I don't think this is a fair representation. NP was the only horse to run early (other than the speed), passing a number of horses to get into third, while SS was safely behind him. He also battled SS in the stretch before that one dropped him. Now, how many times is a horse supposed to run in a race? The pacesetters absolutely collapsed. This horse chased them, running into a fast 1st and 2nd split, then is used to run by them, then duels with the winner, who had a garden inside trip. And, the best you can offer is that Paddy, who was the benefit of all this got stopped in the stretch. Or that Ice Box got stopped? Consider this: what happens if Ice Box doesn't get stopped and is forced to make the same extended run that LaL and MMFM did? You think there's just a wee bit chance he levels off the way they did? Think about it: he's not that good. NP put in the best effort in the race given the setup. Give him SS' trip and he's right there.

No.

The horse stopped late, plain and simple. He couldn't get a mile and a quarter. So what, it happens. Pedigree isn't an exact science but some inferences can be made on what horses will prefer to do. I don't know how anyone can argue that when a horse gets beat by 6-7 lengths in two furlongs without any trouble that it would have been different if he waited 6 more seconds to give him everything he's got.

Holy mother of God. Give it up. The horse I said would hit the board at 12-1 and you called a plug went by the horse I said wouldn't get the distance no matter what like he was standing still. Watch the overhead- which we have the benefit of like once a year- the trip between the 4 and the 3 was virtually identical. He was behind him by a length at MOST the whole race. You cannot make the argument that he was going to be any better than what he finished. You are nuts if you think that Ice Box actually benefited from getting stopped, that is the silliest argument of all.

Listen- you want this horse to be good. I get that. He is good. He just isn't a Derby horse, so what... it's a $10,000 buy by a sire that doesn't have stamina. It's a dream come true that they even made it this far. I hope for the sake of the horse they back him up and sprint.

I hear you and you may very well be right. I just think that in a race like the derby, especially the way this one set up, that the premature move could have had a huge impact on the way this race was run in the stretch. There is no denying that the winner got the ultimate trip. What if he has to check or hesitate on the turn? Does he still beat NP by 6-7 lengths?

i don't think there's any way willie was staying in the top three with that horse. he's a good horse, but it was just too far for him. same finish position as in the arkansas derby.

No... only 5 1/2 lengths.

LOL:wf

I'm giving up my hypothesis. On to Pimlico...and the crackheads.

LOL

Sorry for being a smartass.

I'm thinking about driving up. Would be the first missed Preakness since 1996 for me if I don't. Are you going?

strongly considering. Probably 60-40 to go. Let me know if you decide to go.

Those pick 4's, none of which i hit, were quite hittable and quite large. Always depressing after the fact.

Agreed. I bet one race all day, despite being at CD from the 8th on- it was a very hectic and not very enjoyable for most of the day. Don't know if I would have come up with General Quarters in the pick 4 though, even if I went thin in the Derby.

Trying to talk the wife into it. We will let you know.

Approximate internal fractions, FWIW:

Super Saver: 23.53, 47.31, 1:11.64, 1:37.90, 2:04.45 (:26.55 last 1/4)
Noble's Promise: 23.57, 47.06, 1:11.15, 1:37.65, 2:05.43 (:27.78 last 1/4)

Time doesn't MATTER unless you're in JAIL. :rolleyes:

Putting the Derby aside for a second, this is what I don't get about the dude's analysis. He talks about how so and so made "this run" and "that move" but if you completely ignore fractions, how the hell do you know if a horse was really accelerating or if the others were slowing down? For instance, sometimes in races (especially routes), a horse or two will separate from the field early, then three or four horses will catch up quickly down the backstretch. This doesn't make sense visually until you see that the fractions were something like :23 and :49. If horses get closer during a slow quarter after being far behind during a fast one, that doesn't mean they were making an early move, nor should they be given extra credit if they win with "another" move.

