Ken Rudolph.....

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Scav

The horse was well placed but was gutted from his last run. Rudolph is an idiot that has had the pleasure to learn from Schrup, another idiot. He should just listen to Lyons and Bray, Bray only on horse knowledge and not wagering, Bray is a fish out of water when it comes to wagering. The horse came back too quick, and a needy trainer, like Sarge, tends to make that move, instead of giving the necessary time off, regardless how they are acting. If I remember correctly, the horse was also about 4 points slow anyways....While they are some good Cal-breds, there is the top couple, then a severe decline IMO

i knew before the race that the horse was coming back too quick against tough competition. i think sarge wanted to taste that victory that he was denied in the Snow Chief, and rushed him back.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

i knew before the race that the horse was coming back too quick against tough competition. i think sarge wanted to taste that victory that he was denied in the Snow Chief, and rushed him back.

I was licking my chops when I saw 6/5, and his sheet while strong, was slow.....I don't even remember what race it was, if it was Friday night, I doubt I had the winner because I didn't get back to even for the day until the last race at Los Al.....the ultimate get out race

[ELA]

I think some of these posts bring up some excellent points. Are we talking about Ken Rudulph as a handicapper? As an on-air talent? Something else? Regardless, what comes into play under each purview is his style, the quality of his broadcasting (exclusive of content as he may have zero control over that element), his likeability, etc. -- and other measurable standards when it comes to on-air talent.

Personally, I don't like his style at all. I think the efforts at humor come across as "goofy" and are difficult for others to play into and off of. I've been on TV numerous times (as it relates to my industry) and I can assure you this dynamic is a crucial one. When it comes to training, aspects of training, discussions that come from a trainer's perspective -- do I want to hear him, or Simon Bray, Tom Amoss, etc.? I don't care if the guy talking was a 5% trainer -- at least he did it. Practical real world application, from a 5% trainer, means everything; while the talk coming from someone who never walked the walk means zero.

Different people have different styles, and we all understand that. I just think you need to have a style that appeals to the masses -- the various segments of your audience. You need to be able to ebb and flows as the content does, and as the audience does if in fact it does.

Eric

[ELA]

BTW, with regard to Nick Hines, I haven't seen him on air that often. But what I do see, I like. His role as a color commentator type -- he fills it well. He has a nice demeanor and style and offers opinions, angles, etc. from a perspective that very few people get to ever hear, see, learn, etc. -- and that goes from the casual fan/bettor to the seasoned veteran.

His "schtick" as a trainer is what it is. People like that -- with a passion -- are good for the game. Is it embarrasing? My question is "to who" -- ??? I don't think for a moment. However, as an on-air talent, that has nothing to do with it.

I think all types of fans and bettors can learn a great deal hearing things from the perspective of a jock, trainer, professional, a vet, a bloodstock agent, a blacksmith, etc. These are all parts of the game and can offer more well rounded and in depth knowledge. Take what you like and leave the rest, LOL.

Eric