Quote:
Originally Posted by MJC922
I look at races as a series of mini skirmishes where horses run one another off their feet at key points by asserting their class and the eventual final time is just a stitched together byproduct of those skirmishes. It may align with quality of the horse's efforts but sometimes not so much.
|
And so much of that seems to be mental. T-breds are bullies, and like human aggressors with big, soft egos, lose much of their fury when met with stiff resistance.
I do, however, think that even apart from class and innate superiority, there is an almost intangible "fire" factor that enables sharp runners to blow through subtle inconveniences of trip, while the same negative-nuances would more greatly deter a rival less sharp and not feeling it that day.
Or to phrase if differently, handicappers sometimes confuse cause and effect in these instances. Meaning that winners overcoming less than optimal trips don't win because they overcame the trip-they overcame the trip because they were destined to win. It's a very slight distinction, but can be detected visually.
My post relates tangentially to a point Brad Free made years ago in an inspired article on troubled trips that I still keep a copy of. In it, Free advised that whatever trouble (or vagaries of pace and position?) a horse might overcome and still win was probably less of a disadvantage than it seemed.
Whatever the case, good post, dude.
