Chance Sea the Stars comes to BC?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Arc winners are notoriously great bets in the Turf.

Completely statistically irrelevant

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Arc winners are notoriously great bets in the Turf.

Some may say it's irrelevant but I'm on the side of believing that after seeing a good number of failures, I'm going to need to see it done first. For whatever reasons, none have been able to do it and some of those were good horses, especially Dancing Brave. Why horses that have lost the Arc have been able to come over and win is a mystery to me. Same deal with the QE II and the Mile.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Some may say it's irrelevant but I'm on the side of believing that after seeing a good number of failures, I'm going to need to see it done first. For whatever reasons, none have been able to do it and some of those were good horses, especially Dancing Brave. Why horses that have lost the Arc have been able to come over and win is a mystery to me. Same deal with the QE II and the Mile.

Dancing Brave coming here and losing has virtually nothing to do with Sea the Stars potentially losing. It is the same as the Derby nonsense written every year like you cant win with a 6 week layoff or you must run as a 2 year old or you must have the correct dosage.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dancing Brave coming here and losing has virtually nothing to do with Sea the Stars potentially losing. It is the same as the Derby nonsense written every year like you cant win with a 6 week layoff or you must run as a 2 year old or you must have the correct dosage.

This is absurd. There's a very obvious reason why these horses underperform EVERY TIME in the Breeders' Cup. They're over the top and the race is almost always an afterthought for them. They've just ran a very taxing race 4 weeks prior - the race they were pointed to for months - and then they're thrown in the BC (after shipping) and expected to perform the same way they did in Europe. There's always the possibility for an aberration - and maybe STS is the horse good enough to produce it - but at 4/5 there's no value in expecting him to do what has never been done.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dancing Brave coming here and losing has virtually nothing to do with Sea the Stars potentially losing. It is the same as the Derby nonsense written every year like you cant win with a 6 week layoff or you must run as a 2 year old or you must have the correct dosage.

Dancing Brave alone, I'd agree. But I'm pretty sure you know that Dancing Brave is not the only Arc winner that has come over and lost the Turf. I don't believe in none of that Derby nonsense and I also don't believe it's impossible to win the Arc and the Turf. As has been mentioned before, Trempolino was a nose away from doing it and there have been several runners that have exited the Arc as losers only to win the Turf. So running well in both races is possible. But as of yet, it hasn't happened that a horse has been able to win both and we can come up with a million excuses for the losers but in the end, they still lost and betting one to do it is probably not the smartest of bets.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

This is absurd. There's a very obvious reason why these horses underperform EVERY TIME in the Breeders' Cup. They're over the top and the race is almost always an afterthought for them. They've just ran a very taxing race 4 weeks prior - the race they were pointed to for months - and then they're thrown in the BC (after shipping) and expected to perform the same way they did in Europe. There's always the possibility for an aberration - and maybe STS is the horse good enough to produce it - but at 4/5 there's no value in expecting him to do what has never been done.

No absurd is thinking that different horses 30 years apart lost BECAUSE of the a particular race they ran in. It is like saying that Bills cant ever win the Super Bowl because they lost 4 straight a decade ago. (of course this year they cant win because they stink but that is a different story)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Dancing Brave alone, I'd agree. But I'm pretty sure you know that Dancing Brave is not the only Arc winner that has come over and lost the Turf. I don't believe in none of that Derby nonsense and I also don't believe it's impossible to win the Arc and the Turf. As has been mentioned before, Trempolino was a nose away from doing it and there have been several runners that have exited the Arc as losers only to win the Turf. So running well in both races is possible. But as of yet, it hasn't happened that a horse has been able to win both and we can come up with a million excuses for the losers but in the end, they still lost and betting one to do it is probably not the smartest of bets.

