Afleet Alex

Originally Posted by Flaxen Mane

I havn't seen him up close either, but I've heard he has pretty darn bad feet. And I know that the reason he was campaigned so lightly was due to his fragility.

Why would you breed you mare to that???

If Perfect Drift had some sperm. That would be my choice. As far mares which I feel are more important for stamina (and I have a real genetic basis for this belief, not dosage points) I would have to rely on the masses to educate me. Perfect Drift's seconditis is behavioral.

Originally Posted by pgardn

If Perfect Drift had some sperm. That would be my choice. As far mares which I feel are more important for stamina (and I have a real genetic basis for this belief, not dosage points) I would have to rely on the masses to educate me. Perfect Drift's seconditis is behavioral.

That's a good point, everyone puts a lot of emphasis on the stallion, but mares really do have more to do w/the outcome than the stallion does. A good mare will do well regardless of who she goes to. Dear Birdie for example has 11 winners from 11 foals of racing age, she has only visited the same stallion on one occasion (Proper Reality).

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Flaxen Mane

That's a good point, everyone puts a lot of emphasis on the stallion, but mares really do have more to do w/the outcome than the stallion does. A good mare will do well regardless of who she goes to. Dear Birdie for example has 11 winners from 11 foals of racing age, she has only visited the same stallion on one occasion (Proper Reality).

I do think that distance ability comes from the mare, but if you're considering soundness, I believe it's a 50/50 deal. I still don't think I'd take my chances on breeding to a crooked horse.

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I do think that distance ability comes from the mare, but if you're considering soundness, I believe it's a 50/50 deal. I still don't think I'd take my chances on breeding to a crooked horse.

Agreed!!!!!!

[slotdirt]

I don't know though, there are plenty of crooked horses that make darn good runners!

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I don't know though, there are plenty of crooked horses that make darn good runners!

Unfortunately, they don't last.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I don't agree, Jessica. TIME in a work means little... it's HOW the horse worked. I don't think AA would have come close to St. Liam.

Exactly, the horse worked phenomenally off of that layoff. Time does matter coupled with the horse's precociousness, power, and movement. Speed is everything in this game. It was too fast and too good-looking. Something was bound to go wrong, and it did. It was sort of like Bellamy Road's Travers performance. It was too much too soon. AA would have ran by St. Liam. I've said that many times before and that is honestly my opinion.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

St. Liam was so obviously a dog because he managed to only lose to Ghostzapper - another obvious nag - by a neck in the Clark in 2004.

St. Liam was by far from being a nag. St. Liam was awesome. This is an invalid arguement because Commentator, as well as others, also beat St. Liam. Also, St. Liam's performance against GZ that day was not as good as it seems. GZ was in the deepest part of the track, and as far as ability goes, St. Liam didn't even come close to GZ. No horse that I have ever seen live had GZ's talent, with maybe the exception of a few who are currently running. We'll find out about them when their careers are over.

Afleet Alex also had a lot more talent than some of you realize. He was a darn good horse that had the best kick I have ever seen. He looked like he had been shot out of a cannon when he turned it on. The horse was really as good as his times showed in the Arkansas Derby and the Mountain Valley Stakes. They were for real, and the horse was fast. He proved it in the last quarter of the Belmont Stakes after a grueling TC campaign, and after almost being knocked off his feet in the Preakness three weeks before. Not many horses could have won the Belmont under those circumstances.

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Afleet Alex also had a lot more talent than some of you realize. He was a darn good horse that had the best kick I have ever seen. He looked like he had been shot out of a cannon when he turned it on. The horse was really as good as his times showed in the Arkansas Derby and the Mountain Valley Stakes. They were for real, and the horse was fast. He proved it in the last quarter of the Belmont Stakes after a grueling TC campaign, and after almost being knocked off his feet in the Preakness three weeks before. Not many horses could have won the Belmont under those circumstances.

Here is what bothers me about Alex.... Whenever he would unleash his stunning move he made the horses near him look like they were standing still. The reason is they pretty much WERE! He passed horses that didn't want any part of 1 1/4 miles let alone 1 1/2 in the Belmont. Every time I watched him run the race fell apart around him.
I don't mean to knock Alex because I did like him, however I don't htink he is the super horse that so many were trying to turn him into...

