When showboating goes very wrong!

[RunDustyRun]

The mare historically likes to run and win on the lead. She did it two back under the same rider so my question is why would Lezcano take her back when she already had the lead, other than that's the NY jockey colony way...
The looking back looked bad and in my opinion he didn't ride hard til that last 20 yards...the mare was coming back when urged.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If he had some legitimate reason to look inside, so be it, but the horse finished well once he asked and he asked way too late because he was so busy looking inside he didn't see what was happening outside.

I almost never criticize riders. I'd be afraid to do what they do, let alone be able make correct split second decisions under that pressure all the time. But IMO that was a bad ride. They all have occasional bad rides. Turn the page. There will be plenty more to talk about.

Sharp, accurate post.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by RunDustyRun

The looking back looked bad and in my opinion he didn't ride hard til that last 20 yards...the mare was coming back when urged.

You can say "In my opinion" the sky is yellow, but that doesn't make it a fact, just as saying this doesn't change the fact that she was ridden hard for MUCH longer than that and essentially the entire stretch.

This conversation, not surprisingly, has no devolved into the usual arguing the poster not the facts.

[RunDustyRun]

Originally Posted by the little guy

You can say "In my opinion" the sky is yellow, but that doesn't make it a fact, just as saying this doesn't change the fact that she was ridden hard for MUCH longer than that and essentially the entire stretch.

This conversation, not surprisingly, has no devolved into the usual arguing the poster not the facts.

The "fact" is that the horse was taken off the lead right at the start when the horse needs the lead. I assume you woudn't dispute that "fact."

[cj]

Originally Posted by RunDustyRun

The "fact" is that the horse was taken off the lead right at the start when the horse needs the lead. I assume you woudn't dispute that "fact."

To me, that is as bad or worse than the constant looking back. But I think we've become so numb to riders strangling speed horses it gets overlooked. This horse has won 8 races in her career. Six were wire to wire, one she was second for the first quarter while outside in a three horse field before taking over for the last 6.5 furlongs, and the other win was on turf a couple years ago where she rated a few lengths off the lead in 3rd.

I'd be more interested in hearing explanations for these kinds of rating speed horse rides than a guy looking around like a tourist in NYC.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by cj

To me, that is as bad or worse than the constant looking back. But I think we've become so numb to riders strangling speed horses it gets overlooked. This horse has won 8 races in her career. Six were wire to wire, one she was second for the first quarter while outside in a three horse field before taking over for the last 6.5 furlongs, and the other win was on turf a couple years ago where she rated a few lengths off the lead in 3rd.

I'd be more interested in hearing explanations for these kinds of rating speed horse rides than a guy looking around like a tourist in NYC.

Given I pretty much started this whole "rating speed horses discussion" ( for which I was chastised on Twitter by someone who works at DRF ), I'll weigh in on this one. Yes, Foxtail appeared the speed on paper, and yes her best way to the Winner's Circle has always been on the front end, but I think two things happened here....one is the pace was probably a little faster than would have been reasonably expected ( in relative terms of course ) and secondly there was also a notion ( one I completely disagree with ) that speed was bad the prior day ( keep in mind this was the first race on Sunday ). Put all these together, including of course the ridiculous notion that speed apparently is a bad thing, and you got that situation.

Lost in this whole wildly overblown conversation about this race is the quality of horses that is being discussed. Throw in the educated points made by Spalding ( he really should have spelled it Spaulding but that's merely a tangential issue ) and what we are talking about are wildly unreliable horses here. Expecting them to have performed in multiple ways like Stakes runners during the running of the race is as unrealistic as it is ridiculous.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

To me, that is as bad or worse than the constant looking back. But I think we've become so numb to riders strangling speed horses it gets overlooked. This horse has won 8 races in her career. Six were wire to wire, one she was second for the first quarter while outside in a three horse field before taking over for the last 6.5 furlongs, and the other win was on turf a couple years ago where she rated a few lengths off the lead in 3rd.

I'd be more interested in hearing explanations for these kinds of rating speed horse rides than a guy looking around like a tourist in NYC.

IMO, the idea is to achieve a balance between using the horse to improve your position (or open up a lead), but not so much that you've used "excess" energy and wind up worse off for the effort. That balance is going to be different for every horse depending on how much natural speed and overall ability it has. It's tricky to find it because tracks change and you don't always know what you have underneath you.

Maybe the track surfaces have changed a bit over time. I know you think more turf racing (and synthetic racing) has influenced the riding styles a bit. I think the beginning of this trend goes all the way back to Pat Day and some other successful riders that tended to sit rather than use their speed horses earlier. Imitation is a form of flattery.

