"Spaced" Races And "Fresh" Horses Are Killing The Sport

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's not by choice that these horses don't run often. With the really good horses, it is often times by choice. With top horses like Bernardini, they are obviously going to give him plenty of time between races and pick their spots.

But if you see that a horse is bought at a 2 year olds in training sale for $70,000 and the horse doesn't run until he is 3 years old, it's not by choice. In 99% of these cases, the connections had the horse in training as a 2 year old and wanted to run the horse as a 2 year old, but the horse got hurt. That's why some of Phalaris' arguments are so silly. If she sees a horse that didn't run until he was a 3 year old and the horse doesn't last, she thinks that they should have run the horse as a 2 year old. she doesn't relize that they couldn't run the horse as a 2 year old. They tried to but the horse got hurt.

This isn't brain surgery. It's not that complicated. Phalaris' argument would be the same as arguing that people who take a lot of sick days from work are sick more often than people that don't take a lot of sick days. Therefore, taking sick days from work must be what is causing these people to get sick. If these people simply did not take sick days, then they wouldn't be sick. This is obviously an absurd argument. Taking sick days is not causing people to get sick. It's the opposite. People being sick is causing them to take sick days.

Some of you guys come up with these ludicrous theories, that you would know were absurd if you had any knowledgs about the business. There is practically nobody in the business who intentionally does not run their horses as 2 year olds. If Bill Mott has a big, long-striding Dynaformer colt who is a late foal and looks like a grass horse, a case like that may be the exception. With a horse like that, they may not try to run the horse as a 2 year old. But with the other 99.9% of horses, the trainers try to run them as 2 year olds. When you see a horse who doesn't make his first start until he is 3, it was not by choice.

Not sure where that came from? The post qualified the theory as pertaining to top horses which you seem to agree with. Certainly trainers want their horses to race...my point, and I'll stick to mine and let others address theirs, is that because of insane breeding practices, the thoroughbred of today is too fragile to withstand long campaigns and frequent work!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Not sure where that came from? The post qualified the theory as pertaining to top horses which you seem to agree with. Certainly trainers want their horses to race...my point, and I'll stick to mine and let others address theirs, is that because of insane breeding practices, the thoroughbred of today is too fragile to withstand long campaigns and frequent work!

Yes, I agree with you. I was mainly repsonding to Phalaris, especially some of her past posts.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, I agree with you. I was mainly repsonding to Phalaris, especially some of her past posts.

Not particularly pertinent to this topic ... but ...

... Phalaris both knows and understands as much about thoroughbred racing as anyone on this planet.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Not sure where that came from? The post qualified the theory as pertaining to top horses which you seem to agree with. Certainly trainers want their horses to race...my point, and I'll stick to mine and let others address theirs, is that because of insane breeding practices, the thoroughbred of today is too fragile to withstand long campaigns and frequent work!

Amen to that!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Not sure where that came from? The post qualified the theory as pertaining to top horses which you seem to agree with. Certainly trainers want their horses to race...my point, and I'll stick to mine and let others address theirs, is that because of insane breeding practices, the thoroughbred of today is too fragile to withstand long campaigns and frequent work!

By the way, I think that trainers are smart to run their top horses sparingly. It's really hard to keep horses sound and the top trainers know this. If you have a really good horse that looks like he has a good chance to win the Breeder's Cup and that race is your main goal, you would not plan the race to be your horse's 10th start of the year. You would want your horse to be at or near his peak on BC day. Therefore, you would not want the BC to be the horse's 10th race of a long, hard campaign. You would obviously want your horse to come into the race relatively fresh.

For all of you geniuses who think that horses can run 15 times a year, you should go and buy some horses and try it.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

By the way, I think that trainers are smart to run their top horses sparingly. It's really hard to keep horses sound and the top trainers know this. If you have a really good horse that looks like he has a good chance to win the Breeder's Cup and that race is your main goal, you would not plan the race to be your horse's 10th start of the year. You would want your horse to be at or near his peak on BC day. Therefore, you would not want the BC to be the horse's 10th race of a long, hard campaign. You would obviously want your horse to come into the race relatively fresh.