It may not be a smart bet because the Arc winners would be overbet but winning the Arc doesnt make a horse less likely to win the Turf.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No absurd is thinking that different horses 30 years apart lost BECAUSE of the a particular race they ran in. It is like saying that Bills cant ever win the Super Bowl because they lost 4 straight a decade ago. (of course this year they cant win because they stink but that is a different story)

How about 1 or 2 years apart? I understand your point, and it would be a valid one, IF there wasn't a clear and logical explanation that applies to both previous post-Arc disappointments and future ones. I could just as easily argue that Sea the Stars will be over the top based strictly on his own situation, but citing past instances only strengthens and supports my case.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No absurd is thinking that different horses 30 years apart lost BECAUSE of the a particular race they ran in. It is like saying that Bills cant ever win the Super Bowl because they lost 4 straight a decade ago. (of course this year they cant win because they stink but that is a different story)

Being a Bills fan I resemble that remark. They are destined to be losers as long as Ralph is still the owner. The game has passed him by. With the advent of free agency he chooses to no longer compete.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

How about 1 or 2 years apart? I understand your point, and it would be a valid one, IF there wasn't a clear and logical explanation that applies to both previous post-Arc disappointments and future ones. I could just as easily argue that Sea the Stars will be over the top based strictly on his own situation, but citing past instances only strengthens and supports my case.

He may be over the top but that isnt because he won the Arc. Would he be more likely to win if he had gotten trapped and couldnt have gotten out until too late and ran 3rd? Each loss has its own reasoning. Each year is different, each horse is different, each set of circumstances is different, each training method is different, each horses preferences are different, each turf course is different (except this year of course)...The only thing in common is the name of the races.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

Being a Bills fan I resemble that remark. They are destined to be losers as long as Ralph is still the owner. The game has passed him by. With the advent of free agency he chooses to no longer compete.

Very true but nothing to do with the failures of the past

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He may be over the top but that isnt because he won the Arc. Would he be more likely to win if he had gotten trapped and couldnt have gotten out until too late and ran 3rd? Each loss has its own reasoning. Each year is different, each horse is different, each set of circumstances is different, each training method is different, each horses preferences are different, each turf course is different (except this year of course)...The only thing in common is the name of the races.

The fact that he won instead of finishing 2nd, 3rd, etc. is basically irrelevant to me when considering his likelihood to be over-the-top so I agree with you there. . . that's obvious. . . BUT it has a significant effect on the value (or lack thereof) that he will offer.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

The fact that he won instead of finishing 2nd, 3rd, etc. is basically irrelevant to me when considering his likelihood to be over-the-top so I agree with you there. . . that's obvious. . . BUT it has a significant effect on the value (or lack thereof) that he will offer.

He wont be much value if he were to come, thats for sure.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Completely statistically irrelevant

I think the stats are somewhat misleading in this case, High Chaparral finished 3rd in the Arc twice but also won the BC twice so I'm not sure what we can draw from this Arc jinx stat, Arc winners are a poor bet for other reasons, usually because they are an underlay.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by CSC

I think the stats are somewhat misleading in this case, High Chaparral finished 3rd in the Arc twice but also won the BC twice so I'm not sure what we can draw from this Arc jinx stat, Arc winners are a poor bet for other reasons, usually because they are an underlay.

A lot of horses have lost the Arc and then won the BC. Same thing as the QE II and the Mile. Several have lost that race and won the Mile. But none have won both just as none have won the Arc and Turf.

I don't have any stats to look at but I've heard a lot of talk and seen a few runners from the BC that have run one more time during that same year after the BC and have suffered some big upsets. I just think it's more than a coincidence that none have won either of Europe's two big races for distance horses or miler and then come over here and won. I feel that you have a better chance of seeing one of those horses come out of those races and win a BC race if the BC has been on the agenda all along. Maybe they train them a little different and leave a little in the tank. I don't know. Maybe they skip a race earlier in the season so that they aren't as worn down at the end. But a horse like Sea the Stars, they had him set to peak at the Arc and the BC has never been set in stone.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Maybe they train them a little different and leave a little in the tank. I don't know. Maybe they skip a race earlier in the season so that they aren't as worn down at the end. But a horse like Sea the Stars, they had him set to peak at the Arc and the BC has never been set in stone.

