Quote:
Originally Posted by King Glorious
Yes, that is his point but no, I don't agree that it's not worth considering. It's just as with any other sport. You train to peak for the biggest games, the championship level events. The Saints beat the Buccaneers twice in the regular season but Tampa didn't bring Brady there to be at his best for those games. They wanted to peak in the playoffs and when they played NO in the playoffs, Brady won. Maybe you guys believe that if one horse beats the other in the Swale and Holy Bull but then the other horse turns the tables in the Florida Derby and Kentucky Derby, that makes them level. I don't. The latter won the more important races and that carries more weight in my book. I don't think it's realistic to think all races are equal and they want to win all of them equally as bad. So since we all know some races are more important than others, I don't think it's silly to think that a trainer would have their horse more prepared for the more important races and I think that it means something when a horse is set to run their best and they lose when all others are set to run their best too.
|
For a guy who doesn’t view all races as equal you sure aren’t giving much credence to the Belmont, Jim Dandy and Travers. Which is odd because you seem to think the worst running of the Kelso of all time and the worst running of the BC Dirt Mile earned Life Is Good a championship.
Makes perfect sense. Almost as much sense as the football analogy.