Why is this considered a weak Field?

[Paulieballgame]

New to this, so this is a serious question. Why to people keep saying the field is weak, or that a horse does not deserve to win the Triple Crown? What are you looking at in deciding this? Like I said this is a serious question and I am trying to learn.

[sonnyp]

in horse racing, you just can't look at a final time for a race to "rate" a horses's ability or performance.

there are many variables involved including but not limited to track bias and condition, pace of the race, the class of the competition etc.

on certain days, because of favorable set ups, poor quality horses can and do run fast times. the opposite is als true when the coditions and set ups are unfavorable.

it's very difficult to compare crops of three y.o.'s from year to year and era to era.

individuals have spent lifetimes developing rating figures to use in a comparative manner to aide in handicapping races. andy beyer has a set of numbers used by the DRF and others, "the sheets" and our own cj use a rating system.

when a crop is considered ordinary or a horse unworthy of a tripple crown, it usually means their "figures" don't match up competitively with other great crops or horses.

[DJofSD]

A couple of off the cuff replies.

I might look at a race and think there is not a horse entered that looks like it wants to win. PPs show they are entered over their heads, do not show a win or they are have finished in the money but are distanced or just barely got up.

A NW1 with a bunch of runners that broke their maiden a long time ago.

[JustRalph]

iw-QYkEjVBM


s9UqCwASKpc

Watch how easy Slew Does it. And he isn't considered the best. But pretty damn good....... many of us can remember horses like this and thanks to Youtube we can go back and watch them now that we are older and can evaluate them with a more mature eye. The more you watch horses like this, the more you realize how the game has changed.

Go to youtube and look up Affirmed and Alydar and even some races by Holy Bull and others. You can then gain some context. Pay attention to some of the fractions too. They are interesting.

They let SSlew go 1:14 for 6F in the Belmont.......they were never going to get him at that point. He crosses the wire in the KY Derby and the Belmont with his ears pricked and tail swishing like he is in an easy workout.

I challenge other members to post their favorite races from youtube, along the same lines.

When referring to "Crops" you can find many horses that were born in very tough years that would be proverbial "monsters" today.

Watch Alydar racing Affirmed. If there was no Affirmed, Alydar would be a great one. He missed the triple crown by about a length over 3 races....... that's a tough year to be born

[sonnyp]

http://youtu.be/cS4f6wiQJh4

[classhandicapper]

New to this, so this is a serious question. Why to people keep saying the field is weak, or that a horse does not deserve to win the Triple Crown? What are you looking at in deciding this? Like I said this is a serious question and I am trying to learn.

The people that are saying that are primarily looking at the speed figures earned by some of the better horses in the crop compared to previous crops and the norms for top 3YOs at this time of year.

[Sugar Ron]

Must've been some group of killers that SS faced back in '77

The colt that finished third in both the Derby and Belmont only managed to win two races in his entire career.

And the second best horse in that TC series seemed to enjoy finishing second ... even when SS wasn't in the contest.

Always get a good laugh, by the way, when people say that a modern day stud like a GZ couldn't have competed against old-timers from the '60s and '70s.

[rastajenk]

The people that are saying that are primarily looking at the speed figures earned by some of the better horses in the crop compared to previous crops and the norms for top 3YOs at this time of year.There is much more to it than that.

I'm a speed figure-biased fan, and I realize their chief usage is in handicapping a horse's next race; and that other determinations that use them, such as assessing a horse's career achievements or comparing historical eras, are less reliable and more faith-based. But I do it anyway almost unconsciously, as do many others; it's handy. And by that measure, it appears as though this will be a "weak crop."

But, as i said, there's more to it than that. Throughout the preps all winter, the favorites were merely the now horse at those times; nothing has a real solid list of achievements. No clear-cut regional leaders. No win streaks. No sense that any of these should be competitive in the Classic and its older-horse preps in the fall. That's why I think you see a lot of the "weak" label.

[keithw84]

New to this, so this is a serious question. Why to people keep saying the field is weak, or that a horse does not deserve to win the Triple Crown? What are you looking at in deciding this? Like I said this is a serious question and I am trying to learn.

In addition to what others have already mentioned, you can judge a crop of horses as a whole after you see how they do over the whole year.

