Shirreffs' latest gem

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I laughed.

If you don't think her 2008 Apple Blossom was a huge race and possibly her best race, I don't know what you're smoking.

She ran 1:42 3/5 that day. They originally had the wrong time posted for the Oaklawn Handicap because the clock was screwed up. But after they fixed it and re-timed the race, it turns out that Tiago and Heatseeker ran 1:50 2/5 just two races later. At that time, they were two of the top 5 best colts in the country. On their best day, and I think they both ran their best that day, they were both very good horses.

Z ran much faster than they did. I think she could have run her another 1/16th of a mile in a lot faster than 7 4/5 seconds. I think Z's legitmate Beyer that day was around 115.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Z ran much faster than they did. I think she could have run her another 1/16th of a mile in a lot faster than 7 4/5 seconds. I think Z's legitmate Beyer that day was around 115.

So Brownie Points ran a 107 that day?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If you don't think her 2008 Apple Blossom was a huge race and possibly her best race, I don't know what you're smoking.

She ran 1:42 3/5 that day. They originally had the wrong time posted for the Oaklawn Handicap because the clock was screwed up. But after they fixed it and re-timed the race, it turns out that Tiago and Heatseeker ran 1:50 2/5 just two races later. At that time, they were two of the top 5 best colts in the country. On their best day, and I think they both ran their best that day, they were both very good horses.

Z ran much faster than they did. I think she could have run her another 1/16th of a mile in a lot faster than 7 4/5 seconds. I think Z's legitmate Beyer that day was around 115.

You have it all wrong.

The correct final time for the Tiago race when re-timed was 1:48.60

Here's the chart: http://www1.drf.com/drfNCWeeklyHorse...0405&raceNo=10

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

So Brownie Points ran a 107 that day?

Of course not.

The time was originally reported to be 1:50.34 but was corrected to 1:48.60 on Sunday. The new time was determined by Equibase, Oaklawn management and its video sphere, and Randy Moss

If you watch the race .. the timer was tripped early - they posted the opening quarter mile in 41 seconds and the half was in 1:05.

http://www1.drf.com/displayVideo.do?...=D&country=USA

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

You have it all wrong.

The correct final time for the Tiago race when re-timed was 1:48.60

Here's the chart: http://www1.drf.com/drfNCWeeklyHorse...0405&raceNo=10

Racereplays.com has the final times as 1:50.34. If you watch the replay of the race and you clock it, you will get 1:50 1/5 or 1:50 2/5. I know there is nothing wrong with my stop-watch because when I clock the Apple Blossom, I get 1:42 3/5.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

So Brownie Points ran a 107 that day?

She beat her by 4 1/2 lengths, so BP probably ran a 106. It wouldn't be all that shocking. I'm sure there have been plenty of mediocre horses that have run big numbers as also rans in fast races.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Racereplays.com has the final times as 1:50.34. If you watch the replay of the race and you clock it, you will get 1:50 1/5 or 1:50 2/5. I know there is nothing wrong with my stop-watch because when I clock the Apple Blossom, I get 1:42 3/5.

I'll take the word of Equibase, Oaklawn Park, and Randy's Moss's fancy ESPN timer equipment over your stop watch.

Who knows though ... Maybe Brownie Points was a true superstar.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

She beat her by 4 1/2 lengths, so BP probably ran a 106. It wouldn't be all that shocking. I'm sure there have been plenty of mediocre horses that have run big numbers as also rans in fast races.

Yes, and that usually indicates a phony figure.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

She beat her by 4 1/2 lengths, so BP probably ran a 106.

4.5 lengths at 8.5 furlongs equals 8 points. It would be a 107.

When you consider Brownie Points ran 13 times on dirt - and the best figure she ever got in her life was easily the 96 when 2nd to Zenyatta in the Apple Blossom .. I think your 107 stop watch figure for her is a little high. The next time she ran on dirt - Miss Isella smoked her.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I'll take the word of Equibase, Oaklawn Park, and Randy's Moss's fancy ESPN timer equipment over your stop watch.

