Final Verdict ... Fog Is A Fraud

[1st_Saturday_in_May]

Nevermind...not getting involved with such a closed minded poster

Originally Posted by 1st_Saturday_in_May

Nevermind...not getting involved with such a closed minded poster

Oh, sweetie ... all I was going to say was to go back to the original post on this thread ...

... it tells you who said it ... and when ... and where.

Come on, hon ... don't get in a snit ... everyone here has been nice to you.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

And I'll agree, LITF isn't great. But a brilliant guy such as yourself should realize that horses aren't machines. To win 10 races in a row, no matter who you are beating is impressive. Add to that, he won at Golden Gate, Turf Paradise, Gulfstream, Aqueduct, Belmont, Calder, Saratoga and Bay Meadows. Is it his fault that the 3 year old sprinters last year weren't as good as they are this year?

Thank you for restating all of my points.

I'm glad you understand what I've been saying.

[1st_Saturday_in_May]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Oh, sweetie ... all I was going to say was to go back to the original post on this thread ...

... it tells you who said it ... and when ... and where.

Come on, hon ... don't get in a snit ... everyone here has been nice to you.

First, please dont call me hon and sweetie. Second, we've got KG, S_s_n, and Dixie. Dont know who the first two are (my bad I guess) and I dont know what they said. I really dont care. I just find it utterly amazing that you dont consider "did not fire" as a valid excuse --- then again you dont handicap races, so whatever. I personally cant believe this thread is going strong after 200+ posts and perhaps the nicest thing is that both sides have presented their arguments in a relatively civil manner. Doesnt it reach a point, though, where both sides realize that no minds are going to be changed no matter what is said (think we're about there now) and the thread is put to rest?

Originally Posted by 1st_Saturday_in_May

First, please dont call me hon and sweetie. Second, we've got KG, S_s_n, and Dixie. Dont know who the first two are (my bad I guess) and I dont know what they said. I really dont care. I just find it utterly amazing that you dont consider "did not fire" as a valid excuse --- then again you dont handicap races, so whatever. I personally cant believe this thread is going strong after 200+ posts and perhaps the nicest thing is that both sides have presented their arguments in a relatively civil manner. Doesnt it reach a point, though, where both sides realize that no minds are going to be changed no matter what is said (think we're about there now) and the thread is put to rest?

I haven't changed your mind yet ... but I think I'm getting real close.

A few dozen more posts should do it.

P.S. The only other person I mentioned was Fupeg ... who posts here as Assttodixie ... and who happened to be on the correct side of the argument.

[1st_Saturday_in_May]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I haven't changed your mind yet ... but I think I'm getting real close.

A few dozen more posts should do it.

P.S. The only other person I mentioned was Fupeg ... who posts here as Assttodixie ... and who happened to be on the correct side of the argument.

You're not going to change my mind. I dont think Fog is a "great" horse but I think he is good and can still win some good money if placed properly. Thats it. Nothing special - no high pedastol - just an average graded stakes horse and I think that even you could agree with that.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

What is absurd about that statement? Now lets not start double talking. Earlier in the thread, you said that we were too fixated on race grading and NOW you have the nerve to use it as the basis for this weak argument. Quit flip flopping.

Who did he beat? Name one quality field

I'm not double-talking at all. I still stick to my statement that you can't always rely on the grading of a race to decide how good the field is. A grade III race can sometimes play tougher than a grade I. If the only information you knew about a horse was that he once won a graded race, it wouldn't tell you a whole lot about how good he is. It could have been a weak graded race. If the only thing you knew about a horse was that he was a grade I winner, that wouldn't really tell you that much. It could have been a weak grade I. However, if you know that a horse has won six graded stakes races, that tells you something. One or two graded wins could be a fluke. A horse could have caught one or two weak fields. When a horse does it six times, it means something.
You guys think that the LITF supporters are making excuses for him. You think the excuses we are making to explain his bad performances are weak excuses. You guys are making way more excuses than we are. I'm making excuses for 3 sub-par races. You guys are making excuses for 11 wins, including 10 stakes races and 6 graded stakes races. When he ran a really fast time, it was only because the track was really fast. When he ran all of these huge speed figures, the figures must be wrong. When he won all of these graded stakes races at major tracks, every one of those races must have been weak. When he beat older horses, the older horses weren't that good. You guys have a million more excuses than I do. All I have to do is explain 3 sub-par races. You guys have to explain away an incredible record that includes 11 wins from 14 starts including 6 graded stakes wins.
How many other horses won 10 out of 11 races in a year including 5 graded races? If it's not that hard to do and a trainer simply needs to pick easy spots, then name me some mediocre horses that have done it.
It's not that the LITF supporters are desperate for a hero, it's that the LITF knockers are desperate to knock down a champ. That's the way message boards are. People knock Tiger Woods on message boards. They say, "Aha, he lost this week. You see, he's not that good. He's a choker." The nonsense you read on these board is comical.
All that being said, I don't think LITF is in the league of some of the great horses I've seen like Ghostzapper.