2007 is considered a year with a strong class of 3-year old horses. The top horses from that crop did so throughout the year rather than putting in fluky performances here and there. They also did very well against older horses. Any Given Saturday won the Haskell Invitational (one of the top races for 3 year-olds) and he beat older horses in the Brooklyn Handicap. Curlin beat older horses in the Jockey Club Gold Cup and the Breeders Cup Classic - two of the sport's biggest races.

1994 is another year with what is considered a good crop of 3-year olds. Holy Bull was clearly the best horse that year, and he put away the older horses. Concern and Tabasco Cat - 3-year olds who had been defeated by Holy Bull - finished ahead of older horses in the Breeders Cup Classic.

[classhandicapper]

There is much more to it than that.

I'm a speed figure-biased fan, and I realize their chief usage is in handicapping a horse's next race; and that other determinations that use them, such as assessing a horse's career achievements or comparing historical eras, are less reliable and more faith-based. But I do it anyway almost unconsciously, as do many others; it's handy. And by that measure, it appears as though this will be a "weak crop."

But, as i said, there's more to it than that. Throughout the preps all winter, the favorites were merely the now horse at those times; nothing has a real solid list of achievements. No clear-cut regional leaders. No win streaks. No sense that any of these should be competitive in the Classic and its older-horse preps in the fall. That's why I think you see a lot of the "weak" label.

Personally, I think non numeric metrics should play a role in the assessment, but I still think most people are basing their conclusions on speed figures. I would add that several of the leaders or potential leaders of the the division have fallen by the wayside. So those at the top right now may actually be the second string.

[Paulieballgame]

So my question is then can a field be considered weak NOW, but then be considered a strong class. Most 3year olds now seem to run a limited amount of races up to the triple crown races. It does seem that some horses have gotten better thru the 2 races and if you take there races up to now, they can go on to become a good horse. It just seems that every year all the hirses get bashed for being weak, but the old days of racing will never happen were horses have a ton of prep races by 3 and go on to run until 5 to 7 years old. Am i wrong in thinking this.
Thanks for all the posts tho. LOVE THE VIDEOS TO. does make it look pretty easy

[elysiantraveller]

So my question is then can a field be considered weak NOW, but then be considered a strong class. Most 3year olds now seem to run a limited amount of races up to the triple crown races. It does seem that some horses have gotten better thru the 2 races and if you take there races up to now, they can go on to become a good horse. It just seems that every year all the hirses get bashed for being weak, but the old days of racing will never happen were horses have a ton of prep races by 3 and go on to run until 5 to 7 years old. Am i wrong in thinking this.
Thanks for all the posts tho. LOVE THE VIDEOS TO. does make it look pretty easy

Every year people complain about the crop not being very good to a certain degree. This one doesn't look very good for all the reasons already mentioned but until the year is over it is pretty hard to gauge where they rate. This crop could end up being better than most but right now it looks pretty lousy. For instance beating older horses here and there is typically a criteria for being a good crop but the older division is so terrible some of these horses might do it by default.

[OTM Al]

I remember reading in a book that the pundits thought the 1973 crop was weak. Same pretty much every year.

[Steve R]

N8cKF-fRZDg

[Robert Fischer]

difference in handicapping opinion


we have a strong class

Animal Kingdom
Nehro
Dialed In
Shackleford
Brilliant Speed
Master of Hounds
+ a couple more who will step up (and a couple above may step down)

these are all good classic distance horses. Conservatively most may be Grade3 in a true "bobby fischer" grading, but they belong in grade1 and grade2 in any of the last 5 years. We may even see 1 or two continue to run in distance turf and breeders cup classic with a stop or two in one of the classy preps. We sure have the potential to see one of the best Belmont Stakes in recent years, and I have a bias toward that race, being 12 furlongs.
Unlikely to be considered a "great" class.

[OTM Al]

Also, I was wondering if the BSF deflation that has been noted (due to the higher class horses running in cheaper claimers because of slots purses) may be part of the reason we think this group is so bad. Were the 97s and 98s of this year equivalent to the triple digit BSFs of 5 years ago? If that is so, then on that most visible front, they start looking much better.

[Steve R]

I remember reading in a book that the pundits thought the 1973 crop was weak. Same pretty much every year.
Not 1985. To that time, 3rd fastest Derby, fastest Preakness, 4th fastest Belmont. The Derby alone included two future BC Classic winners and, of the 13 starters, seven past or future G1SWs which among them won 22 G1 races. Three of the seven won G1 races as three-year-olds against older horses. The fillies included Mom's Command which won the notional filly TC at the time, the Acorn (8f), Mother Goose (9f) and CCA Oaks (12f). Definitely not a weak crop.

