Ride on Normandy Invasion

[ninetoone]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

NI lost the race by a little more than 3 1/2 lengths. What your'e saying is right. If NI had 4 lengths more ability (talent), he would have won. Yes, that is true. I don't know what that has to do with anything. You could say that about any bad ride. If a horse gets a bad ride and loses a race by 2 lengths, you could always say, "It wasn't the ride that cost the horse. If the horse had 2 1/2 lengths more ability, then he would have won any way." That is true I suppose but what kind of argument is that?

I couldn't tell you why Javy moved way too soon. Did he misjudge how fast they were going or did he misjudge how long his horse could sustain his run? Does it matter? He made a major miscalculation either way. I don't know why he moved too soon. I just know he moved too soon.

I don't think I can lay it out any clearer than what I did in my last post that you quoted. You didn' t answer my 2nd question. Is it impossible for you to believe that NI could have run a 2:02 3/5 given his position and the time on the timer at a mile? I believe he could have, and that's why I don't think the crucifying of JC is warranted & I don't think it was a terrible ride at all, as many are saying. You are focusing on the jockey instead of the horse. I guess it comes down to whether you believe (based on the question above) whether or not the jockey asked the horse to do something completely unreasonable...in this case he was 1st at a mile @1:36.16, so finishing his last quarter in 26.73 or less would have won the race. I was OK with that decision & obviously you weren't. Whether or not the horse could have finished 2nd or not...who knows. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me anyway...I bet the horse to win & if I were Brown I'd ride JC back with no hesitation.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

I don't think I can lay it out any clearer than what I did in my last post that you quoted. You didn' t answer my 2nd question. Is it impossible for you to believe that NI could have run a 2:02 3/5 given his position and the time on the timer at a mile? I believe he could have, and that's why I don't think the crucifying of JC is warranted & I don't think it was a terrible ride at all, as many are saying. You are focusing on the jockey instead of the horse. I guess it comes down to whether you believe (based on the question above) whether or not the jockey asked the horse to do something completely unreasonable...in this case he was 1st at a mile @1:36.16, so finishing his last quarter in 26.73 or less would have won the race. I was OK with that decision & obviously you weren't. Whether or not the horse could have finished 2nd or not...who knows. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me anyway...I bet the horse to win & if I were Brown I'd ride JC back with no hesitation.

I answered your question. The answer is "yes", it would have been possible for NI to run 2:02 3/5 with the trip he got, if he had about 4 lengths more ability (talent) than he has. You could say that about any horse that has trouble or gets a bad ride. If a horse has 2-3 lengths of trouble and loses a sprint race by 2 lengths, and the final time of the race was 1:09 3/5, I think most people would say, "That trip really cost that horse." I guess you would be the only one to say, "If that horse could have run 1:09 2/5, he would have won, even with the trouble." That is a strange argument, to say the least.

Every single handicapper, regardless of approach thinks NI was compromised by his ride. Some people may think the ride cost him a length. Others may think the ride cost him two lengths. Others may think the ride cost him 3 lengths or even more. It's debatable exactly how many lengths the ride cost him, but it's not debatable that he would have finished at least somewhat closer with a more patient ride. BTW thinks so, Cmorioles thinks so, Doug thinks so, Beyer thinks so (he mentioned it in his article), Ateam thinks so, Bigjag thinks so, NTamm thinks so, Port Conway thinks so, etc. It's hard to find anyone, regardless of their handicapping approach, that doesn't think the move was premature.

[ninetoone]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I answered your question. The answer is "yes", it would have been possible for NI to run 2:02 3/5 with the trip he got, if he had about 4 lengths more ability (talent) than he has. You could say that about any horse that has trouble or gets a bad ride. If a horse has 2-3 lengths of trouble and loses a sprint race by 2 lengths, and the final time of the race was 1:09 3/5, I think most people would say, "That trip really cost that horse." I guess you would be the only one to say, "If that horse could have run 1:09 2/5, he would have won, even with the trouble." That is a strange argument, to say the least.

Every single handicapper, regardless of approach thinks NI was compromised by his ride. Some people may think the ride cost him a length. Others may think the ride cost him two lengths. Others may think the ride cost him 3 lengths or even more. It's debatable exactly how many lengths the ride cost him, but it's not debatable that he would have finished at least somewhat closer with a more patient ride. BTW thinks so, Cmorioles thinks so, Doug thinks so, Beyer thinks so (he mentioned it in his article), Ateam thinks so, Bigjag thinks so, NTamm thinks so, Port Conway thinks so, etc. It's hard to find anyone, regardless of their handicapping approach, that doesn't think the move was premature.

Sorry, I disagree. If you don't have trouble & you don't get a bad ride, sometimes you're still just not good enough to win. I appreciate all the names you mentioned, but not "every single handicapper" feels the same way. I already said I realize I'm in the minority here, and that's fine. You can keep saying the argument is strange & putting the dizzy symbols down if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that (I believe) the ride was OK.