And honestly, if I were you I wouldn't put that much stock into the near knockdown. It looked very dramatic, however he lost NO momentum off of that stumble.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

St. Liam was by far from being a nag. St. Liam was awesome. This is an invalid arguement because Commentator, as well as others, also beat St. Liam. Also, St. Liam's performance against GZ that day was not as good as it seems. GZ was in the deepest part of the track, and as far as ability goes, St. Liam didn't even come close to GZ. No horse that I have ever seen live had GZ's talent, with maybe the exception of a few who are currently running. We'll find out about them when their careers are over.

Afleet Alex also had a lot more talent than some of you realize. He was a darn good horse that had the best kick I have ever seen. He looked like he had been shot out of a cannon when he turned it on. The horse was really as good as his times showed in the Arkansas Derby and the Mountain Valley Stakes. They were for real, and the horse was fast. He proved it in the last quarter of the Belmont Stakes after a grueling TC campaign, and after almost being knocked off his feet in the Preakness three weeks before. Not many horses could have won the Belmont under those circumstances.

Sarcasm, my friend, sarcasm.

[irishtrekker]

Originally Posted by Flaxen Mane

Here is what bothers me about Alex.... Whenever he would unleash his stunning move he made the horses near him look like they were standing still. The reason is they pretty much WERE! He passed horses that didn't want any part of 1 1/4 miles let alone 1 1/2 in the Belmont. Every time I watched him run the race fell apart around him.
I don't mean to knock Alex because I did like him, however I don't htink he is the super horse that so many were trying to turn him into...

And honestly, if I were you I wouldn't put that much stock into the near knockdown. It looked very dramatic, however he lost NO momentum off of that stumble.

I have to disagree on the last part. It's not the momentum that's impressive -- it's the recovery. That near knockdown would have been the end of many horses who aren't fortunate enough to be so agile. The fact that he still came back to run in the Belmont after that is what amazes me -- there's no way that fall shouldn't have torqued his back, and if it didn't, then that little colt has one hell of a body.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Flaxen Mane

Here is what bothers me about Alex.... Whenever he would unleash his stunning move he made the horses near him look like they were standing still. The reason is they pretty much WERE! He passed horses that didn't want any part of 1 1/4 miles let alone 1 1/2 in the Belmont. Every time I watched him run the race fell apart around him.
I don't mean to knock Alex because I did like him, however I don't htink he is the super horse that so many were trying to turn him into...

And honestly, if I were you I wouldn't put that much stock into the near knockdown. It looked very dramatic, however he lost NO momentum off of that stumble.

Then I guess you ingnore the final quarter mile time in his Belmont, and his stakes record in the Mountain Valley, and his superb time in the Preakness with the stumble, as well as the Arkansas Derby. I know it is silly to compare times between different tracks and between days and years, but a horse that wasn't talented couldn't have run like that four different times like that.

I ride horses in real life, and I'm telling you that as dramatic as that stumble was, at most he lost a couple 10th's of a second. And that is at the VERY most.

I never said the horse wasn't fast, he was, but he was no super horse. And of course that last 1/4 in the Belmont was blazing, the race fell apart! Did you see the final time???

Again, I don't mean to knock Alex, he was a very nice colt, however, if he'd have run the year before, or the year after, I don't know that he would have fared so well. He would not have defeated Barbaro or Smarty in the Derby, he DEFINATELY would not have defeated Bernardini in the Preakness, and I'm not sure he'd have got Smarty either. In the Belmont.... Well, maybe running against a stronger pace....

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Flaxen Mane

I ride horses in real life, and I'm telling you that as dramatic as that stumble was, at most he lost a couple 10th's of a second. And that is at the VERY most.

I never said the horse wasn't fast, he was, but he was no super horse. And of course that last 1/4 in the Belmont was blazing, the race fell apart! Did you see the final time???

Again, I don't mean to knock Alex, he was a very nice colt, however, if he'd have run the year before, or the year after, I don't know that he would have fared so well. He would not have defeated Barbaro or Smarty in the Derby, he DEFINATELY would not have defeated Bernardini in the Preakness, and I'm not sure he'd have got Smarty either. In the Belmont.... Well, maybe running against a stronger pace....

