aqu - today race 9

gales0678 · #1 11-06-2008, 09:03 PM

Did Channing Hill blow it today

At the top shouldn't he have opened up more over the field

It looked to me as though he never saw corny coming on the #1 until it was too late

blackthroatedwind · #2 11-06-2008, 09:28 PM

I couldn't possibly disagree any more with this.

NTamm1215 · #3 11-06-2008, 09:32 PM

The winner was the best horse in the race. However, I thought Channing Hill's ride on Stephen's Rhythm's sucked.

NT

the_fat_man · #4 11-06-2008, 09:34 PM

Cornelio needs to bottle some of what he displayed this race (BALLS) and pass it around the jock room. JV (the EUNUCH, a/k/a MR WIDE) should have some interest here.

blackthroatedwind · #5 11-06-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

The winner was the best horse in the race. However, I thought Channing Hill's ride on Stephen's Rhythm's sucked.

NT

That wasn't a good ride.

gales0678 · #6 11-06-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I couldn't possibly disagree any more with this.

andy explain please as i am a novice compared to yourslef . i talked to someone while at the otb and they thought that if hill took charge at the top he could have won

why do you disagree with that opinion?

blackthroatedwind · #7 11-06-2008, 09:52 PM

There's so much wrong with that kind of thinking and, frankly, it is the ultimate novice kind of opinion. First of all, it assumes that the horse actually could have pulled away at will, and that the jockey was preventing that to the detriment of the horse. Neither is true. If the jockey was rating him, then the horse would have sufficient energy to put away a challenger, if in fact he also could have opened up and held that rival safe. It's as though if the horse expended energy early in the race, and thus opened up on its rivals, it still would have had the same amount of horse at the end of the race. In all likelihood, if anything, the opposite would be true, and the horse would tire more. There is little more hurtful to a horse's chances of being most successful than a premature move.

If anything, one could say that the second finisher was overaggressively ridden early, and if she had settled in third, she most likely would have won.

MaTH716 · #8 11-06-2008, 09:54 PM

It looked like Hill went to work on the horse at the top off the stetch. He just happened to get caught, I don't know what else you wanted him to do.

gales0678 · #9 11-06-2008, 10:03 PM

andy - the 1st qtr was run in 24 and change , why wouldn't he push him more in the 2nd qtr , why 49 and change , why not go 48 and open up and let them catch you

once he saw him go bye it looked like he came back a little at then end but hill acted too late

the_fat_man · #10 11-06-2008, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

If anything, one could say that the second finisher was overaggressively ridden early, and if she had settled in third, she most likely would have won.

I think this is unfair criticism and almost certainly will be over the head of just about everyone here. Hill essentially did the right thing. By doing so, however, he handed a perfect trip to the winner. Of course, the trip was perfect in terms of race dynamics but difficult in terms of execution; so, much credit needs to go to the winning rider (who rode it like a turf race). This is just a case of bad luck for Hill.

blackthroatedwind · #11 11-06-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

I think this is unfair criticism and almost certainly will be over the head of just about everyone here. Hill essentially did the right thing. By doing so, however, he handed a perfect trip to the winner. Of course, the trip was perfect in terms of race dynamics but difficult in terms of execution; so, much credit needs to go to the winning rider (who rode it like a turf race). This is just a case of bad luck for Hill.

Maybe the best horse won.

gales0678 · #12 11-06-2008, 10:24 PM

open up the lead fat man after the half and hill would have won

blackthroatedwind · #13 11-06-2008, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gales0678

andy - the 1st qtr was run in 24 and change , why wouldn't he push him more in the 2nd qtr , why 49 and change , why not go 48 and open up and let them catch you

once he saw him go bye it looked like he came back a little at then end but hill acted too late

I think you need to take a look at two things.....first of all the overall quality of the field and the horses in question. And, secondly, take a look at each fraction, and explain to me how if the second finisher had so much horse, he wasn't able to get his final quarter in less time than either of the first two quarters.

blackthroatedwind · #14 11-06-2008, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gales0678

open up the lead fat man after the half and hill would have won

I see you spent a lot of time thinking about what I said.

the_fat_man · #15 11-06-2008, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Maybe the best horse won.

Maybe the best trip won.

blackthroatedwind · #16 11-06-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

Maybe the best trip won.

Yeah, probably. But, maybe the best horse got the best trip. Looking at their pps, do you really think the second finisher is necessarily better than the winner? He was absolutely dreadful in his prior start.

Frankly, I look forward to betting against all of these horses next time they run. That was about as bad a field of older maidens as we can get.

gales0678 · #17 11-06-2008, 10:33 PM

instead of looking at times , why not ask yourself if the horse had opened up a 2 or 3 length the horse could have gotten brave on the front and cruised to victory

why strangle the horse in the 2nd qtr and discourge the horse from running?

blackthroatedwind · #18 11-06-2008, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gales0678

instead of looking at times , why not ask yourself if the horse had opened up a 2 or 3 length the horse could have gotten brave on the front and cruised to victory

why strangle the horse in the 2nd qtr and discourge the horse from running?

You asked me to explain it to you, I ( clearly wasted ) a lot of time trying to do just that, and you keep standing by your opinion. Fine....go ahead. However, don't ask in the future if you refuse to listen to reason.

I think you need to watch the race again, as what you are saying bears no relation to what actually took place in the race.

gales0678 · #19 11-06-2008, 10:43 PM

andy - 2 questions about historical races

76' derby if cordero had not let bold forbes run at any point of thart race would he have won?

'89 preakness - after pay day made the lead when he made the move on the backstretch why slow easy goer down , let him keep going and let sunday silence try to catch him?

horses just cant be turned on by a flick of the switch and when you try to hold em down sometimes they wont start again

if the #3 had lost today with hill opening up more in the 2nd qtr i could have lived with it , but , by strangling the horse in the 2nd qtr he allowed the #1 to stay close and in the race and essentialy all cv had to do was outspint him for 2F