Yankee Bravo....KD horse??

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by miraja2

It was a pretty good dirt debut to be sure. He had an outside post, ran into some traffic on the second turn, and overcame that to put in a pretty nice stretch run. Given that this was his first dirt start, he might be eligible for more improvement down the road, but based on that performance, I certainly do NOT see him as a legitimate Kentucky Derby contender.

Now, did you repeat " dirt " twice to try and convince us or yourself?

This was not a dirt race, nor should it be confused as one, and like every prep run on synthetic surface, it has little to no bearing on any races the participants run on actual dirt.

Call it a handicapping challenge, but this year's KY Derby will be filled with the new challenge of figuring out how some horses will do in their actual first start on dirt. The unfortunate thing is to think of the excluded horses that may well have impacted the Derbies of the future had they had the proper surface to run on earlier in their careers. But, the good news is that many of the non-dirt horses that are confused as actual dirt horses will be thoroughly exposed in Louisville on an annual basis.

Anybody that disagrees with this should look at the winner of this year's Sunshine Millions Classic. It aint dirt.

[deltagulf]

well prep down at the fair grounds its dirt and a very long front strech.

[Immanuel Kant]

His time for the 8.5 furlongs was 1:44.57. The other race run at that distance at GG yesterday was won by a rather average n2x horse entered for a tag in 1:44.18 (and that one was carrying more weight than Yankee Bravo).

That should be enough to end the discussion .........

[westcoastinvader]

Originally Posted by Immanuel Kant

His time for the 8.5 furlongs was 1:44.57. The other race run at that distance at GG yesterday was won by a rather average n2x horse entered for a tag in 1:44.18 (and that one was carrying more weight than Yankee Bravo).

That should be enough to end the discussion .........

Good points, but if they ever get him to come out of the gate straight and without a hop, skip and a jump he'll get to the wire a little faster. And maybe not have to navigate as much traffic.

Seriously, check calracing.com and his breaks in the two races up there are nearly identically bad.

[2Hot4TV]

Originally Posted by westcoastinvader

Good points, but if they ever get him to come out of the gate straight and without a hop, skip and a jump he'll get to the wire a little faster. And maybe not have to navigate as much traffic.

Seriously, check calracing.com and his breaks in the two races up there are nearly identically bad.

He will never break well with that sack of bricks in the saddle.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by 2Hot4TV

He will never break well with that sack of bricks in the saddle.

It's a negative,but the fact he likes the horse (so much) means the old woman will ride confidently.He has saved ground twice with this horse.Not taking him wide like almost every other horse he rides in the stretch.That's a lot of confidence in the horse's late run.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Now, did you repeat " dirt " twice to try and convince us or yourself?

This was not a dirt race, nor should it be confused as one, and like every prep run on synthetic surface, it has little to no bearing on any races the participants run on actual dirt.

Call it a handicapping challenge, but this year's KY Derby will be filled with the new challenge of figuring out how some horses will do in their actual first start on dirt. The unfortunate thing is to think of the excluded horses that may well have impacted the Derbies of the future had they had the proper surface to run on earlier in their careers. But, the good news is that many of the non-dirt horses that are confused as actual dirt horses will be thoroughly exposed in Louisville on an annual basis.

Anybody that disagrees with this should look at the winner of this year's Sunshine Millions Classic. It aint dirt.

Oh yeah. I actually forgot that GG was synthetic because I hardly ever watch (or follow) races there.
Obviously these surfaces are very diffrerent from dirt, but the real confusing part for me is that they are so different from each other too. For awhile I just considered synthetic surfaces as a "third surface"....but even that isn't accurate, because...well just look at the three SoCal tracks with synthetic surfaces.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by miraja2

For awhile I just considered synthetic surfaces as a "third surface"....but even that isn't accurate, because...well just look at the three SoCal tracks with synthetic surfaces.

Actually, in my opinion, it is still pretty accurate. Sure, like dirt and turf, no two tracks are exactly the same. The general tendencies of the synthetic tracks are very much the same however, regardless of the final times.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Actually, in my opinion, it is still pretty accurate. Sure, like dirt and turf, no two tracks are exactly the same. The general tendencies of the synthetic tracks are very much the same however, regardless of the final times.

I don't know. I see plenty of dirt loving horses that abhor poly yet run far less abysmally over cushion than over poly.

[cmorioles]

What I mean is that you simply have to go slower early than you on dirt, whether tapeta, cushion, or polytrack. Some you must go slower than others of course, but this isn't any different than dirt courses. The longer the distance, the greater the change from dirt.

As for the horse in this thread, he was given a meager 74 Beyer. Derby? Not even the TuP version.