Breeders Cup Turf winners 1999-2008

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Except for the fact that they're a year apart and don't really have anything to do with each other.

Obviously Johar was a better horse the year he won the BC Turf. The idea that a desperate nose winner over Rock Opera was going to go win the BC Turf in his next start (no less after seeing how it was won....) is made no less absurd because the horse won the BC turf over a year later. Non-sequiter.

So let me get this straight, you can compare BC winners over a ten year period, but I can't compare the 2002 Johar to the 2003 Johar? Interesting.

And what exactly made Johar go from 2002 goat to 2003 monster? A change of calendars? A flick of a switch?

Remember, he sat most of 2003 on the bench. Mandella got him into top form on BC day, and maybe he was still improving at the same time, but anybody who happened to like him that day was probably basing their support on his San Marcos effort way back in January. That is when he became a BC contender. What was that, about 8 weeks after he nostrilized Rock Opera?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

So let me get this straight, you can compare BC winners over a ten year period, but I can't compare the 2002 Johar to the 2003 Johar? Interesting.

And what exactly made Johar go from 2002 goat to 2003 monster? A change of calendars? A flick of a switch?

Remember, he sat most of 2003 on the bench. Mandella got him into top form on BC day, and maybe he was still improving at the same time, but anybody who happened to like him that day was probably basing their support on his San Marcos effort way back in January. That is when he became a BC contender. What was that, about 8 weeks after he nostrilized Rock Opera?

One, I'm not doing much comparing at all, just pointing out that I don't have a hard-on for Johar and his optional-claiming photo-finish friend from that big win that we're to believe would have catapulted him to BC glory mere weeks later. I wouldn't personally rank Shirocco that high on the list, but I have not been really actively participating in the ranking here. Just been more involved in discussing the absurdity of the idea that Johar should be above anyone besides perhaps Better Talk Now on that list.

Two, for years and years now I've been saying that Volponi would have won the 2001 BC Classic. Unfortunately, it's taken 8 years and your wisdom to finally let me know that I can take credit for that because he validated that the next year, meaning that the idea of him being nose and nose with Tiznow and Sahkee down the Belmont stretch is not, in fact, completely ludicrous, because you know, any horse who won a BC race at any point in their career could have won the same division in any given year.....

ps, I also loved Ginger Punch in the '06 Distaff off that allowance race at Keeneland. If only they'd have gone there for her stakes debut instead of to that second-level allowance at Churchill!

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Two, for years and years now I've been saying that Volponi would have won the 2001 BC Classic. Unfortunately, it's taken 8 years and your wisdom to finally let me know that I can take credit for that because he validated that the next year, meaning that the idea of him being nose and nose with Tiznow and Sahkee down the Belmont stretch is not, in fact, completely ludicrous, because you know, any horse who won a BC race at any point in their career could have won the same division in any given year.....

The irony being that the horse Johar dead-heated with DID in fact win the BC Turf the year before.

But I get your point. Of course, I never suggested the idea in the first place.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Except for the fact that they're a year apart and don't really have anything to do with each other.

Obviously Johar was a better horse the year he won the BC Turf. The idea that a desperate nose winner over Rock Opera was going to go win the BC Turf in his next start (no less after seeing how it was won....) is made no less absurd because the horse won the BC turf over a year later. Non sequiter.

Was Rock Opera really that bad? I recall him as a pretty good horse.

[King Glorious]

One thing that should be considered when judging the European runners is that the BC Turf is often not their goal but often an afterthought. For a lot of them, the Arc is their main goal and then they come over here for one more race after they've been primed for their best effort. For most American runners, the BC is their goal race and the one they are trained to be at their best for. I think that makes a big difference.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

One thing that should be considered when judging the European runners is that the BC Turf is often not their goal but often an afterthought. For a lot of them, the Arc is their main goal and then they come over here for one more race after they've been primed for their best effort. For most American runners, the BC is their goal race and the one they are trained to be at their best for. I think that makes a big difference.

That may have been a more significant issue in the early years of the BC. Nowadays, with $2 million dollars on the line, and even richer races further down the road in Japan and Hong Kong, I don't think European trainers are viewing these races as mere "afterthoughts".

