Revolutionary [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

redshift1

03-31-2013, 01:09 PM

I riding this horse for the derby. He does enough to win. In the past this would be the type of horse I get screwed by but im not getting fooled this year.

Im betting him hard May 4th

Definitely a top contender, I would guess odds somewhere between 7-10 on derby day depending on next weeks preps. I project the following betting order assuming Verrazano wins the Wood.

Verrazano
Orb
Revolutionary
Winner of SA Derby

.

RXB

03-31-2013, 01:24 PM

Hmmm. Those looked like the typical La Derby B-listers to me. A couple of speed horses went quickly early and then fell apart, the race was quite slow late.

redshift1

03-31-2013, 01:58 PM

Hmmm. Those looked like the typical La Derby B-listers to me. A couple of speed horses went quickly early and then fell apart, the race was quite slow late.

Your right, very slow and a weak field, still I kind of like him.

MickJ26

03-31-2013, 11:50 PM

He looked like he was done in deep stretch (could've just been the camera angle) and then fought back to win. More impressed with Revolutionary than I was with Orb, although Orb was great too.

Edward DeVere

04-01-2013, 01:21 AM

I riding this horse for the derby. He does enough to win. In the past this would be the type of horse I get screwed by but im not getting fooled this year.

Im betting him hard May 4th

Good luck on all the traffic a deep closer will have to deal with in the Kentucky Derby.

Look at the horses who got stopped cold in this Louisiana Derby, for instance. (With a much smaller field.)

redshift1

04-01-2013, 03:00 AM

I'm no expert but according to the PP's he's hardy a deep closer and has been reasonably close fairly early in several of his races. His last two races are somewhat atypical, look at his 2-4 starts. if anything he's versatile.

"deep closer"

Web definitions

A horse that runs far behind the early pace..

.

Valuist

04-01-2013, 01:59 PM

What prep hasn't been weak? Look at the horses that ran 3rd and 4th at GP. A one dimensional sprinter hangs on for third and a 100-1 shot gets 4th. The LA Derby may not produce the Derby winner, but I wouldn't be surprised if that race eventually yields more future stakes winners than the other preps.

chadk66

04-01-2013, 06:42 PM

He looked like he was done in deep stretch (could've just been the camera angle) and then fought back to win. More impressed with Revolutionary than I was with Orb, although Orb was great too. looked to me like orb was struggling mid turn. but kept grinding and ground out the win. if he would have had to check up at all he would have been in trouble. I like his chances in ky if he gets a clean trip but the odds of that are probably pretty slim.

overthehill

04-02-2013, 01:07 AM

I doubt verrazano wins the wood.

redshift1

04-02-2013, 01:19 AM

I doubt verrazano wins the wood.

Other than doubts (and there's nothing wrong with that) what can you add to support your opinion.

Competition to tough?
Ability?
Not fast enough?
Racing Style?
Pletcher can't win outside of Florida?

.

Leparoux

04-02-2013, 10:24 AM

I really like this horse but will be too low of a price for me on Derby day.

CincyHorseplayer

04-02-2013, 10:50 AM

I really hate this horse and was surprised he didn't lose!You guys really "like" this horse and think he was better than Orb?

I know I am playing the right game brother!

Leparoux

04-02-2013, 11:13 AM

You guys really "like" this horse and think he was better than Orb?

I certainly do not.

redshift1

04-02-2013, 12:10 PM

I have Verrazano and Orb ahead of Revolutionary.

.

CincyHorseplayer

04-02-2013, 12:13 PM

I have Verrazano and Orb ahead of Revolutionary.

.

I have Dreaming Of Julia ahead of all of them!Just got off the DRF and saw she had a 114 figure.Wow.Beholder had a 108 in a sprint last year.This matchup is going to be something else.I just hope it happens.It's eclipsing my interest in the derby.

Striker

04-02-2013, 01:12 PM

I have Dreaming Of Julia ahead of all of them!Just got off the DRF and saw she had a 114 figure.Wow.Beholder had a 108 in a sprint last year.This matchup is going to be something else.I just hope it happens.It's eclipsing my interest in the derby.
Here is a problem with the point system this year. You might have seen her in the derby this year if it was based on graded earnings, and Pletcher had even stated that if that was the case they would think hard about running her in the KD but because of the points system there is no chance of that happening.

CincyHorseplayer

04-02-2013, 01:24 PM

Here is a problem with the point system this year. You might have seen her in the derby this year if it was based on graded earnings, and Pletcher had even stated that if that was the case they would think hard about running her in the KD but because of the points system there is no chance of that happening.

