Quote:
Originally Posted by NTamm1215
Seriously, stop with the Octave stuff. Blind Luck is considerably better than Octave, has stretched out her top performances for longer, has many, many more GI wins, has run against better competition on multiple occasions, has won on multiple surfaces all across America. There's really no comparison between the two of them.
Blind Luck has always been a product of the current era in thoroughbred racing. Tell me who the last horse was to be campaigned for two full years straight without a stop that routinely competed at the upper levels? That's what she's done and has run a number of very good races along the way. When it looked like she was tailing off her connections were undeterred and she's come back with two of the best races of her career. People like Blind Luck because her connections have never backed down from a challenge, they've danced every dance, and they've allowed her to be a racehorse.
|
I've already conceded she's more accomplished than Octave. Part of that, however, is both level of competition, and that she has raced as a 4yo, which I don't think Octave did (I could be wrong).
And yeah, I commend the connections for not being pussies with her!!
I'm even a fan of the filly! I did say when she was a two year old that she was the most likely winner of the Ky Oaks the following year.
Again, my whole point is that people have gotten carried away with how good she really is. My little quip about Octave was meant as a yardstick for comparisons. She is/was a lot closer in ability to Octave than she is/was to Rags to Riches, for instance.
07-17-2011, 09:56 PM
Threaded Mode