Santa Anita's Surface

[justindew]

I have to admit that I didn't follow the SA meeting all that closely so it's extremely possible that this entire post is a waste of time (Andy, please restrain yourself), but I would be curious to hear what some of you who DID follow SA have to say about the following:

It seems that front-runners in routes are up against it at SA, while off-the-pace types have some degree of an edge. If this is the case, can't Gayego and Bob Black Jack be moved up on dirt while Colonel John is moved down, especially considering Gayego's effort at Oaklawn? Yes, we are ALL hearing that the California horses in general are strong, and that Bob Black Jack will probably prefer dirt. I get that. But you don't hear that much about how perhaps Colonel John's SA Derby win may have been the result of the surface and the way it affected the entire field, especially BBJ. All we hear about is how much he seems to love CD.

I'm just looking for a reason to bet against Colonel John, since everyone is up his rear-end this week.

[ateamstupid]

From what I've seen, it plays completely fair to all running styles. I wouldn't move anybody up or down going to dirt.

[hockey2315]

Maybe if the front-runners weren't by Stormy Jack and Gilded Time. . . I'm not crazy about Colonel John but he's got the style and pedigree to outrun his fellow west coasters. . .

[pointman]

Justin, you may want to read the Randy Moss article that Byk has posted in the paddack thread which addresses this aspect to some extent.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by pointman

Justin, you may want to read the Randy Moss article that Byk has posted in the paddack thread which addresses this aspect to some extent.

Yeah, I read that. But it just sort of glosses over the SA Derby effort by focusing on how he ran in the Sham against El Gato Malo, and then mentions how his pedigree "makes it likely he isn't just a synthetic wonder". I'm not sure that really addresses the issue of his SA win in the first place. But isn't being by Tiznow an added bonus on synthetics? So I don't really see why his pedigree makes it "likely" the synthetic stuff didn't help him, rather than make his SA Derby something less than it appeared.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by justindew

But isn't being by Tiznow an added bonus on synthetics? So I don't really see why his pedigree makes it "likely" the synthetic stuff didn't help him, rather than make his SA Derby something less than it appeared.

Tiznow excelled on dirt. Won his Breeders' Cup Classics at Churchill Downs and Belmont. His brother Budroyale placed in the BC Classic, Santa Anita H, etc., ON DIRT. Several of Tiznow's better runners have done their thing on dirt, like champion Folklore in New York and Tiz Wonderful at CD. Even some of his 'synthetic horses' have also run well on dirt, like Bear Now (won Cotillion S at Philly), Well Armed (third in the Dubai World Cup to better horses), and Slew's Tizzy (won Lone Star Derby). Don't swallow this nonsense that Tiznow is a 'synthetic' sire only; his horses win where they run and a lot of places have synthetics now, especially his home state of California.

I know works do not always give a great deal
of insight into how a horse is going to like a track
or how the horse might run a week later.

I watched Col. John's workout and it was very impressive.
I just dont think he will have the trouble on the dirt.
The horse looks very fit, ran very smartly and was just full
of himself. You never know exactly what the trainer is trying
to accomplish with a work, so a horse that might look lazy
or out of sync. may not be a big deal.

I think he looked awesome. I dont even care about the time.
He just looked so steady and strong throughout.

Did you see that work? And then do some comparisons.
Others have already probably posted about it and may
not have the same opinion. He looks awesome to me.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

Don't swallow this nonsense that Tiznow is a 'synthetic' sire only; his horses win where they run and a lot of places have synthetics now, especially his home state of California.

I have never heard anyone suggest that Tiznow is a synthetics sire only. Merely that his offspring win at a disproportionately high rate on synthetics.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by justindew

I have never heard anyone suggest that Tiznow is a synthetics sire only. Merely that his offspring win at a disproportionately high rate on synthetics.

I guess the fact that Tiznows run predominantly in California doesn't have anything to do with that impression.

[SlewsMyHero]

I watched the Santa Anita meeting very closely. It was almost like 2 different meetings. The original Cushion Track got to be ridiculously fast and did for the most part favor early type in both sprints and routes. This was the track that Bob Black Jack set the 6 furlong world record on. About a week after the Sunshine Millions toward the end of January, the Cushion track was mostly scraped up and the Pro Ride ingredients mixed it in. It was still very fast and speed favoring initially.

There was a point about a week after the Pro Ride fix that the jocks complained about the track mid-card. Between races, the track maintenance crew deeply harrowed the track, and from that point on, it became a track that I feel was biased toward horses that finished in the middle of the track. Horses that rallied up the rail had no shot. Early types still won there share, but the horses that rallied wide had a big advantage. Colonel John sat just off a very slow pace in the Sham and finished well in at least the 3 or 4 path. El Gata Malo rallied outside of him, but had to come from further back. Colonel John got the rallying outside trip in the SA Derby to just get up. Bias or not, I think Colonel John will win the Derby. He's got experience and he's battle tested, having had to dig in to beat El Gato Malo in the Sham, and having to weave through traffic and make a huge rally to get up in the SA Derby. He's bred to love the distance and the surface at CD.

Big Brown may be fast, but he's inexperienced, and hasn't had to look another horse in the eye down the lane. I also question his breeding for the distance. In my opinion, he's a bet against in a 20 horse field.

[10 pnt move up]

Well I watched just about every race run at santa anita and I do concur that the meet were almost run on two different surfaces, thought I would disagree a bit as even though it was fast I felt it played to closers from beginning to end.

What we did see was this trend of horses opening clear leads and getting collared late, even when those horses looked well beaten. Two examples were Mozante's last win and Colonel John. Both horses had trouble, both horses had to make up 3 or so lengths in the final 1/16, and both cases it looked to me like it was a late surge that won the race. Those are stake races but I saw this play out with great regularity. In dirt races a horse like Gayego opens up three lengths at the end of the race he is not going to get beat. So look to play against horses who had these type of finishes and bet the horses who were collared late, especially on dirt.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by justindew

Yeah, I read that. But it just sort of glosses over the SA Derby effort by focusing on how he ran in the Sham against El Gato Malo, and then mentions how his pedigree "makes it likely he isn't just a synthetic wonder". I'm not sure that really addresses the issue of his SA win in the first place. But isn't being by Tiznow an added bonus on synthetics? So I don't really see why his pedigree makes it "likely" the synthetic stuff didn't help him, rather than make his SA Derby something less than it appeared.

Tiznow has been the top synthetic sire the best two years and that has included a lot of Keeneland specialists so isn't just a product of more progeny running in California. That being said, I don't have any doubt in Colonel John in the Derby anymore after his work. It is no longer an issue. He has as good a chance of being on the board as anyone.