"I was comfortable and moving nicely. The 10 horse (Paddy O’Prado) kind of stopped in front of me, then I gained the lead and he responded nicely for me. The rest was all (Calvin) Borel. He had the horse. Obviously distance is going to be the question with this horse. He’ll be a top 3-year-old and I’m sure (trainer) Kenny (McPeek) will spot him around correctly."-WILLIE MARTINEZ

Fat Boy has a confidently-condescending style (a popular choice,) but all the facts point away from his conclusions about the horse's ability to get 10f.

In response to dala's subject line -- no, Cuvee did.

This is a complete fallacy. Just because Pletcher worked for Lukas, that doesn't mean that Lukas taught him how to train. Pletcher was already a competent horseman and that is why Lukas hired him. I do give Lukas credit for having a good eye for talent and always hiring extremely competent assistants. When Lukas had strings all over the country, he almost always had excellent assistants that were capable of training the horses on their own.

Anyway, Pletcher trains nothing like Lukas. His philosophy is totally different from Lukas. They are polar opposites. If you listen to interviews with any of Lukas' former assistants, they are always asked what they learned from Lukas. You will notice that they never mentiong learning anything about training. When Kiaran McLaughlin was asked what he learned from Lukas, he said that he learned how to get owners and that type of thing. When Pletcher was asked the question, he said that he learned alot about organizational skills and how to run a big operation.

You will never hear any of those guys say that they learned anything about training from Lukas.

I totally agree with Ateam about Lukas. I know that you probably think Lukas' results speak for themselves but if you want to make that argument then you have to look at his results over the last 5 years also. He probably has the worst winning percentage in graded stakes races of any trainer in the country.

His sprint influenced breeding got him the distance better than 15 others(most of whom were bred to go this far).

Willie has cost this horse multiple races with awful rides and I was amazed McPeek sought his services once again.. When was the last time a horse took the lead at that point in this race and won...?

2 years ago.

... and 3 years ago, 4 years ago, 6 years ago...

sthop making thense!

But he did. And you're not at the level where you can understand why. Ice Box got the best trip in the race relative to the setup. The chart clearly shows this. If he's allowed a clear run he fizzles out (relative to the winner) like the other closers.

The only one here who is able to understand this is (possibly/probably) Serling.

And NP COLLAPSED the race. Absolutely no doubt about that.

First off, Noble's Promise ran 100 times better then I thought he would, for him to finish 5th is amazing to me.

Second off, I can't believe fatman just said Icebox benefited from being stopped in the race. He wonders why he gets crucified?

Scav, go down to your local velodrome or park with your bike. Get in a draft with a bunch of guys going 25 miles per hour. I know it's only bike racing, but if you have to check when you're in a pack, it's easy to re-rally and keep up with the riders you're with because of the aerodynamics of the draft. Ice Box just used the Shake and Bake.

You're out of your f*cking mind trying to rationalize why your interpretation was once again wrong. No big deal- TAM opens in 6 months. Plenty of time to analyze.

And your boy said this right after the race.
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/sho...99&postcount=2

That's fine. He has trouble with that trip as well.

Whether he's absolutely right or wrong, why make fun of someone who well may understand race dynamics better than you?

It's hard to argue against the notion that Noble's Promise collapsed the race. It was a poor ride ( there's a shock given the rider ) but it was probably somewhat irrelevent, as he wasn't getting the distance effectively anyway.

It's not all so simple.

I'm not suggesting for a second that the Fat Man doesn't understand race dynamics better than I do, but he surely has an interesting way of trying to explain his vantage point to others.

I don't give a f*ck if he understands race dynamics better than me, or if he doesn't. To make an irrational argument like Ice Box getting stopped actually benefited him because he didn't like him before the race completely undermines any other positive thing he has said.

Regardless of the final trip analysis , I was sick with the finish. I bet Ice Box at 85/1 at Wynn Las Vegas in February. I have to give Haksin credit for that play. After the Fountain of Youth, he was on ATR and said that IB had a wide trip, but finished well despite being 5th. Both he and Byk also loved the horse's apperance back then.