Gee, like I haven't been riding horses my entire life even since before I could walk? Afleet Alex did lose a little momentum in the Preakness. His striding was compromised, and anytime a horse's striding is compromised, they lose momentum. You could see him really digging his hind legs up under him and pushing off of them with all his might to get his momentum all the way back up to the way it was before the incident. That is why it took him a distance to get by Scrappy T. In fact, I think both of the horses' momentums were compromised. I don't know by how much it would have affected the final time, but I do know the final time would have been faster. With that being said, it wasn't the momentum that the horse lost that was impressive. It was the fact that he recovered at all. 999 out of 1000 horses would have fallen. Although he doesn't have the prettiest conformation, that was one of the most athletic horses that I have ever seen. Was Alex a superhorse? No, he wasn't, at least, not at that stage of the game. However, there was every indication that he was improving including his gain in weight and height after his injury and the final workout off of the long layoff before he was officially retired.

Also, regarding the final time, it wasn't AA's fault that the horses in front of him went so slow in the opening quarters of the Belmont. The little horse did what was asked of him, and that was to annihilate them. He really put on a show. His Preakness time was very good even with the incident.

No, he wouldn't have Barbaro in the Derby. Of course, Barbaro was one nice horse. AA would have given Smarty Jones a run for his money in the Arkansas and the Preakness though, and maybe even the Derby. The race completely fell apart in AA's Derby, so it is very hard to compare the two. However, the race in the Preakness was more toward Alex's real ability rather than the Derby and the Belmont because, like you said, both of those races comepletely fell apart. As far as AA beating Bernardini...NO WAY, but then again I don't think any horse could have beaten Bernardini in the Preakness in this millenium. I think Bernardini is the next great one.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

Also, St. Liam's performance against GZ that day was not as good as it seems. GZ was in the deepest part of the track, and as far as ability goes, St. Liam didn't even come close to GZ.

That's not the way I remember it. The 2 horses were right next to each other (and both very wide) for the last half of the race. If one was in the "deepest part of the track", then so was the other.

If there is a reason to think St Liam's performance wasn't as good as it seemed, it would be because he was leaning on GZ for most of the stretch. Personally, I don't buy that. It was an outstanding performance by 2 superb horses. If I remember correctly, they both earned 114 BSF's that day. But with the wide turn they ran, the adjusted fig was probably as good as GZ's 120's in other races.

--Dunbar

[slotdirt]

I don't know, I still think we're looking at a glorious time for the Preakness if the Scrappy T incident doesn't happen last year. I mean, seriously, normal horses don't make the move that Afleet Alex did on the turn at Old Hilltop.

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Unfortunately, they don't last.

Yeah, he ran a mere 23 times

Canonero II, (1968-1981), was a champion thoroughbred race horse.

Bred by Edward B. Benjamin in Kentucky, the bay colt was born with a noticeably crooked foreleg, and as such was considered to have no future in racing. He was sold as a yearling for a mere $1,200 at the Keeneland auction. Purchased by Edgar Caibett, the horse was shipped to his native Venezuela where it earned an undistinguished record racing as a two-year-old.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by dr.fager

Yeah, he ran a mere 23 times

Canonero II, (1968-1981), was a champion thoroughbred race horse.

Bred by Edward B. Benjamin in Kentucky, the bay colt was born with a noticeably crooked foreleg, and as such was considered to have no future in racing. He was sold as a yearling for a mere $1,200 at the Keeneland auction. Purchased by Edgar Caibett, the horse was shipped to his native Venezuela where it earned an undistinguished record racing as a two-year-old.

How many in RECENT times have ran more than a handful of times? (And we're not talking about an exception to every rule as the horse you stated above was an exception to the rule.) And secondly, would YOU as a responsible breeder ever want to encourage a horse to be born crooked if it was BETTER for the horse to be born with straight legs?

You always try to get me going...

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

How many in RECENT times have ran more than a handful of times? (And we're not talking about an exception to every rule as the horse you stated above was an exception to the rule.) And secondly, would YOU as a responsible breeder ever want to encourage a horse to be born crooked if it was BETTER for the horse to be born with straight legs?

You always try to get me going...

I get history lessons daily from Damascus'67....so long story short you're right about the last part,

[slotdirt]

I don't know, wasn't old Seabiscuit renowned to be as crooked as can be?