Originally Posted by 1st_Saturday_in_May

You're not going to change my mind. I dont think Fog is a "great" horse but I think he is good and can still win some good money if placed properly. Thats it. Nothing special - no high pedastol - just an average graded stakes horse and I think that even you could agree with that.

See ... I convinced you ...

... and it only took one more post ...

... we're now in complete agreement ... except fot the fact that he's never going to race again.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not double-talking at all. I still stick to my statement that you can't always rely on the grading of a race to decide how good the field is. A grade III race can sometimes play tougher than a grade I. If the only information you knew about a horse was that he once won a graded race, it wouldn't tell you a whole lot about how good he is. It could have been a weak graded race. If the only thing you knew about a horse was that he was a grade I winner, that wouldn't really tell you that much. It could have been a weak grade I. However, if you know that a horse has won six graded stakes races, that tells you something. One or two graded wins could be a fluke. A horse could have caught one or two weak fields. When a horse does it six times, it means something.
You guys think that the LITF supporters are making excuses for him. You think the excuses we are making to explain his bad performances are weak excuses. You guys are making way more excuses than we are. I'm making excuses for 3 sub-par races. You guys are making excuses for 11 wins, including 10 stakes races and 6 graded stakes races. When he ran a really fast time, it was only because the track was really fast. When he ran all of these huge speed figures, the figures must be wrong. When he won all of these graded stakes races at major tracks, every one of those races must have been weak. When he beat older horses, the older horses weren't that good. You guys have a million more excuses than I do. All I have to do is explain 3 sub-par races. You guys have to explain away an incredible record that includes 11 wins from 14 starts including 6 graded stakes wins.
How many other horses won 10 out of 11 races in a year including 5 graded races? If it's not that hard to do and a trainer simply needs to pick easy spots, then name me some mediocre horses that have done it.
It's not that the LITF supporters are desperate for a hero, it's that the LITF knockers are desperate to knock down a champ. That's the way message boards are. People knock Tiger Woods on message boards. They say, "Aha, he lost this week. You see, he's not that good. He's a choker." The nonsense you read on these board is comical.
All that being said, I don't think LITF is in the league of some of the great horses I've seen like Ghostzapper.

And i ask yet again- NAME ONE DECENT FIELD THAT THIS HORSE HAS BEATEN. Just One

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And i ask yet again- NAME ONE DECENT FIELD THAT THIS HORSE HAS BEATEN. Just One

I will answer again. It's not who you beat, it's how you do it. Who did Afleet Alex beat?
The question is irrelevant. A horse does not need to beat a great field for me to figure out that he's a really good horse.

[Danzig]

the thread that wouldn't die.....can't believe the life span of this thing.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I will answer again. It's not who you beat, it's how you do it. Who did Afleet Alex beat?
The question is irrelevant. A horse does not need to beat a great field for me to figure out that he's a really good horse.

Rup..Class = the Company you keep. I guess two legs of the TC gets AA a little more credit. LITF did everything he was suppose to do in restricted company..it was when he stepped up that he lost his glitter. I don't knock the horse, just don't feel he is as good as many thought he was.

Ez

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I will answer again. It's not who you beat, it's how you do it. Who did Afleet Alex beat?
The question is irrelevant. A horse does not need to beat a great field for me to figure out that he's a really good horse.

so basically you are saying that competition and race set up have no impact on performance?

