Summer Bird could be HOY

[CSC]

Originally Posted by philcski

You are so full of **** it flows out of your eyes.

I guess Easy Goer was a plug, too.

+1 One of the most assinine Fatman posts I have glanced at in awhile and that's saying something.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by CSC

+1 One of the most assinine Fatman posts I have glanced at in awhile and that's saying something.

[Antitrust32]

[quote=CSC]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

The point is alot of smart handicappers here recognize Summer Bird was a better horse in the Travers and JCGC, showing tractibility, stamina, and finish in those races, the beyers will of 110-111 will back this up. The issue we are addressing here is, is to the crowd that still believe that RA is 7 lengths better than SB is, my point all along as much as people keep wanting to make this a Haskell argument, is that in the present day, looking forward RA would have had an extreme challenge beating Summer Bird today and had she run in the JCGC she would have lost, This is what I am talking about future races, the races to come, not what has happened.

The thing is, Summer Bird ran a REAL NICE RACE (expecting to get bitched out by fatman for this) in the Haskell. I thought he ran as well there as he did in the Travers. Rachel was hands down spectacular that day, just off the track record on a wet track.. but Summer bird ran his eyeballs out in that race and ran a winning Haskel race, if she hadnt done what she did.

So I just dont see the huge improvement when I thought SB ran very well in the Haskell too. It would be one thing if he would have lost by 30 lengths and ran last, but he was a "real nice colt" in that race too.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by philcski

You are so full of **** it flows out of your eyes.

I guess Easy Goer was a plug, too.

Another behind the times dirt lover who can't come to grips with the NEW PARADIGM.

Kind of sucks that I can WIN, and win at a ridiculously HIGH RATE, playing POLY with NO FIGURES, doesn't it Phil?

My ****in ROI at WO, is RIDICULOUS, bro.

Put down the figures, and join the FAIR RACING club.

[CSC]

[quote=Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by CSC

He won the Classic Belmont, then "developed" in the Haskell, and then won the Travers & JCGC.

You make no sense. He only "developed" in that race because its the only way you can make your argument.

Okay let's use just say he is a different horse today than he was then and that he has developed into a better horse. If you didn't understand the jist of my comment, though I thought it was obvious, my regrets.

[Antitrust32]

[quote=CSC]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Okay let's use just say he is a different horse today than he was then and that he has developed into a better horse. If you didn't understand the jist of my comment, though I thought it was obvious, my regrets.

Just ignore that post of mine and check out reply #163. I put my feelings into words better there.

[the_fat_man]

[quote=Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by CSC

The thing is, Summer Bird ran a REAL NICE RACE (expecting to get bitched out by fatman for this) in the Haskell. I thought he ran as well there as he did in the Travers. Rachel was hands down spectacular that day, just off the track record on a wet track.. but Summer bird ran his eyeballs out in that race and ran a winning Haskel race, if she hadnt done what she did.

So I just dont see the huge improvement when I thought SB ran very well in the Haskell too. It would be one thing if he would have lost by 30 lengths and ran last, but he was a "real nice colt" in that race too.

SB chased in the Haskell and beat a bunch of nothings and a distance challenged Munnings for place. I give SB his due but he just hasn't beaten a REAL horse.

To put things in proper perspective, look at the thread of best Beyers by 3 year olds this year:

You have Munnings with a bunch of 110s or 111s and you have Zensational with a single 111. In what ****in' UNIVERSE other than BEYER LAND or a biased DIRT TRACK does Munnings do anything but SNIFF Zensational's ass? Or that freak at WO that just won the other day running those insane splits? Where's his 'fast' Beyer?

The old paradigm leads to cluelessness.

[Antitrust32]

[quote=the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

SB chased in the Haskell and beat a bunch of nothings and a distance challenged Munning for place. I give SB his due but he just hasn't beaten a REAL horse.

To put things in proper perspective, look at the thread of best Beyers by 3 year olds this year:

You have Munnings with a bunch of 110s or 111s and you have Zensational with a single 111. In what ****in' UNIVERSE other than BEYER LAND or a biased DIRT TRACK does Munnings do anything but SNIFF Zensational's ass? Or that freak at WO that just won the other day running those insane splits? Where's his 'fast' Beyer?

The old paradigm leads to cluelessness.

You have to understand my perspective, I dont bet much at all. I like to follow dirt and turf racing, and I have yet to follow poly racing. I havent checked out the stats lately, but when poly was in its initial stages, there were full fields galore, which leads to better gambling opportunities, though you disagree with that I think.

So we have two completely different thought processes. You want to make money, and I follow this sport like I do the NFL, and only once and awhile to I make a bet.

[CSC]

[quote=Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by CSC

The thing is, Summer Bird ran a REAL NICE RACE (expecting to get bitched out by fatman for this) in the Haskell. I thought he ran as well there as he did in the Travers. Rachel was hands down spectacular that day, just off the track record on a wet track.. but Summer bird ran his eyeballs out in that race and ran a winning Haskel race, if she hadnt done what she did.