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

On the basis of his scintillating nose win over Rock Opera in what would have been his final tune-up, I assume?

Johar was the type of horse, or was ridden like the type of horse, that almost always fired, often won, but not by much, no matter the competition.

Surely you've been around horse racing long enough to have seen these types before, right?

I can only imagine what his record would have been if he'd been let loose a tad bit earlier in all those close losses where he came flying too late.

Then again, I suppose it is possible he had issues with making the lead too early. That's the only reason I could ever come up with for Solis riding him like he did, other than that I bet him in every one of his losses.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

You may have seen more in Johar than he put on the track but it's somewhat undeniable given what we saw from horses like Daylami, Fantastic Light, Kalanisi, and even the emerging Conduit that they are far better than him on their best days.

NT

I'll not argue Daylami, for obvious reasons.

The others, I could make a case against. I'd liked to have seen more of Kalanisi, so I'm not sure I could make a case against him as well as FL or Conduit.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by brockguy

Go on then, tell me how impressive Johar was for the rest of his career? No need, he wasnt. You can come up with all the ifs and buts in the world, but I cant see how you can put him any higher.

On the other hand, High Chaparral won the Derby, The Irish Derby, another Breeders Cup, an Irish Champion Stakes and on his bad days, he came 3rd in 2 Arcs.. He also won a G1 as a 2 year old..

Risking tying Danzig's all time consecutive post mark here, but I'm not sure I understand your post.

By 'rest of his career', I assume you do mean his entire career and not what came after the BC. My answer to that is that horse never really put it all together, and/or was ridden with questionable tactics by Solis.

You can't see how I can put him higher? How about the fact he deadheated the horse almost everyone on here has as the 2nd highest rated horse? Was that just some weird fluke? Did HC just have a bad day? I don't get it.

The only answer you've come up with is that some other horse had a bad ride, which still makes no sense to me.

I will concede to you that HC was a far more accomplished horse than Johar, but no way can I say that HC was the better horse.

Oh, and just how many races of Johar's did you see?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

That may have been a more significant issue in the early years of the BC. Nowadays, with $2 million dollars on the line, and even richer races further down the road in Japan and Hong Kong, I don't think European trainers are viewing these races as mere "afterthoughts".

Maybe afterthought is the wrong word. But the purse of the BC doesn't make it a bigger target race than the Arc. The Derby could be for $500k and it would still be the biggest race of the year for 3yos. Winning a $100k race at Saratoga would mean more than winning a $500k race at Presque Isle for most people. The Arc is the one that they shoot for. What we've seen more of lately is that some are chosing the BC and skipping the Arc, maybe using the Irish Champion Stakes as their Arc prep. In that case, you might see a European runner come in at top form but I can't help but think that the reason we have never seen an Arc winner come over and win the BC Turf is because they've already passed their peak. I already know your next question; why have we seen a number of Arc also-rans come over and win? I'm working on that.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Maybe afterthought is the wrong word. But the purse of the BC doesn't make it a bigger target race than the Arc. The Derby could be for $500k and it would still be the biggest race of the year for 3yos. Winning a $100k race at Saratoga would mean more than winning a $500k race at Presque Isle for most people. The Arc is the one that they shoot for. What we've seen more of lately is that some are chosing the BC and skipping the Arc, maybe using the Irish Champion Stakes as their Arc prep. In that case, you might see a European runner come in at top form but I can't help but think that the reason we have never seen an Arc winner come over and win the BC Turf is because they've already passed their peak. I already know your next question; why have we seen a number of Arc also-rans come over and win? I'm working on that.

Maybe what you said about the Arc winners not repeating in the BC is just a coincidence. Dancing Brave had what many believe a valid excuse.

Trempolino? He ran a great second to a very good, and underappreciated horse in Theatrical.

I think Montjeu had an injury, but I'm not sure of that.

Sakhee could have won the Turf, but ran second in the Classic.

I think Dylan Thomas was the most overrated horse from Europe in recent times.

Hurricane Run? I think his story was the same as his sire's Montjeu. Maybe I am mixing them up, but I think Hurricane Run also had some issues that kept him from running.

[brockguy]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Risking tying Danzig's all time consecutive post mark here, but I'm not sure I understand your post.

