Very brave article about Goldikova at DRF today...

[joanied]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

Goldikova is a big star, but she's just a miler in Europe which is almost like a 6f horse over here. The true classic european horses are 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 types, thus she's not the true star in my opinion.

Then maybe you'd feel better if they say she's the best miler in the world...and although I don't get into the Euro's either, Goldy is certainly a star ...and I'm really looking foward to seeing her here again.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

Read her PP properly jonnie and i'm sure you will be able to figure out why.

BTW, any idea why Zen failed to show up for showdown with Ravens Pass, Henrythenavigator and Curlin in 2008

Same reasons Goldy ducked them?
But maybe Curlin crossing the Rockies with his ASS in baggage might explain when RA ducked them all.

This is getting way past ridiculous.

[Charlie D]

Originally Posted by Tom

Same reasons Goldy ducked them?
But maybe Curlin crossing the Rockies with his ASS in baggage might explain when RA ducked them all.

This is getting way past ridiculous.

The silliness never ends Tom

[jonnielu]

Originally Posted by Charlie D

Read her PP properly jonnie and i'm sure you will be able to figure out why.

BTW, any idea why Zen failed to show up for showdown with Ravens Pass, Henrythenavigator and Curlin in 2008

That's weird, untold thousands read the PP's (seems that some might have done it properly, even by accident) and figured out that Curlin would win the 2008 BCC. A lot of the same people might have figured out that Lawyer Ron would win the 2007 BCC.

For myself, I gave up trying to figure things out via PP's a few decades back. After 30 years, it still seems a game for suckers.

I would think that Zen's connections didn't enter the 2008 BCC because they thought that Curlin would be a slam-dunk winner, just like Goldikova's not popping across the pond for one of the $500,000 purses that Zen has routinely gathered (against non-factor competition) because they see Zen as the slam-dunk winner.

jdl

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by Tom

If I gave a shit about Euro racing, maybe, but I couldn't care less about their racing. If she comes over fine, but if not, it will not bother me in the least, In fact, I hope it comes up soft that day to hurt her chances. Might get a nice price on something else.

In order to come up soft on the turf that means rain... and rain falls indiscriminately. So that would mean a sealed or wet main. And we all know what happen the last time Zenyatta step a hoof on Churchill Downs when the track was damp and sealed. She did not put a hoof on the track that day. I don't think Goldikova will be bothered by our soft turf and much as Zenyatta by a wet track.

So wishing in one hand leave mud in the other.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by jonnielu

That's weird, untold thousands read the PP's (seems that some might have done it properly, even by accident) and figured out that Curlin would win the 2008 BCC. A lot of the same people might have figured out that Lawyer Ron would win the 2007 BCC.

For myself, I gave up trying to figure things out via PP's a few decades back. After 30 years, it still seems a game for suckers.

I would think that Zen's connections didn't enter the 2008 BCC because they thought that Curlin would be a slam-dunk winner, just like Goldikova's not popping across the pond for one of the $500,000 purses that Zen has routinely gathered (against non-factor competition) because they see Zen as the slam-dunk winner.

jdl

What's the weather like on Jupiter today?

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

Goldikova is a big star, but she's just a miler in Europe which is almost like a 6f horse over here. The true classic european horses are 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 types, thus she's not the true star in my opinion.

Someone else has already pointed out the ignorance of your comment, so I will just add the fact that three of the six highest rated European horses in the entire history of Timeform were sprinters or milers (Tudor Minstrel, co-2nd ranked), Abernant (co-4th ranked) and Windy City II (also co-4th ranked). Currently, Goldikova is ranked second best in the world behind King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes winner Harbinger.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Steve R

Someone else has already pointed out the ignorance of your comment, so I will just add the fact that three of the six highest rated European horses in the entire history of Timeform were sprinters or milers (Tudor Minstrel, co-2nd ranked), Abernant (co-4th ranked) and Windy City II (also co-4th ranked). Currently, Goldikova is ranked second best in the world behind King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Stakes winner Harbinger.

What does that prove? Isn't one of the highest Beyers ever held by Groovy? I don't think that makes him either one of the best ever over the likes of Sec or Bid and it also doesn't make sprints more prestigeous than routes.

[Cat Thief]

Does she run at 11/4 miles? I think she is the best in her category which iI think is the turf mile but I might be wrong as I haven't saw her pps

[Steve R]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

What does that prove? Isn't one of the highest Beyers ever held by Groovy? I don't think that makes him either one of the best ever over the likes of Sec or Bid and it also doesn't make sprints more prestigeous than routes.

