't make sense.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Okay this is where you are wrong. They are not "the same in criteria that would be used for HOY." You act like the # of graded stakes wins is the ONLY criteria they use. It isn't. They also consider other things and in ALL of those other things Smarty Jones beats Charismatic. I am not saying that Charismatic didn't deserve HOY in '99, or that he wasn't a good horse or anything like that. At the end of the year they don't simply tally up the graded stakes wins and give HOY to whoever has the most, or declare a 4 way tie if 4 horses have the same number of graded stakes wins. THEY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OTHER THINGS!!!!
Finishing second in the Belmont is better then finishing third.
Winning 6 stakes races is better than winning 3.
etc.

If you objectively look at the two horses' entire years, it is kind of silly to say "There is absolutely no difference whatsoever. They both had the exact same year." The only way you can say that is if you look EXCLUSIVELY at their number of graded stakes wins....which doesn't make sense.

I am done with this, believe what you want, but I presented a logical arguement with facts. I liked all 3 horses, in Graded Stakes wins during their 3yo season, they were the same and there's not much seperating all three of them.

Using Eddington and Rock Hard Ten to boost Smarty's TC campaign aren't really helping his case. They didn't come into their own until much later, the horses that Smarty faced weren't too good, w/the exception of Lion Heart who should not have been pushed past 1 1/8 miles (IMO).

Afleet Alex's crop was the weakest I've seen in a LONG time. Flower Alley was the best three year old that year, he just didn't come into his own until later in the year. If Alex had met him later on, I think the results would have been different.

And if I'm not mistaken, Charismatic broke down while he was being pulled up.... Though something could have been wrong in the running I suppose.... He was the best horse to run that year, and had accomplished the most. He got good at the right time.

Smarty didn't win HOY for a few reasons. One, many people were incredibly bitter over her early retirement. The year before Mineshaft retired before the BC and won HOY. I think it created many bitter feelings over horses retiring pre-BC. At the same time, Ghostzapper clearly was the best horse that year, though his campaign was, to put it lightly, pretty lame. 4 races? Very lame indeed. Charismatic's year he was the only horse who really stood out.

Bernardini and Barbaro are both VERY good horses, and it's a real shame we never got to see what could have happened in the Preakness had Barbaro remained healthy. I think it would have been a real race to the wire. They would have known they were in a fight, but I think Bernie may have had the edge, though Barbaro may have just been coming into his own...

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I am done with this, believe what you want, but I presented a logical arguement with facts. I liked all 3 horses, in Graded Stakes wins during their 3yo season, they were the same and there's not much seperating all three of them.

Think the only thing I would add is that again, just because three horses win the same two races doesn't not mean at all that the three horses are similar in ability.

Smarty Jones was one of the BEST three year olds I have ever seen. The horse was fantastic out of the gate... Had the speed to get a good stalking position, had a very high cruising speed. And most importantly to go with all this talent, had a ton of heart. The Belmont was flat out the pinnacle of this horses career. Double teamed by two very, very good horses and he still barely gets beat. Unbelievable. Smarty ran against a very good group of 3 yo imo. Amazing animal visually in stride. Because he does not have the breeding of Bernardini, and the awesome conformation of a horse like Point Given or Fu Peg, he is not considered as highly as he should. All you have to do is watch Smarty run and it says it all.
AA was not as talented but had every bit the heart. I believe the level of horses AA ran against did not match up at all with Smartys Group. Flower Alley may flatter AA. But I dont really consider this comparison valid because the horses have changed so much from 3 to 4 years old.

Originally Posted by pgardn

Smarty Jones was one of the BEST three year olds I have ever seen. The horse was fantastic out of the gate... Had the speed to get a good stalking position, had a very high cruising speed. And most importantly to go with all this talent, had a ton of heart. The Belmont was flat out the pinnacle of this horses career. Double teamed by two very, very good horses and he still barely gets beat. Unbelievable. Smarty ran against a very good group of 3 yo imo. Amazing animal visually in stride. Because he does not have the breeding of Bernardini, and the awesome conformation of a horse like Point Given or Fu Peg, he is not considered as highly as he should. All you have to do is watch Smarty run and it says it all.
AA was not as talented but had every bit the heart. I believe the level of horses AA ran against did not match up at all with Smartys Group. Flower Alley may flatter AA. But I dont really consider this comparison valid because the horses have changed so much from 3 to 4 years old.

Smarty was beat pretty good in the Belmont... Silver Charm and Real Quiet were barely beat, but a length or two is more than barely beat, IMO. If he'd have kept a cool head I think he'd have had it though.

