Is it just me,
 

or did Curlin look like he was struggling the whole race?:confused:

He looked a little dull. Did not have the turn of foot I thought he would have.
Interesting why they did not work him over the belmont turf as opposed to running him on the CD turf

No idea... He really seemed like he wanted nothing to do with the race at all...

I just thought it was a funky race with those 2 out there hauling u know what. I didnt think it was horrible, I would give him another go at it. Maybe he just needed a race to get his turf butt in gear??

why doesn't anyone even consider for one moment that he is better suited for dirt?

I am not really a fan of Curlin so I really dont care

Who knows? Was nice to see the switch to the turf, but bring him back to the dirt...

I think he obviously is.

Had the race been run differently - and the pace was slow - you could entertain the notion of an excuse for him. His Belmont Stakes loss featured him caught down inside behind a very slow pace in a race that featured a slow early, fast late, turf like fractions and time.

In this race - the pace in front of him was plenty fast and he was always in the clear. He's never going to be in any lighter than the 116lbs he carried. I certainly think it was a failed expierment...though he didn't exactly embarss himself or anything like that.

There's no shame in losing to a former BC Turf winner

exactly, not embarrassed, but the turf experiment is over. he would need to improve on that effort to even be competitive in the BC turf.

Curlin is the perfect example for the naive people that think a good horse can do anything.

He's a very nice horse but nowhere near the horse on turf that he is on dirt.

This isn't as precise as we'd want. The 'naive' people didn't think that a good horse can do anything. They thought that Curlin could beat THIS field.

And, as you well know, NO HORSE can overcome a bad trip.

On the other hand, it's nice to have a 'dirt elitist' like yourself give well deserved credit to the specialists.

A. Horses overcome bad trips all the time.

B. Why was this such bad trip for Curlin?

thanks for this, its been some time since i laughed so hard.

That's where you're wrong: horses ALMOST NEVER overcome bad trips (and I'm not referring to the [pseudo] bad trip of choice for the novice --- the checking suckup trip)

Well, i want to understand what you mean. Can you explain?

Let me try this; and this will be contrary to what DrugS' position is. See, one of the problems here is that everyone pretty much thinks that the BEL turf course is playing like it has in the past. Fact is, it's not. Being outside, with a clear run DOES NOT guarantee that a horse will get up, like it has all these years. In fact, a high number of races are won with inside, ground saving, drafting trips. Horses going without cover on the backstretch and taking wide turns are not getting the best of it (allowing for those cases where they get perfect setups and the race falls apart).

I've attached the chart for the race. This is just about the ugliest TYPE of race you can get ---this is the TAMPA specialty on the turf.

This particular subtype is not an ideal setup for a closer. The race collapsed but only at the top end, setting up a perfect trip for the horse that did the LEAST RUNNING, the horse closest to the suicide pair, the winner. Curlin was asked too soon; I suppose he had to be, to make up the ground. He's in a drive from the early turn to just before the wire, when Alvarado lets up. That's TOO long. He moved BEFORE the winner, who was AHEAD of HIM and absolutely had to inherit the lead. Castellano sat chilly and asked AFTER Curlin. How the **** does he get a good trip? Moreover, if the race set up nicely for a closer, then Better Talk Now certainly runs Curlin down for 2nd. Add hitting the gate and coming out slowly, and having some expected footwork issues, and it wasn't a garden party for Curlin.

Those graphs are pretty cool. But does it not disturb you
just a bit to draw those straight lines between one point and
another. I know this is about all you can do with the data you
have been given, but wouldnt you like the lengths behind the leader
and time between say the 5f and 7th furlong and in between... more points?
I guess that trackuus
thing or whatever will allow you to get a better picture.
Makes me nervous just drawin a line like that, big assumptions, but
its all you can do I guess.

Thank you for the thought out response.

:rolleyes:

So what's next

ARC? Haskell? Travers?

The Haskell and The Travers are restricted to 3yr olds so those 2 are out.

Brain fart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Must have been Big Brown fever................

Where was the middle move he normally has on dirt? Turf turned him into a grinder. Unless they can find an injury, he should be kept off the turf.

Some people's reactions really surprise me. He's a better dirt horse than turf horse - duh. But some are acting like he pulled a Big Brown in here and bombed. He finished 2nd to a former BC Turf winner who has shown an affinity for firm ground and who had a slightly more advantageous trip. He ran an ok race - not an Arc caliber race - but an American G1 turf caliber race. He wasn't the same horse he is on dirt, but he was still pretty good. Obviously his connections need to reevaluate the game plan as sending him to the Arc would be a complete waste, but to say "he never looked interesting in running," etc. must just be a product of disappointment by those who were naive enough to think Curlin would be a superhorse on the grass too before actually seeing him run on it. He didn't win - bfd - now back to dirt where he belongs. . .