Timeform Ratings are not speed figures. They are a general assessment of a horse's absolute quality. From the Timeform web site:

"Timeform ratings on the Flat stretch right back to the first Racehorses annual, which came out in 1948, and over jumps to the time of the first jumps Black Books in the early-60s. More recently they have included all the best horses in the world, not just those that have raced in Britain.

Timeform ratings express in terms of pounds the level of form a horse has shown. On the Flat they range from below 30 for bad performers to over 130 for the real top-notchers. Over jumps the range is from below 60 to over 165. Horses without recent rateable form appear as a dash.

Great care is taken to keep the level of Timeform ratings consistent from one season to the next (after due allowance has been made for various factors that might alter the overall picture), so that comparisons between different generations can be made".

And no, Groovy was not better than Secretariat or Spectacular Bid, although neither of those would have had a prayer of defeating him at less than a mile. The prejudice against sprinters in the US is certainly real, but had Groovy raced in England or France, I am fairly sure he would have been among Timeform's all-time elite runners. He was almost certainly as good as or superior to Dayjur who was rated at 137, equal to Ghostzapper and only a pound below Cigar. So yes, I believe Groovy was one of the best ever sprinters. To their credit, his owners were adventurous enough to try him many times at route distances albeit without a win, although he finished within a length of Broad Brush in the Wood Memorial. In sprints he was 17-12-2-0.

Apparently you've bought into the uniquely America-centric view that sprinters and milers are inferior. If so, I would consider that an especially ignorant position.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by Steve R

Apparently you've bought into the uniquely America-centric view that sprinters and milers are inferior. If so, I would consider that an especially ignorant position.

Especially considering he named himself after quite possibly the greatest American miler ever.

[JustRalph]

This thread is the definition of "Snarky"

[RXB]

Originally Posted by Steve R

And no, Groovy was not better than Secretariat or Spectacular Bid, although neither of those would have had a prayer of defeating him at less than a mile.

I cannot believe that Spectacular Bid would've had no chance at 7f against Groovy, considering his massive 7f victory as a 2YO at Atlantic City (1:20-and-change, as a 2YO!) or his facile Malibu win.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Steve R

Timeform Ratings are not speed figures. They are a general assessment of a horse's absolute quality. From the Timeform web site:

"Timeform ratings on the Flat stretch right back to the first Racehorses annual, which came out in 1948, and over jumps to the time of the first jumps Black Books in the early-60s. More recently they have included all the best horses in the world, not just those that have raced in Britain.

Timeform ratings express in terms of pounds the level of form a horse has shown. On the Flat they range from below 30 for bad performers to over 130 for the real top-notchers. Over jumps the range is from below 60 to over 165. Horses without recent rateable form appear as a dash.

Great care is taken to keep the level of Timeform ratings consistent from one season to the next (after due allowance has been made for various factors that might alter the overall picture), so that comparisons between different generations can be made".

And no, Groovy was not better than Secretariat or Spectacular Bid, although neither of those would have had a prayer of defeating him at less than a mile. The prejudice against sprinters in the US is certainly real, but had Groovy raced in England or France, I am fairly sure he would have been among Timeform's all-time elite runners. He was almost certainly as good as or superior to Dayjur who was rated at 137, equal to Ghostzapper and only a pound below Cigar. So yes, I believe Groovy was one of the best ever sprinters. To their credit, his owners were adventurous enough to try him many times at route distances albeit without a win, although he finished within a length of Broad Brush in the Wood Memorial. In sprints he was 17-12-2-0.

Apparently you've bought into the uniquely America-centric view that sprinters and milers are inferior. If so, I would consider that an especially ignorant position.

I well know what Timeform is. I find it absurd that you think that because a specialist such as a miler or sprinter gets a good number (rags, beyer, tgraph, timeform, take your pick) that this proves that the horses are just as respected as routers.

Since the view is so ignorant, why haven't the Europeans ever made a stink in the near-30 years of the BC about the Turf being more valuable both money-wise and in championship honors than the Mile? It's only been recent that we even look at the winners of the Mile for turf honors. Even Lure wasn't looked at.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

I well know what Timeform is. I find it absurd that you think that because a specialist such as a miler or sprinter gets a good number (rags, beyer, tgraph, timeform, take your pick) that this proves that the horses are just as respected as routers.

Since the view is so ignorant, why haven't the Europeans ever made a stink in the near-30 years of the BC about the Turf being more valuable both money-wise and in championship honors than the Mile? It's only been recent that we even look at the winners of the Mile for turf honors. Even Lure wasn't looked at.

Uh, then how do you explain that 4 of the first 5 BC Mile winners were the Eclipse winning Male or Female Turf horse? Royal Heroine in 1984, Cozzene in 1985, and Miesque in both 1987 & 1988.