[Danzig]

litf gets a lot of attention, winners do that. so does funny cide (not a LOT of wins, but he did win the derby), azeri did as well. none of them were the absolute best. none of them will probably be written of 80 years from now, unlike MOW for instance who just had a new book come out about him.

however, how is any horse getting attention from fans and bettors a BAD THING?! who cares if a bunch of people bet a horse down that may not be GREAT... that helps other cappers get better odds on their picks. who cares if people go goo goo (btw, who cares who came up with that saying?) over a horse that isn't the second coming of dr fager?

i'd imagine that calder appreciated the fact that litf showed the other day, he no doubt helped sell tickets. any horse who captures the fans imagination is a good thing. it's too bad that some are all bent out of shape that these horses get so much support, despite not being THE BEST. of course that is an opinion anyway, who is the best. unless their name was colin or personal ensign, they all lose.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

litf gets a lot of attention, winners do that. so does funny cide (not a LOT of wins, but he did win the derby), azeri did as well. none of them were the absolute best. none of them will probably be written of 80 years from now, unlike MOW for instance who just had a new book come out about him.

however, how is any horse getting attention from fans and bettors a BAD THING?! who cares if a bunch of people bet a horse down that may not be GREAT... that helps other cappers get better odds on their picks. who cares if people go goo goo (btw, who cares who came up with that saying?) over a horse that isn't the second coming of dr fager?

i'd imagine that calder appreciated the fact that litf showed the other day, he no doubt helped sell tickets. any horse who captures the fans imagination is a good thing. it's too bad that some are all bent out of shape that these horses get so much support, despite not being THE BEST. of course that is an opinion anyway, who is the best. unless their name was colin or personal ensign, they all lose.

I agree with much of what you say but i doubt the general sports fans have even heard of LITF. He didnt bring any fans to the game.

I thought that this was a forum to discuss horses and their relative merits both good and bad. Saying that he is overrated is not a BAD thing. Discussing it and trying to make points to back your assertion isnt a BAD thing.

The only people on this thread getting bent out of shape are the ones that have no logical points to back their paper champion. The rest of us are just having fun watching it all go down. Enjoy.

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Again last year Gilchrist told EVERYONE where he was going.

Yes, he was going in races where his most likely divisional rivals couldn't run. So what's the point?

Do people simply fail to understand that he was not elected - nor widely trumpeted as - "Champion 3YO Sprinter," in which it would be perfectly acceptable to run all year against 3YOs, but as "Champion Sprinter," an all-age division in which he failed to win a race against any reasonable divisional rival after spending his whole season in races where they couldn't run against him? Oh, sure, he won one open-age race - a race in Northern California written for him about three weeks in advance, for the same day as the Vosburgh and within a week of the Ancient Title (races to which legitimate divisional rivals had already been targeted). If "Champion 3YO Sprinter" existed as a category, I suspect that very few would've had an issue with LITF being elected for it, given his otherwise perfect record on the year. Since there is no reason to believe that he was anywhere near being the best all-ages sprinter - for the reason that he, and the horses he built his reputation running against, did not have success in the all-age races that rightly define the championship of this division - that, IMHO, is the key reason for so much discord on this topic.

On an unrelated topic, I saw in the other LITF thread the "sprinter giving 8+ pounds" excuse as if that's a big deal. It's not. You see it all the time. I could print out a list of dozens of examples from my database of graded stakes races, which is far from complete but still presents plenty of cases. One particular example that's worth giving is a real 3YO sprinter from not all that terribly long ago. Consider Groovy, who, as a 3YO, not only beat older horses in the Tom Fool, Forego and Ancient Title, but gave that much weight or more to some older, stakes-winning rivals in the latter two. I don't remember seeing LITF doing anything like that - and that still wasn't good enough to get Groovy a sprint championship after less of a BC Sprint debacle than LITF had.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I never thought he should have been champion sprinter last year either. But, I also don't know who should have gotten it. Do you, because people here say that he shouldn't, yet offer no solution. You make a good point with Groovy, but racing has changed a lot since then. There are so many more races, especially for 3 year olds, with giant purses. My point was that the horse won 10 straight last year and did it all over the country. Like I said previously I don't particularily care for LITF. Tried to beat him everytime last year, and this year. But I can appreciate a horse who is 11 for 14 lifetime. That's no easy task, and especially in the races he was running in. I know, the sprinters in general were a tad on the light side, hence the fact that LITF was champ. Do I think a 3 year old sprinter who never beat older horses should have been champ, no way. But I do think what LITF did last year was fun to watch, and again you don't win like that by fluke.

I have no problem with what you say here Hoss. He wasnt a fluke. He was a pretty good horse. He was fun to watch and something to get excited about. But then, he proved that he wasnt nearly as good as he was hyped to be.

Surely his accomplishments last year deserve merit if for nothing else but consistency. He was consistently good enough to beat average to bad restricted three year old sprinters. He was consistently fast enough to think that just maybe he could be something special. And now, he has been consistently beaten enough to know that he isnt anything special.

