Where's the Scat Daddy Thread?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

See I dont really think that a Grade II should count less. The Arkansas Derby is a Grade II. Why should that count differently from the Bluegrass, SA Derby or the Wood?

I agree with that. Maybe it should increase by date or timing.

It's not easy and one could argue the simpler the better. Nothing will be totally fair. The bottom line is if you race your horse the deserving ones will get in. If you pull a John Ward, and never run, you won't.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

You can only match their 3-year-old credentials...anything else would be foolish and unfair since Bernie didn't have the chance to blossom into a better older horse......Oh yeah, GZ was crippled most of his 3-year-old year...sorry, I forgot....

Bullsheet, because you can't be certain he'll be a better 4YO than 3YO. Flower Alley? You can only compare WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

just saw street sence replay on tvg..hi ho calvin....nice pick andy..

Thanks. I believe he is the finest thoroughbred to ever look through a bridle.

That is until he loses....or fails to run his race.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

See I dont really think that a Grade II should count less. The Arkansas Derby is a Grade II. Why should that count differently from the Bluegrass, SA Derby or the Wood?

That is certainly an issue I have with the grading committee. I'd be fine with putting the Blue Grass/SA Derby/Wood/Arkansas Derby/Florida Derby equal, then putting the Lane's End, Gotham, Santa Catalina, Rebel, FOY a notch below, then putting the Southwest, Holy Bull, and whatever other February preps there are a notch below that.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I agree with that. Maybe it should increase by date or timing.

It's not easy and one could argue the simpler the better. Nothing will be totally fair. The bottom line is if you race your horse the deserving ones will get in. If you pull a John Ward, and never run, you won't.

Exactly. There are plenty of races to run and you have to race your horse in order to get in.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Thanks. I believe he is the finest thoroughbred to ever look through a bridle.

That is until he loses....or fails to run his race.

ha so funny..it works on so many levels...

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

See I dont really think that a Grade II should count less. The Arkansas Derby is a Grade II. Why should that count differently from the Bluegrass, SA Derby or the Wood?

I think that's a tough call really...on the one hand weighting those races would help preserve the heritage and prestige of those important grade 1's, By making them worth the most on a points system they would naturally be the targets of the best 3 YO (not that they aren't already) but on the other hand forcing an owner to choose between chasing glory and chasing money is a tough thing to do...some of the newer graded stakes offer a chance at a huge payday...it would be tough if they were worth less on a point's scale, at least from an owner's perspective.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by philcski

Bullsheet, because you can't be certain he'll be a better 4YO than 3YO. Flower Alley? You can only compare WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.

And why is that fair? You're comparing a 3 year old to a 4 year old...

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

That is certainly an issue I have with the grading committee. I'd be fine with putting the Blue Grass/SA Derby/Wood/Arkansas Derby/Florida Derby equal, then putting the Lane's End, Gotham, Santa Catalina, Rebel, FOY a notch below, then putting the Southwest, Holy Bull, and whatever other February preps there are a notch below that.

I dont know. I mean, everyone would be poiting to one of the races with the top pts. What happens if the SA Derby over subscribes and your horses doesnt get in. It isnt like you can immediately change your plans. I like your thinking and I think you are onto to something. Lets tweak this a bit and see what we come up with.

Originally Posted by philcski

Bullsheet, because you can't be certain he'll be a better 4YO than 3YO. Flower Alley? You can only compare WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.

Sorry man, I totally disagree....90% of horses get better as 4-year-olds and he DEFINATELY had the pedigree to be a better older horse.....Remember, the horse only had a handful of races and only raced for like 9 months and was very unseasoned because he could never find anyone who could run with him most of his career....the first battle-test he recieved was last Saturday and now we unfortunately won't get to see how uch he would have improved and benefitted from it....

Say what you will, this horse had as much natural ability and talent than any other horse that has run the last 15-20 years.....I really believe that...There is no right or wrong with that belief because it is all specualtion because normal people won't believe it until you prove it on the track, and unfortunately he'll never get that opportunity....sucks, but I saw enough to have that opinion of him....

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I dont know. I mean, everyone would be poiting to one of the races with the top pts. What happens if the SA Derby over subscribes and your horses doesnt get in. It isnt like you can immediately change your plans. I like your thinking and I think you are onto to something. Lets tweak this a bit and see what we come up with.