[Steve R]

Also, I was wondering if the BSF deflation that has been noted (due to the higher class horses running in cheaper claimers because of slots purses) may be part of the reason we think this group is so bad. Were the 97s and 98s of this year equivalent to the triple digit BSFs of 5 years ago? If that is so, then on that most visible front, they start looking much better.
I use a different scale from Beyer, but my figures since 1999 show a small trend toward slower three-year-olds by about 3/4ths of a length. In the linked image below, the more negative the PF the faster the race. The trend line was generated by MS Excel 2007 and is displayed for the entire time frame but only around the limits of the speed number.

http://www.chef-de-race.com/images/pf_trend.gif

[classhandicapper]

Also, I was wondering if the BSF deflation that has been noted (due to the higher class horses running in cheaper claimers because of slots purses) may be part of the reason we think this group is so bad. Were the 97s and 98s of this year equivalent to the triple digit BSFs of 5 years ago? If that is so, then on that most visible front, they start looking much better.

This is a major question mark in my mind.

1. Once you get into making projection track variants you open the door to small biases of interpretation that can lead to slowly shrinking or expanding figures which would make comparisons across years highly suspect.

2. We have been breeding speed to speed for decades now. So the average relationship between sprints and routes could be changing a little (especially at classic distances like 10F and 12F)

3. As you suggested, even the PARs could be getting screwed up across circuits because of slot money.

These are just some of the reasons (along with the well documented day to day accuracy errors and differences of opinion on track speed) that making non numeric comparisons worthy of consideration also.

[keithw84]

Also, I was wondering if the BSF deflation that has been noted (due to the higher class horses running in cheaper claimers because of slots purses) may be part of the reason we think this group is so bad. Were the 97s and 98s of this year equivalent to the triple digit BSFs of 5 years ago? If that is so, then on that most visible front, they start looking much better.

I don't really understand this. If the purses are getting inflated, then wouldn't BSFs be inflated as well rather than deflated?

For example, let's say the BSF for a $10K claiming race on average should be 80. If purses are inflated, a horse that "should" only be in a $7500 claiming race and earning a Beyer of 75 is now winning a $10K race and earning an 80. Hence, the figures are inflated. Or am I misunderstanding something?

[OTM Al]

I don't really understand this. If the purses are getting inflated, then wouldn't BSFs be inflated as well rather than deflated?

For example, let's say the BSF for a $10K claiming race on average should be 80. If purses are inflated, a horse that "should" only be in a $7500 claiming race and earning a Beyer of 75 is now winning a $10K race and earning an 80. Hence, the figures are inflated. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Yeah. 70 is considered the par for, I believe, the 10K claimer, from which all other figs are based. This is the constant point that everything else derives from. But if what were 25K horses without slots (ie the 5+ years ago world)running in the 10K races, they are still getting a par of 70, rather than the higher fig they should be getting. This pulls everything above this level down.

[keithw84]

Yeah. 70 is considered the par for, I believe, the 10K claimer, from which all other figs are based. This is the constant point that everything else derives from. But if what were 25K horses without slots (ie the 5+ years ago world)running in the 10K races, they are still getting a par of 70, rather than the higher fig they should be getting. This pulls everything above this level down.

That makes sense. I guess I thought slots had the opposite effect - turning what were 10K claimers into 25K horses, since slots make more purse money available.

[Casino]

I remember reading in a book that the pundits thought the 1973 crop was weak. Same pretty much every year.

Sham who at one point had run the second fastest derby,and the great Forego ran 4th in that derby,do you remember the title of the book?

[JPinMaryland]

Might want to dial it back a notch on the 73 derby; I think there were 6 horses that ran sub 24 sec final fractions including such non decrept types e..g Twice a Prince. A few others ran 24.1 or .2. I think there were of those fractions in that one race then in the entire decade of the 60s.

The pt. is not that all the best horses were in that race but that the track was obviously quite fast. But the whole decade of the 60s featured some very fast Ky derbys. i guess the track had changed some.

It would be kind of like saying all the best hitters in baseball lived in 1920s and 30s because so many guys were hitting .350 and all. I think the entire NY Giants or Pitt Pirates batted .302 as a team in that memorable year for hitters 1930.

