|
|
 |
|
#41
06-25-2008, 12:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
There have certainly been some exciting races in the history of the Breeders' Cup. I never said there weren't.
However, simply pointing to that fact and saying that it serves as sufficient evidence that the Breeders' Cup is good for racing is one of the most poorly constructed arguments I could possibly imagine. In fact, it is such an absurdly illogical argument that it seriously makes me miss King Glorious. At least he put some genuine effort into making arguments with which I strenuously disagreed. In the end though, this argument is pointless. As far as I am concerned, it is an absolute fact that the Breeders' Cup has been bad for the sport. But who cares? There is no realistic chance that the Breeders' Cup is going to disappear any time in the forseeable future no matter how much I might wish for it. Instead it is actually spreading like a virus. Debating it is like talking about whether or not the NBA should eliminate the 3-point line. It isn't ever going to happen, so what is really the point? 
|
|
#42
06-25-2008, 01:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#43
06-25-2008, 09:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
MIRAJA let's say you were my doctor and you told me the following: Look geeker if you don't stop chasing women, drinking, smoking and gambling or you are going to suffer health and financinal problems. You know what I would do..because this is the crux of your argument. get a new doctor.... Also, I think you are saying that it is your opinion that the BC is bad for racing - because you can't say it is a fact. Now if you expounded on your opinion as to why you think it was bad - then you would be constructing an argument to support your opinion, but it will still not be a fact. Don't mix fact with opinion - only Morty can do that.
__________________
We've Gone Delirious
|
|
#44
06-25-2008, 12:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I guess you must not be familiar with the phrase "as far as I am concerned" that I used to begin that sentence.
As for your "fact" and "opinion" discussion, I spend the first part of each semester trying to teach my undergrads that attempting to reduce every statement to fit into such a dichotomy is a useless - and often a counterproductive - exercise. But I assume from your tone that you know that too, and are just joking around. Fine by me. As for the numerous ways in which the Breeders' Cup has harmed this sport, I have already made that argument in detail numerous times on this board. Others have made the case too (often better than I do) but the majority continues to side with you and support the Breeders' Cup. Cool. I doubt if we'll be able to change your mind, and I seriously doubt if you'll be able to change my mind, so - as I said before - I don't really see the point in having this same discussion again about an issue that is already settled for all practical purposes.
|
|
#45
06-25-2008, 12:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Peace!
__________________
We've Gone Delirious
|
|
#46
06-25-2008, 12:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Why the BC has become bad for racing overall:
The emphasis given to winning the BC races has sucked the life from the rest of the year's racing. Once upon a time, it was the body of work that counted for championships and the only way to rack up large earnings was to win a lot of races. Now - hey presto, one race decides. Great, historic races that owners tried like anything to win are reduced to the status of 'Breeders' Cup prep.' The fall championship season used to be spread out over several tracks, over a couple of months, so that one bad day weather-wise or a super-fast scraped track wouldn't make for peculiar results. The Beldame (then the Ruffian) at Belmont, the Spinster at Keeneland, the Ladies at Aqueduct for the mares - chances were, the best mare would be identifiable even if she didn't win all the races for one reason or another.
|
Linear Mode
