Raw Talent...

[Merlinsky]

I'm confused, why are we bringing up Skip Away? His last year was 1998.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

I'm confused, why are we bringing up Skip Away? His last year was 1998.

Because DrugS got bored with the original question and asked a new one.

[slotdirt]

Going 9f? There's no way you're catching Ghostzapper of Formal Gold on dirt.

[Indian Charlie]

You'd pretty much have to have no clue if you think GZ would finish in the money against that field.

Do people really believe he'd get the lead???

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

You'd pretty much have to have no clue if you think GZ would finish in the money against that field.

Do people really believe he'd get the lead???

No, but I don't think he would need it. Remember the race he ran in the Vosburgh?

[CSC]

In the context of this discussion, I would rather see the horses tested at 10 furlongs rather than 9, setting a parameter at 9 furlongs would be the equivalent of when boxing went to 12 rounds from 15. Further to this why not have these same horses race against each other 9 times within a 12 month period allowing a reasonable 5-6 weeks between races. Having a mythical one race match based on a horse's best performance is like having to beat the 2008 18-0 N.E England Pats once and saying they were a better team.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by CSC

In the context of this discussion, I would rather see the horses tested at 10 furlongs rather than 9, setting a parameter at 9 furlongs would be the equivalent of when boxing went to 12 rounds from 15. Further to this why not have these same horses race against each other 9 times within a 12 month period allowing a reasonable 5-6 weeks between races. Having a mythical one race match based on a horse's best performance is like having to beat the 2008 18-0 N.E England Pats once and saying they were a better team.

I think the condition should be changed to 5.5f on dirt.

Then it becomes a 2 horse race.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by CSC

In the context of this discussion, I would rather see the horses tested at 10 furlongs rather than 9, setting a parameter at 9 furlongs would be the equivalent of when boxing went to 12 rounds from 15. Further to this why not have these same horses race against each other 9 times within a 12 month period allowing a reasonable 5-6 weeks between races. Having a mythical one race match based on a horse's best performance is like having to beat the 2008 18-0 N.E England Pats once and saying they were a better team.

Wouldn't Candy Ride, Gentleman, and Zenyatta drop dead from flying that many times over the Rockies?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by CSC

In the context of this discussion, I would rather see the horses tested at 10 furlongs rather than 9, setting a parameter at 9 furlongs would be the equivalent of when boxing went to 12 rounds from 15. Further to this why not have these same horses race against each other 9 times within a 12 month period allowing a reasonable 5-6 weeks between races. Having a mythical one race match based on a horse's best performance is like having to beat the 2008 18-0 N.E England Pats once and saying they were a better team.

another insanely idiotic comment.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Because DrugS got bored with the original question and asked a new one.

Ooooh. Okie doke. I was thinking we all suddenly forgot to add and subtract. Wouldn't be the first time. Being absorbed with things all summer, I keep forgetting what day of the week it is.