Imagine that, an entire team of players who were better hitters than Yazstremski (triple crown winner) in 1967! They dont make em like that anymore.. :)

[cnollfan]

Also, I was wondering if the BSF deflation that has been noted (due to the higher class horses running in cheaper claimers because of slots purses) may be part of the reason we think this group is so bad. Were the 97s and 98s of this year equivalent to the triple digit BSFs of 5 years ago? If that is so, then on that most visible front, they start looking much better.

+1

Before the Derby this year DRF ran an article with a 12-year history of the top eight Derby preps and the winning horses and BSFs. I averaged them out and the 1999 - 2004 winning Beyers were 5 1/2 points higher than the 2005 - 2010 Beyers. Some of the high Beyer names from earlier were horses I barely remember, so I am skeptical of the argument that those crops were better.

[JustRalph]

can anybody tell me how the final times have changed ?

The one constant has been the clock.

[keithw84]

Might want to dial it back a notch on the 73 derby; I think there were 6 horses that ran sub 24 sec final fractions including such non decrept types e..g Twice a Prince. A few others ran 24.1 or .2. I think there were of those fractions in that one race then in the entire decade of the 60s.

The pt. is not that all the best horses were in that race but that the track was obviously quite fast. But the whole decade of the 60s featured some very fast Ky derbys. i guess the track had changed some.

It would be kind of like saying all the best hitters in baseball lived in 1920s and 30s because so many guys were hitting .350 and all. I think the entire NY Giants or Pitt Pirates batted .302 as a team in that memorable year for hitters 1930.

Imagine that, an entire team of players who were better hitters than Yazstremski (triple crown winner) in 1967! They dont make em like that anymore.. :)

Great point. It goes to show how hard it is to compare across generations.

[Stillriledup]

New to this, so this is a serious question. Why to people keep saying the field is weak, or that a horse does not deserve to win the Triple Crown? What are you looking at in deciding this? Like I said this is a serious question and I am trying to learn.

People say the crop is weak because horses seem to 'take turns' beating each other. Also, no horse seems to win by large margins in these prep races. If a few horses here and there win their preps by 'a distance' than people will think that this is a good crop and there are some 'dominant' horses. In the major prep races, we had nobody really 'dominate'. The Wood, Bluegrass, Fla Derby and Ark Derby were all close finishes and in all of the finishes, there was at least one longshot on the wire.

As far as not deserving to win a TC, i think when the crop is 'weak', there might be a better shot to win the TC because if one horse gets hot, he can pull it off. If AK had stormed past Shakleford at the wire of the Preakness...and he was close to doing that, he would be heading to Belmont with at least a 50-50 shot to win the TC.

Maybe AK wouldnt be a 'deserving' TC winner, but i'm thinking that people remember the last few TC winners so fondly, that whoever is the next horse to do it will be considered undeserving (according to many).

Personally, i think if you win it, you deserved it.

[Mechanic]

New to this, so this is a serious question. Why to people keep saying the field is weak
In general, all runners are well below par for the conditions.

A weak field :confused:

[keithw84]

Maybe AK wouldnt be a 'deserving' TC winner, but i'm thinking that people remember the last few TC winners so fondly, that whoever is the next horse to do it will be considered undeserving (according to many).

Personally, i think if you win it, you deserved it.

My guess is that the TC didn't use to have the mystique it does now. 8 horses won it over a 30 period (and 7 over 19 years). When Omaha won, I doubt people were talking as much about whether he deserved it or not. He didn't even win HOTY.

But throw in a 25-year drought, and the fact that the three winners in the 70s all developed larger than life, perhaps transcendent auras about them... and now if a horse does pull off the very impressive feat of winning the Triple Crown, we won't be satisfied until that horse proves that it is an all-time great.

[OTM Al]

Sham who at one point had run the second fastest derby,and the great Forego ran 4th in that derby,do you remember the title of the book?

Must be Nack's book and thus the point I made.

[classhandicapper]

can anybody tell me how the final times have changed ?

The one constant has been the clock.

I think on average raw final times on dirt are quicker now than they were a few decades ago, but it's difficult to know what that means because the composition of the surfaces and the depth of the cushions have changed.

I don't have any data to back that up, but I have a good memory. I remember getting excited by any horse than could crack 109 for 6F 30 years ago. Now, that's nothing.

It seems to me that turf courses have been more consistent over time.

Jerry Brown at T-Graph has written some good stuff on this topic that is available at his website for free. He think horses are getting faster.

