Winning Colors vs. Rags to Riches

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is great stuff.

you beat me to it....

[Danzig]

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 thought it was gwathmy?

and then i read on and saw prudery beat me to that.


well, if a winner going longer is better than a winner at shorter, then steeplechasing should be considered the creme de la creme. go longer, carry more weight, and have to keep jumping all at the same time.

[prudery]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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.

I see your point, but I would like to add a muddling thought to it---Personal Ensign was running on a track she disliked and still overcame it, so it might be thought that both horses were compromised and the result may have been the same had both had their optimum conditions satisfied and were both at their respective peaks ... I do give the edge to Winning Colors over Rags to Riches however, but I believe the BCD result would have remained unchanged .... IMO, the race flattered them both, and a tip of the hat to Goodbye Halo as aforementioned ...
It is also possible that Winning Colors grandfathered herself back to her glory days on that occassion, and Personal Ensign was tailing off ... I do not believe in any way a finish like that diminishes anything ...
As far as a perfectly healthy Winning Colors romping, do not see that either ... Personal Ensign was determined to stay perfect ... And she did ...

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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.

I see what you are saying here but that would mean that you have to believe that Winning Colors was only a shell of her former self after the Preakness. I don't believe that to be anywhere close to true. For the Belmont, she obviously was worn out but after getting some time off, she came back better than ever and I think her races in the Maskette and BC Distaff were as good as her efforts in the spring.

Prudery makes the point that the track conditions in the BC were not to Personal Ensign's liking and that may have comprimised her some. I don't know if that's true or not. PE ran a winning race in the Whitney on a sloppy track when she beat Gulch and there is no way to actually know how much a horse likes or dislikes a track.

My opinion is not that PE defeated a lesser version of WC but a better one. And as impressive as the BC win was, I was even more impressed by the Maskette win because it came at a shorter distance that should have been even more advantageous to WC.

[prudery]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I see what you are saying here but that would mean that you have to believe that Winning Colors was only a shell of her former self after the Preakness. I don't believe that to be anywhere close to true. For the Belmont, she obviously was worn out but after getting some time off, she came back better than ever and I think her races in the Maskette and BC Distaff were as good as her efforts in the spring.

Prudery makes the point that the track conditions in the BC were not to Personal Ensign's liking and that may have comprimised her some. I don't know if that's true or not. PE ran a winning race in the Whitney on a sloppy track when she beat Gulch and there is no way to actually know how much a horse likes or dislikes a track.

My opinion is not that PE defeated a lesser version of WC but a better one. And as impressive as the BC win was, I was even more impressed by the Maskette win because it came at a shorter distance that should have been even more advantageous to WC.

I believe Randy Romero said she did not handle the track at all for the BCD---although that may have been jockeyspeak, but I do think she rallied later and more laboringly than she usually did ... Do not recall if the Whitney was a fast or a slow sloppy track---as you know all slop is not equal ... Forego was not a mudder horse --and was scratched for mud, but was successful on a muddy track that he got traction on ... Sloppy, muddy, fast wet, slow wet---minutae--but it can make a difference ...
Agree about the Maskette ...

[Buffymommy]

As of today, Winning Colors is MUCH more accomplished of a race horse. R2R needs to show me more before I can put her up there with the likes of WC.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by miraja2

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.

For a second there, I thought you were going to say that Citation would have kicked Johnny Unitas's butt.

--Dunbar

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I always think it is a shame that Goodbye Halo never gets mentioned in in these kind of threads. She was from the same crop as Winning Colors, and while WC certainly has to be considered the best 3yo filly from that year, Goodbye Halo was a hell of a filly and a 7-time G1 winner.
If you haven't watched the famous '88 Distaff in awhile, check it out on youtube. That race wasn't simply a 2-horse finish by any means.

Yep, exactly!

--Dunbar

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

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?

It wasn't a wrong observation.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Lost in the Fog was one of the most overrated horses of my lifetime. A very nice, and well managed, horse but not even close to the horse people pretended he was. The fact that you don't know that is even further, unnecessary, proof of how little you really know while pretending to know everything.

As for the racing experts comment......note to self.....don't read your posts while eating or drinking.

I just spit my drink out. Lost in the Fog...overrated? You have got to be kidding me...

This statement really doesn't even warrant a response, so I won't even try. It won't do any good anyway.

I do not pretend to know everything. I do not know everything. No one does. It is horse racing.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

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

Exactly. Thank you for proving my point even more.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Not to jump in the party late and as tragic as Lost in The Fog's story is, how is he not overrated? Not counting his final race, as he was running with cancer, the only race where he faced a decent field he was soundly beaten. He was a nice story and he was good, you don't win like he did if you are not. But he was certainly not the unbeatable monster some made him out to be. Take your ridiculous emotion out of it for a second and look at it.

You are overestimating her.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Exactly. Thank you for proving my point even more.

Which was what?

Name a 3 year old from last year that you think was 100% sound.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Which was what?

Name a 3 year old from last year that you think was 100% sound.

she'll get back to you as soon as she goes through her extensive video collection....and confirms with the elusive experts.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Not to jump in the party late and as tragic as Lost in The Fog's story is, how is he not overrated? Not counting his final race, as he was running with cancer, the only race where he faced a decent field he was soundly beaten. He was a nice story and he was good, you don't win like he did if you are not. But he was certainly not the unbeatable monster some made him out to be. Take your ridiculous emotion out of it for a second and look at it.

That emotion was the reason he was a great toss out as a huge underlay in the BC Sprint.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

she'll get back to you as soon as she goes through her extensive video collection....and confirms with the elusive experts.

<snerk>


edit



and then there's the translation into laymens terms, else it would go over our heads...

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Danzig

<snerk>


edit



and then there's the translation into laymens terms, else it would go over our heads...

I already know I'm not bright enough to understand....I've stopped trying.

Originally Posted by prudery

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 ????!!!!!!

????

She's well on her way to a lucrative track management position.

[prudery]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

She's well on her way to a lucrative track management position.

Vaya con dios, NYRA ...

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

She's well on her way to a lucrative track management position.

Thank GOD I'm actually not a know-it-all, and that words from a message board will not keep me from reaching my full academic potential. Nor will those words keep me from owning race horses and hunters.