By 'rest of his career', I assume you do mean his entire career and not what came after the BC. My answer to that is that horse never really put it all together, and/or was ridden with questionable tactics by Solis.

You can't see how I can put him higher? How about the fact he deadheated the horse almost everyone on here has as the 2nd highest rated horse? Was that just some weird fluke? Did HC just have a bad day? I don't get it.

The only answer you've come up with is that some other horse had a bad ride, which still makes no sense to me.

I will concede to you that HC was a far more accomplished horse than Johar, but no way can I say that HC was the better horse.

Oh, and just how many races of Johar's did you see?

The key factor of that race was Daryll Holland. On an absolute tank of a horse with a definite question mark over his stamina, he went far too early on him. His move hurried Kinane in chasing him earlier than he would have wanted to, got into a battle with a world class horse, just got the better of him less than 50 yards to go and nearly got mugged on the line by Johar who swooped late and fast. Great run by all 3, but it was a terrible ride by Holland on Falbrav and Kinane could have ridden better. Now, he got the job done by winning, but I dont think it was a fantastic ride. I dont think it was HC's best race but he toughed it out... HC did come back from an injury to run as a 4yo and it is very probably that he was a shade less competitive as a 4yo..

Johar on his home patch, with ground conditions to suit, with his trainer on absolute fire that day ran the race of his life, the race dynamics favoured him big time. You can say what a travesty it is that he dead heated with the guy who was number 2 on the list, but that's the way I saw it. I dont go around saying the mighty Drifting Snow is better than Sea The Stars because the one time they met, Driving Snow beat Sea The Stars by a length the one time they met. Its not quite as easy as that.. The funny thing is I actually think Falbrav was just as good as High Chaparral but lost all 3 times he faced him..

Johar never produced a performance like his BC run before, and never produced one after, so in my mind, it was flukish.

Finally, I dont know off hand how many races of a horse racing 6 years ago that I saw, but I watched plenty of turf racing from around the world at that time (I had nothing better to do) so I'd be pretty confident that I saw at least his last 6 races.. Should I go back and watch some more?

[brockguy]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Maybe what you said about the Arc winners not repeating in the BC is just a coincidence. Dancing Brave had what many believe a valid excuse.

Trempolino? He ran a great second to a very good, and underappreciated horse in Theatrical.

I think Montjeu had an injury, but I'm not sure of that.

Sakhee could have won the Turf, but ran second in the Classic.

I think Dylan Thomas was the most overrated horse from Europe in recent times.

Hurricane Run? I think his story was the same as his sire's Montjeu. Maybe I am mixing them up, but I think Hurricane Run also had some issues that kept him from running.

Montjeu and Hurricane Run both basically lost their form and looked like something was bothering them but they kept racing them in an identical fashion (i.e disappointing in the arc, run them in the champion stakes, then run them in the turf). They also ran in the Turf the year after they won the Arc. Bago also ran the year after he won the Arc and came 3rd in Shirocco's win.

Dylan Thomas was an OK horse, but had severe limitations on soft ground. you deserved to lose money if you backed him at 6/5. If someone can think of a worse priced favourite in Breeders Cup history, please tell me.. and yeah, Sakhee would have romped in that year's turf.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Maybe what you said about the Arc winners not repeating in the BC is just a coincidence. Dancing Brave had what many believe a valid excuse.

Trempolino? He ran a great second to a very good, and underappreciated horse in Theatrical.

I think Montjeu had an injury, but I'm not sure of that.

Sakhee could have won the Turf, but ran second in the Classic.

I think Dylan Thomas was the most overrated horse from Europe in recent times.

Hurricane Run? I think his story was the same as his sire's Montjeu. Maybe I am mixing them up, but I think Hurricane Run also had some issues that kept him from running.

