W O W ! ! ! !

[reckless]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

In my write-up on the post-race hype I mentioned a few performances "of the century" that I witnessed. Any of Secretariat's TC races; Seattle Slew running killing fractions at a mile and a half and losing a nose to Exceller (and whipping Triple Crown winner Affirmed in the process); and of course Forego's impossible win against Honest Pleasure. One of the things to remember about that race was that Forego broke well and was close to the leaders early before dropping back. He is in a very tight photo with Secretariat for my favorite horse of all time.

I believe great horses have push button speed and can usually win from anywhere. Arrogate fits that bill, and he may legitimately be mentioned in the same breath as Man o'War and Secretariat...someday.

Speaking of our friend Forego and push button speed, do you remember:

On Sept. 28, 1974, Forego won the 1 1-2 miles Woodward Stakes by a neck, carrying 126 pounds.

On Oct. 19, 1974, just three weeks later, Forego won the 7 furlong Vosburgh Handicap in a sprightly 1:21.3 seconds carrying top weight of 131 pounds and conceding 13 pounds to a decent horse, Stop the Music (a past winner over Secretariat), winning by 3 1-2 lengths.

And, on Nov. 9, 1974, again just about three weeks later, Forego won the 2 miles Jockey Club Gold Cup in his final start of the season !

[outofthebox]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

The Woodward was planned to be her last race for the year. It was widely known after that she was finally spent after that race, so it was a good thing they didn't plan for her to race again that year.

Jackson owns a KY farm. Unfortunately, as some trainers will do, Asmussen talked Jackson into keeping Rachel with him at the track. Huge mistake. She needed both a physical and mental freshening that can't happen at the track. She needed to be walking around in a paddock all day. Had they done this, she might've returned to her prior level.

Yes, Jackson did duck the possible meeting with Zenyatta at Oaklawn, but at the time, not a soul blamed him. Rachel had just returned to a shocking defeat. What's the point in sending either a subpar Rachel or subpar Zenyatta to such a match up? It would've proven nothing if both weren't prepared to run their best. It was logical and taking care of the horse to say that Rachel couldn't meet Zenyatta in her next race.

One little known fact: Asmussen wanted no part in running Rachel in the Preakness. That was 100% Jackson, against Asmussen's wishes. He'd just gotten her and wanted to give her some time and go the normal filly route. We definitely have Jackson to credit for the one of the best 3yo filly campaigns in history.

Jackson was often maligned, but I liked what I saw from him. I loved when he went after a few people in the industry for the fleecing/fraud that these guys love to do to new owners. It's too bad those people are still plying their trade in the sport. He made a really bold prediction about his two stars, that he'd race them long to prove their superiority, and that then it'd translate in the shed. A stallion or broodmare prospect have probably about a 5-10% chance of making it, and yet both Curlin and Rachel proved they had the goods in the breeding shed as well as the track. That prediction would've paid a fortune if it was offered by a bookmaker, and he nailed it.

Good post Fager....

[outofthebox]

Originally Posted by reckless

Speaking of our friend Forego and push button speed, do you remember:

On Sept. 28, 1974, Forego won the 1 1-2 miles Woodward Stakes by a neck, carrying 126 pounds.

On Oct. 19, 1974, just three weeks later, Forego won the 7 furlong Vosburgh Handicap in a sprightly 1:21.3 seconds carrying top weight of 131 pounds and conceding 13 pounds to a decent horse, Stop the Music (a past winner over Secretariat), winning by 3 1-2 lengths.

And, on Nov. 9, 1974, again just about three weeks later, Forego won the 2 miles Jockey Club Gold Cup in his final start of the season !

This is why it was so fun following our favorite horses from that era. They ran. I was no fan of Spectacular Bid because he whipped up on my favorite Cal bred Flying Paster every time they hooked up. But i was privileged to see him run six times in California the first half of 1980.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AltonKelsey

Being banged around and having to make up a 10L head start given to a field in one of the richest races in the world.

Whatever the fig was , you can add 5L or so to it to get the actual effort.

And won in hand.

Sorry, I'm not in the camp of 'nothing to see here'.

I can't agree with this 100%.