For all of you geniuses who think that horses can run 15 times a year, you should go and buy some horses and try it.

And the geniuses who think they can't ... should learn a lot more about thoroughbred racing history.

You've bought into the "fresh horse" theory ... and I completely disagree with it. Nothing will definitively resolve the difference .. but ...

... I do know that thirty years and more ago ... I watched all the best horses in every division race 12 or 15 or more times every year ... top horses facing each other five, six or more times within the campaign ... and today ... fans only get to see their favorites a handful of times at best.

Regardless of which training method works better ... the old way at least made the sport a lot more interesting.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Not particularly pertinent to this topic ... but ...

... Phalaris both knows and understands as much about thoroughbred racing as anyone on this planet.

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

So there are two possibilities here. The first possibility is that Phalaris has no idea what she is talking about.

The second possibility is that Phalaris is a genius and guys like Pletcher, Mandella, Frankel, Zito, etc. are all idiots.

Which is it? Is Phalaris a genius and the all the great trainers are morons? I think it's slightly more probable that Phalaris has no clue what she's talking about.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

And the geniuses who think they can't ... should learn a lot more about thoroughbred racing history.

You've bought into the "fresh horse" theory ... and I completely disagree with it. Nothing will definitively resolve the difference .. but ...

... I do know that thirty years and more ago ... I watched all the best horses in every division race 12 or 15 or more times every year ... top horses facing each other five, six or more times within the campaign ... and today ... fans only get to see their favorites a handful of times at best.

Regardless of which training method works better ... the old way at least made the sport a lot more interesting.

Horses are also faster today, whether it be from better training methods, nutritional advancements, or "move up" factors, they are faster and the stress from racing is much greater, they need to have their races spaced, so they can properly recover and be at peak.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

So there are two possibilities here. The first possibility is that Phalaris has no idea what she is talking about.

The second possibility is that Phalaris is a genius and guys like Pletcher, Mandella, Frankel, Zito, etc. are all idiots.

Which is it? Is Phalaris a genius and the all the great trainers are morons? I think it's slightly more probable that Phalaris has no clue what she's talking about.

Well... for some reason, what they are doing isn't stopping the amount of breakdowns, is it? The real problem lies in that the thoroughbred breed isn't as hardy as it once was. I for one am one that believes that thoroughbreds should NOT be run as two year olds at all. I don't believe that the stress on their legs is good for them when their bones aren't even closed up. Shoot... I wouldn't even sit on a horse's back until they were 3 years old, but that's just me. Perhaps there is some merit in running them more frequently as two year olds though. If facts are presented that say that bone density is IMPROVED off of more starts as a youngin, then I can't argue with that.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

So there are two possibilities here. The first possibility is that Phalaris has no idea what she is talking about.

The second possibility is that Phalaris is a genius and guys like Pletcher, Mandella, Frankel, Zito, etc. are all idiots.

Which is it? Is Phalaris a genius and the all the great trainers are morons? I think it's slightly more probable that Phalaris has no clue what she's talking about.

And you will also read those trainers say that times are changing....and who is changing the times? The breeding industry. Trainers answer this change by pleasing their clients with less starts against weeker horses = better stallion resume.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Phalaris has no understading of horses at all. You should read some her past posts. She thinks that if you have a good 2 year old with a lot of potential, that you should run the horse 15 times as a 2 year old and this would increase the horse's chances of lasting and winning some big races as a 3 year and 4 year old. She thinks that you would have a better chance to win the Ky Derby if you ran your 2 year old 12 times as oppose to 4 times.

If you talk to any good trainer out there, they will tell you that this is the most absurd thing they have ever heard.

I believe the same things ...

... and so did Ben Jones, Jimmy Jones, Hirsch Jacobs, Sunny Jim Fitzsimmons, Moody Jolley, Max Hirsch, Syl Veitch, Preston Burch, John Gaver ... and many many other Hall-Of-Fame trainers ... who develop0ed champion after champion after champion.

Your definition of a "good" trainer ... is very different from mine. A good trainer to me is one who brings out and sustains the talent of the horses in his care.