They may have run some winning races, especially Trempolino but the fact is still that none of them have won. I think that if not for the draining efforts it took to win the Arc, perhaps some of them would have won over here despite the excuses. I could be wrong but until I see an Arc winner then come over to win the Turf, I'll believe there's something to this. I think it's similar to why only three horses have won the JCGC and the Classic in the same year, only three have won the Beldame and the Distaff, only one has doubled in the Vosburgh and Sprint. In recent years, the QE II winner either hasn't been sent over or has been sent over for the Turf or the Classic but it was a regular thing during the first 15 years of the BC to send them over for the Mile and they never won one. Meanwhile, races like the Goodwood, Super Derby, and Spinster were enjoying tremendous success as final preps. I believe it has a lot to do with those being easier races to win because the competition is not at tough and you don't have to run as hard and it leaves you more in the tank. Races like the fall championship races in NY, the Arc, and the QE II are major target races in their own rights and the efforts it takes to win them often leave the winners a little empty come BC day.

Of course, this is just a theory in my head.

[CSC]

I'm going to give Pilsudski his long awaited due in this thread, look at the field he beat in The BC turf and tell me that he doesn't belong as one of the best BC turf winners.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by brockguy

Johar on his home patch, with ground conditions to suit, with his trainer on absolute fire that day ran the race of his life, the race dynamics favoured him big time.

That's just flat out wrong; and it's simple enough to see why just by looking at the chart. Don't let that stand in your way, however, in trying to make your point. It's the standard procedure here.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by CSC

I'm going to give Pilsudski his long awaited due in this thread, look at the field he beat in The BC turf and tell me that he doesn't belong as one of the best BC turf winners.

Pilsudski was 1996. That doesn't fit here. If we were going to open it up, we'd have to include Manila and Theatrical too.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by brockguy

Johar never produced a performance like his BC run before, and never produced one after, so in my mind, it was flukish.

Finally, I dont know off hand how many races of a horse racing 6 years ago that I saw, but I watched plenty of turf racing from around the world at that time (I had nothing better to do) so I'd be pretty confident that I saw at least his last 6 races.. Should I go back and watch some more?

As I've said in prior posts, Johar was one of those horses that just always seemed to run to the level he was facing. Personally, I think it was the jockey, but who really knows these things unless they are around the horse day in and day out.

Oh, and his San Marcos win in 157.4 for 10f was a pretty damn good race, as was his Oak Tree Derby win in 146. I really don't care that his races got low figs, since those figs make even less sense for turf than they do for dirt.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Pilsudski was 1996. That doesn't fit here. If we were going to open it up, we'd have to include Manila and Theatrical too.

Couldn't sneak that one by, still I think it was of the more underrated BC turf performances, I think Awad actually went off as favorite in that race, silly when you consider Singspiel was in the field, Chief Bearheart was also in the field, Windsharp, Diplomatic Jet this is off the top of my head so take it with a grain of salt and how can anyone forget Rick's Natural Star.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

They may have run some winning races, especially Trempolino but the fact is still that none of them have won. I think that if not for the draining efforts it took to win the Arc, perhaps some of them would have won over here despite the excuses. I could be wrong but until I see an Arc winner then come over to win the Turf, I'll believe there's something to this. I think it's similar to why only three horses have won the JCGC and the Classic in the same year, only three have won the Beldame and the Distaff, only one has doubled in the Vosburgh and Sprint. In recent years, the QE II winner either hasn't been sent over or has been sent over for the Turf or the Classic but it was a regular thing during the first 15 years of the BC to send them over for the Mile and they never won one. Meanwhile, races like the Goodwood, Super Derby, and Spinster were enjoying tremendous success as final preps. I believe it has a lot to do with those being easier races to win because the competition is not at tough and you don't have to run as hard and it leaves you more in the tank. Races like the fall championship races in NY, the Arc, and the QE II are major target races in their own rights and the efforts it takes to win them often leave the winners a little empty come BC day.

The Vosburgh was until very recently run over the distance of 7f. The difference between 7f and 6f is pretty significant. Since its been run at 6f, Taste of Paradise was bothered in the stretch in the BC or might have got the double.

Several Queen Elizabeth II runners-up have taken the Mile.

For the Euros in general, I think the shipping/acclimation process is the more significant limiting factor here, not some mythologized "all out" effort needed to win the Arc or the Queen Elizabeth II.

In addition, I think the Arc winners that have come over haven't been the best of the bunch really. IIRC, Saumarez and Subotica were upset winners and wasn't there much talk of Bago's best trip being shorter than 12f despite the Arc win?