[Steve R]

[snip]...Jerry Brown at T-Graph has written some good stuff on this topic that is available at his website for free. He think horses are getting faster.
He may think that, but since the effect of changes in track surface management and materials composition over time can not be measured with any degree of accuracy, the effects of those changes on final times are imprecise at best. Ask Prof. Heisenberg. OTOH, most figures based on comparison to a consistent class/distance standard seem to suggest the opposite. Then again, Brown also thinks he can accurately measure the real effects of wind, weight and lost ground.

[Blenheim]

I use a different scale from Beyer, but my figures since 1999 show a small trend toward slower three-year-olds by about 3/4ths of a length. In the linked image below, the more negative the PF the faster the race. The trend line was generated by MS Excel 2007 and is displayed for the entire time frame but only around the limits of the speed number.

http://www.chef-de-race.com/images/pf_trend.gif

Your post raises a question. AS Dosage inflation increases why are times getting slower?

[classhandicapper]

He may think that, but since the effect of changes in track surface management and materials composition over time can not be measured with any degree of accuracy, the effects of those changes on final times are imprecise at best. Ask Prof. Heisenberg. OTOH, most figures based on comparison to a consistent class/distance standard seem to suggest the opposite. Then again, Brown also thinks he can accurately measure the real effects of wind, weight and lost ground.

I think you should read his articles because they address a lot of issues. 3 parts upper right section.

http://www.thorograph.com/archive.php

[Steve R]

I think you should read his articles because they address a lot of issues. 3 parts upper right section.

http://www.thorograph.com/archive.php
I've read those articles before. In the first, I absolutely agree with his suggestion that tracks may change speed even from race to race. In fact, my variants always are calculated using some form of regression analysis to determine if and how the variant is changing throughout the day.

It's the third article I have a problem with. He makes certain assumptions about factors that may have increased the speed of Thoroughbreds over time. A couple, like selective breeding (presumably for speed) and nutrition may indeed have had that effect. But then he throws in things like training methods and medication. There is no evidence that horses are better trained today than they were in the past. In fact, the opposite may be true considering that top class runners used to be able to put in consecutive record performances with just short turnaround times. Swaps set five straight track records from a mile to a mile and five-eighths bewteen June 9 and July 25, 1956. I doubt there is a horse alive today that could come anywhere near that. As for medication, both legal and illegal, if he is invoking performance enhancers as contributing to more speed, shouldn't his figures be adjusted to account for that enhancement in the same way he adjusts for weight and wind? Drugs are environmental variations just like weight and wind. Besides, where is the evidence that medication improves performance absolutely rather than simply allowing the horse to run to its genetic capability?

There are two universal components to how fast a horse can run - the genetic limits of the horse's speed and the speed-limiting characteristics of the racing surface itself. Assuming a maximum effort on the part of the horse, the combination of the two determines what we observe as the speed of a horse in a race. Then there are the other factors discussed in the article - training methods, nutrition, drugs and so on - although there is no way to know a priori which may have a beneficial effect on the expression of speed and which may have a detrimental effect on the expression of speed.

Then he goes on to cite a study claiming to "prove" performance improvement by applying historical Timeform Ratings and he claims that as a justification for using speed figures as a proper measure. Unfortunately, as good as they may be, Timeform Ratings are purely subjective, so the study invokes subjective measurements to come up with an objetive and quantitative result. Not cool. One could have just as easily used the data from a Blood-Horse panel of experts who ranked the top 100 Thoroughbreds of the 20th century. If you look at the combined rank order, plot the rank vs the year and apply second order regression analysis you will find that horses got continually better from the beginning of the century until the early 1970s then regressed. I have no reason to believe that the Blood-Horse panel of experts is any less competent than the Timeform experts.

In the end, regardless of how many speed-controlling factors one cares to invoke, there is no way to accurately measure both the speed of the surface and the genetically determined optimum speed of the horse. This is because the time we observe is the direct result of the interaction of the two and they can't be separated. Hence my earlier semi-serious allusion to Prof. Heisenberg. It's sort of like having one equation with two unknowns. You can only solve for one variable in terms of the other, not each absolutely.

Perhaps there is a way to approach the problem using some better-developed variation of the Thoroughbred Times Performance Rates which directly compares all horses to all the other horse they ever raced against. If it could be done by overlapping generations through time, we might actually be able to know if Secretariat was faster than Man o' War or vice versa. We should also be able to see whether Animal Kingdom is faster than Seattle Slew.