Isn't that what we should be going for? Get everyone in those five preps to earn their way in instead of getting in based on running second in the Delta Jackpot as a 2yo? If you have a bad day in the big prep then you have points from your prior races to fallback on but if your trainer campaigned you too lightly and you flop on the big day then you get what you deserved for putting all your eggs in one basket.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Isn't that what we should be going for? Get everyone in those five preps to earn their way in instead of getting in based on running second in the Delta Jackpot as a 2yo? If you have a bad day in the big prep then you have points from your prior races to fallback on but if your trainer campaigned you too lightly and you flop on the big day then you get what you deserved for putting all your eggs in one basket.

Wouldn't that destroy a lot of fields for other races, though?

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Wouldn't that destroy a lot of fields for other races, though?

I think it would. If your horse runs 4th in the SA Derby and some horse wins the Lanes End, who is to say that the 4th place finish it below a weak Grade II. Again, I like the thinking, I just think we need to tweak it a bit. Make it sort of a combintation of things.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I think it would. If your horse runs 4th in the SA Derby and some horse wins the Lanes End, who is to say that the 4th place finish it below a weak Grade II. Again, I like the thinking, I just think we need to tweak it a bit. Make it sort of a combintation of things.

I don't want a system where 4th in the SA Derby is better than winning the Lane's End. It would be more like winning the Lane's End is equivalent to 2nd in the SA Derby. Winning a Feb prep like the Holy Bull would be equivalent to 3rd in the SA Derby. It wouldn't alter things at all for those races because the purse increases each month mirror the point increases. It would prevent the outliers like the Delta Jackpot or graded turf races or graded sprints from having too much of an impact and would correct issues like the Arkansas Derby counting for more than the Wood Memorial because the purse is higher.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

And why is that fair? You're comparing a 3 year old to a 4 year old...

The point was Cunningham said he was better than Ghostzapper, so I compared what they have done. It's unfair to us as racing fans to not be able to see him as a 4YO potential all time great, but since we won't we'll have to base our comparisons on what they both did on track. And at this point, he's good- but not an all time great.
I for one don't think he's even the best of his generation.

Originally Posted by philcski

The point was Cunningham said he was better than Ghostzapper, so I compared what they have done. It's unfair to us as racing fans to not be able to see him as a 4YO potential all time great, but since we won't we'll have to base our comparisons on what they both did on track. And at this point, he's good- but not an all time great.
I for one don't think he's even the best of his generation.

That is why OPINIONS are great and widely diverse... if not, there would be no need for a website like Derbytrail....it is good to hear different people's opinions and the best thing is that nobody is right and we are all right at the same time....thats what makes it interesting in the debate...

I doubt many people come on here for handicapping hints

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

I doubt many people come on here for handicapping hints

that is an absolute insult to Steve and to all the people who DO indeed visit the site for his Handicapping tips...don't you think?

Originally Posted by paisjpq

that is an absolute insult to Steve and to all the people who DO indeed visit the site for his Handicapping tips...don't you think?

Oh God, here we go again.....NO Bethani, it is not an insult to Steve....Gus and I give as many selections as anyone on this site...it is what it is....I was simply counting the number of thread views in the Paddock area versus the Selections area...it is pure math..

I have OBVIOUSLY made an enemy with you and you are always now going to spin my posts in a negative light going forward...very unfortunate Steve knows where I stand with him.....Sorry you feel this way

P.S. - The stats are there for anyone to see and it appears as though well under 10% of the posts and views are in the Selections section, while the Paddock area is easily the most popular section....that is NOT my opinion, that is fact...sorry for your misinterretation - and now perhaps I am the one who deserves an apology

It doesn't have to be like this......

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

Oh God, here we go again.....NO Bethani, it is not an insult to Steve....Gus and I give as many selections as anyone on this site...it is what it is....I was simply counting the number of thread views in the Paddock area versus the Selections area...it is pure math..

I have OBVIOUSLY made an enemy with you and you are always now going to spin my posts in a negative light going forward...very unfortunate Steve knows where I stand with him.....Sorry you feel this way

P.S. - The stats are there for anyone to see and it appears as though well under 10% of the posts and views are in the Selections section, while the Paddock area is easily the most popular section....that is NOT my opinion, that is fact...

please...you are creating spin here not me...I was hardly suggesting that the only reason people visit the site is for handicapping but for you to suggest that that is not why they are here is ridiculous...and an insult to steve.

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

that is an absolute insult to Steve and to all the people who DO indeed visit the site for his Handicapping tips...don't you think?

I can guarantee nobody here visits this site primarily for handcapping tips, although I did give out Invasor if you read my selections.