Summer Bird could be HOY

[boswd]

IF Summer Bird wins the BC Classic then He is HOY. I know RA has been the most exciting horse this year and really has been great for the sport but I'm sorry, Belmont, Travers, Jockey Club Gold Cup and Breeder's Cup Classic?
That's insane.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by boswd

IF Summer Bird wins the BC Classic then He is HOY. I know RA has been the most exciting horse this year and really has been great for the sport but I'm sorry, Belmont, Travers, Jockey Club Gold Cup and Breeder's Cup Classic?
That's insane.

It's a tough call but if he SB wins the BC Classic(WHICH IS NO GUARANTEE) I agree with you, obviously Rachel's gender adds to her appeal but I'm not sure if it is FOY(Filly Of the Year) or HOY (Horse of the year) that voters will look at, I know it doesn't enter my equation if I were choosing. That is why we have a different award for Fillies and Mares. The quad of The Belmont-Travers-JCGC-Classic certainly is harder to achieve than The Oaks-Preakness-Haskell-Woodward in my opinion and if gender has no bearing at all Summer Bird should get the nod if he can close the deal in the Classic.

[freddymo]

Respectfully, who friggin cares about HOY. Summer Bird seems like a very nice colt, Careless Jewel looks like a terrific filly, Icon Project could be a monster, Mine that Bird is a nice sort, and Quality Road seems like something that will be watching as well. BUT in 2009 (save Europe) there is only 1 horse that transcended racing. She is perhaps the greatest of her gender ever. She is spoken about in these terms by all thoses that have seen the past all time great filly's. Hence there is only 1 horse that could or should be HOY..Not that I give a hoot about the award.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by CSC

It's a tough call but if he SB wins the BC Classic(WHICH IS NO GUARANTEE) I agree with you, obviously Rachel's gender adds to her appeal but I'm not sure if it is FOY(Filly Of the Year) or HOY (Horse of the year) that voters will look at, I know it doesn't enter my equation if I were choosing. That is why we have a different award for Fillies and Mares. The quad of The Belmont-Travers-JCGC-Classic certainly is harder to achieve than The Oaks-Preakness-Haskell-Woodward in my opinion and if gender has no bearing at all Summer Bird should get the nod if he can close the deal in the Classic.

seems like the oaks/preakness etc would be harder to achieve since one has to be a filly to run in the oaks. that in itself makes the other three a tremendous rarity for a filly to attempt, let alone win.
on it's own merits, summer birds four wins (should he win the classic, and i don't know that he will) are good, but his loss to rachel seals the deal for many.

rachel seemingly is a victim of 'what have you done for me lately-itis'. the longer it is since her last race, the more the memory of everything she has actually achieved will fade. a shame, because she's had a hell of a year.

[CSC]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Danzig

seems like the oaks/preakness etc would be harder to achieve since one has to be a filly to run in the oaks. that in itself makes the other three a tremendous rarity for a filly to attempt, let alone win.
on it's own merits, summer birds four wins (should he win the classic, and i don't know that he will) are good, but his loss to rachel seals the deal for many.

However history says that not since Easy Goer 20 years ago has any horse achieved the N.Y triple and if he does win the BC Classic it will be a first of it's kind in racing history, everyone keeps talking about Rachel from a historical point of view and rightly so, but I think Summer Bird deserves a bit of respect in that department also.

rachel seemingly is a victim of 'what have you done for me lately-itis'. the longer it is since her last race, the more the memory of everything she has actually achieved will fade. a shame, because she's had a hell of a year.

For me I respect what she has done, you have to be not a fan of racing to not respect her year, I just don't like how it is being portrayed that she beat Summer Bird at 1 1/8 at a point of time when he was still developing and she was at her peak and though we can debate that race till the cows come home, that race far suited her talents more than Summer Bird's. He lost fair and square, okay but he took her on when the Haskell suited her game to a tee, and due to the preemptive strike JJ had in mind for HOY, Summer Bird will not have a chance to avenge that loss. Dubious or not that is the way it is.

[Smooth Operator]

Curlin = Overrated 'roid freak…




GO SB!