When you are off slowly out of the gate, you are giving everyone a tangible head start.

When you are out of the gate good but drop back (a la Zenyatta) you are losing position relative to the front runners, but you are consuming less energy. That you may drop 10 lengths back (or 25 in Zenyatta's case lol) does not mean you are spotting them that much.

IMO, the check itself cost him maybe 2-3 lengths and then he dropped further back because he hadn't accelerated as much as the other horses yet (like Zenyatta). But he was burning up less fuel early while he was running slower. That fuel was available later and he used it (as she did).

IMO, the start cost him 2-3 lengths.

Had he been rushed up after that, it would have become a nightmare.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I can't agree with this 100%.

When you are off slowly out of the gate, you are giving everyone a tangible head start.

When you are out of the gate good but drop back (a la Zenyatta) you are losing position relative to the front runners, but you are consuming less energy. That you may drop 10 lengths back (or 25 in Zenyatta's case lol) does not mean you are spotting them that much.

IMO, the check itself cost him maybe 2-3 lengths and then he dropped further back because he hadn't accelerated as much as the other horses yet (like Zenyatta). But he was burning up less fuel early while he was running slower. That fuel was available later and he used it (as she did).

IMO, the start cost him 2-3 lengths.

Had he been rushed up after that, it would have become a nightmare.

How much do you think the ground loss cost him? 93 feet is a ton for any race IMO.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Zenyatta ended up with all the money...retired at the top of her game...and only the Rachel fanboys deny her, her proper place in history. THAT'S the point...IMO.

The club is larger than people that just resent the Zenyatta because of the hype or because they are hardcore Rachel fans. It's also made up of a lot generally very smart handicappers that were very wrong for a long time because their model for measuring horses was wrong.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

How much do you think the ground loss cost him? 93 feet is a ton for any race IMO.

Obviously this is all my opinion and a lot of smart people will disagree.

I'm not a literal ground loss guy. IMO, it's dangerous to take the extra feet a horse ran and adjust the figure the way TG and Ragozin do. I think of it in terms of energy consumption and path bias.

I ask, how much extra energy did the horse burn by running that extra ground and how were the races developing on that day?

I thought horses on the outside did not seem especially disadvantaged that day. It was probably better to save ground as is usually the case, but the outside paths were good.

So I would say being wide early was at most, mildly relevant. He was going easy early and the outside was fine. The ground he lost later in the race when he was making his run was more significant.

If you are adding 5 lengths for the start and 93 feet for the ground loss to his speed figure, IMHO you are probably going to come away with wildly exaggerated view of his performance. That's why I have been taking the mildly contrary view that he was great, we haven't seen his best yet, but he wasn't as great as some people think. I think some people are overestimating the impact of the start/ground loss.

In Beyer terms he has been a 119-122 horse. He got a 115 figure for the race. If I had to put a number on it (which I don't), I would guess his race was at the upper end of that and possibly a slight new peak. That's makes it huge.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Obviously this is all my opinion and a lot of smart people will disagree.

I'm not a literal ground loss guy. IMO, it's dangerous to take the extra feet a horse ran and adjust the figure the way TG and Ragozin do. I think of it in terms of energy consumption and path bias.

I ask, how much extra energy did the horse burn by running that extra ground and how were the races developing on that day?

I thought horses on the outside did not seem especially disadvantaged that day. It was probably better to save ground as is usually the case, but the outside paths were good.

So I would say being wide early was at most, mildly relevant. He was going easy early and the outside was fine. The ground he lost later in the race when he was making his run was more significant.

If you are adding 5 lengths for the start and 93 feet for the ground loss to his speed figure, IMHO you are probably going to come away with wildly exaggerated view of his performance. That's why I have been taking the mildly contrary view that he was great, we haven't seen his best yet, but he wasn't as great as some people think. I think some people are overestimating the impact of the start/ground loss.

In Beyer terms he has been a 119-122 horse. He got a 115 figure for the race. If I had to put a number on it (which I don't), I would guess his race was at the upper end of that and possibly a slight new peak. That's makes it huge.