So I just dont see the huge improvement when I thought SB ran very well in the Haskell too. It would be one thing if he would have lost by 30 lengths and ran last, but he was a "real nice colt" in that race too.

He just ran in the Belmont(his 5th career race), cut back from 1 1/2 after a breakthru win, never showed any tractibility at that point, was put on the pace to engage Munnings, ran on a track that will most will concede was more beneficial to RA's style than SB's and still hung on for second. Given the context of these things yes it was a good race, but to suggest he is 7 lengths worser to a horse at 1 1/8, a horse that had infinite amounts of exp over SB. Are these excuses no...but in the context in which this discussion has turned the comments of beating SB like a drum, the implication that he is somewhat inferior to her, they do not belong in the same league, this distortion has to be addressed. Did she beat him by 7 in the Haskell yes, it's in the charts why anyone is even addressing this is a waste of time, will she beat him by 7 again or had they met in the JCGC Sat, I say not a chance she would have.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

As I said earlier, I wouldn't say he struggled because he was tailing off. In each race, the others obviously knew he was the horse to beat and rode to try to beat him. The pace was very, very slow in the Foster and JCGC and he still overcame it. In the Woodward, it was insanely fast.

You should know margin of victory doesn't always indicate how superior a horse is. Of course, those who think RA can't get 10f based on the results of the Preakness and Woodward are making the same mistake.

Seriously you believe this? There was some kind of pace conspiracy??? I just thought they rode their slow horses the same way they always did. Honestly as bad as this years older horses were in the Woodward and Gold Cup, last years may very well have been worse. So if they go too slow he has an excuse and when they go fast he has an excuse? I guess we will agree to disagree that his uninspiring performances last fall were questionably inspiring.

[CSC]

[quote=the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

SB chased in the Haskell and beat a bunch of nothings and a distance challenged Munnings for place. I give SB his due but he just hasn't beaten a REAL horse.

To put things in proper perspective, look at the thread of best Beyers by 3 year olds this year:

You have Munnings with a bunch of 110s or 111s and you have Zensational with a single 111. In what ****in' UNIVERSE other than BEYER LAND or a biased DIRT TRACK does Munnings do anything but SNIFF Zensational's ass? Or that freak at WO that just won the other day running those insane splits? Where's his 'fast' Beyer?

The old paradigm leads to cluelessness.

I already posted the context of the Haskell race too many times, look for a 3 year old that just started running on Mar 3rd of this year, he's already accomplished alot. A hell of alot more than many 3 yr olds that have been declared great or atleast very good by some, your argument may have some legitimacy next year though I doubt it, he's the real deal. But realistically who can you expect from a horse to beat after only 9 career races. He will prove this in time.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Seriously you believe this? There was some kind of pace conspiracy??? I just thought they rode their slow horses the same way they always did. Honestly as bad as this years older horses were in the Woodward and Gold Cup, last years may very well have been worse. So if they go too slow he has an excuse and when they go fast he has an excuse? I guess we will agree to disagree that his uninspiring performances last fall were questionably inspiring.

If you thought that you should probably stick to training.

Honestly, you think a horse that closes off a slow pace and still wins is going to earn the same figures he did when the pace is very fast?

If you and I had a 100 meter race, an we walked 90 meters and I gave you a 5 meter head start, I would probably only beat you by a meter. It doesn't mean I've gotten slower.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

If you thought that you should probably stick to training.

Honestly, you think a horse that closes off a slow pace and still wins is going to earn the same figures he did when the pace is very fast?

If you and I had a 100 meter race, an we walked 90 meters and I gave you a 5 meter head start, I would probably only beat you by a meter. It doesn't mean I've gotten slower.

I never said anything about figures. Just watch the races again. He struggles to catch and put away very weak competition, which is something that he hadnt had trouble with before. In both the Woodward and Gold Cup he cant dispose of Wandering Boy till deep in the lane. In the Woodward they ran the last 1/8th in 14.
If you want to believe that struggling to beat Past the Point and Wandering Boy was because of some sort of pace scenario, that is fine. But when you say he struggled to run past them because the pace was in one case too slow and in one case too fast makes me wonder how it works both ways.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Another behind the times dirt lover who can't come to grips with the NEW PARADIGM.

Kind of sucks that I can WIN, and win at a ridiculously HIGH RATE, playing POLY with NO FIGURES, doesn't it Phil?

My ****in ROI at WO, is RIDICULOUS, bro.

Put down the figures, and join the FAIR RACING club.

Do you read anything or just assume everything? How many times have I disparaged Beyer figures on here as useless and unimportant?

Slow horses, however, should not benefit from ANY surface, and the fact of the matter is SLOW horses win too many races on synthetics.