Who knows though ... Maybe Brownie Points was a true superstar.

I guess if she ran a 106 Beyer one time as an also-ran, then that would make her a superstar. No mediocre horse has ever done that before.

What kind of numbers were Heatseeker and Tiago running at the time?

If you have time, go and clock the AB and the OH. You will see that the OH was in fact run in 1:50.34

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

4.5 lengths at 8.5 furlongs equals 8 points. It would be a 107.

When you consider Brownie Points ran 13 times on dirt - and the best figure she ever got in her life was easily the 96 when 2nd to Zenyatta in the Apple Blossom .. I think your 107 stop watch figure for her is a little high. The next time she ran on dirt - Miss Isella smoked her.

My number could be a little high. Myabe Z ran a 112 that day.

With regard to BP, horses do step up sometimes for a career best as also rans in a fast race. Look at Musket Man. He'd run a 99, a 102, and a 95 this year. Then he ran a 109 chasing QR in the Met Mile. What did MM run over the weekend? Around 100? Yet he somehow ran a 109 in the Met Mile. You are the numbers guy, not me, but I'm sure that this type of thing is not that unusual.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I guess if she ran a 106 Beyer one time as an also-ran, then that would make her a superstar. No mediocre horse has ever done that before.

What kind of numbers were Heatseeker and Tiago running at the time?

If you have time, go and clock the AB and the OH. You will see that the OH was in fact run in 1:50.34

I will humor you and time it later tonight when I pick up my digital stop watch from the other place.

Oaklawn Park is Randy Moss's home track - I can't imagine how his fancy ESPN timing equipment could get it wrong - let alone Equibase as well.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

My number could be a little high. Myabe Z ran a 112 that day.

With regard to BP, horses do step up sometimes for a career best as also rans in a fast race. Look at Musket Man. He'd run a 99, a 102, and a 95 this year. Then he ran a 109 chasing QR in the Met Mile. What did MM run over the weekend? Around 100? Yet he somehow ran a 109 in the Met Mile. You are the numbers guy, not me, but I'm sure that this type of thing is not that unusual.

Of course he didn't run 100 this weekend. He ran much closer to 109 than 100. How can that be your evidence and you are miles wrong?

As for Shirreffs, please about the string already. He has 59 starts all year.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What I'm saying isn't even debatable.

Of course it is, because you're making no logical points. It's like making fun of Sarah Palin. At some point, you're just being mean for picking on a weaker kid.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not saying anything controversial.

Yeah you are, cuz people are arguing with you. Did you not notice that part?

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You must not be in the horse business. The main goal of anyone that owns a mare is to win a grade I. That's how you increase your mare's value dramatically. Everyone wants their mare to win a grade I. The value of your mare goes up 5x overnight.

Her value has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion:

1) They won't sell her. I bet they won't sell her offspring unless it's sending a colt to stud, and exactly how will anything she does in 2010 affect that? I don't think getting HOY would impact progeny value at this point. She's transcended it. She and Rachel are Hall of Fame bound and both sets of owners are probably gonna apply for the beatification process rather than sell their respective queens. End of.

2) What does being in the business or not being in the business have to do with logic? Jess Jackson's "in the horse business" and I have yet to understand very much of what he says or does. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a rocket scientist who moonlights "in the horse business" since I know how particular you are) to figure out that a mare is better off with a G1 than a G2 win. The only reason Zenyatta isn't in a bunch of walkovers is those owners like getting G1 placings. (Well not the only reason. She's teasing them with the close finishes to mediocre horses so some come back for more hoping she'll slip up one day, and if she doesn't, here ya go. Another G1 placing).

3) She's got a million G1s and the Breeders Cup Classic to boot. There's zero that racing her in the Vanity, the Clement Hirsch, the Zenyatta Stakes this year will do to her value. Another Classic win would matter for her legend. Possibly her value, but again, they're not gonna sell her majesty.