I hear you,loud and clear.There's no reason why the filly races can't be assigned points if races on polytrack are given them.Who's more worthy,Dreaming of Julia or the UAE Derby winner ya know?There are flaws with the 1st year system.It's great that it forces people who don't want to race,to race.But the totality of it hasn't been well thought just yet.It's a good thing.But it can be better.It's a start.

PhantomOnTour

04-02-2013, 01:54 PM

Here is a problem with the point system this year. You might have seen her in the derby this year if it was based on graded earnings, and Pletcher had even stated that if that was the case they would think hard about running her in the KD but because of the points system there is no chance of that happening.
She could have gotten the necessary points if they had run her vs the boys in a 100 point race and she finished 1st or 2nd...but they didn't.
Now, i understand that they may not have known she was gonna run off the TV screen in the GP Oaks...i'll concede that, and there's no chance to get the needed points now.

Maybe make the top 1 or 2 Oaks points earners eligible for the Derby???
I like the points system, but also believe it needs some tweaking.

Beachbabe

04-02-2013, 01:59 PM

Here is a problem with the point system this year. You might have seen her in the derby this year if it was based on graded earnings, and Pletcher had even stated that if that was the case they would think hard about running her in the KD but because of the points system there is no chance of that happening.

I'll play devil's advocate and say, if you really thought Julia was that good (and there's no reason for a trainer like Pletcher not to have a real good idea of her potential), then why not run her in the Fla Derby, where, according to the figures from both races, she would have, at the very least, been competitive if not the outright winner. Then you'd have the points to get into the Derby, if that's your notion.

* sorry P.O.T....hadn't seen your post when I made mine

classhandicapper

04-02-2013, 02:04 PM

I hear you,loud and clear.There's no reason why the filly races can't be assigned points if races on polytrack are given them.Who's more worthy,Dreaming of Julia or the UAE Derby winner ya know?There are flaws with the 1st year system.It's great that it forces people who don't want to race,to race.But the totality of it hasn't been well thought just yet.It's a good thing.But it can be better.It's a start.

I agree.

All graded stakes should be assigned points depending on the probable quality of the field, distance, surface, and nearness to the Derby.

A grade 1 filly race would just get fewer points than Grade 1 for males etc...

CincyHorseplayer

04-02-2013, 02:13 PM

I'll play devil's advocate and say, if you really thought Julia was that good (and there's no reason for a trainer like Pletcher not to have a real good idea of her potential), then why not run her in the Fla Derby, where, according to the figures from both races, she would have, at the very least, been competitive if not the outright winner. Then you'd have the points to get into the Derby, if that's your notion.

* sorry P.O.T....hadn't seen your post when I made mine

I think everybody is making great points.This is a new reality and we are seeing how it plays out.I think that at least age and surface have to be the immediate universalities.It really irks me that the poly BS gets handed points.Why not make turf races points worthy too if that's the case?The points system has eliminated the entitlement of 2yo champs who want to sit on the bench.I think the next step is to eliminate horses who don't even compete on the surface at hand.It's a Kentucky thing so that will never happen.Seeing them ruin racing in their state,at least IMO,is a sad harbinger for racing itself.If it was possible and I was an owner I'd definitely have the balls to run Julia in the derby.These people have brains and money.I didn't know they were eunuchs though!:cool:

iceknight

04-02-2013, 02:20 PM

By the way, it is the 21st century and now women are even being considered in combat positions etc. So why are separate divisions for fillies and separate races for them?
Why not just lump them all as horses and let them compete by their speed/endurance etc? right from the beginning? I mean we have very few girls only schools and colleges left...

but theoretically, has anyone else asked themself this question before, and what are the answers you came up with?

Cincy: Also, were you the one that made some (+ve) comment about Lady Asano after her last race (las virgenes stks- where she finished one but last) or some other board member did

CincyHorseplayer

04-02-2013, 02:21 PM

I agree.

All graded stakes should be assigned points depending on the probable quality of the field, distance, surface, and nearness to the Derby.

A grade 1 filly race would just get fewer points than Grade 1 for males etc...

Absolutely Class.There has to be the thought in mind that a 3yo filly might have the talent to do this and she fits the age bracket.It made me laugh out loud thinking about it!How do you not plan on this possibility when a filly like Rachel Alexandra won the Preakness in 2009?It takes a freakishly good performance by Dreaming of Julia to make us realize what is possible.That's the good stuff!I think the powers that be and the conservative owners wish they didn't have this problem.They might say it's easy for me to say,but I put my money where my mouth is everyday when I play.Let's see them do that on a regular basis!:cool:

Striker

04-02-2013, 05:07 PM

Maybe make the top 1 or 2 Oaks points earners eligible for the Derby???
I like the points system, but also believe it needs some tweaking.
Not a bad idea

JustRalph

04-02-2013, 05:42 PM

I ran into my Walmart greeter horse owner this morning. We were talking about the point system for getting into the Derby. He told me that one of his trainers says that eventually they plan to give "5 point chits" he called them that, for breeding. This would be an incentive in the sales ring according to the theory.