[keithw84]

Perhaps there is a way to approach the problem using some better-developed variation of the Thoroughbred Times Performance Rates which directly compares all horses to all the other horse they ever raced against. If it could be done by overlapping generations through time, we might actually be able to know if Secretariat was faster than Man o' War or vice versa. We should also be able to see whether Animal Kingdom is faster than Seattle Slew.

Interesting idea. I was actually thinking about this when it came up on another thread whether Cigar is an all-time great.

Of course, one of the biggest challenges is how short a "generation" is in horse racing. You can look only at baseball players Babe Ruth played against and have ~45 years of data. When looking at horses Secretariat raced against, you have what? 7 or 8 years? (Thank goodness Forego had a long career)

[Steve R]

Interesting idea. I was actually thinking about this when it came up on another thread whether Cigar is an all-time great.

Of course, one of the biggest challenges is how short a "generation" is in horse racing. You can look only at baseball players Babe Ruth played against and have ~45 years of data. When looking at horses Secretariat raced against, you have what? 7 or 8 years? (Thank goodness Forego had a long career)
I'm not sure there's a problem because it's not just which horses Secretariat may have raced against, it also involves all the horses those horses raced against, and so on. It would actually be a continuous evaluation, not generational.

[rastajenk]

And even if there is some kind of algorithm or something that proves Animal Kingdom is as fast as Seattle Slew was, that still wouldn't make this a "good crop." Still searching for that elusive two-race win streak from this bunch.

[keithw84]

I'm not sure there's a problem because it's not just which horses Secretariat may have raced against, it also involves all the horses those horses raced against, and so on. It would actually be a continuous evaluation, not generational.

I get that. I guess all I am saying is that you can compare human athletes from 75 years apart (Babe Ruth/Albert Pujols) with a lot fewer degrees of separation than horses 75 years apart (Man o' War/Holy Bull), so I wonder if there is more margin of error with horses than there is with humans.

Not that it really matters. I'd be really fascinated to see this type of evaluation.

[Sandman]

Hey guys,

As they say in radio, "first time, long time".

I've been a casual reader of this board since about 2005/2006 roughly and I'm a fan.

I have to say, every year around Derby time I've read at least one post stating the class of that year is weak.

If I had to guess as to why, I'd say it's due to Smarty Jones. He towered over his field in 2004 and I (like a lot of people) thought he was the one for the TC. Since then, who has inspired hope? Maybe Big Brown, but his trainer was so unlikeable and the horse's durability in such doubt, that it wasn't the same vibe.

There have been years with very nice horses (2007 - Curlin/Street Sense). But never that towering figure that lets the anticipation build. I hope it comes too.

[Sugar Ron]

Good to see ya, Mr. Sandman

I too was rooting for the little Jones colt back in '04. But it only took a quick look at his pedigree to realize that he was gunna have some serious problems getting 12 panels ... and thus was never a real threat to beome the next TC winner.

As for Big Brownroid ... well, that pretty much says it all. Was quite satisfying to see him bomb at Belmont.

And Curlinroid was basically the poster horse for the despicable 'roid era. His exposure in '08 was also extremely satisfying to witness.

By the way, hope you enjoyed that "towering figure" we had on the older female side the last few years. Certainly created quite a bit of "anticipation" for those last couple Breeders' Cups, eh?

[Dahoss9698]

Good to see ya, Mr. Sandman

I too was rooting for the little Jones colt back in '04. But it only took a quick look at his pedigree to realize that he was gunna have some serious problems getting 12 panels ... and thus was never a real threat to beome the next TC winner.

As for Big Brownroid ... well, that pretty much says it all. Was quite satisfying to see him bomb at Belmont.

And Curlinroid was basically the poster horse for the despicable 'roid era. His exposure in '08 was also extremely satisfying to witness.

By the way, hope you enjoyed that "towering figure" we had on the older female side the last few years. Certainly created quite a bit of "anticipation" for those last couple Breeders' Cups, eh?

You never answered my question. Wonder why.

[PaceAdvantage]

By the way, hope you enjoyed that "towering figure" we had on the older female side the last few years. Certainly created quite a bit of "anticipation" for those last couple Breeders' Cups, eh?Who are you talking about?

Zenyattaroid?

[Paulieballgame]

You never answered my question. Wonder why.

:lol: Cross post question.....THATS AWESOME

[Sugar Ron]

You're easily amused, Paulie.


Who are you talking about?

Zenyattaroid?