4) Why are you referencing what other people aspire to with their mares? That has nothing to do with the Mosses' decisions. They know they have a superhorse that has as many G1s as a 14yo boy has zits. Racking up more isn't the point so much as that's the level she belongs at. She's so clearly dominant at filly or mare G1s at CA that there's no reason not to go in them if only to pick up the bigger purses with ease.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Anyone with a good mare is looking to win a grade I. If you're back east and you're looking to get a grade I win, you will strongly consider shipping out west. It's been done a lot over the years. It's even done with colts to increase their value. It's probably not done quite as much now with the synthetics but it's still done.

Way to deflect the argument again. Why a mare owner runs their horse in a G1 is obvious. Why they'd go west is not. They have a G1 over a dirt surface at their home track and they go to CA why? Zenyatta's supposedly better on dirt, and synthetics seems to take the edge off dirt horses with speed. Why not go to a track that benefits both Zenyatta and her competition? Why does either have to compete with one hoof tied behind their back?

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Anyway, if a trainer is deciding whether or not to send his mare out west to try to win a grade I, you don't think Zenyatta's presence in the race will have a huge impact on the guy's decision. If you don't, then you are the one drinking the cool-aid.

I seriously doubt it heavily affected the decisions of many of the dirt horses in the East or "east" since that apparently applies to Churchill and Oaklawn nowadays. The bigger factor--the surface. They learned their lesson. Horses that do go west are either taking a shot in the dark or they've shown they like synthetics too. The big question for the ones that don't ship is why bother?

There's no competition staying in California unless she tries open company. I get why they're doing it, but it's frustrating. The idea that not coming to her makes the rest of the horses outside California a bunch of chickens is nuts. No, a G1 isn't the be all end all when it's on synthetics and requires a cross-country flight.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

My number could be a little high. Myabe Z ran a 112 that day.

Brownie Points was a pretty nice honest horse who normally fired the same type of race.



I guess its possible that both Randy Moss and Equibase got the time wrong, and that BP could have ran one standout huge figure over the course of her career that happened to come while getting absolutely crushed by a better horse - but I doubt it.

The 2010 Apple Blossom performance by Zenyatta was more recent and less impressive imo.. and it was followed up with two near photo finish wins.

[Merlinsky]

DrugS, how'd you expect Azeri to do vs her 5th place Classic finish and how'd you think she'd have fared in the 2002 BCC field rather than the Distaff? I remember the good old days when we were yelling about her 2002/2003 redundant schedule instead of Zenyatta's. Azeri came east for multiple G1 wins at 6, but got HOY the year she stayed in CA. Of course she did those races on dirt.

Here's a question for everybody: would Zenyatta have swayed more voters for HOY if she'd done her campaign on CA dirt tracks? Would we be talking about quality of field or even failing to race the season in open company as much if there'd been that dirt surface? I know there was some discussion even in Azeri's situation, but she still won the award. She didn't have a Rachel in the East though, but I do wonder how much of the vote went Rachel's way for Rachel's sake, and how much was anti-synthetic. We all seem to agree Zenyatta's better on dirt. I'm sure the performances would've been flashier. There'd be no 'but she barely beat Anabaa's Creation.' Of course, as our ol' pal Rupert pointed out, the foes coming from East to West might've been different because horses liked coming out for G1s, the problem being it was G1s on dirt that they'd rather come for. Assume the opponents wouldn't be different, though, for the purposes of this question.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

DrugS, how'd you expect Azeri to do vs her 5th place Classic finish and how'd you think she'd have fared in the 2002 BCC field rather than the Distaff?

I thought Lukas was out of his mind for running her in the BC Classic. That was a brutal field in the Classic and the Distaff was subpar that year.

While a much better horse than Volponi - I don't think she beats Volponi in the BC Classic if she goes there the prior year.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Of course it is, because you're making no logical points. It's like making fun of Sarah Palin. At some point, you're just being mean for picking on a weaker kid.



Yeah you are, cuz people are arguing with you. Did you not notice that part?



Her value has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion:

1) They won't sell her. I bet they won't sell her offspring unless it's sending a colt to stud, and exactly how will anything she does in 2010 affect that? I don't think getting HOY would impact progeny value at this point. She's transcended it. She and Rachel are Hall of Fame bound and both sets of owners are probably gonna apply for the beatification process rather than sell their respective queens. End of.

2) What does being in the business or not being in the business have to do with logic? Jess Jackson's "in the horse business" and I have yet to understand very much of what he says or does. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a rocket scientist who moonlights "in the horse business" since I know how particular you are) to figure out that a mare is better off with a G1 than a G2 win. The only reason Zenyatta isn't in a bunch of walkovers is those owners like getting G1 placings. (Well not the only reason. She's teasing them with the close finishes to mediocre horses so some come back for more hoping she'll slip up one day, and if she doesn't, here ya go. Another G1 placing).

3) She's got a million G1s and the Breeders Cup Classic to boot. There's zero that racing her in the Vanity, the Clement Hirsch, the Zenyatta Stakes this year will do to her value. Another Classic win would matter for her legend. Possibly her value, but again, they're not gonna sell her majesty.

4) Why are you referencing what other people aspire to with their mares? That has nothing to do with the Mosses' decisions. They know they have a superhorse that has as many G1s as a 14yo boy has zits. Racking up more isn't the point so much as that's the level she belongs at. She's so clearly dominant at filly or mare G1s at CA that there's no reason not to go in them if only to pick up the bigger purses with ease.



Way to deflect the argument again. Why a mare owner runs their horse in a G1 is obvious. Why they'd go west is not. They have a G1 over a dirt surface at their home track and they go to CA why? Zenyatta's supposedly better on dirt, and synthetics seems to take the edge off dirt horses with speed. Why not go to a track that benefits both Zenyatta and her competition? Why does either have to compete with one hoof tied behind their back?



I seriously doubt it heavily affected the decisions of many of the dirt horses in the East or "east" since that apparently applies to Churchill and Oaklawn nowadays. The bigger factor--the surface. They learned their lesson. Horses that do go west are either taking a shot in the dark or they've shown they like synthetics too. The big question for the ones that don't ship is why bother?

There's no competition staying in California unless she tries open company. I get why they're doing it, but it's frustrating. The idea that not coming to her makes the rest of the horses outside California a bunch of chickens is nuts. No, a G1 isn't the be all end all when it's on synthetics and requires a cross-country flight.

Your quote that I was responding to that I said wasn't debatable, was your argument to my quote that Z's presence in the filly races out west scares off some potential shippers from coming. That was what I said is not debatable. There is no doubt that if Zenyatta's connections had decided they weren't going to run in the Hirsch, that more horses would have shipped in for the race.

With regard to value and broodmares, I wasn't talking about Zenyatta's value. I was talking about the value of a grade I to other mares out there and why people are often times willing to ship if they think it's their best chance to get a grade I under their belt.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Brownie Points was a pretty nice honest horse who normally fired the same type of race.



I guess its possible that both Randy Moss and Equibase got the time wrong, and that BP could have ran one standout huge figure over the course of her career that happened to come while getting absolutely crushed by a better horse - but I doubt it.

The 2010 Apple Blossom performance by Zenyatta was more recent and less impressive imo.. and it was followed up with two near photo finish wins.

Brownie Points came back and won a couple of stakes races after the Apple Blossom. She was obviously in good form at the time. She won a grade III in her very next start.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Of course he didn't run 100 this weekend. He ran much closer to 109 than 100. How can that be your evidence and you are miles wrong?

As for Shirreffs, please about the string already. He has 59 starts all year.

You are right. I was thinking that Blame ran a 105. I was mixed up with Lookin' At Lucky. He ran a 105.

That would hardly be evidence even if I was right. It wouldn't prove anything. I was just looking for an example off the top of my head of a horse that stepped up and ran faster than they normally do, in defeat in a fast race. I gave a bad example since MM did run about a 107 or 108 in the Whitney.