The ones I mentioned did that a heck of a lot better than any of the ones you cited.

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Horses are also faster today.

They absolutely, positively are not. Not for the last sixty years or so.

There's not a shred of evidence to back that up.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

They absolutely, positively are not. Not for the last sixty years or so.

There's not a shred of evidence to back that up.

I point you to the Thorograph Website, there's as article by the name of "Are races horses getting faster", they present some good arguements, take a look, I am not saying you have to believe, just take a look...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

And the geniuses who think they can't ... should learn a lot more about thoroughbred racing history.

You've bought into the "fresh horse" theory ... and I completely disagree with it. Nothing will definitively resolve the difference .. but ...

... I do know that thirty years and more ago ... I watched all the best horses in every division race 12 or 15 or more times every year ... top horses facing each other five, six or more times within the campaign ... and today ... fans only get to see their favorites a handful of times at best.

Regardless of which training method works better ... the old way at least made the sport a lot more interesting.

Something has obviously changed over the last 40 years. I've been really into racing for about 25 years. One of the first things I learned as a handicapper was not to bet horses that were overraced and/or coming back too quickly. It took me a couple of years to figure that out. I would see a really good horse break their maiden first-time out and then they'd come back around 15 days later in an allowance race that they should win easily. I would see these horses get beat time and time again. It didn't take me long to figure out that these horses needed more time to recover. I noticed that if a horse was given 26 days or more after breaking their maiden first-time out, they would have a good chance to win that first-level allowance race.

When I started buying horses, I would see the same thing. I would see that it takes them time to recover from races. Only in rare situations would I ever run a horse on only three weeks rest. Through my experience I have found that by only running horses every 4 weeks or so, not only do they stay sounder but they will stay in form for a much longer period of time.

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I point you to the Thorograph Website, there's as article by the name of "Are races horses getting faster", they present some good arguements, take a look, I am not saying you have to believe, just take a look...

Race times are ever-so-marginally faster ... and nowhere near any statistical significance ... than they were sixty years ago ...

... and that's mostly due to track maintenance and timing methods ... than to the ability of the horses themselves.

Don't disparage Phalaris ... there's an awful lot you can learn from her ... she's one of the leading authorities in the business.

[Assttodixie]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

This is once again why I upgrade the amazing year Mineshaft had a few back. Every 3-4 weeks like clockwork and no bounces ever.


But yes, it is a negative for the sport.

The Boss told me that you can run every 3-4 weeks when you are beating a bunch of GOATS.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Something has obviously changed over the last 40 years. I've been really into racing for about 25 years. One of the first things I learned as a handicapper was not to bet horses that were overraced and/or coming back too quickly. It took me a couple of years to figure that out. I would see a really good horse break their maiden first-time out and then they'd come back around 15 days later in an allowance race that they should win easily. I would see these horses get beat time and time again.

That's a real "DUH!" example.

Why should a maiden winner be favored in his first race against horses who previously won at the same level ... and have had more experience since then?

It's very difficult for all but the most talented horses to move up to the next level and win right away. Do you think those horses would have had any better chance in the new, higher condition if they had waited another couple of weeks to try it?

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Race times are ever-so-marginally faster ... and nowhere near any statistical significance ... than they were sixty years ago ...

... and that's mostly due to track maintenance and timing methods ... than to the ability of the horses themselves.

Don't disparage Phalaris ... there's an awful lot you can learn from her ... she's one of the leading authorities in the business.

I didn't disparage Phalaris, never mentioned his/her name...

All that I asked was for you to read that article...

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Assttodixie

The Boss told me that you can run every 3-4 weeks when you are beating a bunch of GOATS.

Couldn't resist on that one could you?

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

When I started buying horses, I would see the same thing. I would see that it takes them time to recover from races. Only in rare situations would I ever run a horse on only three weeks rest. Through my experience I have found that by only running horses every 4 weeks or so, not only do they stay sounder but they will stay in form for a much longer period of time.

It's fine to have that theory, but there's no evidence to validate it.

Many great horses of the past raced 40, 50, 60 times in their careers without any significant loss of form.