7/23-24 (SAR): CCA Oaks (G1); Caress

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

He got extremely lucky in the Acorn when the seas parted for him along the inside. There was no guarantee that would happen again. Instead, he saw Salty miss the break, sensed the slowing pace and took the bull by the horns with the best horse. I wish more riders in New York would be that aggressive.

My point is Smith didn't need to be aggressive. The filly was not "extremely lucky" to win the Acorn. Smith didn't need for a dream run on the rail for the horse to win that race. Abel Tasman has proved she can win pretty much from anywhere against these sorts of rivals.

All Smith did was tax the filly, nearly got her beat, and almost got her DQ'd. If he wanted to take it to them, he should have done so from the outset, not 3 furlongs into the race with 8 lengths to make up.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

My point is Smith didn't need to be aggressive. The filly was not "extremely lucky" to win the Acorn. Smith didn't need for a dream run on the rail for the horse to win that race. Abel Tasman has proved she can win pretty much from anywhere against these sorts of rivals.

All Smith did was tax the filly, nearly got her beat, and almost got her DQ'd. If he wanted to take it to them, he should have done so from the outset, not 3 furlongs into the race with 8 lengths to make up.

I didn't say the filly was extremely lucky, I said Smith was lucky that there was a hole at the rail. If he gets stopped there, he loses. Period. You wanted him to take the same risk again, irrespective of circumstances, instead of "taxing the filly" by sending her into a 25-second quarter down a straightaway after his main competition missed the break.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I didn't say the filly was extremely lucky, I said Smith was lucky that there was a hole at the rail. If he gets stopped there, he loses. Period.

This is very presumptuous. Firstly, Smith only went for the hole because it was, in fact, there. He didn't sit behind horses waiting for it to open. From the looks of it, he was looking to split tiring horses rather than follow Salty wide through the turn. Seeing fellow closer Union Strike under a drive at the 3/8s pole probably gave Smith confidence there would be room to run in the pocket.

You wanted him to take the same risk again, irrespective of circumstances, instead of "taxing the filly" by sending her into a 25-second quarter down a straightaway after his main competition missed the break.

It was hardly a risk in the Acorn. Again, the hole was there. If it wasn't, Smith would have simply split horses (it was a 6-horse field) and been able to unleash her turn of foot at the top of the stretch. She wouldn't have got the jump on Salty perhaps, but considering she's handle that rival 3 times now, it probably didn't matter.

As for Salty missing the break in the CCA Oaks, wasn't that pretty much the death knell for her race? Note her wide sweep and wilt in the stretch. How Smith moving Abel Tasman way too early somehow helped exploit the fact that Salty missed the break is beyond me. The damage had already been done. He should have won the race by open lengths, not survived an inquiry.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

It was hardly a risk in the Acorn. Again, the hole was there. If it wasn't, Smith would have simply split horses (it was a 6-horse field) and been able to unleash her turn of foot at the top of the stretch. She wouldn't have got the jump on Salty perhaps, but considering she's handle that rival 3 times now, it probably didn't matter.

As for Salty missing the break in the CCA Oaks, wasn't that pretty much the death knell for her race? Note her wide sweep and wilt in the stretch. How Smith moving Abel Tasman way too early somehow helped exploit the fact that Salty missed the break is beyond me. The damage had already been done. He should have won the race by open lengths, not survived an inquiry.

She's beaten Salty three times with much better trips each time. You left that part out.

And the point was to take advantage of Salty breaking slowly by putting as much distance on her as he could while up on a slow pace, instead of having her alongside Salty at the rear and having to outmaneuver her from the back again. Why put yourself in that position again when the race is there for the taking? I noticed you don't have an argument for why it's bad to be aggressive into a 25-second middle split when no one else wants the lead.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

She's beaten Salty three times with much better trips each time. You left that part out.

Aside from not mentioning the KY Oaks outright, not really. We already discussed that Salty was left at the gate and that Abel Tasman was "extremely lucky" to have a rail run in the Acorn. I figured it was taken for granted. Must I reiterate these facts ad infinitum?