[Antitrust32]

[quote=CSC]

For me I respect what she has done, you have to be not a fan of racing to not respect her year, I just don't like how it is being portrayed that she beat Summer Bird at 1 1/8 at a point of time when he was still developing and she was at her peak and though we can debate that race till the cows come home, that race far suited her talents more than Summer Bird's. He lost fair and square, okay but he took her on when the Haskell suited her game to a tee, and due to the preemptive strike JJ had in mind for HOY, Summer Bird will not have a chance to avenge that loss. Dubious or not that is the way it is.

He won the Classic Belmont, then "developed" in the Haskell, and then won the Travers & JCGC.

You make no sense. He only "developed" in that race because its the only way you can make your argument.

[slotdirt]

To be fair in recompense, did it really require much developing for Summer Bird to dispatch with Dunkirk, Mine that Bird, and Charitable Man in the Belmont?

[NTamm1215]

I'd love to know how anyone could say that the track playing more towards Rachel Alexandra's strengths helped her beat SB in the Haskell when the fact of the matter is that they were basically eyeball to eyeball around the turn. If anything, he was short from running in two Triple Crown races, but she ran in the Oaks and Preakness herself.

The excuse wagon could go on and on and on but the bottom line is that Rachel Alexandra beat Summer Bird like a drum at Mth. Is he a better horse now? Probably but unfortunately we'll have to wait until next year to find out if he's now better than her.

NT

[dalakhani]

[quote=Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by CSC

He won the Classic Belmont, then "developed" in the Haskell, and then won the Travers & JCGC.

You make no sense. He only "developed" in that race because its the only way you can make your argument.

Is it fair to say that Curlin was a more developed horse at the BC his three year old year than he was at Monmouth a few months earlier? Was Tiznow the same horse at the BC in 2000 as he was in the Pacific classic a few months earlier?

I think you can find plenty of examples, especially in three year olds, where there is rapid development and improvement within just a few months.

[CSC]

[quote=dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Is it fair to say that Curlin was a more developed horse at the BC his three year old year than he was at Monmouth a few months earlier? Was Tiznow the same horse at the BC in 2000 as he was in the Pacific classic a few months earlier?

I think you can find plenty of examples, especially in three year olds, where there is rapid development and improvement within just a few months.

The point is alot of smart handicappers here recognize Summer Bird was a better horse in the Travers and JCGC, showing tractibility, stamina, and finish in those races, the beyers will of 110-111 will back this up. The issue we are addressing here is, is to the crowd that still believe that RA is 7 lengths better than SB is, my point all along as much as people keep wanting to make this a Haskell argument, is that in the present day, looking forward RA would have had an extreme challenge beating Summer Bird today and had she run in the JCGC she would have lost, This is what I am talking about future races, the races to come, not what has happened.

[CSC]

[quote=Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by CSC

He won the Classic Belmont, then "developed" in the Haskell, and then won the Travers & JCGC.

You make no sense. He only "developed" in that race because its the only way you can make your argument.

You fail to understand he is a better horse today(present) than he was in the Haskell or Belmont, what is hard to accept or understand about this from a 3 yr old colt that broke his Mdn in Mar of this yr? Again not to reiterate The JCGC and The BC Classic is at 1 1/4 a he distance he has already proven to be very adept at running at. RA hasn't and I suspect she will have to one day so that Jess can have his legacy preserved for her.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

You make no sense.

Hey, that's what I said! Stop stealing my stuff!

Do you like though his Macho Again analogy where he completely disregards what happened in those two races?

And his adamant refusal to address that?

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Hey, that's what I said! Stop stealing my stuff!

Do you like though his Macho Again analogy where he completely disregards what happened in those two races?

And his adamant refusal to address that?

On the refusal to address issues, I wrote you a nice long reply yesterday you ignored, you out of smart replies? Other than 'you make no sense'. Just brillant!

[CSC]

[quote=Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by CSC

He won the Classic Belmont, then "developed" in the Haskell, and then won the Travers & JCGC.

You make no sense. He only "developed" in that race because its the only way you can make your argument.

Okay let's use just say he is a different horse today than he was then and that he has developed into a better horse. If you didn't understand the jist of my comment, though I thought it was obvious, my regrets.

[Antitrust32]

[quote=CSC]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Okay let's use just say he is a different horse today than he was then and that he has developed into a better horse. If you didn't understand the jist of my comment, though I thought it was obvious, my regrets.

Just ignore that post of mine and check out reply #163. I put my feelings into words better there.