Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Fischer
"sucker horse"? "finds a way to lose races"? - this is the false narrative
If you are defending that he isn't an all-time great, - you're missing the joke
|
I don't think even the skeptics took it that far (at least among serious players). The issue has always been that he was impressive in the Wood and made some fans (myself among them).
Then the excuses started for all the losses.
1. In the Derby he was taking mud, wide and got taken up before finishing well
2. In the Belmont he would won except that he got hung wide on a good rail day.
3. In the Jim Dandy he stumbled badly at the start costing him about 3 lengths and then went to the rail in the stretch when that was worst part of the track.
4. In the Travers they put blinkers on him and he was used aggressively early near the rail on a bad rail day in the one race they probably should have backed off and closed outside.
5. I'm still searching for the excuse in the Gold Cup/Saudi Cup
6. In he OP handicap the "pace was supposedly too slow" even though every set of pace figures I've seen suggest the pace was average and the race flowed the way it did because the best horses were up front
When you look at his career, you see a very nice horse that was probably best in couple of races he lost, but MY MAIN POINT is that you also see a 3yo that was not progressing much figure-wise if you adjust the races for trip and a horse that couldn't overcome any adversity.
So while the biggest fans were focusing on trips and races he probably should have won, IMO they were missing the bigger picture that he wasn't progressing much since the Wood, was falling behind horses that were making progress, and wasn't as good as people once hoped.
I'm not so sure why it's such a big deal other than people dig into positions and refuse to change their mind even when new evidence comes in. I was big fan, bet on him a couple times, saw he wasn't going to be as good as I thought, and adjusted my thinking.