Leparoux

04-02-2013, 05:55 PM

I wish we could see her in the Derby and do hope they tweak the system so a Filly has a chance. With that said, if you want to run in the Derby then you have to qualify just like the males. Run her against the boys in preps if you think that highly of her.

chadk66

04-02-2013, 06:59 PM

the point system shot the industry in the foot. the amount of interest in the derby would double if she was in the race.

plainolebill

04-02-2013, 07:59 PM

If they were serious about getting her into the Derby, run her in the Arkansas Derby, otherwise I say sit down and shutup.

Leparoux

04-02-2013, 09:06 PM

the point system shot the industry in the foot. the amount of interest in the derby would double if she was in the race.
:D :D :D

chadk66

04-02-2013, 10:50 PM

:D :D :Dyou don't agree with that? you would have a huge public buildup that would entice non fans of the sport to watch to see if the filly can beat the boys.

PaceAdvantage

04-02-2013, 11:14 PM

you don't agree with that? you would have a huge public buildup that would entice non fans of the sport to watch to see if the filly can beat the boys.Huge? I doubt that...an added level of interest, yes...

04-03-2013, 12:32 AM

Maybe make the top 1 or 2 Oaks points earners eligible for the Derby???
I like the points system, but also believe it needs some tweaking.

So simple and perfect.

depalma113

04-03-2013, 04:54 AM

you don't agree with that? you would have a huge public buildup that would entice non fans of the sport to watch to see if the filly can beat the boys.

It's the Kentucky Derby, it's like the Super Bowl, non fans will be watching regardless of any of the horses in the race.

Tom

04-03-2013, 07:33 AM

More people tune in for the hats.
The race is incidental.:rolleyes:

chadk66

04-03-2013, 08:46 AM

Huge? I doubt that...an added level of interest, yes...the definition of huge is in the eye of the beholder. I've been having the "huge" discussion with my wife since we got married 25 years ago. Her definition of huge is surely different than mine:D

Valuist

04-03-2013, 10:19 AM

the definition of huge is in the eye of the beholder. I've been having the "huge" discussion with my wife since we got married 25 years ago. Her definition of huge is surely different than mine:D

Has this thread about Revolutionary turned into a thread about "Little Mike"?

Leparoux

04-03-2013, 10:49 AM

the definition of huge is in the eye of the beholder. I've been having the "huge" discussion with my wife since we got married 25 years ago. Her definition of huge is surely different than mine:D
The definition is not subjective when you said that it would "double" the interest in the Derby. DOUBLE!?!?

chadk66

04-03-2013, 02:06 PM

The definition is not subjective when you said that it would "double" the interest in the Derby. DOUBLE!?!?ok maybe double is a stretch. but it no doubt would bring more attention to the race.

johnhannibalsmith

04-03-2013, 06:57 PM

So simple and perfect.

I think so too. It's not like it's a twelve horse gate. If you're the nineteenth best point earning male, so sorry Charlie if it makes room for the best filly to give it a go. But alas, the hardboots don't even like geldings in their stallion maker. :D

Tread

04-03-2013, 09:23 PM

So simple and perfect.

Was this sarcasm? Dreaming of Julia might not even finish in the top 5 point earners, there are still several 100 point races left and she will not run again before the Oaks/Derby. So using the point system does not work at all if you are trying to get her in the Derby.

jahura2

04-04-2013, 10:15 AM

Palice Malice was one of those in La. Derby that encountered all kinds of trouble. Questionable decisions by Prado, might not have won but should have gotten part of it. Definitely a consideration if he goes back in the
Bluegrass, but still not too much of a value being trained by Pletcher.

04-04-2013, 10:24 AM

Was this sarcasm? Dreaming of Julia might not even finish in the top 5 point earners, there are still several 100 point races left and she will not run again before the Oaks/Derby. So using the point system does not work at all if you are trying to get her in the Derby.

Not sarcasm at all. If her connections don't run her enough to get her in the top 2, so be it. If that rule was in place they may have run her in different spots, no?

Tread

04-04-2013, 11:51 AM

Not sarcasm at all. If her connections don't run her enough to get her in the top 2, so be it. If that rule was in place they may have run her in different spots, no?

I don't think so, her most recent race was a huge forward explosion and you wouldn't have been thinking Derby with her based on her prior efforts until this one happened.

The problem here is that "best" is a matter of opinion, not a matter of points. I don't think anyone will argue that her last race was not the best of any 3yr old filly this year, but if what you are trying to do is offer the "best" filly or 2 the ability to run in the Derby you can't do that because the points system is not meant to determine who the best top 1/2 horses are, it is more meant to determine who gets in spots 10-20. And I think what you will see in coming years is that the "best" horse in terms of those KY races frequently will not have the top point value.

Tom

04-04-2013, 12:37 PM

Robert Fischer

04-04-2013, 01:14 PM

Striker

04-04-2013, 02:52 PM

but I was surprised/disappointed about the Illinois Derby being excluded.

I have no idea of the politics involved, but including or excluding that race means a lot to that race.
Anyone who thinks the exclusion of the Illinois Derby from the new points system for the KD wasn't "personal" between CDI(mainly Arlington and Dick D) and Hawthorne, is a fool. I would have liked to see Hawthorne use some imagination of their own after being dealt this hand. They did hike the purse for the IL Derby, but I would have liked to see them offer a sizable bonus, to the winner of the IL Derby, if that horse goes on and wins any of the triple crown races, or some other incentives like that to get horses to enter the race.

Tread

04-04-2013, 04:44 PM

The trouble is, it wasn't broke, but CD "fixed" it anyways.
I think if I owned the filly, and saw that commanding performance, I would be thinking Derby, but now, no such luck. I don't think going in to that race it was clear she could handle the Derby, but now.....we will never know because CD is run by nitwits.

Don't the FANS lose in this case?

Support the Illinois Derby - bet it heavy, and no bets on any CD tracks that day.

How can any sane person possibly have this opinion? It was INCREDIBLY broke. Under the old system, you'd have the top 3 finishers in last years BC Juv, an abysmal, glorified allowance race containing horses who couldn't even sniff the top 15 or 20 in a Derby field, as automatically qualifying entrants for the Derby gate.

The new system is certainly far from perfect and needs tweaking, but to imply that the old system was not broke is beyond laughable. Their handling of the Illinois Derby was undoubtedly petty, but overall has a very minor impact on the integrity of the system. Overall, with all of those things in context, it does a FAR better job of putting horses who are likely to do well in the Derby in the Derby gate than the old system did.

Fager Fan

04-04-2013, 05:49 PM

How can any sane person possibly have this opinion? It was INCREDIBLY broke. Under the old system, you'd have the top 3 finishers in last years BC Juv, an abysmal, glorified allowance race containing horses who couldn't even sniff the top 15 or 20 in a Derby field, as automatically qualifying entrants for the Derby gate.

The new system is certainly far from perfect and needs tweaking, but to imply that the old system was not broke is beyond laughable. Their handling of the Illinois Derby was undoubtedly petty, but overall has a very minor impact on the integrity of the system. Overall, with all of those things in context, it does a FAR better job of putting horses who are likely to do well in the Derby in the Derby gate than the old system did.

When CD has been "petty", it tells you right there just how bad of a system this is. What next? They get mad at Stronach and decide the CA or FL races don't count? Maybe Keeneland can pay them to only accept Keeneland grads into the field. It goes to the very heart of the integrity of the system and CD that they ruined one of the biggest races at a competitor's track due to their business disagreements.

I also have no idea what people think was so wrong about the previous fields. Just what great horses were sitting healthy on the sidelines while "glorified allowance horses" were running? And to flip it around, would some Derby winners have made the field under this system?

This is nothing more than a power play by Churchill. When something needs fixing in racing, we hear about it. Usually for about 20 years before baby steps towards the fix commences. No one was uttering a word about how unfair or broken the old system was. The only thing that was broken was the silly "pick your post" draw which had the total opposite effect, taking away all the drama from the actual post draw.

RXB

04-04-2013, 05:50 PM

The graded earnings system was not only worse than this initial flawed incarnation of the points format just in terms of Derby qualification, but it also enticed tracks to cut purses for older horses in order to puff up the Derby prep purses. As if racing needed to encourage breeders/owners/trainers even more than it currently does to produce early-peaking horses that have short careers.

Santa Anita was able to reduce the SA Derby back down to $750,000 this year. They'd pumped it up to $1 million last year in part because they didn't want their big prep to be worth less toward Ky Derby qualification than the Delta Jackpot (G3 2YO) or Sunland Derby (G3).

I'm hardly convinced that Derby Fever is really a good thing for the sport. Racing needs to re-establish the value of older horses-- aka, the best horses.

VeryOldMan

04-04-2013, 06:25 PM

I'm hardly convinced that Derby Fever is really a good thing for the sport. Racing needs to re-establish the value of older horses-- aka, the best horses.

Was researching the Triple Crown handle on another thread - the Kentucky Derby's handle last year exceeded the entire Breeders Cup card. All of the races over both days.

I grew up in the day when the fall races meant something (Forego/Honest Pleasure; Seattle Slew/Affirmed; Affirmed/Spectacular Bid; etc.). Are we kidding ourselves about older horses? Do any of the current "old" horses rise to the level of the mighty Forego or the 4 year old Seattle Slew or Affirmed?

Tread

04-04-2013, 06:48 PM

When CD has been "petty", it tells you right there just how bad of a system this is. What next? They get mad at Stronach and decide the CA or FL races don't count? Maybe Keeneland can pay them to only accept Keeneland grads into the field. It goes to the very heart of the integrity of the system and CD that they ruined one of the biggest races at a competitor's track due to their business disagreements.

I also have no idea what people think was so wrong about the previous fields. Just what great horses were sitting healthy on the sidelines while "glorified allowance horses" were running? And to flip it around, would some Derby winners have made the field under this system?

This is nothing more than a power play by Churchill. When something needs fixing in racing, we hear about it. Usually for about 20 years before baby steps towards the fix commences. No one was uttering a word about how unfair or broken the old system was. The only thing that was broken was the silly "pick your post" draw which had the total opposite effect, taking away all the drama from the actual post draw.

Were you in a coma all of last year or something? There was a HUGE amount of discussion over the graded earnings process because Trinniberg made the field, and how terrible the system was because of that.

cnollfan

04-04-2013, 06:53 PM

Were you in a coma all of last year or something? There was a HUGE amount of discussion over the graded earnings process because Trinniberg made the field, and how terrible the system was because of that.

Trinniberg did win a Breeders' Cup race. There have been far worse Derby entrants.

RXB

04-04-2013, 07:10 PM

Trinniberg did win a Breeders' Cup race. There have been far worse Derby entrants.

He's only competed once beyond 7f: the Ky Derby. He had no business being in the race.

_______

04-04-2013, 07:16 PM

Trinniberg did win a Breeders' Cup race. There have been far worse Derby entrants.

I won't disagree that there have been worse Derby entrants but you might as well add that he helped force the pace for 7f while ignoring his fade to 17th place or that his BC win was the Sprint.

They ran a horse that had never raced beyond 7f in a 10f race and the predictible happened. Was he the worst starter ever? Probably not. But that doesn't excuse the fact that he shouldn't have been in the gate and wouldn't have under today's rules.

I wasn't a fan of the changes when they came out but I've been persuaded by events. It would be great if they could make accomodations for a filly and the Illinois Derby exclusion was petty. But I think you'll see better quality in the starting gate under this system than you would have under graded stakes earnings.

letswastemoney

04-04-2013, 10:02 PM

Why don't we just run the race with no pace horses. It will be renamed The Plodders' Derby.

RXB

04-04-2013, 11:58 PM

Why don't we just run the race with no pace horses. It will be renamed The Plodders' Derby.

Yeah, because of course there's been such a problem over the past few decades with slow paces in the Ky Derby and frontrunners having all of the best of it. We need more horses like Trinniberg to act as the 45-second half-mile pace bunny.

rastajenk

04-05-2013, 07:15 AM

Under the old system, you'd have the top 3 finishers in last years BC Juv, an abysmal, glorified allowance race containing horses who couldn't even sniff the top 15 or 20 in a Derby field, as automatically qualifying entrants for the Derby gate.When has that ever happened?

MickJ26

04-05-2013, 06:38 PM

If you win the BC Juvenile, Delta Jackpot or the Cashcall Futurity, you could pretty much just train right up to the Derby if you wanted to. I'm not saying it'd be wise, but, theoretically you could. I'm probably one of the few people who believe the Kentucky Derby is overrated to begin with.

ten2oneormore

04-11-2013, 12:12 PM

Castellano jumps off Revolutionary to ride Normandy Invasion in the Derby.

Jockey Javier Castellano has committed to ride Fox Hill Farms' Wood Memorial (gr. I) runner-up Normandy Invasion (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred/normandy-invasion/2010?source=BHonline) in the Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands (gr. I), leaving Louisiana Derby (gr. II) winner Revolutionary (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred/revolutionary/2010?source=BHonline) open, agent Matt Muzikar confirmed April 11.
Read more on BloodHorse.com: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/77462/castellano-picks-normandy-invasion-for-derby#ixzz2QAhIiHrQ

classhandicapper

04-11-2013, 03:08 PM