As for his conformation and breeding, I don't see the problem. He has a pretty nice pedigree, albeit he doesn't have the distance in his blood that Bernardini has.... And as for his conformation, I dont'see any problems there either. For a quarter horse anyway.....

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Flaxen Mane

Smarty was beat pretty good in the Belmont... Silver Charm and Real Quiet were barely beat, but a length or two is more than barely beat, IMO. If he'd have kept a cool head I think he'd have had it though.

As for his conformation and breeding, I don't see the problem. He has a pretty nice pedigree, albeit he doesn't have the distance in his blood that Bernardini has.... And as for his conformation, I dont'see any problems there either. For a quarter horse anyway.....

He's a crooked horse...

Originally Posted by Flaxen Mane

Smarty was beat pretty good in the Belmont... Silver Charm and Real Quiet were barely beat, but a length or two is more than barely beat, IMO. If he'd have kept a cool head I think he'd have had it though.

As for his conformation and breeding, I don't see the problem. He has a pretty nice pedigree, albeit he doesn't have the distance in his blood that Bernardini has.... And as for his conformation, I dont'see any problems there either. For a quarter horse anyway.....

Smarty never gave up in the Belmont. He kept his form even though he was defeated. Birdstone did not run away from him after an utterly cruel 10f for Smarty. The horse was shaking in the stall afterwards and could barely stand. It was an absolutely amazing defeat in my eyes.
I dont really consider the lengths between horses in many races. I have seen horses win by a half a length that were by far the best and pulling away after not having been touched. I have seen horses win by 6 that are absolutely falling apart the last furlong.

Originally Posted by pgardn

Smarty never gave up in the Belmont. He kept his form even though he was defeated. Birdstone did not run away from him after an utterly cruel 10f for Smarty. The horse was shaking in the stall afterwards and could barely stand. It was an absolutely amazing defeat in my eyes.
I dont really consider the lengths between horses in many races. I have seen horses win by a half a length that were by far the best and pulling away after not having been touched. I have seen horses win by 6 that are absolutely falling apart the last furlong.

Oh I agree, he was amazing in his defeat. He ran a winning race the whole way. He ran a better 10 furlongs than he did in the derby. He showed us the kind of heart he has, and I appreciated him more for it. He would have been a TC winner the next year, easily.

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

He's a crooked horse...

There are a lot of other stallions out there w/far worse problems than him.... Ghostzapper for example....

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Flaxen Mane

There are a lot of other stallions out there w/far worse problems than him.... Ghostzapper for example....

I'm sure that there are, but I wouldn't breed my mare (if I had one) to a single one of them. I think it's detrimental to the thoroughbred breed by encouraging crooked horses by over breeding to unconformed stallions (Storm Cat for example.)

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I am done with this, believe what you want, but I presented a logical arguement with facts. I liked all 3 horses, in Graded Stakes wins during their 3yo season, they were the same and there's not much seperating all three of them.

Okay I am done with it too. I think your position is completely illigoical but I haven't been able to talk you out of it so there is not a lot more to be said. I will simply conclude this discussion by pointing out that I never said that there was a LOT seperating them. You are right that Smarty Jones's year was not miles better than Charismatic's, but it certainly was better, and there is really no way to logically dispute that.
Oh well, Good discussion.
I hope to agrue with you again someday......

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I'm sure that there are, but I wouldn't breed my mare (if I had one) to a single one of them. I think it's detrimental to the thoroughbred breed by encouraging crooked horses by over breeding to unconformed stallions (Storm Cat for example.)

AMEN!!! It KILLS me to see some of the horses that are being bred these days. The aweful feet ALONE would be enough to make me not take my mare to them. Don't they realize they are just killing the breed?
I don't see why anyone would take their mares to such fragile stallions as Candy Ride, Ghostzapper, and Vindication. Yes, they were fast. Yes, they have nice pedigrees. But come on! What good is all of that if their babies break down before they even get a chance to run???

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Flaxen Mane

AMEN!!! It KILLS me to see some of the horses that are being bred these days. The aweful feet ALONE would be enough to make me not take my mare to them. Don't they realize they are just killing the breed?
I don't see why anyone would take their mares to such fragile stallions as Candy Ride, Ghostzapper, and Vindication. Yes, they were fast. Yes, they have nice pedigrees. But come on! What good is all of that if their babies break down before they even get a chance to run???

I agree completely, although I've never seen GZ close up. Does he have terrible feet?

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I agree completely, although I've never seen GZ close up. Does he have terrible feet?

I havn't seen him up close either, but I've heard he has pretty darn bad feet. And I know that the reason he was campaigned so lightly was due to his fragility.

Why would you breed you mare to that???