No one ever said he wasnt a decent horse.

[Phalaris1913]

[quote= My point was that the horse won 10 straight last year and did it all over the country. Like I said previously I don't particularily care for LITF. Tried to beat him everytime last year, and this year. But I can appreciate a horse who is 11 for 14 lifetime. That's no easy task, and especially in the races he was running in.[/QUOTE]

Did you realize that of all the horses that finished behind Lost in the Fog in any graded stakes race in his career, a grand total of five of them went on to win one graded stakes each (at least through late June), only two of which were even as good as G2s? There have, for the record, been somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 graded stakes races since the date of the 2005 Swale for open gender and 3YOs or 3YOS+. His record is as good as it is only - ONLY - because he was so carefully spotted against weak competition. Next year, the King's Bishop might draw horses who end up sweeping the BC Sprint, but in 2005, the horses who took part in the age-restricted sprint stakes simply weren't very good.

Sure, the connections didn't know that. But they had every reason to believe that these were softer spots than the open-age sprints and they knew that their competition for the sprint championship could not run in the races that they were carefully picking. At what time did they think, or even hope, "We might have the best sprinter in the nation?" At that time, they needed to stop running against 3YOs only and go in the many open-age stakes races to which their colt, and his sprint championship rivals, were all eligible. After that point, all they were doing was padding his record by running against patsies, in places where he was safe from having to face actual divisional rivals - doesn't matter if they shipped him to the moon and back, and issued press releases on where he was going.

I realize, unfortunately, that 20 years has passed since Groovy (a horse I didn't even like at the time) was a 3YO running vs. elders. Unfortunately, I'm 20 years closer to being old! Seriously, for the benefit of more recent arrivals to our sport, there has been continued evolution in that time toward the myth that 3YOs are incapable of running safely and effectively against older horses, a trend which resulted in proliferated opportunities for 3YOs to hide in age-restricted company and gather black type and bloat reputations against their fellows. There is no reason that 3YOs can't run against elders by the summer; the only risk to them is a decent chance of getting beat, because usually, better older horses are superior to better 3YOs. But getting beat is the worst thing in the world in an era which would rather see a LITF running unbeaten against restricted company all season than a horse winning and losing while running against the best of his or her division.

It makes for poor sport and arguments. Had LITF been running against elders all along, he almost assuredly would not have any sort of win streak and we wouldn't all be arguing about it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I have no problem with what you say here Hoss. He wasnt a fluke. He was a pretty good horse. He was fun to watch and something to get excited about. But then, he proved that he wasnt nearly as good as he was hyped to be.

Surely his accomplishments last year deserve merit if for nothing else but consistency. He was consistently good enough to beat average to bad restricted three year old sprinters. He was consistently fast enough to think that just maybe he could be something special. And now, he has been consistently beaten enough to know that he isnt anything special.

No one ever said he wasnt a decent horse.

Your comment that "he proved that he wasn't nearly as good as he was hyped to be" is not true. Nothing has been proven. You could be right that he wasn't as good as he was hyped to be. That statement may be correct. The part that is not correct is your contention that "it has been proven". Nothing has been proven. Horses are not machines. If Bernardini never runs another good race, does that prove that his Preakness win was not that good? No not all. Maybe he's not the same horse any more. Maybe he's hurt. Horses aren't machines. There have been plenty of really good horses who were good for a year or so and then they lost it. It's usually because of a soundness issue or injury and it happens all the time. If a horse is no longer able to replicate his past form, it does not neccessarily mean that his past form was phony or that his present bad form is due to facing better competition.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Your comment that "he proved that he wasn't nearly as good as he was hyped to be" is not true. Nothing has been proven. You could be right that he wasn't as good as he was hyped to be. That statement may be correct. The part that is not correct is your contention that "it has been proven". Nothing has been proven. Horses are not machines. If Bernardini never runs another good race, does that prove that his Preakness win was not that good? No not all. Maybe he's not the same horse any more. Maybe he's hurt. Horses aren't machines. There have been plenty of really good horses who were good for a year or so and then they lost it. It's usually because of a soundness issue or injury and it happens all the time. If a horse is no longer able to replicate his past form, it does not neccessarily mean that his past form was phony or that his present bad form is due to facing better competition.

No, no...it is just mere coincidence that LITF began not liking tracks and "not being himself" as soon as he started facing open company. Purely coincidence.

You say "its not who you beat". So does that mean competition has no bearing on performance? You never answered me before.