No

Talkin' about Zenyattaroidfree ... or just the GOAT, for short :cool:

[Steve R]

Your post raises a question. AS Dosage inflation increases why are times getting slower?
I can't answer that, but for my figures at least, the decline is slightly larger for routes and is occurring in routes at a slightly faster rate. I suppose as more speed is infused into pedigrees we might expect a greater effect on longer races.

[FenceBored]

You're easily amused, Paulie.




No

Talkin' about Zenyattaroidfree ... or just the GOAT, for short :cool:

I guess that means Grossly Overrated Artifical Track specialist. I personally don't feel that's fair.




She was overrated on dirt, too.

[PaceAdvantage]

No

Talkin' about Zenyattaroidfree ... How can you be so sure? She was always described as being massive. Just not in height, but also in muscle mass, correct?

"She's bigger than most of the boys out there...."

Hmmmmmmmm.....then she miscarries her first foal....hmmmmmmm....

You see, two can play at this game....

[keithw84]

I too was rooting for the little Jones colt back in '04. But it only took a quick look at his pedigree to realize that he was gunna have some serious problems getting 12 panels ... and thus was never a real threat to beome the next TC winner.


I find this assessment very debatable. Had Rock Hard Ten & Eddington not challenged Smarty Jones to run possibly the fastest third quarter and fastest middle half mile in Belmont Stakes history, he very well may have won the Triple Crown. Blame whichever jockey you like (Elliott included), but I think it is a stretch to say winning at 12f was beyond Smarty's genetic capabilities.


And Curlinroid was basically the poster horse for the despicable 'roid era. His exposure in '08 was also extremely satisfying to witness.


For the year: 7-5-1-0
On dirt: 5-5-0-0

Exposed as what? The world's best dirt horse but not the world's best turf/plastic horse?

[Sandman]

I agree, Keith. Take your pick which jockey(s) to blame, but I felt Smarty could have made it 12 if he wasn't asked so much early.

Either way, whether you felt he could make 12 or not, which horse since has let you envision a TC before and right after the derby? We need another desperately.

[Robert Fischer]

...
And Curlinroid was basically the poster horse for the despicable 'roid era. ...

not sure if you're trolling , but wanted to add that Curlin wouldn't have to take any less steroids under the current rules. The only difference would be that his stack (diversification or recipe of the different steroids he takes) would probably have to be adjusted a little bit more testosterone heavy.

disagree with some of the race related comments as well, but that is the point of this game :ThmbUp:

[Sugar Ron]

How can you be so sure? She was always described as being massive. Just not in height, but also in muscle mass, correct?

"She's bigger than most of the boys out there...."

Hmmmmmmmm.....then she miscarries her first foal....hmmmmmmm....

You see, two can play at this game....

Street Cry has produced some relatively big horses. Street Sense immediately comes to mind.

And Z was from a Kris S mare. Kris S sired the huge colt Rock Hard Ten, among others.

No surprise that Z turned out to be a big one.

Didn't think she was overly muscular, tho. Curlin, however, resembled the Incredible Hulk in that Monmouth paddock back in '07.

By the way, I'm not playing games. It's common knowledge that both Big Brown and Curlin were given 'roids for much of their careers. I've seen absolutely no evidence that Z ever received 'roids on a regular basis. Frankly, I'd be shocked if Shirreffs ever had her regularly treated with 'roids.

[OTM Al]

Street Cry has produced some relatively big horses. Street Sense immediately comes to mind.

And Z was from a Kris S mare. Kris S sired the huge colt Rock Hard Ten, among others.

No surprise that Z turned out to be a big one.

Didn't think she was overly muscular, tho. Curlin, however, resembled the Incredible Hulk in that Monmouth paddock back in '07.

By the way, I'm not playing games. It's common knowledge that both Big Brown and Curlin were given 'roids for much of their careers. I've seen absolutely no evidence that Z ever received 'roids on a regular basis. Frankly, I'd be shocked if Shirreffs ever had her regularly treated with 'roids.

Considering she had a very bad skin condition when they got her, I wouldn't be surprised is she had a regular steroid treatment at least early on. It would actually be an appropriate treatment with other beneficial side effects....

[Dahoss9698]

Street Cry has produced some relatively big horses. Street Sense immediately comes to mind.

And Z was from a Kris S mare. Kris S sired the huge colt Rock Hard Ten, among others.

No surprise that Z turned out to be a big one.


Some of your finest work. :lol: :lol: :lol: