Rachel ran a good race, but...

[cowgirlintexas]

Originally Posted by scat daddy

Need to consider giving up the game? Although I did not bet him for my own reasons but I can not fault anyone that took a stab with him for either the win/place slot. He fired a nice workout, top trainer and has some nice graded wins. With his odds your telling a lot of good handicappers to give up the game based on two races? Interesting......


Scat

Do you really go by that name?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Danzig

we all have heard the term 'horses for courses'. i just appreciate a hard fought win against tougher circumstances far more than an easy win, whether a horse benefits from some sort of home field advantage or lack of good competition. it's why i appreciate rachels preakness far, far more than i do her oaks win. that takes nothing away from that performance at ky in saying so-but i like to see a horse actually show he can get to the bottom, and keep trying.

CSC just said that Street Sense would've won the Preakness, for which he got a career-high 111 Beyer in running second, by open lengths if it were at Churchill. I mean seriously.

Cute pups by the way.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Because we have these useful little things called speed figures that can help us use our minds as well as our eyes to evaluate horses.

Aside from that, he ran on a conveyor belt in the Juvy and got as good of a trip as a horse can get in the Derby. I'd say that should factor into the discussion that you think shouldn't happen because you linked to YouTube.

He was a good horse who also got extremely lucky in his Churchill wins. This idea that he was an indisputable horse for course is bizarre. He only won the Travers and was a head behind the horse of the year on other tracks.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement in that speed figures are the only determining factor in performances, I concede they are helpful and in most cases insightful but they shouldn't be the sole means or atleast to me in determining a horses performances. The reason why I linked up the youtube videos is we could see Street Sense was a different animal at CD, The conclusion is we should also factor in competition and the ease in which he won those races, and not just compare speed figures on an individual basis.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

CSC just said that Street Sense would've won the Preakness, for which he got a career-high 111 Beyer in running second, by open lengths if it were at Churchill. I mean seriously.

Cute pups by the way.

i don't believe that. he got lucky, twice, in having fantastic trips on the track. that doesn't mean every time he'd get a fantastic trip...besides, curlin was still improving coming into the preakness. that was a heck of a spring. too bad rags got hurt, and they all retired except curlin. that would have been a great handicap year the next year.

thanks about the pups. hopefully i find them both a home.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by CSC

I think we have a fundamental disagreement in that speed figures are the only determining factor in performances, I concede they are helpful and in most cases insightful but they shouldn't be the sole means or atleast to me in determining a horses performances. The reason why I linked up the youtube videos is we could see Street Sense was a different animal at CD, The conclusion is we should also factor in competition and the ease in which he won those races, and not just compare speed figures on an individual basis.

keep in mind tho that street sense was brought along in his training to peak at that point for those two races. the fact they were both at churchill doesn't mean it was the strip that helped him do so well.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

CSC just said that Street Sense would've won the Preakness, for which he got a career-high 111 Beyer in running second, by open lengths if it were at Churchill. I mean seriously.

Cute pups by the way.

I stand by that statement, whose to say he wouldn't have run an even higher number if that race was run at CD instead of Pimlico that day. Again if we are just going to get into a numbers discussion then why discuss at all. We can just look up previous beyers.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Danzig

keep in mind tho that street sense was brought along in his training to peak at that point for those two races. the fact they were both at churchill doesn't mean it was the strip that helped him do so well.

Danzig, alot good horses don't run their best races on big days. Please don't even enter that point of discussion.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by CSC

Danzig, alot good horses don't run their best races on big days. Please don't even enter that point of discussion.

and a lot do...
what do you mean by your last sentence? if you don't want a discussion, perhaps a public message board isn't the place for you.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Yeah

The point was never made that this was an exceptional horse but only one that tries hard. There were some, however, who made it a point to base their wagering around this horse NOT hitting the board. Whatever the situation, when he did so, they were exposed; and went to great lengths to 'explain' this.

P.S. we both knew that Friesan Fire would be a no show, right?

I really have no idea why you insist on continuing with this buffoonery. Surely you realize that Pioneer of the Nile didn't run particularly well in the Derby and then he failed to show at all this weekend. Surely you understand racing well enough that you can't possibly believe the jibberish you continue to spew about how Pioneer of the Nile supposedly proved all his critics wrong at Churchill Downs. You can't possibly believe this deliberately irrational crap that you write here day after day.

Honestly, what you are doing would be akin to me making post after post here about how Saturday's performance by Pioneer of the Nile perfectly displayed his abilities.

Move on.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by CSC

I think we have a fundamental disagreement in that speed figures are the only determining factor in performances, I concede they are helpful and in most cases insightful but they shouldn't be the sole means or atleast to me in determining a horses performances. The reason why I linked up the youtube videos is we could see Street Sense was a different animal at CD, The conclusion is we should also factor in competition and the ease in which he won those races, and not just compare speed figures on an individual basis.

Show me where I said or implied any of this. Stop twisting my words. What I said is that speed figures exist so we can use our minds as well as our eyes to evaluate performance. I use figures, replays, trip circumstances, etc. You seem to only be concerned with how visually impressive a horse's run is.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and a lot do...
what do you mean by your last sentence? if you don't want a discussion, perhaps a public message board isn't the place for you.

They do and they don't...Okay. So we don't really know I guess.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Show me where I said or implied any of this. Stop twisting my words. What I said is that speed figures exist so we can use our minds as well as our eyes to evaluate performance. I use figures, replays, trip circumstances, etc. You seem to only be concerned with how visually impressive a horse's run is.

Then we are in agreement, thanks for clearing that up. Then we just have a plain old fashioned disagreement in regards to Street Sense.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I really have no idea why you insist on continuing with this buffoonery. Surely you realize that Pioneer of the Nile didn't run particularly well in the Derby and then he failed to show at all this weekend. Surely you understand racing well enough that you can't possibly believe the jibberish you continue to spew about how Pioneer of the Nile supposedly proved all his critics wrong at Churchill Downs. You can't possibly believe this deliberately irrational crap that you write here day after day.

Honestly, what you are doing would be akin to me making post after post here about how Saturday's performance by Pioneer of the Nile perfectly displayed his abilities.

Move on.

You (and Beyer) were the one(s) that went on a limb that this horse wouldn't hit the board in the Derby. That the way to play the Derby was by not including this horse in any wager. This didn't turn out to be the case. But, you, apparently, felt the need to go on the offensive and try to convince us that the horse didn't really run well. And this continued after the Preakness. I mean, there are many ways the horse didn't run well, I suppose, but since he ran 2nd in the Derby, you were wrong. Nothing wrong with that as we're all wrong, more often than not. Whether the horse is good to your standards is really irrelevant. After all, you were very impressed by Imperial Council in the Gotham.

I'll stop pointing out the fact that the horse ran 2nd in the Derby just as soon as you (and your crew) stop pointing that he's not fast enough. The 1st part is a fact; the 2nd is irrelevant, given your initial claim.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

You (and Beyer) were the one(s) that went on a limb that this horse wouldn't hit the board in the Derby. That the way to play the Derby was by not including this horse in any wager. This didn't turn out to be the case. But, you, apparently, felt the need to go on the offensive and try to convince us that the horse didn't really run well. And this continued after the Preakness. I mean, there are many ways the horse didn't run well, I suppose, but since he ran 2nd in the Derby, you were wrong. Nothing wrong with that as we're all wrong, more often than not. Whether the horse is good to your standards is really irrelevant. After all, you were very impressed by Imperial Council in the Gotham.

I'll stop pointing out the fact that the horse ran 2nd in the Derby just as soon as you (and your crew) stop pointing that he's not fast enough. The 1st part is a fact; the 2nd is irrelevant, given your initial claim.

He has now run once on a dry dirt track.....and finished 10th beaten a city block. As soon as I figure out that I was wrong I will let you know. Please stand by.

He lost the Derby by seven lengths. You are conveniently deciding that since no horse, save Mine That Bird, ran a step that day that he somehow ran well despite losing by a margin that rarely gets a finisher better than 6th ( or worse ).

Sorry if you don't like my logic. Tough sh it.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

He has now run once on a dry dirt track.....and finished 10th beaten a city block. As soon as I figure out that I was wrong I will let you know. Please stand by.

He lost the Derby by seven lengths. You are conveniently deciding that since no horse, save Mine That Bird, ran a step that day that he somehow ran well despite losing by a margin that rarely gets a finisher better than 6th ( or worse ).

Sorry if you don't like my logic. Tough sh it.

But that's not the point. You contention was that the horse wouldn't hit the board in the Derby. Let's assume you went over to Betfair and took bets that he wouldn't. Would you have been payed off? No.

Whatever the case, in or after, the Derby, you'd have lost.

And, if you understand the dynamics of the Preakness, which you clearly do, you also can understand why the horse collapsed.

Logic is one thing. Real world facts are another.

[boswd]

Nothing against RA, she did run a great race and did what she had to do, MTB wins the Belmont for fun, he had to come out 4 wide and came charging, did not have a clean trip. This horse is the real deal.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by boswd

Nothing against RA, she did run a great race and did what she had to do, MTB wins the Belmont for fun, he had to come out 4 wide and came charging, did not have a clean trip. This horse is the real deal.

Yeah and so was Big Brown last year. Bottom line is that this is going to be 3 races in 5 weeks for MTB. Don't discount the fact that there might be a fresher horse that gets the jump on MTB.

Pioneer of the Nile is not as bad as he was in the Preakness,
or as good (2nd place) as he was in the Derby. If all the figures
that people worship are correct, he ran as expected in the Derby
(expectations in sludge be damned) and way off at Pimlico.

People dont honestly believe the horse is 26 lengths worse
than Mine That Bird. Thats ridiculous.

Back to synth.

[nebrady]

I believe that RA ran the better race. She ran a half in 46! I'm glad to see that MTB ran a great race too. Who knows who wins if he has a better trip. Now fat man as for being stupid too bet on FF in derby and saying a person shouldn't be playing if they did is ridiculous! FF never had a chance to run in the derby so who knows how he would have done. Bet you would have thought someone was stupid if they had bet on MTB on derby day!

Now blackthroat you saying that PTN didn't run on derby day is ridiculous too. He ran second in the derby! If not for a great performance by MTB he wins the derby in a close finish. Yes he didn'rt run great in the preakness, but hes never raced after having only 2 weeks off! Give the horse some love. As for the owner please just keep quiet and let the horses do the talking!

It amazes me that people on this site love to bash a horse if it runs bad in a big race. Give the horses some credit they made it into the triple crown races. Not many can say that! I'm looking forward to the rest of they year with horses like MTB, RA and even PTN and QR and IWR just to name a few. So enjoy and quit being so negative!

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Back to synth.

I don't know if it was that cut and dry. Pioneerof The Nile ran like a horse that may not be heard from again for a while.