I feel like I'm on the 50 yard line in some of these debates, but the imo some riders are leaving wins on the table by being overly cautious early. That opens the door for a more aggressive rider. If someone starts dominating by being more aggressive early, maybe others will start mimicking that style.

[classhandicapper]

Setting aside why the horse wasn't loose.

It was similar to the ride Smith gave to Life is Good against Jackie's Warrior (albeit with different quality horses and for different reasons).

If you allowed your main competition to get the jump on you because you waited longer than usual to ask and it turns out you had a lot of horse left and started making back that ground, but just missed, imo you screwed up.

You don't want to cross the finish line with a dead tired horse, but you don't want to just miss with a horse that had more left in the tank than the opposition after you just conceded a positional advantage.

[the little guy]

I rest my case.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I rest my case.

If your case is that the quality of the horse should be considered imo you are correct in a general sense, but not in this particular case. When he finally asked, the horse DID respond and started closing the gap again. That means he had horse underneath him. If he had no horse underneath him there would be no conversation about why he was looking inside and gave away the advantage. I don't care if it's 2k claimer or an all time great, you don't want to give up position if you still have enough horse to finish.

[Bustin Stones]

Jose needs to explain the excessive head swiveling, but the rest of it is not an issue. What people are failing to grasp is that he beat the rest of the field by 6 lengths and that means something. Whatever his tactics, he managed to beat the rest of the field by 6 lengths. No apology needed for that. No apology needed for how he managed his mount's energy. And why are we not giving credit to 5 who also beat the rest of the field by the same 6 lengths? That ain't chopped liver. Did anyone including Jose believe when the gate opened that 5 had that in her? So, this is about all that mysterious head swiveling.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Put all these together, including of course the ridiculous notion that speed apparently is a bad thing, and you got that situation.

I'd love to know who thinks speed is a bad thing.

I think the debate has generally been whether a rider should aggressively take the 2nd or 3rd best speed horse to the lead against a clearly superior speed hoping to beat him (and some would say most likely lose positions and purse money as a result) or whether he should sit, stay close, hope the main speed has a bad day, most likely lose, but at least possibly salvage a better placing.

I think generally if the rider thinks he clearly has the best horse he'll go and say "come and beat me".

The trend with the secondary speeds is to take back, practically concede the race, and try to salvage something. That's what some people get upset about.

The really bad ones are the races where everyone is afraid there's too much speed and no one goes. That's when Twitter melts down.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

Jose needs to explain the excessive head swiveling, but the rest of it is not an issue. What people are failing to grasp is that he beat the rest of the field by 6 lengths and that means something. Whatever his tactics, he managed to beat the rest of the field by 6 lengths. No apology needed for that. No apology needed for how he managed his mount's energy. And why are we not giving credit to 5 who also beat the rest of the field by the same 6 lengths? That ain't chopped liver. Did anyone including Jose believe when the gate opened that 5 had that in her? So, this is about all that mysterious head swiveling.

I obviously agree it was the head swiveling that caused him to move later than he should have.

[burnsy]

QUOTE=PaceAdvantage;2791661]why wouldn't they?

twitter is like the idiot bullhorn...

btw...what exactly do all the critics think nefarious went down?

I'm curious.

Or was it just too much head swiveling for your liking?

Once he FINALLY noticed the horse on his outside, he was riding his horse all the way from basically the top of the stretch to the finish line. Horse had basically every chance to get by the eventual winner but couldn't.

Aside from not being the best ride in the world, what exactly is he guilty of?[/QUOTE]
I’ve never been on Twitter but if it’s anything like Facebook. It’s an idiot Bull horn. Post of this thread! The other thing is when have facts mattered? Knowing facts and pointing them out just makes people hate you for using facts and not emotion. And I didn’t even see this race but people will spend 5 pages arguing over it

[VeryOldMan]

I perhaps made a mistake - I went back and watched the replay multiple times after the sensational "showboating" thread title and the lively discussion.

For the 50+ years I've been watching horse racing, I've understood "showboating" to be standing up in the irons early, misjudging a finish line, giving too easy a hand ride towards the finish, failing to see an onrushing late closer while doing same, etc., etc.

Here, I saw a jockey focused very much on traffic to his left for some reason and failing to realize the major threat was about to come from the right. Once it happened, he reacted. Probably not the greatest ride of all time and worth explaining to the stewards, but I didn't see an ounce of "showboating".

Then throw in this was a field of $12,500 claimers - not exactly push-button performers. Neither the horses nor the jockeys are machines. Things happen. Lezcano has won almost 3,000 races. I honestly don't get it re the focus on this particular race.