I can't imagine how traveling an extra 93 feet in a race can be considered to be anything else but a great disadvantage.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Funny, the old timers were saying the same exact thing about Secretariat, Affirmed, Seattle Slew and Spectacular Bid...you know, the guys who were out there who saw Citation, Count Fleet, Dr. Fager, Kelso, Native Dancer, and all the legends of the mid 1900s running in their prime....they sounded just like you do now...

There's always going to be naysayers when a new legend comes strolling onto the scene, and you apparently are one of them. Revel in it...

If in fact you’re only 48 years old, why don’t you explain how you would know exactly what those old timers were saying when you were apparently only a young kid during the 70’s. (I’ll let others do the age math)

Having personally experienced that entire era, I will state unequivocally that the old timers were exuding just the opposite type of commentary. They immediately recognized what Class and Speed were only because of having witnessed the likes of Citation, Count Fleet, Dr. Fager, Kelso, Native Dancer, and all the legends of the mid 1900s running in their prime. They also praised the endurance of these later legends because at the time they raced these horses much more frequently than they do today.

I’m certainly not a naysayer of Arrogate’s abilities. My point was that I believe it’s a bit premature to put it the same category as those truly legendary animals.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Nitro

If in fact you’re only 48 years old, why don’t you explain how you would know exactly what those old timers were saying when you were apparently only a young kid during the 70’s. (I’ll let others do the age math)

Having personally experienced that entire era, I will state unequivocally that the old timers were exuding just the opposite type of commentary. They immediately recognized what Class and Speed were only because of having witnessed the likes of Citation, Count Fleet, Dr. Fager, Kelso, Native Dancer, and all the legends of the mid 1900s running in their prime. They also praised the endurance of these later legends because at the time they raced these horses much more frequently than they do today.

I’m certainly not a naysayer of Arrogate’s abilities. My point was that I believe it’s a bit premature to put it the same category as those truly legendary animals.

There are tons of articles from the era easy to find, even if we were young or not born at the time. It just takes a little research and some reading.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by cj

There are tons of articles from the era easy to find, even if we were young or not born at the time. It just takes a little research and some reading.

True, but it is a pale second to having been there. Your memories of Arrogate will always be more vivid than any article in 40 years.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by cj

There are tons of articles from the era easy to find, even if we were young or not born at the time. It just takes a little research and some reading.

Oh really? And you believe all that editorial nonsense?

Is that what you rely on for factual information? Listen buddy there's a reason why thousands and thousands of players and fans both young and old alike came out to see those legends run. It wasn't to see them lose.

And BTW since when do you take it upon yourself to respond for other PA members?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Nitro

If in fact you’re only 48 years old, why don’t you explain how you would know exactly what those old timers were saying when you were apparently only a young kid during the 70’s. (I’ll let others do the age math)

Having personally experienced that entire era, I will state unequivocally that the old timers were exuding just the opposite type of commentary. They immediately recognized what Class and Speed were only because of having witnessed the likes of Citation, Count Fleet, Dr. Fager, Kelso, Native Dancer, and all the legends of the mid 1900s running in their prime. They also praised the endurance of these later legends because at the time they raced these horses much more frequently than they do today.

I’m certainly not a naysayer of Arrogate’s abilities. My point was that I believe it’s a bit premature to put it the same category as those truly legendary animals.

Well, then, let me apologize. It seems to be human nature to discount the current "star" when compared to legends of past...happens in every human endeavor, especially sports. So naturally, I just assumed that those who had witnessed the legends I listed earlier were looking at the 1970s in the same way you and others are looking at Arrogate right now.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Nitro

And BTW since when do you take it upon yourself to respond for other PA members?

He was adding to the discussion, not speaking for me...I never said a thing about what was being written in the papers at the time. Hadn't even considered it.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Oh really? And you believe all that editorial nonsense?

Is that what you rely on for factual information? Listen buddy there's a reason why thousands and thousands of players and fans both young and old alike came out to see those legends run. It wasn't to see them lose.

And BTW since when do you take it upon yourself to respond for other PA members?

Why would highly respected writers from the era by "editorial nonsense"?

As for your last comment, I answered because I'm about the same age. You don't worry about my postings. Stick to your own.