Winning Colors vs. Rags to Riches - Page 3

Cajungator26 · #41 02-23-2008, 11:45 AM

Winning Colors. I don't see how there could be an argument against that.

blackthroatedwind · #42 02-23-2008, 11:46 AM

Comparing Rags to Riches to many of the wonderful fillies and mares from past years is a typical myopic view you see on the internet from people who simply don't even know about the past.

What if Rags to Riches was a 3YO in 1990?

pgiaco · #43 02-23-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Winning Colors was a 3YO in 1988.

However, for whatever it's worth, Winning Colors dwarfs Rags to Riches.

My bad.

Danzig · #44 02-23-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Comparing Rags to Riches to many of the wonderful fillies and mares from past years is a typical myopic view you see on the internet from people who simply don't even know about the past.

What if Rags to Riches was a 3YO in 1990?

good point.

1990- she would be an also ran that year as well....

kentuckyrosesinmay · #45 02-23-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Can you please let me know who these experts were so I can be sure to never read anything else they ever write and to laugh at them on sight? Something was amiss with him all winter. That explains why he won the Derby and ran the eventual HOY to a nose in the Preakness in the spring. The front wraps were added to further prove your point. That explains why he was able to win the Travers in the summer.

Look. After the Tampa Bay Derby, I was also on here saying that it wouldn't surprise me if either he or AGS were knocked out because it may have been too much, too early. What that's called is being wrong. It's ok to be wrong dear and to admit it. It's much better than sticking with the BS like you are doing now.

I have admitted that I was wrong repeatedly about the statement that I would be surprised if he would make it to the Derby. I will not say who the experts are. They speak over most heads, and they will be called wrong because most can't understand. However, I will not admit that I was wrong about the statements of him having soundness issues because I am not wrong.

Cajungator26 · #46 02-23-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I have admitted that I was wrong repeatedly about the statement that I would be surprised if he would make it to the Derby. I will not say who the experts are. They speak over most heads, and they will be called wrong because most can't understand. However, I will not admit that I was wrong about the statements of him having soundness issues because I am not wrong.

Honestly, Jessica... most thoroughbreds have soundness problems. Pointing out one that is actually sound would showcase your knowledge much better.

blackthroatedwind · #47 02-23-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I will not say who the experts are. They speak over most heads, and they will be called wrong because most can't understand.

This is great stuff.

paisjpq · #48 02-23-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Holy Jesus!!

I just perused the contents of this thread.

T.O.Y Nominee.

second this.

SniperSB23 · #49 02-23-2008, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is great stuff.

Yeah, I was just trying to think of all the internet debates I've seen if there is any more lame attempt to prove your point than to say experts agree with you but you won't say who they are because they are above others heads. I couldn't come up with one.

King Glorious · #50 02-23-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I have admitted that I was wrong repeatedly about the statement that I would be surprised if he would make it to the Derby. I will not say who the experts are. They speak over most heads, and they will be called wrong because most can't understand. However, I will not admit that I was wrong about the statements of him having soundness issues because I am not wrong.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it really make a sound?

If an expert makes an observation and nobody understand it cause it's wrong, is he really an expert?

prudery · #51 02-23-2008, 01:41 PM

If God forbid, this Littlemisslittlemisscan'tbewrong actually goes on to the profession she claims she is working towards, imagine the untold and unfortunate possibilities of her future diagnostic work ????!!!!!!

The identities of the so-called experts she draws upon which can not be understood by the masses and therefore can not be assessed at EITHER right nor wrong, exist only in her head .... Where no one can touch them ... Is it any wonder then, that she alone understands them ???

And the world is flat too ...

Twaddle and flatulence ...

Blackthroatedwind---I agree with you, but isn't it Temple Gwathney ????

blackthroatedwind · #52 02-23-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prudery

Blackthroatedwind---I agree with you, but isn't it Temple Gwathney ????

This may qualify you as one of those experts nobody can understand.

I knew someone would get me on that!

prudery · #53 02-23-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This may qualify you as one of those experts nobody can understand.

I knew someone would get me on that!

I am honored ...

blackthroatedwind · #54 02-23-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prudery

I am honored ...

Have they even run that race in the last ten years?

prudery · #55 02-23-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Have they even run that race in the last ten years?

I am thinking not, but I am not sure ...

blackthroatedwind · #56 02-23-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prudery

I am thinking not, but I am not sure ...

At least not at Belmont. I'm wondering if they may run it somewhere else.

I'm just not as up on Steeplechase racing as I should be.

prudery · #57 02-23-2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

At least not at Belmont. I'm wondering if they may run it somewhere else.

I'm just not as up on Steeplechase racing as I should be.

Hey---this race is so obscure now I effed up as well----it is the Temple GwathMey ... Two and five eighths mile originally---and yes at Belmont .. A former flat racer I liked won it in 1975---that would be Happy Intellectual ...

azerica · #58 02-23-2008, 04:25 PM

Winning Colors. She beat really good horses and went up against the boys on more than one occassion. And my God that '88 BC, that was two great hearts wanting the win. After all these years folks still talk about Winning Colors while I'm afraid that Rags might not get mentioned even 5 years from now unless she could come back in her 4YO season and be better than last year.

Indian Charlie · #59 02-23-2008, 04:52 PM

i'm going to go against the grain (and a very popular idea here) and say that since winning colors was a shell of her former self after the preakness, that her bc loss to PE diminishes PE somewhat.

or maybe i'm not saying that right. what i'm trying to say is that even a ruined WC, far from her best, still almost beat PE. a perfectly healthy and sound WC romps in that race.

miraja2 · #60 02-23-2008, 04:53 PM

The ONE thing that I will agree with KYRM on in this thread is that you don't have to have been alive at the time to do this type of comparison.
I wasn't around to see Citation or Johnny Unitas compete, but I think I am still qualified to say that they were better than Cause to Believe and Rex Grossman respectively.