American Pharoah: Triple Crown Winner: NAY or YAY?

[ultracapper]

CC looked worn out last year right after the Preakness. AP didn't look like that at all. He looked real good during Espinoza's interview going back to the winner's circle.

AP isn't a need the lead type. If Espinoza can just give him the right ride, which is my biggest concern, he can run this race however he needs to.

He sure looks good running down the stretch. The KD crowd may have got him a bit and Espinoza had to stay in him, but aside from that one, every race I've watched him in he has looked fabulous in the stretch. He's muscular and it shows in the way he runs. He doesn't grind down the stretch, and he doesn't fly down it, he kind of cruises down it.

Nice colt.

[Rex Phinney]

Originally Posted by sbcaris

RexPhinny: Your sample size is exceedingly small. To say that on 5 occasions horses going for the Triple crown that did not race at Belmont were beaten by a horse that did run over the Belmont track.

The Belmont is a big race every year and it has been won MANY times by a horse that never ran there until Belmont day. Here are a few examples of Belmont winners that never raced at Belmont Park until the Belmont stakes:

2011-Ruler on Ice
2009-Summer Bird
2007-Rags to Riches
2002-Sarava
2000-Commendable
1998-Victory Gallop
1997-Touch Gold
1988-Risen Star
1990-Go and Go

Certainly based on the data above-- running at Belmont Park in a race is certainly NOT required for a horse to win the Belmont Stakes.

You find 9 out of the last 27 have won there cold turkey. I won't take the time to post the % that is, you're doing good enough at proving my point.

Of those 9 do you know how many ran all 3 TC races? So of the last 27 Belmont stakes how many were won by horses visiting Belmont for the first time AND running their 3rd race in 5 weeks?

[depalma113]

Originally Posted by Rex Phinney

You find 9 out of the last 27 have won there cold turkey. I won't take the time to post the % that is, you're doing good enough at proving my point.

Of those 9 do you know how many ran all 3 TC races? So of the last 27 Belmont stakes how many were won by horses visiting Belmont for the first time AND running their 3rd race in 5 weeks?

I see at least 2

[BlueChip@DRF]

Originally Posted by Secondbest

Well. If I've learned one thing in my years of betting horses its that in the Belmont nobody knows Anything until that last 1/16. those last 6-7 seconds will tell the tale

+1

[Rex Phinney]

Originally Posted by depalma113

I see at least 2

I see the same. So of the last 27 Belmont Stakes 2 have been won by a horse running there for the first time AND having run in all three TC races.

7.4% (and none in the last 17 years)

[KingChas]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

The only obstacle I might see, has to do with the breeding of AP, but I think it is very possible to outrun his ancestors and score a big win...

http://www.pedigreequery.com/american+pharoah

Some Belmont winners are his ancestors.
Empire Maker his grandpa on the dad's side.
Then check out his great great great grandpa on the mom's side.
Won't outrun this #1...........Clue 1973..........

[Frost king]

The last four two-year-old champions, to win both the Derby and Preakness went on to win the Triple Crown. Their names were Citation, Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed. Saw that in the DRF today.

[RXB]

Actually, the last 2YO champ to win the Derby & Preakness was Spectacular Bid.

Mighty spiffy company, those five.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by KingChas

http://www.pedigreequery.com/american+pharoah

Some Belmont winners are his ancestors.
Empire Maker his grandpa on the dad's side.
Then check out his great great great grandpa on the mom's side.
Won't outrun this #1...........Clue 1973..........

The question marks have to do with his "tail female" (bottom) line. Of course his top has Empire Maker who won the Belmont. Still, the (few) question marks rely on his bottom line (which really is his family), (Secretariat is not part of his tail, at least not by the definition I know).. I will analyse his female family in a blog post before the race.

[Redboard]

What is that definition of insanity? How many times does Lucy have to pull the football away before Charlie Brown gets it? From my perspective, American Pharoah is 0 for his last 12.

[nijinski]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

The question marks have to do with his "tail female" (bottom) line. Of course his top has Empire Maker who won the Belmont. Still, the (few) question marks rely on his bottom line (which really is his family), (Secretariat is not part of his tail, at least not by the definition I know).. I will analyse his female family in a blog post before the race.

I've mentioned before to rely on his breeding at this point doesn't
mean much. He should be a sprinter or a mile at the most according
to his female side and that DI .
He's already defied and outrun what he looks like in pedigree !

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

CC looked worn out last year right after the Preakness

CC really looked dull to me in the Belmont post parade.
He had a shining coat and was full of himself in his previous races.
Not the same horse in New York.
Had he not hurt himself, who knows?
I felt at the time, though, that it wasn't going to be his day.

AP, hopefully, will be more himself.
But if he looks lack luster, I'll be searching for some value.

[DeltaLover]

Originally Posted by nijinski

He's already defied and outrun what he looks like in pedigree !

Very nice point.. Agree 100%

[LemonSoupKid]

The response still would be that he was near a relatively easy pace even though he went wide in the Derby,and that he only face 8 in the Preakness on a surface he liked much better than them, and got the lead.

also, 1.5 is exponentially longer. Others are bred more for distance, more well rested, and some have trained or run at the track (Curlinate, madefromlucky, etc)

[f2tornado]

Originally Posted by nijinski

He's already defied and outrun what he looks like in pedigree !

I don't know. The horse is winning but nothing in his raw winning times, BSFs, Brisnet figures, competition (beating a nw2 in Preakness), etc. suggest the horse is truly outrunning the pedigree. Maybe barely breaking 100 BSF is the new standard these days otherwise a 102 BSF in the Preakness would have lost 20 of the last 24 renditions. The 105 BSF in the Derby is in the bottom third since 1991. The 100 Derby Brisnet figure was on par with Giacomo for lowest in last 15 years. Very few of the three year old horses this year have even broken a 100 BSF. So, is this just a lousy crop or is a 100 BSF the new normal for top level 3 year olds? I'm simply having a hard time being impressed with the Pharoah but perhaps I'm looking at it too much from a historical perspective.