I didn't even know what a velodrome was until I looked it up the other day.

I gotta be honest too, I like reading The Fat Man's posts, there are tidbits that really are worth using towards your handicapping.

He's obnoxious. So what. At least he has something to say.

I'm driving down the left lane of a three lane highway going 40 mph with a car in front of me that I'm drafting in behind. There is someone in the right lane next to me going the exact same speed. The car in front of me stops to turn; I slow down to 30 MPH for two seconds and swerve into the center lane and re-accelerate to 40 MPH. Clearly, I am able to benefit from this as I spent less energy over the previous quarter mile because I drafted behind, despite giving up 29 feet of distance to the guy in the right lane in that two second period.

:zz:

Phil

Take a deep breath. Consider for a moment that whether Ice Box ran well or not really meant nothing to me, as I went into the race with doubles to SC and NP. So, when NP fell apart, it didn't matter to me. If I thought the horse ran well after the fact, I'd certainly comment to that effect. But I wouldn't want anything that closed out of this race and I certainly wouldn't want the one that last moved the last movers.

Now, if you take a look at the chart for the race, you'll note that the 3rd last, last, last horse at the 1st 3 calls, ran together from the 3rd to the 4th call, where that made significant gains. At that point, while LaL and MMFM continue on making a slight gain, IB is going sideways. Clearly, he's expending energy while doing so but he's not expending the same amount as the other two. In other words, he gets a BREAK in his run and the chart shows that while the other 2 are gaining, he's losing ground to the winner. (this is between the mile and the stretch call). The stretch call to the wire, LAL backs up, MMFE makes/continues a nominal gain and IB comes on, gaining significantly. So, NP collapses the race, having 1st SS bid, then a whole wave of horses that included PoP (all of which fizzled out except PoP), and, finally, the 3 horses from the rear. So, not only did IB have the benefit of making the last run in the race but he was even able to last move the last movers, as a result of getting a break in the stretch. This horse has no shot in a race where he actually has to do any running on its own. I realize it's hard to grasp what I'm writing.

Yeah- like telling others they're morons or "not at that level" and operating at a level of hubris approaching that of Napoleon.

Has anybody really ever tried to quantify how much "drafting" actually helps or hurts a horse in so far as racing goes? I understand the concept in car racing and cycling, but never heard anybody aside from TFM really espouse its impact on the running of a horse race. I'm just not sure the dynamics of a horse race are similar enough to, say, a 150 mile stage of the Tour de France or the Aaron's 499 at Talladega, to warrant the comparison.

Andy

It's common knowledge that I respect you more that just about any trip handicapper out there. Consider what I'm offering here. This is very similar to your misread of the Al Khali trip in that race won by Courageous Cat. Horses that find trouble at key points in the race are at an advantage --- especially in cases of sustained runs like this one. This was a flow race and IB was riding the gulf stream.

We've established that he's abrasive and obnoxious....should I get a Thesaurus and find some more words in order to continue to post in this manner?

He still has something to say.....at least this time.

Your car analogy was bad. I'm not saying I wholly agree with him....but you can do better than that.

I'll tell you this much, Doofus:

I'm a much better trip handicapper than Willie Martinez is a jock. You're a bigger clown that I thought if you actually take what any jock has to say after the race as being remotely representative --- especially a jock with obvious premature tendencies. Then again, as mentioned, the connections are clueless as to how much money that idiot has cost them, so why would I expect others to comprehend this.

I understand.

I still think Ice Box ran a winning race, in the sense that if things had gone as well for him as they did for the first and third finishers he would have won.

The bigger question is, then, who actually ran the best race. And, this means for ten furlongs. The problem is, it may not be particularly relevent in the future, due to how unusual this race was.

You lose any shred of credibility when you even quote him....much less respond.

Please, one outburst at a time.