By the way, how many more "better trips" will Abel Tasman need to have for it to become evident that perhaps Abel Tasman's superior push-button running style is simply an outright advantage over Salty's slow-to-get-in-gear, wide closing style?

And the point was to take advantage of Salty breaking slowly by putting as much distance on her as he could while up on a slow pace, instead of having her alongside Salty at the rear and having to outmaneuver her from the back again.

Alongside Salty? What race were you watching? Salty got left at the start (I guess I do have to reiterate the basic facts). Abel Tasman had nearly 5 lengths on Salty early...despite breaking flat-footed herself.

Why put yourself in that position again when the race is there for the taking?

Abel Tasman was odds-on, the race was hers for the taking before they loaded in the gate...even more so once Salty lept in the air. Why should any of this compel Mike Smith to change the horse's running style in the middle of the race?

Maybe it would have been a plausible strategy to take the lead straight from the gate, but the mid-race move was just asking for trouble--as evidenced by the stretch run.

I noticed you don't have an argument for why it's bad to be aggressive into a 25-second middle split when no one else wants the lead.

I didn't realize I was obligated to pick apart every last thing you posted. I guess that would cut down on the number of posts I need to submit.

Not sure why you are passing the second quarter off as 25 seconds. Once again, Abel Tasman was nearly 8 lengths out of it the opening quarter (when 3 horses did want the lead). How fast did she have to run to make the lead from there? :23 and change?

I guess if we are willing to concede that Abel Tasman is capable of a sustained 7 furlong move we can agree that Smith did the right thing here, but as it turns out Smith was all out to hold off a filly with but a $50K minor stakes to her credit...and had to resort to some questionable tactics to do it.

[10 pnt move up]

We can talk about this rider should have done this or that, its in the past

the better question is how good is this filly? Cause that was impressive.

[RHT2004]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

We can talk about this rider should have done this or that, its in the past

the better question is how good is this filly? Cause that was impressive.

I dont think she's like super special. She is clearly the leader of the division. IMO shes not as good as Rachel, or Close Hatches as 3yr olds. She's more like Songbird.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Aside from not mentioning the KY Oaks outright, not really. We already discussed that Salty was left at the gate and that Abel Tasman was "extremely lucky" to have a rail run in the Acorn. I figured it was taken for granted. Must I reiterate these facts ad infinitum?

By the way, how many more "better trips" will Abel Tasman need to have for it to become evident that perhaps Abel Tasman's superior push-button running style is simply an outright advantage over Salty's slow-to-get-in-gear, wide closing style?


Alongside Salty? What race were you watching? Salty got left at the start (I guess I do have to reiterate the basic facts). Abel Tasman had nearly 5 lengths on Salty early...despite breaking flat-footed herself.


Abel Tasman was odds-on, the race was hers for the taking before they loaded in the gate...even more so once Salty lept in the air. Why should any of this compel Mike Smith to change the horse's running style in the middle of the race?

Maybe it would have been a plausible strategy to take the lead straight from the gate, but the mid-race move was just asking for trouble--as evidenced by the stretch run.


I didn't realize I was obligated to pick apart every last thing you posted. I guess that would cut down on the number of posts I need to submit.

Not sure why you are passing the second quarter off as 25 seconds. Once again, Abel Tasman was nearly 8 lengths out of it the opening quarter (when 3 horses did want the lead). How fast did she have to run to make the lead from there? :23 and change?

I guess if we are willing to concede that Abel Tasman is capable of a sustained 7 furlong move we can agree that Smith did the right thing here, but as it turns out Smith was all out to hold off a filly with but a $50K minor stakes to her credit...and had to resort to some questionable tactics to do it.

You're in favor of riders reserving their horses for the final 1/4 no matter the circumstances. I like a jockey to be aggressive into slow paces and grab races by the throat, especially if they're on the best horse. We just disagree. Don't need eight paragraphs to reiterate that.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

You're in favor of riders reserving their horses for the final 1/4 no matter the circumstances.

How disingenuous of you.