Quite frankly, I don't care what your ROI is at Woodbine, either.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

In both the Woodward and Gold Cup he cant dispose of Wandering Boy till deep in the lane. In the Woodward they ran the last 1/8th in 14.
If you want to believe that struggling to beat Past the Point and Wandering Boy was because of some sort of pace scenario, that is fine.

Wanderin Boy ran a 109 Beyer without any real smoke and mirrors in his start prior to his two meetings with Curlin.

Past The Point ran a 106 in his start prior without any real smoke and mirrors.


Those may not be horses with big resumes - but assuming they run back to those type of sharp races ... it takes an extremely good horse to make wide sweeping turn moves and blow them away with ease.

Compared to a WILDLY overrated horse like Street Sense - and very over rated horses like Any Given Saturday and Hard Spun ... I'd consider Curlin to be only just plain overrated.

[Revidere]

I make a motion to have another board. This Rachel Alexandra can do no wrong board is too full.

This is very disturbing. When RA beats a horse like Macho Again, it's a great achievment. When Summer Bird and Quality Road do it, a slow older horse is just a slow older horse and SB has just gotten lucky against some suspect fields. Hmmm. So, when Rachel beats Flashing by 20 lengths it's awe inspiring, even more so when Flashing wins the Test. But the beyer guys are noticeably silent when that Test victory earns a high 80's beyer. And since those guys like to crow about Zenyatta's low beyers and suspect competition, I can honestly say I'm confused about what a good horse is or what a bad horse is, what a fast horse is, or a slow horse is.

All I know is it's October and we've had some real nice performances this year. I would even venture to say it's been a really good year.

Can't we enjoy them all?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Revidere

This is very disturbing. When RA beats a horse like Macho Again, it's a great achievment. When Summer Bird and Quality Road do it, a slow older horse is just a slow older horse

I would suggest perhaps making an effort to learn basic fundamental handicapping skills.


Trader Pete ... like everyone else with an IQ over 40 ... realized that Macho Again was the #1 horse to avoid type bet against coming out of Saratoga.

* Macho Again (Arrived at Saratoga off of a mediocre Grade 1 win in the Foster. His final time that day was 0.16 seconds slower than Miss Isella and Swift Temper went in a similarly paced Grade 2 stake on the same card - at the same distance. I know Miss Isella is a different kind of horse at Churchill and Swift Temper came back to beat Icon Project with a perfect trip next out - but it was still as soft a Grade 1 win as you'll see in the handicap division.

Got a great 116 pace figure to close into when 2nd in the Whitney. In the Woodward, he was more than 15 lengths off of the blistering 22.86 opening quarter .. 8 lengths further back than the horse racing 2nd to last at that stage. In spite of being positioned perfectly and getting a dream run through the pack without looping the field .. he hung badly and never looked like he was going to pass a very softened up Rachel Alexandra at any point. He's less than nothing special .. and his resume looks strong off of his last 3 races.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I never said anything about figures. Just watch the races again. He struggles to catch and put away very weak competition, which is something that he hadnt had trouble with before. In both the Woodward and Gold Cup he cant dispose of Wandering Boy till deep in the lane. In the Woodward they ran the last 1/8th in 14.
If you want to believe that struggling to beat Past the Point and Wandering Boy was because of some sort of pace scenario, that is fine. But when you say he struggled to run past them because the pace was in one case too slow and in one case too fast makes me wonder how it works both ways.

OK, so how do you explain Zenyatta beating that slug last out by a nose if the slow pace didn't matter?

I'm sorry you don't understand how it can work both ways. It is pretty obvious when you make pace figures for a living. In the Past the Point race, Curlin ran about 10 Beyer points faster to the pace call than he did any other route race in his life to maintain his usual stalking position. Of course he wasn't going to have his usual finishing kick.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by philcski

Do you read anything or just assume everything? How many times have I disparaged Beyer figures on here as useless and unimportant?

Slow horses, however, should not benefit from ANY surface, and the fact of the matter is SLOW horses win too many races on synthetics.

Quite frankly, I don't care what your ROI is at Woodbine, either.

Maybe the problem, then, PHil, is what I've been alluding to all along: that the METHODOLOGY is flawed. Since these aren't time trials, with horses running individually or restricted to lanes, maybe the 'fastest' notion in terms of a number is not the way to go. If so many SLOW horses are winning on synthetics, then, I know that if I were a trainer or owner, I'd get my stock over there and win a whole bunch of races with my fast dirt horses. That this isn't happening sort of works against the methodology, don't you think?

I mean, arguing that these horses are SLOW is like the learned Jesuits of Galileo's era arguing for an Aristotelian view of the world because the CHURCH told them to save that view at all cost. What exactly is the excuse for all the BEYERITES here continuing to argue that these horses are SLOW? Time for a paradigm shift when your theory leads to ridiculous results.