I thought the Arc was only a go depending on the ground and it wasn't written in stone unless the ground was good, it wasn't an afterthought but in european racing publications(not just the racingpost) it was said he had a long season already and that he might have been over the top for the Arc.

Yeah I doubt there are any trainer's that use the arc as a prep for the BC turf.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

A lot of horses have lost the Arc and then won the BC. Same thing as the QE II and the Mile. Several have lost that race and won the Mile. But none have won both just as none have won the Arc and Turf.

Did Sirroco run in the arc also? I can't remember...He may have.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by CSC

I thought the Arc was only a go depending on the ground and it wasn't written in stone unless the ground was good, it wasn't an afterthought but in european racing publications(not just the racingpost) it was said he had a long season already and that he might have been over the top for the Arc.

Yeah I doubt there are any trainer's that use the arc as a prep for the BC turf.

Not as a prep race but the racing world has changed. The Arc used to be the end of the racing season for the Europeans. Then along came the BC. Now they have the big money races in Asia at the end of the season. The landscape has changed and the goals aren't the same as they always have been.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Dancing Brave alone, I'd agree. But I'm pretty sure you know that Dancing Brave is not the only Arc winner that has come over and lost the Turf. I don't believe in none of that Derby nonsense and I also don't believe it's impossible to win the Arc and the Turf. As has been mentioned before, Trempolino was a nose away from doing it and there have been several runners that have exited the Arc as losers only to win the Turf. So running well in both races is possible. But as of yet, it hasn't happened that a horse has been able to win both and we can come up with a million excuses for the losers but in the end, they still lost and betting one to do it is probably not the smartest of bets.

One of the main problems figuring this problem out is that not very many horses have tried the double you're speaking of.

Only 5 horses (Dancing Brave, Trempolino, Saumarez, Subotica, and Dylan Thomas) have attempted the feat. In addition, I'm pretty sure that Saumarez and Subotica were both upset winners of the Arc.

Meanwhile, 6 Arc also-rans have won the BC along with numerous placings.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

One of the main problems figuring this problem out is that not very many horses have tried the double you're speaking of.

Only 5 horses (Dancing Brave, Trempolino, Saumarez, Subotica, and Dylan Thomas) have attempted the feat. In addition, I'm pretty sure that Saumarez and Subotica were both upset winners of the Arc.

Meanwhile, 6 Arc also-rans have won the BC along with numerous placings.

It's true that only five have tried it but there's something interesting about that. Of the five, four were tried in the first nine years and that's after missing the first two years so really, four came in a seven year span. After Subotica in 1992, no more tried the race until 2007. I remember reading some years back that part of the reasoning was because of what I'm saying now. If you notice, there's that same sort of trend with the QE II and the Mile. They sent over eight winners and to try the Mile and all eight have lost. They haven't sent one to the Mile though since 1998 So eight in the first 15 running and none in the last 10. It might be strictly a coincidence that no winners of either race has come over and won the Mile or Turf and it's especially odd since so many also-rans have come and done well in both races. But I don't think it's coincidence that they have stopped even trying. I actually think it's two main reasons. One is because the horses are a little over the top, again hard to explain because of the also-rans. But another reason why I think it's hard is because I think the winners of those two European horses are often better suited to longer races in the US. I've always thought that you could add at least a furlong and often two furlongs to what most would consider their best distance at home. I've always thought QE II winners would be better suited to the Classic and you've seen in recent years that they've been trying that now and even ran Falbrav in the Turf. Perhaps the reason also-rans from the QE II have been successful in the Mile because 8f was their best distance and that's why they came up short in England. Perhaps the same reasoning applies in some way to the Arc. They can handle 12f just fine and that's why the Turf is not a problem but the reason they can't win the Arc is because the Arc more demanding than the 12f would suggest and maybe if Arc winners were able to come over here for a 13-14f race, they'd dominate it.