![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
How could you possibly claim that the horse had no cartilage damage in his ankles? You would have no way of knowing that. You can't believe everything that you read. The public comments that you read from owners and trainers is often times bs. I'm not just guessing that. I know that for a fact. I've seen it first hand. For example, they will often say publicly that a horse has a foot bruise when they have something much more serious. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() Smarty retired due to money. They had already maximized his value for breeding. What I fail to understand is how the tc spacing had anything whatsoever to do with smartys ankle issues.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Let me ask you guys a simple question. If the spacing is not the main thing that makes it so difficult to win the TC, then what is? It's not that hard for the best horse in a division to win the 3 races in a row. It happens all the time. It happens with 2 year olds, three year olds, 4 year olds, older horses, colts, fillies, grass horses, etc. It's not uncommon for the best horse in a division to win three races in a row. It happens all the time.
Yet no horse has won the TC in 36 years and everybody knows how difficult it is to win the TC. If it's not the spacing that makes it so difficult, then what is it? I'm not saying the spacing is the only thing but it is the main thing. The other thing that makes it so difficult is the distance of the Belmont. If the Belmont was shorter, it would certainly be easier to win the TC. Of the last 12 horses that won the first two legs, I think at least a couple of them may have won the TC if the Belmont was only 1 1/4 miles. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
But all your postings indicate your main concern, more tc winners. And yes, smarty raced nine times in eight months. Still not an indication that tc spacing was the issue. You want more tc winners, which you is fine. We all want to see tc winners. So own it, instead of trying to make arguments that have nothing to do with it. As for it not being hard to win three in a row... Wow, just wow. So many things are involved in a race. The hell it isn't hard.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
With regard to stakes horses winning three races in a row, there have probably been over 100 of them over the last 35 years. It happens all the time. Sure it's hard, but it's all relative. It happens all the time. Anyway, I have given you my hypothesis as to why it's so hard to win the TC. What is your hypothesis? We see the top horses in their division winning three in a row all the time. Why is winning three in a row in the TC so hard? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I think one thing that makes it more difficult is the field size. You have to have more than talent to win the derby. Quite often the best horse in the field just can't get thru the crowd. You also need to take note of field size in subsequent races, genuine risk has referenced number of competitors more than once. As for other top horses winning three straight. Put them in a 20 horse field, and then two races with ten or more horses. Let me know how that works for them. Another thing...these horses are still maturing, spring is when you see horses blossom,and precocious horses get caught and passed by their peers.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
If Wise Dan had to run in a 20 horse field once every 3 races, do you think he would have never won 3 in a row? If Zenyatta would have had to run in a 20 horse field once every 3 races, do you think she would have never won 3 in a row? I would ask the same thing about Curlin, Ghostzapper, Rachel Alexandra, and about 100 other horses over the past 35 years that have won 3 or more races in a row. Would these horses and all the other horses that have had multi-race winning streaks have had fewer winning streaks if they had to run against 20 horse fields in 1 out of every 3 races. The answer is positively "yes". They wouldn't have won quite as often but they certainly would have still had some streaks where they won 3 in a row. You are right that horses are maturing in spring. But come on, how much maturing is going to take place in 3 weeks (between the Preakness and Belmont)? If a horse wins the first two legs, he is probably the best horse. There are probably only 3 things that can get him beat in the Belmont. The first thing would be if the horse is tired from winning the first two legs and he doesn't fire in the Belmont. The second would be the distance. Maybe the horse just can't go 1 1/2 miles. The third would be a bad ride/trip. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Do you notice that he mentioned the number of races and the time period that those races were run in? He mentioned that for a reason. It's not uncommon for horses to come out of races with inflammation. But if you give them time to recover, the inflammation usually goes down. If you have to keep running the horse back on short rest, that inflammation can become chronic. |